Search results

The field of Human Resource Management (HRM) has long recognized the importance of interpersonal influence for employee and organizational effectiveness. HRM research and practice have focused primarily on individuals’ characteristics and behaviors as a means to understand “who” is influential in organizations, with substantially less attention paid to social networks. To reinvigorate a focus on network structures to explain interpersonal influence, the authors present a comprehensive account of how network structures enable and constrain influence within organizations. The authors begin by describing how power and status, two key determinants of individual influence in organizations, operate through different mechanisms, and delineate a range of network positions that yield power, reflect status, and/or capture realized influence. Then, the authors extend initial structural views of influence beyond the positions of individuals to consider how network structures within and between groups – capturing group social capital and/or shared leadership – enable and constrain groups’ ability to influence group members, other groups, and the broader organizational system. The authors also discuss how HRM may leverage these insights to facilitate interpersonal influence in ways that support individual, group, and organizational effectiveness.

Information‐use studies are vitally necessary in order to complement, challenge, and sharpen informed intuitive judgements, but even the broadest conclusions drawn from such studies need to be examined critically. The conclusions or their generality may sometimes be invalidated by special conditions in the survey sample, by the environment having been disturbed by the survey, by the interpretation given to questions or observations, or by the way the data has been analysed. These same factors make direct comparison of results from different surveys difficult, and make superficial comparisons misleading. Some comparisons and conclusions are certainly much less sound than the casual reader might suppose, particularly when results have been compressed and taken out of their context in the original survey. The difficulty of comparing information‐use surveys is well illustrated by the copious footnotes used by Menzel, Lieberman, and Dulchin in order to qualify the significance of the results which they compare.

Although existing research on cohesion provides a robust understanding of the emergent phenomenon in small groups and teams, our comprehension of cohesion at the multisystem (MTS) level is quite limited. The simultaneous within- and between-team functioning inherent in MTSs produces more intricate dynamics than those observed at the team level. This added layer of complexity requires that many familiar team constructs, including cohesion, be systematically re-conceptualized and empirically examined through the lens of MTS theory (DeChurch & Zaccaro, 2010; Hackman, 2003). The present research addresses this gap by extending the conceptualization of team cohesion to the interteam level, and empirically investigating how cohesion functions across levels in a collective network of teams. Results from preliminary research suggest that intrateam and interteam cohesion share a curvilinear relationship with one another, while simultaneously interacting to affect overall system-level outcomes. This research not only illuminates the complexities associated with emergent phenomena in MTSs, but also serves as a starting point for continued, systematic research of the multilevel cohesive bonds that characterize MTS functioning.

Multiteam systems (MTSs) have been employed across numerous organizations and occupations (e.g., healthcare, emergency disaster response, business, and military) to achieve complex goals over time. As MTSs are inherently different than team level and organizational level theories, this chapter highlights the defining features of these dynamic systems through a temporal lens. Thus, the main purpose of our chapter is to address the challenges and issues concerning MTSs over time in order to provide a future agenda to guide researchers and practitioners.

To explore temporality throughout this chapter, we leverage two key MTSs frameworks along with contributions from the literature to produce a review, which demonstrates the extent of MTS theoretical and practical findings. After reviewing the definitional components of MTSs, we highlight various compositional, linkage, and developmental attributes that operate within a system. We then expand upon these attributes to consider the structural features of the system that enhance boundaries between component teams (i.e., differentiation) and may disrupt the system over time (i.e., dynamism).

After reviewing and integrating current MTS literature, we provide a new conceptual framework for MTSs and their temporal complexities. We offer several methodologies that managers and researchers can employ to assess these complex systems and suggest practical recommendations and areas for future research as we continue to study MTSs.

Our original conceptual framework considers MTSs through a dynamic lens developing over time and suggests the need for future research to build upon this perspective.

Teams in organizations have weekly – or even daily – meetings to exchange information, generate ideas, solve problems, and make decisions. Yet, many team meetings are described as ineffective by the participants, due to either their design or dysfunctional communication practices within the meeting. To gain new insights into addressing these issues, this chapter goes back deep in history and discusses the origins and functions of group meetings. Building upon evolutionary theories of human behavior, the authors examine the evolutionary significance of meetings and the ways in which they were adaptive for our human ancestors. Drawing from this evolutionary perspective, we then compare meetings in ancestral times with their modern-day counterparts. Using evidence from (a) ethnographic studies of small-scale societies that model ancestral group life and (b) organizational and team science, we contrast the typical workplace meeting with its ancient counterpart. In this review of ancient and modern meetings, we identify meeting characteristics that have been maintained through time as well as those that are unique/new in the modern time. In doing so, we inspect to what extent meeting practices in ancestral environments are aligned or at odds with meeting practices in contemporary organizations (the notion of mismatch). From these similarities and differences, we derive novel theoretical insights for the study of workplace meetings as well as suggestions for improving contemporary meeting practice. We also include a series of testable propositions that can inform future research on team meetings in organizations.

Meetings can serve the important role of facilitating communication and coordination for systems of teams known as “multiteam systems” (MTSs) that work interdependently to achieve grand societal challenges. Given that MTSs often appear in complex, ambiguous, urgent, and multifaceted task contexts, the MTSs require effective, and efficient but thorough, communication within and between teams in order to achieve shared goals. However, the extant literature regarding the science of meetings has left much to be explored in regard to the inter- and intrateam influences and impacts. This chapter considers the significance of meetings and their practical value in facilitating MTS processes and performance by leveraging what is known thus far regarding MTS structural attributes, their value, their challenges, and opportunities, integrating this foundation with the broader science of meetings. Building on this rationale, the authors move toward empirically and theoretically derived considerations for how meetings may best be designed, facilitated and utilized for MTS effectiveness, as guided by our current understanding of critical MTS attributes.

Within the theoretical frameworks of conservation of resources and job demands-resources (JD-R), the study aims to examine how sleep deficit could be negatively related to creativity at work by depleting critical resources of creativity.

The survey data were collected from 368 individuals nested in 40 teams at a call center. The authors conducted multilevel analysis to test the proposed hypotheses to account for the hierarchical nature of the data while simultaneously estimating the effect of predictors at different levels on individual-level outcomes and maintaining the predictors' level of analysis.

Through the data, the study presents how the depletion of resource, that is, emotional exhaustion, functions as a mediating mechanism that connects sleep deficit to creativity at work. Further, the study presents that higher job demands can worsen the negative effects of resource depletion on creativity at work because they further deplete resources needed for creative behaviors. Specifically, when sleep-deprived, those working in a high-task-interdependence climate are likely to experience emotional exhaustion more severely than do those in a low-task-interdependence climate. Also, the relationship between emotional exhaustion and creativity is more negative for managers than for non-managers because of managers' higher job demands.

By presenting sleep deficit-linked inhibitors of creativity at work, the authors highlight the importance of securing sufficient sleep and affective resources when designing jobs and HR practices in organizations.

This paper addresses the call for attention to examining the mechanisms through which sleep deficit affects employee creative behavior.

As work demands have become increasingly complex, organizations and agencies are progressively turning toward larger systems comprised of teams, or multiteam systems (MTSs), to accomplish multifaceted tasks in challenging environments. Today, many organizations require these complex systems in order to achieve the dynamic goals that are required of our ever-changing world. Subsequently, MTSs have become a growing area of interest in organizational research, primarily due to their increasing prominence in organizational settings.

In this introductory chapter, our goal is to highlight a selection of existing research regarding MTSs that serves to answer the question, “What do we know about MTSs?” while also setting up the question that serves as a recurrent theme throughout this volume, “Where does our research need to go in order to better serve MTSs in practice?”

While there has been a great advancement in the area of MTSs in recent years, there is still much to be explored in terms of the challenges and opportunities that MTSs afford in practice.

It is the goal of this chapter that we will set the stage for readers interested in identifying the current trends, dynamics, and issues in MTSs in the real world for the purposes of both expanding our research and theory on MTSs as well as further building the foundation for improving their development, implementation, and effectiveness “in the wild.”

Computer‐aided systems for all four of the conventional divisions of the field of library housekeeping are now operational in libraries. In Great Britain the only activity not yet operational is that of periodicals control, although two libraries have already used a computer to produce lists of periodicals holdings. The aim of this paper is to describe simply how computer‐aided housekeeping systems work, from the point of view of the librarian, and to mention briefly some typical applications of each type of system.

The purpose of this chapter is to highlight some of the critical multiteam system (MTS) issues that are faced in healthcare by utilizing case studies that illustrate the transition of a patient through the healthcare system and suggest a possible approach to studying these issues.

The approach taken by the authors is a case study approach, which is used to illustrate the transition of a patient through several venues in a healthcare system. This approach elucidates the MTS nature of healthcare. Moreover, a methodological explanation, social network analysis (SNA), for exploring the description and analysis of MTSs in healthcare is provided.

The case study approach provides concrete examples of the complex relationship between providers caring for a single patient. The case study describes the range of shared practice in healthcare, from collaborative care within each setting to the less obvious interdependence between teams across settings. This interdependence is necessary to deliver complex care but is also a source of potential errors during care. SNA is one tool to quantify these relationships, link them to outcomes, and establish areas for future research and quality improvement efforts.

This chapter offers a unique holistic view of the transition of a patient through a healthcare system and the interdependency of care necessary to deliver care. The authors show a methodology for assessing MTSs with a discussion of utilizing SNA. This foundation may offer promise to better understand care delivery and shape programs that can lead to improvement in care.