Literature Review

 < Day Day Up > 



Background

Research on group development in the social psychological literature seems relevant to team-building. Two group development models, sequential and non-sequential models, can be used to categorize group development (Chidambaram & Bostrom, 1996). Sequential group development models posit unitary development sequences or patterns which groups pass through during the course of their life cycles. Nonsequential models focus on underlying factors that cause shifts in group development.

However, prefixed sequences or patterns of group development in the sequential models are not supported by some studies and theories, such as the Adaptive Structuration Theory (AST) (e.g., DeSanctis & Poole, 1994), and Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP) Theory (McGrath, 1990, 1991). Hence, the prefixed group development patterns are still a matter of debate (Hare, 1992). As a result, the proposed theoretical framework cannot be based on the research literature of group development.

Some field studies in social psychology and some consultation work in team diagnosis may provide useful insights for team-building. Dyer (1987) finds out that an effective and well built up team has clear overall goals, appropriate materials and member qualifications, and appropriate leadership for implementation. Most prior research in social psychology studies teams as closed systems (cf. Hackman, Brousseau & Weiss, 1976; McGrath, 1984; Sundstrom & Altman, 1989), but many current teams are open systems with members and their interactions beyond teams' borders. After a three-year study of real-world teams, Larson and LaFasto (1989) identify eight properties of effectively functioning teams: a clear and elevating goal, a results-driven structure, competent team members, unified commitment, a collaborative climate, standards of excellence, external support and recognition, and principled leadership.

In summary, the review on field studies in social psychology and on consultation work in team diagnosis indicates that team-building exercises should be conducted to help team members keep in touch with their thoughts and feelings, which is the key to team-building (e.g., Lau, 1988a, 1988b; Orpen, 1986).

Further, relevant theoretical perspectives of GSS are reviewed. Some theories, such as AST theory, TIP theory, communication theories (e.g., Bormann, 1980; Daft & Lengel, 1986), and institutional theories (e.g., Markus & Robey, 1988; Perrow, 1986; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), have inadequacies because of missing elements (DeSanctis, 1993). For example, they fail to specifically address issues of diversity of group membership or the common basis of a team.

In addition, the above theories are largely influenced by organization theories (DeSanctis, 1993), which are in turn based on an "I" or "We" paradigm (Etzioni, 1988). These two paradigms represent different theoretical views and result in tensions between the role of the individual versus social good, the role of rationality versus emotion and values, and the role of authority versus cooperation (Etzioni, 1988; Miller & O'Leary, 1989; Perrow, 1986). The "I" paradigm has been dominant in GSS research for the last decade (e.g., Easton, Vogel, & Nunamaker, 1989; Watson, DeSanctis, & Poole, 1988) while there is a growing interest in the "We" paradigm. However, neither "I" nor "We" paradigm alone is an ideal theoretical foundation; a combination of the two, i.e., the "I & We" paradigm (Etzioni, 1988) that recognizes mutually dependent forces of personal freedom and collective action, may be a better choice (DeSanctis, 1993). Therefore, the "I & We" paradigm is targeted as a theoretical guideline for deriving our team-building framework in this chapter.

Dialogue: A Theoretical Team-Building Perspective

Dialogue perspective (e.g., Bohm, 1990; Isaacs, 1993, 1994; Schein, 1993) provides a theoretical foundation for deriving the team-building framework. It helps build up a team that can generate shared team meanings (Bohm, 1990) and whose members can think together (Schein, 1993). Conceptually, shared team meanings include shared team values, goals, and experiences, which actually overlap with the concept of the common basis of a team (Borgatta & Borgatta, 1992). Thinking together as a team should have a shared common basis as the precursor. Hence, dialogue theoretical perspective can help a team to build up a common basis for thinking together.

Dialogue theoretical perspective largely originates from the work of three twentieth-century thinkers: Buber (1988), DeMaré (1991), and Bohm (1985). The word "dialogue" comes from the Greek dialogos: logos means "the word" and dia means "through." Dialogue is a stream of meaning of word(s) flowing among us and through us and between us (Bohm, 1985), out of which form meanings that are genuinely shared by all team members. It is such a shared meaning that is the "cement" holding team members together (Bohm, 1990).

An important goal of dialogue is to reveal incoherence within people's thoughts. Dialogue can enable a team to achieve a higher level of consciousness and creativity not at the expense of personal freedom and interest (Schein, 1993). Dialogue can help team members to keep in touch with their thoughts and feelings, which is the key to team-building (e.g., Lau 1988a, 1988b; Orpen, 1986) as discussed in the literature review.

Three main attributes of dialogue are "container," "suspension," and "laser." A container can be understood as the sum of assumptions, shared intentions, and beliefs in a team (Isaacs 1993). "To suspend something is, ..., to keep it 'hanging in front of you,' constantly accessible for questioning and observation" (Bohm, 1990). The power of a team (after going through a dialogue) could metaphorically be described as laser. Laser produces a very intense beam which is coherent, and the light waves build up strength because they are all going toward the same direction, and the beam can do all sorts of things that ordinary light cannot (Bohm, 1990).

A big container is necessary for creating a climate and a set of explicit or implicit norms that permit people to handle "hot issues" without getting burned (Schein, 1993). A big container that can include all kinds of ideas, beliefs, and comments can avoid or at least reduce human being's "defensive behavior" (Argyris, 1985). Defensive behaviors prevent team members from keeping in touch with their thoughts and feelings, and thus dampen team cohesion and trust. Further, suspension is important for resolving problems of the very nature of human being's thought, because thought often deludes us into a view that "this is the way it is" (Bohm, 1990), which prevents us from a deeper questioning and observation of an event. To minimize defensive behavior and encourage the deeper questioning and observation, "psychological safety," provided by the container and suspension of dialogue, is very important (Schein, 1993).

The Dialogue Project conducted at MIT has adopted and developed this dialogue theoretical perspective, and conducted a series of field studies to explore its impacts. The research done at MIT, reporting some positive research findings, has also provided an operational procedure, consisting of eight steps, for conducting a face-to-face dialogue (e.g., Schein, 1993), on which this research is mainly based. This dialogue procedure will be adopted and elaborated in the next section.

Research has shown that dialogue procedure eventually leads a team to a high level of team consciousness, out of which forms team meanings that are genuinely shared (Bohm, 1990). Further, all dynamics of team-building (e.g., the four basic elements of a team discussed in the introduction) occur in parallel with the process of conducting a dialogue, and therefore, dialogue is the root for any effective team (Schein, 1993). Correspondingly, the dialogue theoretical perspective with its procedure may form a good basis for supporting team-building.



 < Day Day Up > 



Advanced Topics in Global Information Management (Vol. 3)
Trust in Knowledge Management and Systems in Organizations
ISBN: 1591402204
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 2003
Pages: 207

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net