Structure and Learning in Self-Managed Teams: Why “Bureaucratic” Teams Can Be Better Learners

References

• Adler P. S., Cummings L. L., Staw B. M. The “learning bureaucracy”: New United Motors Manufacturing, Inc.. Research in Organizational Behavior (1992) 15(JAI Press, Greenwich, CT) 111–194Google Scholar
• Adler P. S., Borys B. Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1996) 41(1):61–89Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adler P. S., Goldoftas B., Levine D. I. Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organ. Sci. (1996) 10(1):43–68Link, Google Scholar
• Alchian A. Reliability of progress curves in airframe production. Econometrica (1963) 31(4):679–693Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amabile T. M., Staw B. M., Cummings L. L. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior (1988) 10(JAI Press, Greenwich, CT) 123–167Google Scholar
• Ancona D., Caldwell D. F. Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organ. Sci. (1992) 3(3):321–341Link, Google Scholar
• Anderson N. R., West M. A. Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. J. Organ. Behav. (1998) 19(3):235–258Crossref, Google Scholar
• Argote L., Epple D. Learning curves in manufacturing. Science (1990) 247(4945):920–924Crossref, Google Scholar
• Argote L., Gruenfeld D., Naquin C., Turner M. E. Group learning in organizations. Groups at Work: Theory and Research (2001) (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ) 369–411Google Scholar
• Baer M., Frese M. Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. J. Organ. Behav. (2003) 24:45–68Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bailyn L. Autonomy in the industrial R&D laboratory. Human Res. Management (1985) 24(2):129–146Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bain P. G., Mann L., Pirola-Merlo A. The innovation imperative: The relationships between team climate, innovation, and performance in research and development teams. Small Group Res. (2001) 32(1):55–73Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bantel K. A., Jackson S. E. Top management and innovations in banking: Does the demography of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management J. (1989) 10:107–124Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barker J. R. Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1993) 38(3):408–437Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baron R. M., Kenny D. A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1986) 51(6):1173–1182Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bell B. S., Kozlowski S. W. J. Goal orientation and ability: Interactive effects on self-efficacy, performance, and knowledge. J. Appl. Psych. (2002) 87(3):497–505Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bettenhausen K. L. Five years of group research: What we have learned and what needs to be addressed. J. Management (1991) 17(2):345–381Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blau P. M.On the Nature of Organizations (1974) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) Google Scholar
• Bliese P. D., Klein K. J., Kozlowski S. W. J. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations (2000) (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco) 349–381Google Scholar
• Bresman H. External learning activities and team performance: A multimethod field study. Organ. Sci. (2010) 21(1):81–96Link, Google Scholar
• Brown G., Lawrence T. B., Robinson S. L. Territoriality in organizations. Acad. Management Rev. (2005) 30:577–594Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bunderson J. S., Sutcliffe K. M. Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. Acad. Management J. (2002a) 45(5):875–893Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bunderson J. S., Sutcliffe K. M., Sondak H. Why some teams emphasize learning more than others: Evidence from business unit management teams. Toward Phenomenology of Groups and Group Membership. Research on Managing Groups and Teams (2002b) 4(Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK) 49–84Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bunderson J. S., Sutcliffe K. M. Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. J. Appl. Psych. (2003) 88(3):552–560Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burns T., Stalker G. M.The Management of Innovation (1961) (Tavistock, London) Google Scholar
• Child J. Organization structure and strategies of control: A replication of the Aston study. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1972) 17(2):163–177Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen J., Cohen P., West S. G., Aiken L. S.Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2003) 3rd ed.(Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ) Google Scholar
• Comstock D. E., Scott W. R. Technology and the structure of subunits: Distinguishing individual and workgroup effects. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1977) 22(2):177–202Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cummings J. N. Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Sci. (2004) 50(3):352–364Link, Google Scholar
• Damanpour F. Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Acad. Management J. (1991) 34(3):555–590Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Dreu C. K. W., West M. A. Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision-making. J. Appl. Psych. (2001) 86(6):1191–1201Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drach-Zahavy A., Somech A. Understanding team innovation: The role of team processes and structures. Group Dynam.: Theory, Res. Practice (2001) 5(2):111–123Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drazin R., Nicholson N., Schuler R., Van de Ven A. H. Differentiation. The Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Organizational Behavior (1995) 137(Blackwell, Cambridge, MA) 137Google Scholar
• Edmondson A. C. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1999) 44(2):350–383Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edmondson A. C. The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective. Organ. Sci. (2002) 13(2):128–146Link, Google Scholar
• Edmondson A. C., Kramer R. M., Cook K. S. Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches (2004) (Russell Sage Foundation, New York) 239–272Google Scholar
• Edmondson A. C., Dillon J. R., Roloff K. S., Walsh J. P., Brief A. P. Three perspectives on team learning: Outcome improvement, task mastery, and group process. The Academy of Management Annuals (2007) (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New York) 269–314Google Scholar
• Edmondson A. C., Winslow A. B., Bohmer R. M. J., Pisano G. P. Learning how and learning what: Effects of tacit and codified knowledge on performance improvement following technology adoption. Decision Sci. (2003) 34(2):197–224Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elliott E. S., Dweck C. S. Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1988) 54(1):5–12Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellis A. P. J., Hollenbeck J. R., Ilgen D. R., Porter C. O. L. H., West B. J., Moon H. Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots. J. Appl. Psych. (2003) 88(5):821–835Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fry L. W., Slocum J. W. Technology, structure, and workgroup effectiveness: A test of a contingency model. Acad. Management J. (1984) 27(2):221–246Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gibson C., Vermuelen F. A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Admin. Sci. Quart. (2003) 48(2):202–239Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gist M. E., Locke E. A., Taylor M. S. Organizational behavior: Group structure, process, and effectiveness. J. Management (1987) 13(2):237–257Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gladstein D. L. Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1984) 29(4):499–517Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grinyer P. H., Yasai-Ardekani M. Dimensions of organizational structure: A critical replication. Acad. Management J. (1980) 23(3):405–421Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall R. H.Organizations: Structures, Processes, and Outcomes (1999) 7th ed.(Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ) Google Scholar
• Hrebiniak L. G. Job technology, supervision, and work-group structure. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1974) 19(3):395–410Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hulin C., Cudeck R. Cronbach's alpha on two-item scales. J. Consumer Psych. (2001) 10(1–2):55Crossref, Google Scholar
• James L. R., Demaree R. G., Wolf G. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. J. Appl. Psych. (1984) 69(1):85–98Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jehn K. A. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1995) 40(2):256–282Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jehn K. A., Mannix E. A. The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Acad. Management J. (2001) 44(2):238–251Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kanter R. M., Staw B. M., Cummings L. L. When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior (1988) 10(JAI Press, Greenwich, CT) 169–211Google Scholar
• Katz R. The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1982) 27(1):81–104Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keck S. L., Tushman M. L. Environmental and organizational context and executive team structure. Acad. Management J. (1993) 36(6):1314–1344Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kolb D. A.Experiential Learning (1984) (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) Google Scholar
• Langfred C. W. The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Acad. Management J. (2007) 80(4):885–900Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larson J. R., Christensen C., Franz T. M., Abbott A. S. Diagnosing groups: The pooling, management, and impact of shared and unshared case information in team-based medical decision making. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1998a) 75(1):93–108Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larson J. R., Foster-Fishman P. G., Franz T. M. Leadership style and the discussion of shared and unshared information in decision-making groups. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. (1998b) 24(5):482–495Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lawrence P. R., Lorsch J. W. Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1967) 12(1):1–47Crossref, Google Scholar
• LePine J. A. Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: Effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. J. Appl. Psych. (2005) 90(6):1153–1167Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lerner J. S., Tetlock P. E. Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psych. Bull. (1999) 125(2):255–275Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levine J. M., Moreland R. L. Progress in small group research. Annual Res. Psych. (1990) 41:585–634Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liang D. W., Moreland R. L., Argote L. Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality Soc. Psych. Bull. (1995) 21(4):384–393Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacKinnon D. P., Lockwood C. M., Hoffman J. M., West S. G., Sheets V. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psych. Methods (2002) 7(1):83–104Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mathieu J. E., Heffner T. S., Goodwin G. F., Salas E., Cannon-Bowers J. A. The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. J. Appl. Psych. (2000) 85(2):273–283Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meyer M. W. The two authority structures of bureaucratic organization. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1968) 13(2):211–228Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moreland R. L., Thompson L. L., Levine J. M., Messick D. M. Transactive memory: Learning who knows what in work groups and organizations. Shared Cognition in Organizations: The Management of Knowledge (1999) (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ) 3–31Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moreland R. L., Myaskovsky L. Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory or improved communication? Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (2000) 82(1):117–133Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moreland R. L., Argote L., Krishnan R., Nye J. L., Brower A. M. Socially shared cognition at work: Transactive memory and group performance. What's Social About Social Cognition (1996) (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) 57–84Google Scholar
• Nembhard I. M., Edmondson A. C. Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. J. Organ. Behav. (2006) 27(7):941–966Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nemeth C. J., Kwan J. L. Minority influence, divergent thinking and detection of correct solutions. J. Appl. Soc. Psych. (1987) 17(9):786–797Crossref, Google Scholar
• Perrow C.Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay (1986) 3rd ed.(McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• Pierce J. L., Delbecq A. L. Organization structure, individual attitudes and innovation. Acad. Management Rev. (1977) 2(1):27–37Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pierce J. L., Kostova T., Dirks K. T. The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Rev. General Psych. (2003) 7(1):84–107Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pisano G. P., Bohmer R. M. J., Edmondson A. C. Organizational differences in rates of learning: Evidence from the adoption of minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Management Sci. (2001) 47(6):752–768Link, Google Scholar
• Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Lee J.-Y., Podsakoff N. P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psych. (2003) 88(5):879–903Crossref, Google Scholar
• Preacher K. J., Hayes A. F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods (2008) 40(3):879–891Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pugh D. S., Hickson D. J.Organizational Structure in Its Context: The Aston Program I (1976) (Saxton House, Farnborough, Hants, UK) Google Scholar
• Pugh D. S., Hickson D. J.Writers on Organizations (1989) 4th ed.(Sage, Newbury Park, CA) Google Scholar
• Pugh D. S., Hickson D. J., Hinings C. R., Turner C. Dimensions of organization structure. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1968) 13(1):65–105Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reagans R., Argote L., Brooks D. Individual experience and experience working together: Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Management Sci. (2005) 51(6):869–881Link, Google Scholar
• Sackett P. R., Larson J. R., Dunnette M. D., Hough L. M. Research strategies and tactics in industrial and organizational psychology. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (1990) 12nd ed.(Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA) 419–489Google Scholar
• Schippers M. C., Den Hartog D. N., Koopman P. L., Wienk J. A. Diversity and team outcomes: The moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity and the mediating effect of reflexivity. J. Organ. Behav. (2003) 24(6):779–802Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scott W. R.Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems (1987) 2nd ed.(Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) Google Scholar
• Shaw M. E.Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Behavior (1976) (McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• Sitkin S. B., Roth N. L. Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “remedies” for trust/distrust. Organ. Sci. (1993) 4(3):367–392Link, Google Scholar
• Stasser G., Stewart D. D., Wittenbaum G. M. Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. (1995) 31(3):244–265Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stewart D. D., Stasser G. Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective recall and decision making. J. Personality Soc. Psych. (1995) 69(4):619–628Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stewart G. L., Barrick M. R. Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Acad. Management J. (2000) 43(2):135–148Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tata J., Prasad S. Team self-management, organizational structure, and judgments of team effectiveness. J. Managerial Issues (2004) 16(2):248–265Google Scholar
• Thompson V. A. Bureaucracy and innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1965) 10(1):1–20Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van de Ven A. H., Delbecq A. L. A task contingent model of work-unit structure. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1974) 19(2):183–197Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van de Ven A. H., Ferry D. L.Measuring and Assessing Organizations (1980) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) Google Scholar
• Van der Vegt G. S., Bunderson J. S. Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Acad. Management J. (2005) 48(3):532–547Crossref, Google Scholar
• VandeWalle D. Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational Psych. Measurement (1997) 57(6):995–1015Crossref, Google Scholar
• VandeWalle D., Brown S. P., Cron W. L., Slocum J. W. The influence of goal orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field test. J. Appl. Psych. (1999) 84(2):249–259Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wageman R., Hackman J. R., Lehman E. Team diagnostic survey: Development of an instrument. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. (2005) 41(4):373–398Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wanous J. P., Hudy M. J. Single-item reliability: A replication and extension. Organ. Res. Methods (2001) 4(4):361–375Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wanous J. P., Reichers A. E., Hudy M. J. Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? J. Appl. Psych. (1997) 82(2):247–252Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weber M., Henderson A. M., Parsons T.The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (1947) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Wellins R. S., Byham W. C., Wilson J. M.Empowered Teams: Creating Self-Directed Work Groups that Improve Quality, Productivity, and Participation (1991) (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco) Google Scholar
• West M. A., Anderson N. R. Innovation in top management teams. J. Appl. Psych. (1996) 81(6):680–693Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams K. Y., O'Reilly C. A., Cummings L. L., Staw B. M. Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Res. Organ. Behav. (1998) 20(JAI Press, Greenwich, CT) 77–140Google Scholar
• Zellmer-Bruhn M., Gibson C. Multinational organizational context: Implications for team learning and performance. Acad. Management J. (2006) 49(3):501–518Crossref, Google Scholar