Search results

During the conference in which this volume’s chapters were presented and discussed, an important topic arose: the proliferation of terms used to describe the temporal aspects of groups and teams. Recognition of this proliferation is not new (cf. Ancona, Okhuysen & Perlow, 2001). While it is partly a reflection of the increased interest in things temporal, it is also a reflection of how we conduct work in the area of groups and organization studies for at least three reasons.

This paper discusses national differences in the interpretation of time in mixed motive decision contexts, such as negotiation. Specifically, we consider how members of different national cultures (Portugal, Turkey, and the United States) experience temporality in these situations. We argue that cultural temporality such as polychronicity, future orientation, and uncertainty avoidance form part of a broader national environment. The national environment is also expressed in national stability factors such as legal systems, family ties, and homogeneity of populations. We propose that temporality and stability aspects of national environment determine negotiation paradigms, which subsequently influence temporality in negotiations. We conclude by suggesting that inclusion of complex and interdependent national environment factors in the study of negotiation has the potential to substantially advance our understanding of mixed motive decision situations.

This paper reviews the effects of familiarity on the group process. Previously, familiarity has been defined as interpersonal knowledge of another individual. Familiarity is a dyadic construct, based on the relationship between two individuals. We consider familiarity from a phenomenological perspective, exploring how the experience of the individual affects the group and how the group affects the individuals experience. We believe that part of this experience is based on knowledge, but we propose that the experience of familiarity is also made up of affective and behavioral components. In order to gain a better understanding of familiarity, we gathered data from groups that worked on a semester long project. It was found that individuals rely on affect as well as cognition when determining familiarity. Positive, negative, and neutral affect all had interesting implications for the group. Individuals who know and like one another are more likely to engage in positive, team-building behaviors than those who do not know or like one another. It was also found that dyadic relationships can directly impact the group. Dyadic relationships that are positive create an open, friendly environment for other group members while dyadic relationships that are negative create tension and conflict in the group.

In this paper, we introduce the concept of the “glue role” in groups engaged in creative tasks. An individual crafts a glue role by seeking out and taking on otherwise neglected tasks that have the potential to facilitate a creative group's performance. We adopt a negotiated order perspective on roles in groups to examine how a group's emerging social structure provides opportunities for crafting the glue role. We then suggest two mechanisms through which the glue role can facilitate performance in creative groups: the coordination of group members' contributions and the management of group conflict.

I was surprised and delighted to be asked to write the final chapter of a book on groups. I certainly thought of myself as a “groups person,” but I was never quite sure that anyone else did. My research image is much more tied to organization theory and strategy. But the reality is that much of my work – from strategic decision making and product development to acquisitions and cross-business synergies – often does deal with groups. Although these more macro-level topics are in the foreground, groups are very often the backdrop.