Search results

This study aims to investigate the role of minority dissent (MD) as an antecedent for task (TC) and relationship conflict (RC) in groups engaged in multiparty collaboration. The authors hypothesized that MD triggers both TC and RC and that the association between MD and RC is mediated by TC. Moreover, the authors hypothesized that the positive association between MD and RC is attenuated by social acceptance, while the positive association between TC and RC is attenuated by trust.

The authors have tested the hypotheses in 36 groups comprising in total 145 professionals that attended a two-day workshop on working across organizational boundaries and who filled in three surveys during a multiparty simulation. The authors used multilevel mediation analyses to test the hypotheses.

The results generally supported the role of MD as an antecedent for both TC and RC as well as the mediating role of TC in the relationship between MD and RC. The attenuating role of social acceptance in the relationship between MD and RC was fully supported, while the attenuating role of trust in the relationship between TC and RC was not supported.

This study is based on a rather small sample and used a cross-lagged data collection design, and no causal claims can be derived from the findings. Behavioral multiparty simulations create a realistic context in which the authors investigate the dynamics of conflict transformation and explore the interplay of MD, TC and RC.

As nowadays, multiparty systems are engaged in dealing with important societal challenges and because RC is detrimental for collaborative effectiveness, the results have important implications for facilitating effective collaboration in such complex systems.

This study makes an important contribution to the literature on conflict in multiparty systems by showing that as an antecedent of intragroup conflict, MD can have both a beneficial as well as a detrimental impact on the conflict dynamics of multiparty systems. It points out the importance of social acceptance as a buffer against the detrimental role of MD.

This paper aims to report the development of the multiparty collaborative leadership scale (MCLS) that assesses four dimensions of collaborative leadership that have been defined in the literature regarding the functions of collaborative leadership in intra- and interorganizational settings.

The authors have tested the validity and reliability of the MCLS in a sample of 110 managers and professionals who participated in five multiparty collaboration workshops, each lasting for two days. The authors used multilevel analyses to test the construct, discriminant and predictive validity of the MCLS.

The results generally supported the reliability and validity of the MCLS. The scale has good internal consistency and in terms of validation, the authors show that MCLS negatively predicts the conflictuality and positively predicts the collaborativeness of the leading party as well as trust in the multiparty system and its entitativity.

The MCLS can be used to extend literature on collaborative leadership and generate insights on the antecedents and consequences of effective collaborative leadership in multiparty systems.

Multiparty systems are set to deal with important societal challenges and mediators involved in multiparty issues are asked to settle important international disputes and conflicts. Understanding collaborative leadership in such systems and its role in establishing effective multiparty collaboration is key. The MCLS can be used as a research instrument and as a development tool toward realizing much-needed collaboration.

The authors present a first attempt to develop a short scale to assess collaborative leadership in complex systems in which participating stakeholders lack position power.

The purpose of this study is to explore whether a group dynamics perspective still exists in the scientific study of groups and what factors may account for the current situation.

Alongside reflections based on my professional experience, I have analyzed the main academic journals that publish group research.

A group dynamics perspective is almost totally absent in the scientific study of groups. Contributing factors to this state of affairs are disciplinary developments in psychology (e.g. individualization, experimentalization and specialization), the demise of the status of psychoanalysis, changes in the meaning and manifestation of the “group,” and effects of New Public Management.

The study offers a critical perspective on current group research practices and considers these in a larger (social and historical) context. It advocates a group dynamics perspective for the study of groups, based on systems-psychodynamic insights.

This paper aims to address the group dynamics that evolve when representatives from various organizations come together to develop and work on a joint goal. Its aim is to share the author’s learnings when it concerns the understanding of the group dynamics of interorganizational relationships and the development of collaboration between these organizations.

The perspective taken draws on social and organizational psychology, systems psychodynamics and organization development.

The paper concludes with reflections on generic learnings about collaboration, its dynamics and its development.

Various action research projects are presented that have been conducted in different sectors.

The purpose of this paper is to test the influence of collaborative and consultative decision rules on groups’ sensitivity to framing effect (FE) and escalation of commitment (EOC).

In an experimental study (using a sample of 233 professionals with project management experience), the authors test the effects of collaborative and consultative decision rules on groups’ sensitivity to EOC and FE. The authors use four group decision-making tasks to evaluate decision consistency across gain/loss framed decision situations and six decision tasks to evaluate EOC for money as well as time as resources previously invested in the initial decisions.

The results show that the collaborative decision rule increases sensitivity to EOC when financial resources are involved and decreases sensitivity to EOC when time is of essence. Moreover, the authors show that the collaborative decision rule decreases sensitivity to FE in group decision making.

The results have important implications for group rationality as an emergent group level competence by extending the insights concerning the impact of decision rules on emergent group level cognitive competencies. Due to the experimental nature of the design, the authors can probe the causal relations between the investigated variables, yet the authors cannot generalize the results to other settings.

Managers can use the insights of this study in order to optimize the functioning of decision-making groups and to reduce their sensitivity to FEs and EOC.

The study extends the research on group rationality and it is one of the few experimental attempts used to understand the role of decision rules on emergent group level rationality.

The paper aims to describe and understand the gap between the psychodynamic literature on groups and the social psychological perspective on group dynamics.

As Wilfred Bion is the most influential group dynamics representative of the psychodynamic tradition the authors performed a citation analysis of Bion's work to find out whether it influenced the social psychological research on group dynamics. They compared three domains of literature: therapy/clinical, management/organization studies and social psychology. Moreover, they depict (by drawing on interviews with European pioneers in social psychology) the historical context in which European social psychology developed to explain the gap between the psychodynamic and social psychological approaches in the study of group dynamics.

The results clearly indicate the existence of a gap between the social psychological and psychodynamic perspectives on group dynamics. Moreover, the authors show that Bion did influence scholars studying or working with real-life groups and is cited more by American than European scholars. The attempt to build a legitimate scientific identity for social psychology provides a context for understanding of the neglect of the psychodynamic tradition.

The authors conclude by exploring ways in which the psychodynamic tradition may fertilize the social psychological tradition in studying groups.

The paper is one of the first to address the discrepancy between the social psychological and psychodynamic perspectives in the study of group dynamics.

In the implementation of integrated care, the role of managers is important and their mutual collaboration should be addressed more visibly. The purpose of this study was to investigate how cross-boundary collaboration is constructed in the discourse of middle-level managers in health and social care.

The study was based on a discursive approach. Group discussions with three groups of Finnish middle managers (n = 39) were analyzed using discourse analysis.

Five ways of talking about cross-boundary collaboration were identified, labeled “ideal”, “structure”, “defence”, “money” and “support” discourses. In the ideal discourse, cross-boundary collaboration appeared as a “good thing” and is self-evident. Structural discourse defined managers as passive actors in self-sustaining entities. Defensive discourse highlighted the problems of cross-boundary collaboration and the hierarchy within the health and social sectors. Financial discourse constituted the ultimate obstacle to successful cross-boundary collaboration, and both strengthened and explained defensive discourse. Supportive discourse portrayed other managers as partners and as an important resource.

Cross-boundary collaboration can be experienced as a resource, helping managers cope with their workload. However, identification of and continuous attention to challenges at macro, meso and micro levels of integrated care is crucial for successful collaboration. Thus, critical discussion of collaboration needs to be given space.

The study design and discursive approach highlights the power of language and give voice to middle managers who are key actors when implementing integrated care.

Based on an experience, the paper aims to describe how group dynamics can play out in a traditional classroom setting and reflect on how the author worked with these dynamics from a systems psychodynamic perspective.

The experience involved teaching a two-day module on group dynamics to a class of 35 mature students enrolled in a business school. The author tried to create a space to understand and work with here-and-now dynamics as the module progressed.

Frustration grew among the students regarding the time spent on discussion and reflection. The group was split in two, with one subgroup opening up to experiencing and reflecting on the dynamics, whereas the other subgroup grew more frustrated and demanded that the author take up his authority. Apart from attempting to work with the dynamics, the author introduced relevant concepts and theories that could help to understand the dynamics. The group was characterized by an emotional climate of dependency while students projected hitherto unexplored frustrations onto the lecturer. Although the conditions for experiential learning were far from optimal, the group did experience group dynamics and did engage in reviewing their experiences. Learning did take place, although the depth varied among individuals.

Reflections are provided on the (im)possibilities of learning about group dynamics at business schools. Suggestions are given how to create conditions for experiential learning in management education.

This paper aims to introduce and illustrate the notion of narcissistic group dynamics. It is claimed that narcissism does not simply reside within individuals but can be characteristic of groups and social systems. In this case, the focus is on narcissistic dynamics in multiparty systems.

Social psychological understandings of group narcissism are complemented with notions from psychoanalysis. A systems-psychodynamic perspective, informed by psychoanalysis and systems theory, is adopted.

Narcissistic group dynamics in a multiparty context are illustrated by observations from a two-day simulation of interorganizational relationships that is called “The Yacht Club” (Vansina et al., 1998).

In the social psychological literature, narcissism thus far has been largely understood as the prevalence of feelings of ingroup superiority vis-à-vis a particular outgroup. Sometimes the term narcissism is explicitly used, in other cases not, for example in social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979), a theory that is built on group members’ need to regulate self-esteem. Psychoanalysts adopt an individualistic perspective while aiming to understand the underlying dynamics resulting in narcissism. A cross-fertilization of social psychological and psychoanalytic perspectives results in deindividualizing and depathologizing narcissism and a deeper understanding of the dynamics of (inter)group narcissism.

As normative interventions (NIs) have been claimed to be effective in improving decision quality in groups, the aim of the paper is to address the effectiveness of NIs in ad hoc and established groups across several task domains.

Three experimental studies were conducted to test the effects of NIs on collective cognition, group rationality, and decision quality.

The first experimental study (58 groups) compared the effects of NIs on the emergence of group level cognitive structures. The results show that NIs lead to higher group cognitive complexity in established rather than in ad hoc groups. The second study tests the effects of NIs on group rationality (as emergent group competence) in a sample of 40 established groups and shows that NIs have synergic effects and foster group rationality. In the third study the insights of the first two studies are extended to a more realistic decision task performed by groups of managers. The results of the last study show that decision quality is higher in groups that received NIs as compared to groups that did not receive NIs.

The results contribute to the group cognition literature by showing the synergic effects of NIs.

The results show that NIs are simple and effective ways of improving information processing and decision quality in established decision‐making groups.

NIs help in achieving better decisions throughout society.

The paper is the first comprehensive test of the impact of NIs on group information processing across several cognitive tasks and the first to explore group rationality as an emergent group‐level competence.