Search results

Purpose – We outline how research on groups in disrupted environments can advance research on group processes.

Design/Methodology/Approach – We review studies of groups in disrupted environments, drawing mostly on military research to generate understanding of intra- and intergroup dynamics. We also identify new technologies and methods to improve measurement and modeling of groups.

Findings – When consolidated, the research documenting challenges groups operating in disrupted environments face suggests the importance of considering them as a unique set of circumstances for groups. It also identifies methods for objectively measuring and modeling groups in these environments.

Practical Implications – This chapter will help practitioners determine factors pertinent to groups working in disrupted environments, identify group processes that generate success and those that undermine group effectiveness, and point to emerging technologies to better measure and model group processes in disrupted environments.

Social Implications – Group processes affect both individuals and societies. In the context of the disrupted environments, group performance translates to enormous consequences for individuals, as well as national security and humanitarian implications.

Originality/Value of the Chapter – This chapter uniquely consolidates the vast amount of research on groups operating in disrupted environments and also is innovative in emphasizing the disrupted context as a generalizable situation that elucidates key dimensions of group processes and performance in disrupted environments.

This chapter seeks to theoretically answer the question: under which circumstances do groups succeed under female leadership? Further, is it possible to conceptualize the engineering of groups such that group success under female leadership is a likely outcome?

In this chapter, I draw on identity control theory (Burke & Stets, 2009; Stets & Burke, 2005) and role congruity theory (Eagly, 2003) to discuss the implications for female leaders of the discrepancy between the female gender identity and the leader identity. Next, I draw upon status characteristics theory (Berger et al., 1972) to further illustrate the negative consequences of being a female leader. Then, drawing on group processes research, I make the explicit link between the negative expectations for female leaders on group performance through the endorsement of group members. Finally, I utilize innovative research using institutionalization of female leadership to propose a possible solution for improving group performance.

I present nine testable hypotheses ready for empirical test.

I propose that training materials underscoring the skills that females have as leaders can subvert the development of conflictual expectations facing female leaders, thus removing the deleterious effects on group performance. That is, if group members receive training that emphasizes the competencies and skills women bring to the group’s task and to the leadership role, then group performance will not be threatened.

Teamwork represents a democratic logic that may contradict the bureaucratic logic characterizing many organizations. I develop arguments based on new institutional theory suggesting that such a contradiction threatens a team’s legitimacy. My study of 71 teams lends support for two claims that capture a legitimacy paradox confronting teams: (1) Egalitarian work processes do correspond to more effective interactions within teams, however (2) To the extent that egalitarianism is uncommon in the organization in which a team is embedded, external evaluations of team effectiveness are less favorable. I discuss the implications of these arguments for subsequent research on organizational teamwork.

We present an analysis of the effects of status on the information that members of an inter-organizational team contributed in decision-making meetings. Our analysis shows that the amount and content of members' participation was systematically related to their status in the group. More specifically, team members who occupied managerial levels in their respective organizations contributed ideas and opinions (as well as other information types) at higher rates than those not holding such higher status positions in their organizations. This bias occurred even though team members agreed that abilities related to managerial level were not relevant to the decision-making task. What is particularly striking about these findings is that the members of this team had participated in team building training prior to embarking on the decision-making task, and reported a high concern for and commitment to equal participation in the decision-making task. Our results clearly demonstrate the ubiquitous effects of social status on participation in teams, even when: (1) the basis for status is not necessarily relevant to the group's objective, and (2) team members have explicit awareness of such status processes and are committed to overcoming them. These results along with the conceptual framework we elaborate suggest that team building training alone may not be sufficient to overcome the powerful and often detrimental effects of status processes on effective decision making. We discuss alternatives and supplements to team building training that may increase the advantages and effectiveness of teamwork in organizations.

We develop elements of Network Exchange and Expectation States Theories to explain the relationship between power and status. While power and status are highly correlated, demonstrating that power can be used to attain high status has proven difficult, perhaps because negative reactions to power use limit power users’ influence. We propose three ways to reduce negative reactions to power use. One of them, philanthropy, suggests a solution to the “free-rider” problem in collective action. If philanthropic contributions increase status, then contributing to a public good may also. Thus, status attainment may be an incentive motivating public goods contributions.

According to status construction theory, a social attribute becomes imbued with status value through its association with valued resources. Yet, explanations for such associations have received scant attention. I propose that social identity processes may lead agents controlling resources to over-allocate to in-group members. This generates a doubly dissimilar situation in which actors are differentiated both with respect to a nominal characteristic and resources, leading the characteristic to become imbued with status value. I find support for this elaboration in a sample of newly founded organizations. I discuss the implications of this elaboration for further developments in status construction theory.

Last year we began a new trend in the Advances in Group Processes series. Our goal was to publish a set of five interrelated volumes that examine core issues or fundamental themes in the group processes arena. Each volume was to be organized around a particular problem, substantive area, or topic of study, broadly defined to include a range of methodological and theoretical orientations. Volume 20 represents the second volume of that series, addressing fundamental questions of Power and Status.

Basic science, sometimes called “curiosity-driven research” at the National Science Foundation and other places, starts with a question that somehow stays in the mind, nagging for an answer. Such questions really are “puzzles”; they arise in an intellectual field or context, asking someone to fit pieces to an improving but incomplete picture of the social world. What makes a worthwhile puzzle is a missing part in understanding the picture, or a new piece of knowledge that does not seem to fit among other parts. Sometimes creative theorists can imagine a solution to one of the holes in the puzzle. If they are also empirical scientists, they devise ways to get evidence bearing on their ideas, and some of those ideas survive to give more complete and detailed pictures of the world. This chapter is the story of puzzles and provisional solutions to them, developed by dozens of men and women investigating status processes and status structures, using a coherent perspective, for over half a century.¹