Efectos de la continuidad y del cambio de miembros sobre la eficacia productiva de los equipos de trabajo

  1. Alcover de la Hera, Carlos María
  2. Gil Rodríguez, Francisco
Journal:
Revista de psicología del trabajo y de las organizaciones = Journal of work and organizational psychology

ISSN: 1576-5962

Year of publication: 1998

Volume: 14

Issue: 1

Pages: 33-50

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Revista de psicología del trabajo y de las organizaciones = Journal of work and organizational psychology

Abstract

The requirements of flexibility and change that environments demand nowadays to organiza-tional activities may have an impact on work teams, such as the conditions for continuity and change of their members. Traditional psychosocial research has paid substantial attention tostatic arrangement of groups. Nevertheless, most of the features of the dynamics of affiliationin work teams remain unknown yet. This paper make use of a longitudinal method to find outthe influence of continuity-and-change patterns of members on work teams productivity asmeasured by the quantity and quality of products. Four teams, four people each, worked foreight weeks, under different conditions of continuity and change of members, on real problemsolving tasks. These consisted on the production of several options, the most suitable and fea-sible among which had to be chosen by each team according to their understanding. Resultsshow a higher productivity of those teams having changes in their composition as comparedwith those being stable. Implications are discussed concerning organizational decisions aboutthe degree of rigidity or flexibility in building work teams, and its influence on performance

Bibliographic References

  • ALCOVER, C. M. (1997). Equipos de trabajo y relaciones laborales: Una aproximación psicosocial. Studia Carande, 1, 363- 3 8 6 .
  • ANCONA, D. G. (1987). Groups in organizations: Extending laboratory models. En C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group Processes and Intergroup Relations (pp. 207-230). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • ANCONA, D. G. (1993). The classics and the contemporary: A new blend of small group theory. En J. K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social Psychology in Organizations. Advances in Theory and Research ( p p . 225-243). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeH a l l .
  • ANDERSON, N. y THOMAS, H. D. C. (1996). Work group socialization. En M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology (pp. 423-450). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
  • ARGOTE, L. y EPPLE, D. (1990). Learning curves in manufacturing. S c i e n c e , 247, 920-924.
  • ARGOTE, L., INSKO, C. A., YOVETICH, N. y ROMERO, A .A. (1995). Group learning curves: The effects of turnover and task complexity on group performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2 5 , 5 1 2 5 2 9 .
  • ARGOTE, L. y McGRATH, J. E. (1993). Group processes in organizations: Continuity and change. En C. L. Cooper e I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 (pp. 333-389). Londres: John Wiley & Sons.
  • ARROW, H. (1997). Stability, bistability, and instability in small group influence patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 75-85.
  • ARROW, H. y McGRATH, J. E. (1993). Membership matters: How member change and continuity affect small group structure, process, and performance. Small Group Research, 24, 334-361.
  • ARROW, H. y McGRATH, J. E. (1995). Membership dynamics in groups at work: A theoretical framework. En B. M. Staw y L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Orga nizational Behavior, Vol. 17 (pp. 373-411). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • AYESTARÁN, S. y CERRATO, J. (1996). La creación de equipos de trabajo en las organizaciones. En S. Ayestarán (Ed.), E l Grupo como Construcción Social (pp. 235- 249). Barcelona: Plural.
  • BRODBECK, F. C. (1996). Criteria for the study of work group functioning. En M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psy chology (pp. 285-316). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
  • CAMPION, M. A., MEDSKER, G. J. y HIGGS, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 4 6 , 8 2 3 8 5 0 .
  • CAMPION, M. A., PAPPER, E. M. y MEDSKER, G. J. (1996). Relations betwe- en work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. P e r s o n nel Psychology, 49, 429-452.
  • CANNON-BOWERS, J. A., OSER, R. y FLANAGAN, L. (1992). Work teams in industry: A selected review and proposed framework. En R. W. Swezey y E. Salas (Eds.), Teams. Their Training and Perfor mance (pp. 355-377). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • CARLEY, K. (1992). Organizational learning and personnel turnover. O r g a n i z a t i o n Science, 3, 20-46.
  • COHEN, S. G. y LEDFORD, G. E. y SPREITZER, G. M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49, 643-676.
  • DARR, E., ARGOTE, L. y EPPLE, D. (1995). The acquisition, transfer and depre- ciation of knowledge in service organizations: Productivity in franchises. M a n a g e ment Science, 41, 1750-1762.
  • GERSICK, C. J. G. y HACKMAN, J. R. (1990). Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 65-97.
  • GLADSTEIN, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 4 9 9 5 1 7 .
  • GONZÁLEZ, M. P., SILVA, M. y CORNEJO, J. M. (1996). Equipos de Trabajo Efectivos. Barcelona: EUB.
  • GUZZO, R. A. (1996). Fundamental considerations about work groups. En M. West (Ed.), Handbook of Group Work Psycho logy (pp. 3-21). Chichester: John Wiley & S o n s .
  • GUZZO, R. A. y DICKSON, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307- 338.
  • GUZZO, R. A. y SHEA, G. P. (1992). Group Performance and Intergroup Relations in Organizations. En M. D. Dunnette y L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Indus trial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3 (2ª ed., pp. 269-313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  • HACKMAN, J. R. (1990). Introduction: Work teams in organizations: An orienting framework. En J. R. Hackman (Ed.), Groups That Work (and Those That Don’t). Creating Conditions for Effective Team work (pp. 1-14). San Francisco, CA: Joss e y B a s s .
  • HYATT, D. E. y RUDDY, T. M. (1997). An examination of the relationship between work group characteristics and performance: Once more into the breech. P e r s o n n e l P s y c h o l o g y , 50, 553-585.
  • KATZ, R. (1982). The effects of group lon- gevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quar terly, 27, 81-104.
  • KRUEGER, R. A. (1988). El Grupo de Discusión. Guía Práctica para la Investi gación Aplicada. Madrid: Pirámide, 1991.
  • LEVINE, J. M. y MORELAND, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585-634.
  • LEVINE, J. M. y MORELAND, R. L. (1994). Group socialization: Theory and research. European Review of Social Psy chology, 5, 305-336.
  • McGRATH, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interac tion and Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • McGRATH, J. E. (1993). Introduction. The JEMCO Workshop-description of a longitudinal study. Small Group Research, 2 4 , 2 8 5 3 0 6 .
  • McGRATH, J. E., BERDAHL, J. L. y ARROW, H. (1995). Traits, expectations, culture, and clout: The dynamics of diversity in work groups. En S. E. Jackson y M. M. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in Work Teams. Research Paradigms for a chan ging Workplace (pp. 17-45). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • McGRATH, J. E. Y GRUENFELD, D. H. (1993). Toward a dynamic and systemic theory of groups: An integration of six tem- porally enriched perspectives. En M. Cheemers y R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership The ory and Research: Perspectives and Directions (pp. 217-243). Nueva York: Academic Press.
  • McGRATH, J. E. y O’CONNOR, K. M. (1996). Temporal issues in work groups. En M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of Group Work Psychology (pp. 25-52). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
  • MORELAND, R. L. (1987). The formation of small groups. En C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group Processes (pp. 80-110). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • MORELAND, R. L. y LEVINE, J. M. (1982). Socialization in small groups: Temporal changes in individual-groups relations. En L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experi mental Social Psychology, Vol. 15 (pp. 137- 192). Nueva York: Academic Press.
  • MORELAND, R. L. y LEVINE, J. M. (1988). Group Dynamics Over Time: Development and Socialization in Small Groups. En J. E. McGrath (Ed.), The Social Psychology of Time. New Perspectives (pp. 151-181). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • MORELAND, R. L. y LEVINE, J. M. (1989). Newcomers and oldtimers in small groups. En P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of Group Influence (2ª ed., pp. 143-186). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • MORELAND, R. L. y LEVINE, J. M. (1992). The composition of small groups. En E. Lawler, B. Markovsky, C. Ridgeway y H. Walker (Eds.), Advances in Group Process, Vol. 9 (pp. 237-280). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
  • MORELAND, R. L., LEVINE, J. M. y WINGERT, M. L. (1996). Creating the ideal group: Composition effects at work. En E. Witte y J. H. Davis (Eds.), U n d e r s t a n d i n g Group Behavior. Vol. 2. Small Group Pro cesses and Interpersonal Relations (pp. 11- 36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • SALANOVA, M., PRIETO, F. y PEIRÓ, J. M. (1996). Grupos de trabajo. En J. M. Peiró y F. Prieto (Eds.), Tratado de Psicología del Trabajo, Vol II: Aspectos Psicosociales del Trabajo (pp. 101-136). Madrid: Síntesis.
  • SALAS, E., DICKINSON, T. L., CONVERSE, S. A. y TANNENBAUM, S. I. (1992). Toward an Understanding of Team Performance and Training. En R. W. Swezey y E. Salas (Eds.), Teams. Their Trai ning and Performance (pp. 3-29). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • SHULMAN, A. D. (1996). Putting group information technology in its place: Communication and good work group performance. En S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy y W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of Organi zational Studies (pp. 357-374). Londres: S a g e .
  • SIMMEL, G. (1908). Sociología. E s t u d i o s sobre las Formas de Socialización, Vol II. Madrid: Revista de Occidente, 1977.
  • SMITH, V. (1997). New forms of work organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 315-339.
  • STAW, B. M. (1980). The consequences of turnover. Journal of Occupational Beha vior, 1, 253-273.
  • SUNDSTROM, E., DE MEUSE, K. P. y FUTRELL, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psy chologist, 45, 120-133.
  • TANNENBAUM, S. I., BEARD, R. L. y SALAS, E. (1992). Team building and its influence on team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. En K. Kelley (Ed.), I s s u e s , Theory, and Research in Industrial/ Organizational Psychology (pp. 117- 153). North Holland: Elsevier Science.
  • TSCHAN, F. y VON CRANACH, M. (1996). Group task structure, processes, and outcome. En M. A. West (Ed.), H a n d book of Work Group Psychology (pp. 95- 121). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
  • WELDON, E. y WEINGART, L. R. (1993). Group goals and group performance. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 307-334.
  • WORCHEL, S. (1996). Las estaciones de la vida grupal... y su impacto en la conducta intergrupal. En J. F. Morales, D. Páez, J. C. Deschamps y S. Worchel (Eds.), Identidad Social: Aproximaciones Psicosociales a los Grupos y a las Rela ciones Entre Grupos (pp. 287-321). Valencia: Promolibro.
  • ZILLER, R. C. (1965). Toward a theory of open and closed groups. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Bulletin, 64, 164-182.
  • ZILLER, R. C. (1977). Group dialectics: The dynamics of groups over time. H u m a n Development, 20, 293-308.
  • ZILLER, R. C., BEHRINGER, R. D. y GOODCHILDS, J. D. (1962). Group creativity under conditions of sucess or failure and variations in group stability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 43-49.
  • ZILLER, R. C., BEHRINGER, R. D. y JANSEN, M. J. (1961). The newcomer in open and closed groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45, 55-68.
Data source: Dialnet