Work Teams

Applications and Effectiveness

Eric Sundstrom
Kenneth E De Meuse
David Futrell
IIIII I II IIIill

II I Illl Ill

II Illlilllllllllllillil IIll Illlll Illil IlllllllllllilliiiIlllillllllll

ABSTRACT." This article uses an ecological approach to

analyze factors in the effectiveness of work teams--small
groups of interdependent individuals who share responsibility for outcomes for their organizations. Applications
include advice and involvement, as in quality control circles and committees; production and service, as in assembly groups and sales teams; projects and development, as
in engineering and research groups; and action and negotiation, as in sports teams and combat units. An analytic
framework depicts team effectiveness as interdependent
with organizational context, boundaries, and team development. Key context factors include (a) organizational
culture, (b) technology and task design, (c) mission clarity,
(d) autonomy, (e) rewards, ( f ) performance feedback, (g)
training/consultation, and (h) physical environment. Team
boundaries may mediate the impact of organizational
context on team development. Current research leaves unanswered questions but suggests that effectiveness depends
on organizational context and boundaries as much as on
internal processes. Issues are raised for research and
practice.
The terms work team and work group appear often in
today's discussions of organizations. Some experts claim
that to be effective modern firms need to use small teams
for an increasing variety of jobs. For instance, in an article
subtitled "The Team as Hero," Reich (1987) wrote,
If we are to compete in today's world, we must begin to celebrate
collective entrepreneurship, endeavors in which the whole of
the effort is greater than the sum of individual contributions.
We need to honor our teams more, our aggressive leaders and
maverick geniuses less. (p. 78)
Work teams occupy a pivotal role in what has been described as a management transformation (Walton, 1985),
paradigm shift (Ketehum, 1984), and corporate renaissance (Kanter, 1983). In this management revolution, Peters (1988) advised that organizations use "multi-function
teams for all development activities" (p. 210) and "organize every function into ten- to thirty-person, largely
self-managing teams" (p. 296). Tornatzky (1986) pointed
to new technologies that allow small work groups to take
responsibility for whole products. Hackman (1986) predicted that, "organizations in the future will rely heavily
on member self-management" (p. 90). Building blocks
of such organizations are self-regulating work teams. But
120

University of Tennessee
University of Wisconsin--Eau Claire
University of Tennessee

far from being revolutionary, work groups are traditional;

"the problem before us is not to invent more tools, but
to use the ones we have" (Kanter, 1983, p. 64).
In this article, we explore applications of work teams
and propose an analytic framework for team effectiveness.
Work teams are defined as interdependent collections of
individuals who share responsibility for specific outcomes
for their organizations. In what follows, we first identify
applications of work teams and then offer a framework
for analyzing team effectiveness. Its facets make up topics
of subsequent sections: organizational context, boundaries, and team development. We close with issues for
research and practice.
Applications

of Work

Teams

Two watershed events called attention to the benefits of

applyingwork teams beyond sportsand mih'tarysettings:

the Hawthorne studies(Homans, 1950) and European
experiments with autonomous work groups (Kelly,1982).
Enthusiasm has alternated with disenchantment (Bramel
& Friend, 1987), but the 1980s have brought a resurgence
of interest.
Unfortunately, we have little evidence on how widely
work teams are used or whether their use is expanding.
Pasmore, Francis, Haldeman, and Shani (1982) reported
that introduction of autonomous work groups was the
most common intervention in 134 experiments in manufacturing firms. Production teams number among four
broad categories of work team applications: (a) advice
and involvement, (b) production and service, (c) projects
and development, and (d) action and negotiation.

Advice and Involvement

Decision-making committees traditional in management
now are expanding to first-line employees. Quality control
(QC) circles and employee involvement groups have been
common in the 1980s, often as vehicles for employee participation (Cole, 1982). Perhaps several hundred thousand
U.S. employees belong to QC circles (Ledford, Lawler, &
Mohrman, 1988), usually first-line manufacturing employees who meet to identify opportunities for improvement. Some make and carry out proposals, but most have
restricted scopes of activity and little working time, perhaps a few hours each month (Thompson, 1982). Employee involvement groups operate similarly, exploring
ways to improve customer service (Peterfreund, 1982).
February 1990 American Psychologist
Copyright 1990 by the American Psyc2aologicalA~mciafion, Inc. 0003-066X/90/$00.75
Vol. 45, No. 2, 120-133

QC circles and employee involvement groups at times

may have been implemented poorly (Shea, 1986), but
they have been used extensively in some companies
(Banas, 1988).

cations can perhaps best be addressed through an analytic

framework.

Production and Service

Figure 1 depicts work team effectiveness as dynamically

interrelated with organizational context, boundaries, and
team development. It incorporates an ecological perspective (Sundstrom & Altman, 1989) and the premise that
work teams can best be understood in relation to external
surroundings and internal processes. The main facets-organizational context, boundaries, and team developmentmreflect current research, theory, and applied literature on work teams.

Teams use technology to generate products or services,

as in assembly, maintenance, construction, mining, commercial airlines, sales, and others. These usually consist
of first-line employees working together full-time, sometimes over protracted periods, with freedom to decide
their division of labor. For example, at Volvo in Kalmar,
Sweden, teams of 15 to 20 employees assemble and install
components in an unfinished automobile chassis conveyed by motorized carriers (Katz & Kahn, 1978). They
elect their own leaders and divide their tasks, but have
output quotas. Such teams have been called autonomous
(Cummings, 1978), self-managing (Hackman, 1986), or
self-regulating (Pearce & Ravlin, 1987) and have been
used in factories at Sherwin-Williams (Poza & Markus,
1980), General Foods (Walton, 1977), and Saab (Katz &
Kahn, 1978).

Projects and Development

Groups of white-collar professionals such as researchers,
engineers, designers, and programmers often collaborate
on assigned or original projects. Their cycles of work may
be longer than in production and service, and outputs
may be complex and unique. They may have a mandate
of innovation more than implementation, broad autonomy, and an extended team life span. An example is a
team of engineers, programmers, and other specialists
who design, program, and test prototype computers
(Kidder, 1981). However, their performance may be difficult to assess because the value of their one-of-a-kind
outputs, like studies and patents, may only be apparent
long after the work is finished.

Action and Negotiation

Sports teams, military combat units, flight crews, surgery
teams, musical groups, and others are highly skilled specialist teams cooperating in brief performance events that
require improvisation in unpredictable circumstances.
They often have elaborate, specialized roles for members.
Their missions usually call for outcomes such as negotiating a contract or winning a competition, as in military
units (Dyer, 1984) or in executing a safe flight, as in flight
crews (Foushee, 1984).
Other applications do not easily fit the types mentioned so far. Examples include some management teams
(Bushe, 1987), transition teams for corporate mergers,
and start-up teams. However, differences among appliWe are gratefulto IrwinAltman,Wart~mBobrow,MaryJane Burns,
CatherineClark,DavidDenton,LeslieFine,MarilynGowing,Richard
Hackman,DecHoffman,BradJensen,DougKlippel,LynnOffermann,
DeniseRoper,EduardoSalas,JerrySmolek,PhilipStone,and an anony m o u s reviewerfor helpfulcommentson earlie~draftsof this article.
Correspondenceshouldhe addressedto Eric Sundstrom,Department of Psychology,Universityof Tennessee,Knoxville,TN 37916.
February 1990 American Psychologist

Framework for Analysis

Organizational Context
Relevant features of the organization external to the work
team, such as reward systems and training resources,
comprise its context. Since the late 1970s, the external
factors seen as relevant to group operation have grown
from a few selected "inputs" to a long list of factors discovered in practice (Ketchum, 1984) and research (Pasmore et al., 1982). Models of work groups now incorporate many aspects of organizational context (Cummings, 1981; Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987; Kolodny
& Kiggnndu, 1980; Pearce & Ravlin, 1987; Shea &
Guzzo, 1987a, 1987b). Such factors can augment team
effectiveness by providing resources needed for performance and continued viability as a work unit.

Boundaries
An ecological view depicts boundaries as both separating
and linking work teams within their organizations (A1defter, 1987; Friedlander, 1987). Yet group boundaries
are difficult to describe concisely, because they subsume
so many aspects of the relationship of group and organization. By boundaries we mean features that (a) differentiate a work unit from others (Cherns, 1976); (b) pose
real or symbolic barriers to access or transfer of informarion, goods, or people (Katz & Kahn, 1978); or (c)
serve as points of external exchange with other teams,
customers, peers, competitors, or other entities (Friedlander, 1987).
Boundaries at least partly define how a group needs
to operate within its context to be effective. If the boundary becomes too open or indistinct, the team risks becoming overwhelmed and losing its identity. If its boundary is too exclusive, the team might become isolated and
lose touch with suppliers, managers, peers, or customers
(Alderfer, 1987).

Team Development
This facet reflects the premise that over time, teams
change and develop new ways of operating as they adapt
to their contexts. Some features of team development,
such as norms and roles, can be seen as structural. Yet
it is difficult to identify aspects of groups stable enough
to be called structure. We prefer to err by depicting groups
as too dynamic rather than too static. Temporal patterns
i n group processes may be tied to effectiveness during
121

even brief work sessions (Sundstrom, Bobrow, Fulton,

Blair, & Mcaane, 1988). So we use the term team development to include what has been called group structure
as well as interpersonal processes.

Team Effectiveness
Figure 1 shows effectiveness as consisting of performance
and viability. This two-part definition agrees with some
earlier approaches, but is more inclusive than those based
only on output. Shea and Guzzo (1987b) defined group
effectiveness as "production of designated products or
services per specification" (p. 329). This overlooks the
possibility that a team can "burn itself up" through unresolved conflict or divisive interaction, leaving members
unwilling to continue working together (Hackman &
Oldham, 1980, p. 169). We favor a broad definition that
accounts for members' satisfaction and the group's future
prospects as a work unit by incorporating team viability.
At a minimum, this entails members" satisfaction, participation, and willingness to continue working together.
A more demanding definition might add cohesion, intermember coordination, mature communication and
problem-solving, and clear norms and rolesmall traditionally identified with team maturity. Performance
means acceptability of output to customers within or
outside the organization who receive team products, services, information, decisions, or performance events (such
as presentations or competitions).
Effectiveness is defined globally to apply to a variety
of work teams, consistent with current thinking (Good122

man, Ravlin, & Argote, 1986). However, Goodman (1986)

argued for fine-grained criteria of effectiveness such as
"quality, quantity, downtime, satisfaction, group stability
over time" (p. 145). Perhaps global and fine-grained approaches can be merged by measuring specific, local criteria and combining them into general indexes for crossteam comparisons, as in the method pioneered by Pritchard, Jones, Roth, Stuebing, and Ekeberg (1988).

Interrelationships
The framework is deliberately vague about causal and
temporal dynamics, reflecting the premise that team effectiveness is more a process than an end-state. We depart
from MeGrath's (1964) "'input-process-output" approach
(e.g., Gladstein, 1984), which now is even questioned by
former proponents. For instance, Hackman (1987) suggested that groups evaluate their collective performance
as they work, and evaluations affect group processes,
which influence subsequent performance. This can yield
"self-reinforcing spirals of increasing effectiveness" after
initial success--perhaps a "synergy bonus" (Hall & Watson, 1971). However, negatively reinforcing spirals of decreasing effectiveness can also create "'process losses"
(Steiner, 1972).
Adjacent facets of the framework are linked by circular symbols intended to show reciprocal interdependence (Thompson, 1967). For instance, one indicates that
boundaries influence effectiveness, which alters the
boundaries, which further influence effectiveness. Ambiguity about temporal dynamics begs the question of
February 1990 American Psychologist

developmental processes in work teams, which we address

after discussing organizational context and boundaries in
relation to team effectiveness.

Organizational Context and Work Team

Effectiveness
Figure 1 lists eight aspects of organizational context distilled from several sources, including Cummings and
Molloy's (1977) analysis of 16 experiments on autonomous work-groups. Present in more than half of the studies with favorable outcomes were six "action levers": autonomy; technical-physical features such as new equipment or facilities; task variety; information or feedback;
pay or rewards; interpersonal interventions. Present in
three or more successful experiments were: training;
work-unit support, such as maintenance or technical help;
and altered organizational structure as in widened span
of supervisor control or fewer levels of authority. Other
potentially important context features are mission clarity
(Hardaker & Ward, 1987) and organizational culture
(Cummings, 1981).

Organizational Culture
Culture in an organization refers to collective values and
norms (Rousseau & Cooke, 1988). Those that favor innovation (Cummings, 1981) or incorporate shared expectations of success (Shea & Guzzo, 1987a) may especially foster team effectiveness. For instance, Peters and
Waterman's (1982) "'excellent" companies valued such
things as superior quality and service, attention to detail,
and support of innovation. Firms that report success in
applying work teams have had similar cultures, often
guided by philosophies of top managers (Galagan, 1986;
Poza & Markus, 1980; Walton, 1977). But culture may
be more a property of work units than a pervasive feature
of whole organizations (James, James, & Ashe, in press).
Organizational culture probably figures most prominently in the effectiveness of work teams least clearly
defined as work units. For example, new production
teams may look to the wider culture for values and norms.
In organizations moving toward self-management, values
consistent with team autonomy may foster self-direction
(Hackman, 1986). Failed quality circles may have experienced confusion about their purposes (Shea, 1986) and
looked in vain for guidance from organizational culture.

Task Design and Technology

If the research literature on small groups agrees on one
point, it is the importance of the task (McGrath, 1984),
a major source of differences among work teams. For
instance, committees spend large shares of their time in
problem-solving meetings, whereas surgery teams spend
much of their time together in carefully sequenced operations. Team tasks differ on broad categories ofaetivity,
such as generating solutions versus executing action plans
(McGrath, 1984); technical versus interpersonal demands
(Herold, 1978); difficulty (Shaw, 1981); number of desired
outcomes and trade-offs among them (Campbell, 1988);
intermember communications (Naylor & Dickenson,
February 1990 American Psychologist

1969); coordination requirements (Nieva, Fleishman, &

Reick, 1978); task divisibility (Steiner, 1972); subtask demands (Roby & Lanzetta, 1958); and dependence of team
outcomes on performance by all members (Steiner, 1972).
Task design and social organization depend to a degree on technology--and may even be largely determined
by it. For example, coal mining changed with the advent
of mechanized conveyors and coal cutters (Trist, Higgins,
Murray, & Pollock, 1963). Earlier methods permitted
miners to work independently, but new technology created specialized tasks that required miners to synchronize
efforts in small teams. Some technologies allow team
members to master all tasks; others carry tasks so complex
that each member can master only one, as in musical
groups and space shuttle crews. Here technology dictates
a social organization of individual roles.
Optimal fit among task, technology, and social organization calls for "logical subdivision of the technical
process into operating subunits of reasonable size that
can become partially independent" (Ketchum, 1984, p.
247). Ideally, teams produce whole products (Cummings,
1981), and do tasks designed for significance, skill, and
variety (Hackman & Oldham, 1980); responsibility for
outcomes (Hackman, 1986); challenge (Cummings,
1981); member interdependence (Shea & Guzzo, 1987b);
learning, and recognition (Pasmore et al., 1982). Technology can be crucial, asin mining and harvesting crews
whose output depends on equipment design, maintenance, down-time, and other factors (Goodman, Devadas,
& Hughson, 1988; Kolodny & Kiggundu, 1980).
For work teams who repeatedly do the same workcycle (which often happens in manufacturing), task difficulty may depend on predictability of inputs (Cummings, 1981) or outcomes (Campbell, 1988). Work teams
faced with unpredictable inputs or uncertain outcomes
may perform best in contexts that foster decentralized
communication (Tushman, 1979) and flexible internal
coordination (Argote, 1982; Susman, 1970).

Mission Clarity
Team effectiveness may depend on having a clearly defined
mission or purpose within the organization (Shea &
Guzzo, 1987b). It may entail expectations regarding output, quality, timing, and pacing--and perhaps expectations for anticipating and designing new procedures as
the task changes (Hackman, 1986). Communication of a
team's mission throughout the organization especially
may help teams whose work is closely linked to or synchronized with that of other work units (e.g., Galagan,
1986; Pearce & Ravlin, 1987).

Autonomy
Central to work team design and management, autonomy
is usually described by reference to three categories: (a)
Semi-autonomous groups are supervisor-led (Cherry,
1982); (b) self-regulating or self-managing groups elect
their leaders and control their division of labor (Pearce
& Ravlin, 1987); and (c) self-designing teams have au123

thority over their definitions as work units and external

relations (Hackman, 1987).
Team autonomy depends on the role of leader
(Hackman & Walton, 1986) and on how authority is distributed. A team can have a manager, administrator,
leader, supervisor, facilitator, director, coordinator,
spokesperson, or chairperson--or several of these. Division of leadership among manager(s) and members may
vary with team longevity and maturity. Manz and Sims
(1987) recommended that managers foster self-management by acting as "un-leaders." Eventually a team may
develop its own leadership capabilities if given a progressively less prominent leader role (Glickman et al., 1987).

Performance Feedback
Practitioners agree that team effectiveness depends on accurate, timely feedback on performance (Ketchum, 1984;
Kolodny & Kiggundu, 1980) despite limited research evidence (Dyer, 1984). Koch's (1979) study of sewing machine operator groups found increased product quality
but decreased satisfaction alter the introduction of specific
goals with systematic feedback. Nadier, Cammann, and
Mirvis (1980) had mixed success with a feedback system
in retail banks in which performance was not tied to workunit rewards. Pdtchard et al. (1988) used goal-setting and
feedback (with team incentives) to bring about improved
performance and satisfaction in aviation maintenance
teams.
Performance feedback requires dependable measurement systems. These are probably most feasible in
teams with repetitive, quantifiable output and short cycles
of work, such as coal mining crews and assembly teams.
Feedback may be more difficult in teams with longer cycles of work and/or one-of-a-kind outputs, such as project
and development teams.

Rewards and Recognition

Team performance may hinge on desirable consequences
to individual members contingent on the whole team's
performance--or outcome interdependence. Outcomes
can include public recognition and praise for team successes, team celebrations, or individual rewards such as
preferred work assignments, desirable schedules, or
money. Shea and Guzzo (1987b) tested the effects of cash
performance incentives on retail sales teams. Contrary
to prediction, rewards did not bring increases in team
sales, but members' evaluations of customer service rose
and the organization showed higher sales overall. In contrast, Pritchard et al. (1988) did find increased performance (and satisfaction) in aviation maintenance units
after introducing a group incentive plan based on
time off.

Training and Consultation

Traditional among prescriptions for work team effectiveness are training and consultation on team tasks and interpersonal processes. But apart from a few case studies
we know little about the appropriate content or design
of team training programs (Dyer, 1984). Key interpersonal
124

skills may include "un-leadership" (Manz & Sims, 1987).

An approach to technical skills in production groups,
often called "cross-training," provides training and incentives for learning new skills in teams whose members
can rotate jobs (Poza & Markus, 1980).

Physical Environment
Inter-member communication and cohesion may depend
on the extent to which informal, face-to-face interaction
is fostered by proximity of work-stations and gathering
places (Sundstrom, 1986; see also Stone & Luchetti,
1985). Territories can reinforce group boundaries (Miller,
1959) and foster or inhibit external exchange. When tasks
call for external coordination, exchange can be aided by
reception and conference rooms. In cases in which group
processes are easily disrupted, effectiveness may be aided
by enclosed group working areas. So, physical environments are central to group boundaries (Sundstrom &
Airman, 1989).

Boundaries and Work Team Effectiveness

The framework in Figure 1 suggests that group boundaries
mediate between organizational context and team development and are tied to effectiveness. By defining the relation of a work team and its organization, boundaries
also help define what constitutes effectiveness for the team
in its particular context (Sundstrom & Airman, 1989).
Besides doing its task, a work team has to satisfy requirements of the larger system and maintain enough independence to perform specialized functions (Berrien,
1983). So one key aspect of the group-organization
boundary is integration into the larger system through
coordination and synchronization with suppliers, managers, peers, and customers. When a team's mission requires a high degree of external integration or linkage,
effectiveness depends on the pace and timing of exchanges
with other work units, as in a production team that gets
materials from the preceding team and provides the next
operation with materials for its work. When one team
falls behind, the whole system suffers (Kolodny & Dresner,
1986). In cases in which team performance depends less
on timing and synchronization with counterpart work
units, effectiveness may be more a function of internal
group processes.
A second key aspect of group-organization boundaries is differentiation (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1969), or the
degree of specialization, independence, and autonomy of
a work team in relation to other work units. Differentiation of a work team in an organization can occur when
the mission requires special expertise or facilities, or isolation from contamination and interference, as in a surgery team. Team effectiveness can hinge on the ability to
isolate certain activities from outside interference, such
as sensitive operations, problem-solving meetings, or
practice sessions. A team can be differentiated from other
work units through exclusive membership, extended
working time or team life span, or exclusive access to
physical facilities such as surgery suites or product testing
laboratories.
February 1990 American Psychologist

Table 1

Applications of Work Teams: Differentiation, External Integration, Work-Cycles, and Outputs

Applicationsand examples

Work-teamdifferentiation

Extq~rnalIntegration

Work cycles

Typicaloutputs

Advice/involvement
Committees
Review panels, beards
Quality control circles
Employee involvement
groups
Advisory councils

Low differentiation:
Inclusive or
representative
membership; Often
short group life
span and/or limited
working time.

Low integration:
Often few demands for
synchronization with
other work-units;
extemal exchange can
be minimal; work-cycle
may not be repeated.

Work-cycles can
be brief or
long; one cycle
can be team
life span.

Decisions
Selections
Suggestions
Proposals
Recommendations

Productionleervice
Assembly teams
Manufacturing crews
Mining teams
Flight attendant crews
Data processing groups
Maintenance crews

Low differentiation:
Variable membership
requirements;
sometimes high
turnover; variable
team life span;
often special
facilities,

High integration:
Externally paced work
usually synchronized
with suppliers and
customers inside and
outside the
organization,

Work-cycles
typically
repeated or
continuous
process; cycles
often briefer
than team life
span.

Food, chemicals
Components
Assemblies
Retail sales
Customer service
Equipment repairs

Project/development
Research groups
Planning teams
Architect teams
Engineering teams
Development teems
Task forces

High differentiation:
Members usually
expert specialists;
task may require
specialized
facilities;
Sometimes
extended team life
span.

Low integration:
Often internally paced
project with deadline;
little synchronization
inside organization;
task can require much
external
communication.

Work-cycles
typically differ
for each new
project; one
cycle can be
team life span.

Plans, designs
Investigations
Presentations
Prototypes
Reports, findings

Action/negotiation
Sports teams
Entertainment groups
Expeditions
Negotiating teams
Surgery teams
Cockpit crews

High differentiation:
Exclusive
membership of
expert specialists;
specialized training
and performance
facilities;
Sometemes
extended team life
span.

High integration:
Performance events
closely synchronized
with counterparts &
support units inside
the organization,

Brief performance
events, often
repeated under
new conditions,
requiring
extended
training and/or
preparation.

Combat missions
Expeditions
Contracts,
lawsuits
Concerts
Surgical
operations
Competitions

Demands for external integration and differentiation

inherent in the relationship of a team and the surrounding
organization can be seen as partly specifying what constitutes team effectiveness. A taxonomy by Sundstrom
and Altman (1989) uses integration and differentiation
to identify four types of work groups whose boundaries
create different demands for effectiveness, shown in Table
1. The types correspond with the four applications of
work teams mentioned earlier: (a) advice and involvement
groups; (b) production and service teams; (c) project and
development teams; and (d) action and negotiation teams.
An example of a team low on both external integration
and differentiationman advice and involvement group-is a quality control circle. Differentiation is minimal in
that membership is often broadly representative, working
time is limited, and the group may have only a temporary
meeting room. External integration is also minimal:
Within broad limits a QC circle can proceed at its own
February 1990 American Psychologist

pace with few requirements for synchronization with

other work units. Its work may call for external communication, but the task imposes few constraints on timing or turn-around. In contrast, the organizational context
of action and negotiation teams often demands both external differentiation and integration, which dictate conditions for team effectiveness. For example, a cockpit crew
consists of qualified experts who work in specialized, limited-access facilities (their cockpits), and performance
depends on their ability to work without distraction or
interference. They carry out complex performance events
(flights) that call for activities closely synchronized with
those of other work units (ground crew, cabin crew, control tower, and other cockpit crews). High levels of external
differentiation and integration may make such teams
sensitive to particular features of organizational context,
such as training and technology, which in turn might
enter into team development.
125

External Integration: Coordination With Suppliers,

Managers, Peers, Staff, and Customers
External integration represents the way a team fits into
the larger organization, or the external demands inherent
in its boundary. A team's work can be seen as a process
of receiving materials or information from suppliers;
transforming or adding value in cooperation with managers, peers, and staff; and delivering output to team customers. (A team's customer can be inside the organization,
like a packaging and shipping department in a factory.)
The need for coordination with external agents is related
to a team's work-cycle. As shown in Table 1, teams with
high levels of external integration (whose relationships
with their organizations require close external synchronization) may tend to repeat their work cycles. For example, production teams generate the same or similar
outputs over and over again. Teams with less external
synchronization may tend toward single cycles of work
that extend over long periods, yielding one-of-a-kind outputs. In some project teams, the work cycle equals the
team life span; when the project is finished the team disbands. Such work units are more "loosely coupled" with
counterparts than production teams (Weick, 1982).
Teams facing demands for both external integration and
differentiation tend to have two kinds of work cycles: brief,
repeated performance events that require synchronization
with support staff or competitors, and longer cycles of
independent preparation. For maximum effectiveness,
boundaries may need to be managed differently during
the two types of work cycles.
External Differentiation: Definition as a Work Unit
A work team is differentiated from its organizational
context to the extent that it comprises an identifiable collection of people working in a specific place, over the
same time period, on a unique task. Besides the task,
aspects of differentiation important to effectiveness are
membership, temporal scope, and territory. Together
these features help define the team boundary (what distinguishes it from other work units).
1. Membership: Composition, turnover, and size.
Basic to the definition of a work team is the identity of
individuals treated as members by both group and organization. Research has traditionally asked what mix of
individual traits, in what size group, yields greatest effectiveness. The following question is less often asked: Who
decides the composition and size of a work team? Especially in organizations developing a participative style
of management, the question is inevi~bl. An answer
that might apply in some circumstances is to give members a substantial role in deciding team composition
(Smith, 1981), at least from among qualified individuals.
An early study of construction crews whose members
chose their own team-mates did find them more productive than other crews (Van Zdst, 1952). Recently, Tziner
and Vardi (1982) demonstrated a technique for using
mutual preferences to form teams.
A second, seldom-asked question concerns turnover
126

among members. In groups that meet only once or twice,

like some problem-solving groups, turnover may be inconsequential. In longer lived groups, particularly those
comprised of skilled specialists, the loss or gain of a
member might require substantial adjustment by the
group; at the least, socialization of new members is necessary (Moreland & Levine, 1988). Relevant research is
scarce, but Dyer (1984) described a study of bomber crews
in the Korean conflict in which crew performance was
inversely related to personnel changes.
Group composition has seldom been studied in actual work teams, despite evidence of its importance. For
instance, one study found that in military tank crews
composed of soldiers with uniformly high ability, performance far exceeded what was expected from individuals'
abilities (Tziner & Eden, 1985). Crews with uniformly
low ability fell far short of expectations based on individual ability. In other words, these crews showed a "synergy"
effect due to composition.
Among different types of groups in Table 1, links of
composition with team effectiveness may hinge on different issues. In advice/involvement groups, such as
committees and advisory boards, performance may depend on heterogeneity of task-related abilities or specialties, as suggested by research on group problem solving
(Goodman et al., 1986). But such groups often have short
life spans and limited time to work, so members" social
skills could help determine how much talent is applied
to the problem (Hackman, 1987). Among resources for
assessing interpersonal skills a method called SYMLOG
may offer promise (Bales, Cohen, & Williamson, 1979)
as a vehicle for selecting potential team members with
behavior profiles associated with team effectiveness.
In other types of teams with longer life spans, effectiveness may be related more to personal compatibility
among members--especially when groups work for long
periods in confined quarters. A taxonomy of personality
traits relevant to team composition is outlined by Driskell,
Hogan, and Salas (1988). Research on airliner flight crews
supports selection of teams for personal compatibility
(Foushee, 1984).
As for team size, current literature yields a consistent
guideline: the smallest possible number of people who
can do the task (Hackman, 1987). In the laboratory, group
performance declines with the addition of extra members
beyond the required minimum (Nieva et al., 1978). This
could reflect added difficulty of coordinating more members (Steiner, 1972) or "social loafing" in larger groups
(Lame, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). Laboratory research
also suggests that increasing group size brings lower cohesion (McGrath, 1984). Similar findings emerge in two
studies of work teams (Gladstein, 1984; O'Reilly & Roberts, 1977).
2. Temporal scope." Team life span and working time.
The longer a work team exists and the more time its
members spend cooperating, the greater its temporal
scope (MeGrath, 1984) and differentiation as a work-unit
(Sundstrom & Altman, 1989). Effectiveness may improve
over time (Heinen & Jacobson, 1976), but eventually may
February 1990 American Psychologist

decline (Shonk & Shonk, 1988). For example, a study of

research and development groups found that team longevity associated with isolation from key information
sources was important to technical performance (Katz,
1982). Little is known about temporal aspects of group
functioning (McCwath & Kelly, 1986).
3. Team territories. Practitioners emphasize the
importance to a work team of having its own "turf"
(Ketchum, 1981). Even teams who need no special facilities may rely on their physical environments for identity and management of external relations. Especially in
teams whose missions demand both external integration
and differentiation, territories may aid effectiveness
(Sundstrom & Altman, 1989).

Team Development and Effectiveness

Figure 1 lists four developmental features: interpersonal
processes, norms, cohesion, and roles. These can be seen
as aspects of developmental sequences in teams and as
foci of efforts to aid team development and process interventions.

Developmental Sequences
Some theories suggest that groups develop through a series
of phases culminating in effective performance. Perhaps
best known is Tuckman's (1965) model: "forming,
storming, norming, performing," and later, "adjourning"
(Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). The model is supported by
studies of training and laboratory groups (Heinen & Jacobson, 1976; Moreland & Levine, 1988) that may not
necessarily generalize to work teams.
Gersick's (1988) "punctuated equilibrium" model
suggests that groups exhibit long stable periods interspersed with relatively brief, revolutionary changes. Unlike Tuckman's model, it assumes that development depends on external relations. This model comes out of
observations of eight project groups, each responsible for
a specific product, with an external reporting relationship
and a deadline. Initial periods of inertia lasted half of the
allotted time, followed by midpoint transitions: They
"dropped old patterns, re-engaged with outside supervisors, adopted new perspectives on their work, and made
dramatic progress" (Gersick, 1988, p. 16). Transitions
occurred halfway through the calendars, regardless of
group life span (7 days to 6 months). Stable phases followed. Seven of eight finished on time, though effectiveness varied; thus the model seems to describe relatively
effective project teams.
A recent model by Glickman et al. (1987) builds on
both Tuckman's and Gersick's models. Support for it
comes from 13 U.S. Navy gunnery teams studied during
training, which showed a progression from "teamwork,'"
or intermember coordination, to "taskwork." However,
whether teams follow a fixed developmental sequence or
show different temporal patterns in varied organizational
contexts remains a question for future research. Considering the variety of relationships between work teams and
organizational contexts, it seems unlikely that a single
sequence can describe the development of all kinds of
February 1990 American Psychologist

teams. Perhaps, as suggested by McGrath, Futoran, and

Kelly (1986), each team has to deal with certain developmental issues, but the order of precedence depends on
the circumstances.

Aspects of Team Development

Longitudinal theories suggest that groups develop norms,
cohesion, and roles.
1. Norms. Since the Hawthorne studies (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939) linked performance with group
norms, their importance for work groups has been obvious, but elusive. Practitioners (e.g., Bassin, 1988) recommended that effective teams have norms and rules of
behavior agreed on by all members. Hackman (1987)
identified norms about performance as a desirable design
feature of groups and implied that they can be externally
influenced. Foushee (1984) reported some success in altering norms in flight crews through videotaped flight
simulations and feedback about interpersonal styles. But
other research suggests that work groups develop unique
norms, even at odds with their organization (e.g., Richards
& Dobyns, 1957). Organizational culture may provide a
vehicle for external influence over group norms. "Charters" drafted by team members and managers around team
mission and organizational goals may incorporate both
imposed and developed norms.
2. Cohesion. This crucial ingredient of team viability has been found to be correlated with communication and conformity to group norms (McGrath, 1984).
Besides small group size, conditions found favorable to
cohesion include similar attitudes (Terborg Castore, &
DeNinno, 1976) and physical proximity of workspaces
(Sundstrom, 1986). Context factors likely to foster cohesion include external pressure (Glickman et al., 1987)
and rewards for team performance (Shea & Guzzo,
1987a).
The link of cohesion with performance may depend
on group norms. Stogdill (1972) examined 34 work
groups and found cohesion positively correlated with
performance in 12, inversely correlated in 11, and unrelated in the remaining groups. Cohesion apparently
amplified norms favoring both high and low production.
During routine operations, Goodman (1986) found that
group cohesion was unrelated to production, but in uncertain working conditions cohesive groups were more
productive.
The seemingly optimal combination of cohesion and
a norm of high performance may not always be ideal.
Janis (1971) claimed that cohesive groups under pressure
can make poor decisions through groupthink, a complex
process in which groups exhibit a variety of dysfunctional
decision making "'symptoms" such as disregarding new
information to protect an apparent consensus. This may
occur in autonomous groups (Liebowitz & De Meuse,
1982; Manz & Sims, 1982), especially high-ranking teams
who make decisions with little outside help. Examples
are task forces, committees, and some project teams.
When group tasks require external synchronization, peer
work units may check tendencies toward groupthink. But
127

the potential for groupthink bolsters Manz and Sims's

(1982) recommendation for training in group decision
making.
3. Roles. Roles are sufficiently basic to work groups
to be considered one of their defining features (Alderfer,
1987). However, even in teams with a high degree of specialization, members may rotate roles if possible (Susman,
1970).
For the much-studied role of leader, past research
has identified two leadership functions--task and interpersonal (McGrath, 1984). But in light of a trend toward
self-management, leadership may be increasingly expected of team members (Manz & Sims, 1987). It may
be more equally shared by members as their team develops over time. Consistent with this idea, Schriesheim
(1980) found that in utility crews with low cohesion,
leaders' initiation of structure was correlated with role
clarity, satisfaction, and self-rated performance. In cohesive groups the same criteria were correlated instead
with leader consideration.

Team Development Intervention Studies

In efforts designed to improve team functioning called
t e a m development (Beckhard, 1969) or team-building
(Dyer, 1977), consultants meet with groups to diagnose
interpersonal processes and facilitate development of the
team. Their interventions reflect several decades of research and practice (Hall & Williams, 1970) and vary
depending on the combination of consultant, team, and
organization (Liebowitz & De Meuse, 1982). At least four
types of team interventions can be identified (e.g., Beer,
1980), as follows:
1. Interpersonal processes. This intervention involves candid discussion of relationships and conflicts
among team members, often directed toward resolving
"hidden agendas." This approach assumes that teams
operate best with mutual trust and open communication;
it attempts to build group cohesion (Kaplan, 1979).
2. Goal-setting. This approach involves clarifying
the team's general goals and specific objectives, sometimes
by defining subtasks and establishing timetables. Often
combined with performance measurement and feedback,
this type of intervention has a record of successful application in organizations (Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham,
1982).
3. Role definition. This intervention entails clarifying individual role expectations, group norms, and
shared responsibility of team members (Bennis, 1966).
4. Problem-solving. In this approach, task-related
processes are clarified within the group, such as identiflyingproblems, causes, and solutions; choosing solutions;
and developing and implementing action plans (Buller &
Bell, 1986).
Intervention studies often report improved communication, cohesion, or other signs of viability (De
Meuse & Liebowitz, 1981; Kaplan, 1979; Woodman &
Sherwood, 1980a). The few that measure performance
tend to report mixed results and are sometimes flawed
by a lack of control groups. Woodman and Sherwood
128

(1980b) concluded that findings from goal-setting interventions are more interpretable than others, leading them
to place greater confidence in goal setting.
We examined empirical research on team development interventions published since 1980 in selected journals.t Table 2 shows the 13 studies we found, with type
of team, intervention (interpersonal, goal setting, role definition, and problem solving), and results classified under
headings of performance or team viability. Most studies
used multiple approaches to team development, often
combining an interpersonal approach with others. Most
research designs had control groups, yielding results more
interpretable than in earlier reviews. Teams include advisory groups, production and service teams, project
groups, and action teams, a broad mix that could reflect
an expanding use of work groups. The table may overrepresent successful team development interventions, as
failures are probably less likely to be published.
Interventions had mixed success, as in prior studies.
Performance improved in 4 out of 9 cases in which it was
measured. Aspects of viability improved in 8 out of l0
studies using interpersonal approaches, although some
studies found adverse effects. Overall, Table 2 suggests
that in s o m e circumstances team development interventions may have enhanced work group effectiveness.
An ecological perspective suggests a reason why team
development interventions do not always succeed: they
usually focus only on internal team processes. This strategy might be more effective if coupled with a focus on
external relations.

Issues for Research and Practice

Current literature leaves many unanswered questions on
work teams. But we see a handful of issues that deserve
particular attention in future research and practice.

Organizational Contexts and Differences

Among Work Teams
An ecological view calls attention to the variety of relationships between work teams and their larger organizations. Such differences call into question our longstanding assumptions that the small group represents a
single entity and that one model can fit all groups. Unfortunately, current research evidence gives little basis for
testing these assumptions. Indeed, if the psychology of
small groups dealt with a kind of animal, we could not
be sure whether it was one or several species, what habitats
it occupied, or what distinguished its subspecies. Work
' This review covers research published after the reviewsby De
Meuse and Liebowitz(1981) and Woodmanand Sherwood(1980a)
through the end of 1988. Research-orientedjournals includedin our

review were Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management

Review. Administrative Science Quarterly, Group and Organization
Studies, Human Relations, Journal ofApplied BehavioralScience, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, and PersonnelPsychology. Practitioner-orientedjournalsincludedin our reviewwereCalifornia Management Review, Harvard Business Review, Personnel,
Personnel Administrator, Personnel Journal, and Training and Development Journal.

February 1990 American Psychologist

iiii
TaMe 2

Thirteen Intervention Studies of Team Development, 1980-1988

Study

Teams

Interventions

Perfon~ance

Morrieon & Sturges

(1980)

Top management team

in state
govemrnent

Interpersonal, role
definition

Porras & Wilkins

(1980)

Cafeteria food
service teams

Interpersonal, problemsolving

Little change in costs,

output, or profit.

Decreased job
satisfaction,
commitment.

Woodman &
Sherwood
(1980a)

Student project
groups

Problem-solving, goalsetting

No effect on grades.

Better problem solving,

participation; no
change in satisfaction.

Boss & McConkie

(1981)

Government
employee
groups

Interpersonal

Paul & Gross

(1981)

City maintenance
crews

Problem-solving, role
definition

Increased service
efficiency; no
change in customer
satisfaction.

Higher job satisfaction.

No change in absences,
turnover.
Faster resolution of
employee grievances.

Boss (1983)

(not reported)

Interpersonal, role
definition

Higher ratings
of group
effectiveness.

Increased participation,
involvement, trust.

Hughes,
Rosenbach &
Clover (1983)

Air Force cadet

teams

Interpersonal, role
definition, goalsetting

Higher ratings of
group performance.

Higher cohesiveness,
group satisfaction,
trust.
No change in goal
commitment, job
clarity.

Eden (1985)

Army combat
units

Interpersonal, role
definition, goalsetting

No change in team
performance
ratings.

No change in
satisfaction,
communication, peer
relations, coordination.

Bulier & Bell (1986)

Mining crews

Problem-solving

Little change in
quality or quantity
of ore mined.

Better work techniques,

communication.

Eden (1986)

Army combat
units

Interpersonal, role
definition, goalsetting

No change in ratings
of combat
readiness.

Improved teamwork,
conflict handling,
planning.
No change in cohesion,
involvement, support,
job clarity.

Miller & Phillip

(1986)

Engineering
project groups

Interpersonal, problemsolving

Project completed
$30 million under
budget.

Enhanced cooperation,
trust, communication,
morale.

Mitchell (1986)

Student project
groups

Interpersonal

Better interpersonal
relations.

Margedson, Davies
& McCann
(1987)

Airliner cockpit
crews

Interpersonal, problemsolving

Better communication,
interpersonal relations.

February 1990 American Psychologist

--

Viability
Increased communication
collaboration, role
clarity.

Better communication
and goal-setting
immediately after
intervention.
More tumover,
gdevances.
Poorer climate.

129

teams very well could represent several different types of

social units that share superficial similarities. This might
account for the persistent difficulty in arriving at generalizations about small groups. For researchers, an obvious
next step is to study the demographics of work groups, or
the prevalence of various applications of work teams and
their organizational contexts. Another is to study specific
applications of work teams in depth, through longitudinal
case studies (e.g., Hackman, 1989).
Differences among work teams pose an immediate,
practical challenge for management. Some teams, such
as those in production and service, tend to be synchronized with counterpart work units and customers. So
management of external relations might be more critical
to their effectiveness than internal team dynamics. Others,
such as project teams, have missions calling for creativity
and innovation. They may need special help in applying
group processes to their resources. Team managers need
to be sensitive to such differences when making decisions
on such issues as team training and consultation, physical
environments, performance measurement and feedback
systems, reward systems, and other contextual features.

Organizational Context of Work Team Effectiveness

Practitioners and theorists agree fairly well on features of
organizational context that foster team effectiveness, but
these remain to be studied. Near the top of our agenda
for empirical research is an assessment of the role of specific context factors in work team effectiveness, such as
organizational culture, technology and task design, mission clarity, autonomy, rewards, performance feedback,
training and consultation, and physical environment. This
list of contextual factors could be a practical checklist for
managers of work teams. However, the challenge is to
create an optimal mix of context features for each particular group. One context factor could make the difference, as in a project team whose members need to develop
a mission statement before they can even start working.

Boundaries and Their Management

Team development practitioners have long emphasized
the importance of group boundaries (e.g., Alderfer, 1987).
Up to now, boundaries have had little role in a small
group research literature dominated by laboratory studies.
Yet in an organizational context, boundaries may be critical to work team effectiveness. An ecological approach
suggests that the group boundary needs continual management to ensure that it becomes neither too sharply
delineated nor too permeable, so that the team neither
becomes isolated nor loses its identity. At the same time,
boundary management calls for maintenance of conditions that promote needed external synchronization and
coordination. The physical environment may figure
prominently in boundary management (Sundstrom &
Airman, 1989). However, practitioners can hope for little
guidance from current research evidence. It remains for
researchers to study the processes through which work
teams maintain external integration and differentiation
needed for effectiveness.
130

Team Development
As lamented in 1966 by McGrath and Altman, longitudinal processes in work groups are still poorly understood.
Pending basic, empirical studies of temporal sequences
in actual, intact work teams, we can only speculate how
predictors of effectiveness relate to team development.
Future research needs to examine work teams in their
natural contexts at multiple points in time, to look for
developmental stages analogous to infancy, adolescence,
maturity, and old age. Lacking such research, our theories
can only continue to generalize from the laboratory or
use "black boxes" to describe team development. Fortunately, some researchers are now using innovative
methods to study developmental processes in teams, such
as the qualitative approach by Gersick (1988), the case
study approach by Hackman (1989), and the quantitative
methods by Glickrnan and colleagues (1987). However,
practitioners may have to wait a while longer for a compelting model of team development that can serve as a
guide for managing and facilitating work teams. Evidence
for such a model could grow out of action research in
which work groups are systematically monitored over
time, perhaps in conjunction with team development interventions. A trend toward applying work teams could
provide many real-world research opportunities, for instance in companies reorganizing around work teams after
a merger or an acquisition.

Team Effectiveness: Definition and Measurement

Of course, progress in studying and managing work teams
depends on having a well-accepted, measurable criterion
of effectiveness. Although many experts agree that effectiveness includes more than performance, the "more" remains an issue. A convincing empirical basis for defining
and measuring what we have labeled team viability may
point to certain, specific interpersonal skills requisite to
effective team membership. These skills, i n turn, could
be used in the selection and the training of team
members.
As for performance, measurement has traditionally
relied on specific criteria such as tons of coal extracted
by mining teams, sales revenues produced by sales teams,
and manager ratings of project teams. Such specific, local
criteria allow cross-team comparisons only if converted
into dependable, global indexes. The innovative method
of Pritchard and colleagues (1988) sets a valuable precedent by merging specific indicators into an index of percentage of maximum capability.
In conclusion, an ecological view emphasizes the role
of organizational context, boundaries, and team development in work team effectiveness. Our selective review
of current literature points to features of organizational
context and aspects of group-organization boundaries
likely to make them salient. Researchers and practitioners
need to look beyond a group's internal processes to the
prescriptions for effectiveness inherent in the relationship
between the work team and the organization.
February 1990 American Psychologist

REFERENCES
Alderfer, C. E (1987). An intergroup perspective on group dynamics.
In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 190222). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Argnte, L. (1982). Input uncertainty and organizational coordination
in hospital emergency units. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27,
420--434.
Bales, R. E, Cohen, S. P., & Williamson, S. A. (1979). SYMLOG. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Banas, P. (1988). Employee involvement: A sustained labor/mmmgement
initiative at Ford Motor Company. In J. P. Campbell & R. J. Campbell
(Eds.), Productivity in organizations (pp. 388-416). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Bassin, M. (1988). Teamwork at General Foods: New and improved.
Personnel Journal, 67(5), 62-70.
Beckhard, R. (1969). Organization development:Strategies and models.
Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
Beer, M. (1980). Organization changeand development:A systems view.
Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
Bennis, W. (1966). Changing organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Berrien, E K. (1983). A general systems approach to o~aniTations. In
M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 41-62). New York: Wiley.
Boss, R. W. (1983). Team building and the problems of regression: The
personal management interview as an intervention.Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 19, 67-83.
Boss, R. W., & McConkie, M. L. (1981). The destructive impact of a
positive team-buildingintervention. Group and Organization Studies,
6, 45-56.
Bramel, D., & Friend, R. (1987). The work group and its vicissitudes
in social and industrial psychology. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 23, 233-253.
Buller, P. E, & Bell, C. H., Jr. (1986). Effects of team building and goal
setting on productivity: A field experiment. Academy of Management
Journal, 29, 305-328.
Bushe, G. R. (1987). Temporary or permanent middle-management
groups? Correlates with attitudes in QWL change projects. Groupand
Organization Studies, 12, 23-37.
Campbell, D. J. (1988). Task complexity: A review and analysis.Academy
of Management Review, 13(1), 40-52.
Cherns, A. (1976). The principles of socioteehnical design. Human Relations, 29, 783-792.
Cherry, R. L. (1982). The development of General Motors' team-based
plants. In R. Zager & M. P. Rosow (Eds.), The innovativeorganization
(pp. 21-43). New York: Pergamon.
Cole, R. E. (1982). Diffusion of participatory work structures in Japan,
Sweden, and the United States. In P. S. Goodman & Associates (Eds.),
Change in organizations (pp. 166-225). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cummings, T. G. (1978). Self-regulating work groups: A socio-technical
synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 3, 624-634.
Cummings, T. G. (1981). Designing effectivework-groups. In P. C. Nystrom & W. Starbuek (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design (Voi.
2, pp. 250-271). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cummings, T. G., & Molloy, E. S. (1977). Improving productivity and
the quality of work life. New York: Praeger.
De Meuse, K. P., & Liebowitz, S. J. (1981). An empirical analysis of
team-bnilding research. Group & Organization Studies, 6, 357-378.
Driskell, J. E., Hogan, R., & Salas, E. (1988). Personality and group
performance. Review of Personality and Social Psychology,, 14, 91112.
Dyer, J. L. (1984). Team research and team training: A state-of-the-art
review. In E A. Muckier (Ed.), Humanfactors review: 1984 (pp. 285323). Santa Monies, CA: Human Factors Society.
Dyer, W. G. (1977). Team building. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
Eden, D. (1985). Team development: A true field experiment at three
levels of rigor. Journal of Applied Psycholog?z, 70, 94-100.
Eden, D. (1986). Team development: Quasi-experimental confirmation
among combat companies. Group and Organization Studies, 11, 133146.
Foushee, H. C. (1984). Dyads and triads at 35,000 feet: Factors affecting
F e b r u a r y 1990 A m e r i c a n Psychologist

group process and aircrew performance. American Psychologist, 39,

885-893.
Friedlander, E (1987). The ecology of work groups. In J. Lorsch (Ed.),
H andbook of organizational behavior(pp. 301- 314). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Galagan, P. (1986). Work teams that work. Training and Development
Journal, 11, 33-35.
Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a
new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal,
31, 9-41.
Gladstcin, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group
effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.
Glickman, A. S., Zimmer, S., Montero, R. C., Guerette, P. J., Campbell,
W. J., Morgan, B., & Salas, E. (1987). The evolution of teamwork
skills: An empirical assessment with implicationsfor training (Tech.
Report 87-016). Orlando, FL: Office of Naval Research, Human Factors Division.
Goodman, P. S. (1986). Impact of task and technology on group performance. In P. S. Goodman and Associates (Eds.), Designing effective
work groups (pp. 120-167). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goodman, P. S., Devadas, R., & Hnghson, T. L. G. (1988). Groups and
productivity: Analyzing the effectiveness of self-managing teams. In
J. P. Campbell & R. J. Campbell (Eds.), Productivity in organizations
(pp. 295-327). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goodman, P. S., Ravlin, E. C., & Argote, L. (1986). Current thinking
about groups: Setting the stage for new ideas. In P. S. Goodman &
Associates (Eds.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 1-33). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J. R. (1986). The psychology of self-management in organizations. In M. S. Pallak & R. Perloff (Eds.), Psychology and work
(pp. 89-136). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.),
Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). New York:
Prentice-Hall.
Hackman, J. R. (1989). Groups that work (and those that don't). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hackman, J. R., & Walton, R. E. (1986). Leading groups in o~rganiTations.
In P. S. Goodman & Associates (Eds.), Designing effective workgroups
(pp. 72-119). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hall, J. S., & Watson, W. (1971). The effects of a normative intervention
on group decision-makingperformance. Human Relations, 23, 299317.
Hall, J. S., & Williams, M. S. (1970). Group dynamics training and
improved decision making. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 6,
39-68.
Hardaker, M., & Ward, B. K. (I 987). Getting things done: How to make
a team work. Harvard Business Review, 65, 112-119.
Heinen, J. S., & Jacobson, E. J. (1976). A model of task group development in complex organizations and a strategy of implementation.
Academy of Management Review, 1, 98-111.
Herold, D. M. (1978). Improving the performance effectivenessof groups
through a task-contingent selection of interventionstrategies. Academy
of Management Review, 4, 315-325.
Homans, G. C. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace
& World.
Hughes, R. L., Rosenbach, W. E., & Clover, W. H. (1983). Team development in an intact, ongoing work group: A quasi-field experiment.
Group & Organization Studies, 8, 161-186.
James, L. R., James, L. A., & Ashe, D. K. (in press). The meaning of
organizations: An essay. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Frontiers in industrial
and organizational psychology, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Janis, I. L. (1971). IOctims ofgroupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kaplan, R. E. (1979). The conspicuous absence of evidence that process
consultation enhances task performance. Journal ofAppliedBehavioral
Science, 15, 346-360.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations
(2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
131

Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity en project communication

and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81-104.
Kelly, J. (1982). Sdentific management, job redesign, and work performance. London: Academic Press.
Ketchum, L. (1981). How to start and sustain a work redesign program.
National Productivity Review, 1, 75-86.
Ketchum, L. (1984). How redesigned plants really work. National Productivity Review, 3, 246-254.
Kidder, T. (1981). The soul of a new machine. New York: Avon Books.
Koch, J. L. (1979). Effects ofgnal specificity and performance feedback
to work groups on peer leadership, performance, and attitudes. Human
Relations, 33, 819-840.
Kolodny, H. E, & Dresner, B. (1986). Linking arrangements and new
work deserts, Organizational Dynamics, 14(3), 33-51.
Kolodny, H. E, & Kissundu, M. N. (1980). Towards the development
ofa sociotechnical systems model in woodlands mechanical harvesting.
Human Relations, 33, 623-645.
Latane, B., WiBia~ns,IC, & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light
the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-832.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1969). Developing organizations: Diagnosis and action. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ledford, G. E., Lawle~ E. E., & Mohrman, S. A. (1988). The quality
circle and its variations. In J. P. Campbell & R. J. Campbell (Eds.),
Productivity in organizations (pp. 255-294). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Liebowitz, S. J., & De Meuse, K. P. (1982). The application of team
building. Human Relations, 35, 1-18.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1982). Goal
setting and task performance: 1969-1980. PsychologicalBulletin, 90,
125-152.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1982). The potential for "groupthink" in
autonomous work groups. Human Relations, 35, 773-784.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves:
The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 32, 106-128.
Marserison, C., Davies, R., & McCann, D. (1987). High-flying management development. Training and Development Journal, 41, 3841.
McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
McGrath, J. E, (1984). Groups:Interaction and performance. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
McGrath, J. E., & Altman, I. (1966). Smallgroup research:A synthesis
and critique of thefield. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
McGrath, J. E., Futoran, G. C., & Kelly, J. R. (1986). Complex temporal
patterning in interaction and task performance: A report of progress
in a program of research on the social psychology of time (Technical
Report No. 86-1). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Psychology Department.
McGrath, J. E., & Kelly, J. R. (1986). Time and human interaction:
Toward a social psychology of time. New York: Guilford Press.
Miller, B. W., & Phillip, R. C. (1986). Team building on a deadline.
Training and Development Journal, 40, 54-57.
Miller, E. J. (1959). Technology, territory, and time: The internal differentiation of complex production systems. Human Relations, 12, 245272.
Mitchell, R. (1986). Team building by disclosure of internal frames of
reference. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22, 15-28.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1988). Group dynamics over time:
Development and socialiTatiort in small groups. In J. E. McGrath
(Ed.), The social psychology of time (pp. 15 !- 181). Beverly Hills, CA:

Sa~.
Morrison, P., & Sturges, J. (1980). Evaluation of orsanization development in a ~ state gnvernngmt organization. Group and Organization
Studies, 5, 48-64.
Nadleg D. A., Cammann, C., & Mirvis, P. H. (1980). Developing a
feedback system for work units: A field experiment in structural
change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 16, 41-62.
Naylor, J. C, & Dichenson, T. L. (1969). Task structure, work structure,
and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 167-177.

132

Nieva, V. E, Fleishman, E. A., & Rieck, A. (1978). Team dimensions:

Their identity, their measurement, and their relationships (Technical
report, Contract No. DAHCI9-78-C-0001). Washington DC: Advanced Research Resources Organizations.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Roberts, K. H. (1977). Task group structure, communication,and effectivenessin three o r ~ o n s .
Journal ofApplied
Psychology, 62, 674--681.
Pasmore, W,, Frands, C., Haldeman, J., & Sham, A. (1982). Sociotechnical systems~ A North American reflection on empirical studies of
the seventies. Human Relations, 35, 1179-1204.
Paul, C. E, & Gross, A. C. (1981). Increasing productivity and morale
in a municipality: Effects of organization development. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 17, 59-78.
Pearce, J. A,, & Ravlin, E. C. (1987). The design and activation of selfregulating work groups. Human Relations, 40, 751-782.
Peterfruend, S. (1982). "pace-to-face" at Pacific Northwest Bell. In R.
Zaser & M. P. Rusow (Eds.), The innovative organization (pp. 2143). New York: Pergamon.
Peters, T. J. (1988). Thrivingon chaos. New York: Knopf.
Peters, T J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence. New
York: Warner.
Porras, J. I., & Wilkins, A. (1980). Organization development in a large
system: An empirical assessment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 16, 506-534.
Poza, E. J., & Marcus, M. L. (1980). Success story: The team approach
to work-restructuring. Organizational Dynamics, 8, 3-25.
Pritchard, R. D., Jones, S., Roth, P., Stuebing IC, & Ekeherg S. (1988).
Effects of group feedback, goal setting, and incentives on xganizational
productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 337-358.
Reich, R. B. (1987). Entrepreneurship reconsidered: The team as hero.
Harvard Business Review, 65(3), 77-83.
Richards, C. B., & Dobyns, H. E (1957). Topography and culture: The
case of the changing cage. Human Organization, 16, 16-20.
Roby, T. B., & Lanzetta, J. T (1958). Considerations in the analysis of
group tasks. PsychologicalBulletin, 35(2), 88-101.
Roethlisherger, E J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the
worker Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rousseau, D. M., & Cooke, R. A. (1988, August). Cultures of high reliability: Behavioral norms aboard a US. aircraft carrier Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Mana~ment, Anaheim, CA.
Schriesheim, J. E 0980). The social context of leader-subordinate relations. Journal of Applied Psychology,, 65, 183-194.
Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics (3rd d.). New York: McGrawHill.
Shea, G. E (1986). Quality circles: The danger of bottled change. Sloan
Management Review, 27, 33--46.
Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987a). Group effectiveness: What really
matters? Sloan Management Review, 3, 25-31.
Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987b). Groups as human resources. In
K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and
human resourcesmanagement (Vol. 5, pp. 323-356). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Shonk, W., & Shonk, J. H. (1988). What business teams can learn from
athletic teams. Personnel, 65, 76-80.
Smith, R. (1981). Let your employees choose their co-workers. Society
for Advancement of Management Advanced Management Journal, 46,
27-36.
Steinel; I. D. (1972). Groupprocessand productivity. New York: Academic
Press.
Stogdill, R. M. (1972). Group productivity, drive, and cohesiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 26-43.
Stone, E, & Luchetti, R. (1985). Your office is where you are. Harvard
Business Review, 63(2), 102-117.
Sundstrom, E. (1986). Work places. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Sundstrom, E., & ARman, I. (1989). Physical environments and workgroup effectiveness. In L. L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research
in organizational behavior (Vol. 11, pp. 175-209). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Sundstrom, E., Bobrow, W., Fulton, K., Blair; L. Y., & McClane, W. E.
(1988, June). Interpersonal processes in small group performance.

F e b r u a r y 1990 A m e r i c a n Psychologist

Paper presented at the 1 lth International Conference on Groups,

Networks, and Organizations, Nags Head, NC.
Susman, G. I. (1970). The impact of automation on work group autonomy and task specialization. Human Relations, 23, 567-577.
Terborg, J. R., Castore, C., & DeNinno, J. A. (1976). A longitudinal
field investigation of the impact of group composition on group performance and cohesion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,,
34, 782-790.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGrawHill.
Thompson, P. C. (1982). Quality circles at Martin Marietta Corporation,
Denver Aerospace/Michoud Division. In R. Zager & M. Rosow (Eds.),
The innovative organization (pp. 3-20). New York: Pergamon.
Tornatzky, L. G. (1986). Technological change and the structure of work.
In M. S. Pallak & R. Perloff (Eds.), Psychology and work (pp. 89136). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Trist, E. L., Higgins, G. W., Murray, H., & Pollock, A. B. (1963). Organizational choice. London: Tavistock Publications.
Tuekman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-389.
Tuckman, B, W., & Jensen, M. (1977). Stages of small,group development
revifited. Group & Organization Studies, 2, 419-427.
Tushman, M. L. (1979). Impacts of perceived environmental variability

F e b r u a r y 1990 A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i s t

on patterns of work related communication. Academy of Management

Journal, 23, 482-500.

Tzin~ A., & Eden, D. (1985). Effects of crew composition on crew
performance: Does the whole equal the sum of the parts? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 70, 85-93.
Tziner, A., & Vardi, Y. (1982). Effects of command style and group
cohesiveness on the performance effectiveness of self-selected tank
crews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 769-775.
Van Zelst, R. H. (1952). Soeiometrically selected work teams increase
production. Personnel Psychology,, 5, 175-185.
Walton, R. E. (1977). Work innovation at Topeka: Aftcr six years. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 13, 422-433.
Walton, R. E. (1985). From control to commitment in the workplace.
Harvard Business Review, 63(2), 76-84.
Weick, K. (1982). Management of organizational change among loosely
coupled elements. In P. S. Goodman & Associates (Eds.), Change in
organizations (pp. 375-408). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Woodman, R. W., & Sherwood, J. J. (1980a). Effects of team development
intervention: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 16, 211-227.
Woodman, R. W., & Sherwood, J. J. (1980b). The role of team development in organizational effectiveness: A critical review. Psychological
Bulletin, 88, 166-186.

133