Expert answer:Read and Summarize Case Study AND ANSWER QUESTIONS
Expert answer:The report is exactly 2 full pages long (12-point, Times New Roman, 1-point margins, double-spaced), not including cover page and references page. The report follows APA format and citation rules.Provide case study summary and develop practical and effective solution to the organizational issue based on theories, strategies, and best practices in organizational psychology.Please use the power points as a reference to answering questions it may help.I/O Psychology knowledge is needed for this assignmentPlease watch for spelling and grammatical errors! ALSO, you can use other sources just make sure you put them in apa format on the work cited page!
case_study__2__1_.pdf
lecture_11_part_1.pdf
lecture_11_part_1_and_2__1_.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Case Study #2
NASA is planning a mission to send a crew of astronauts to Mars. Among other
objectives, scientists are interested in the possibility of growing food in space, as there are now
reasons to believe that Mars maybe a good place to farm. Although this mission isn’t scheduled
until the year 2030 or so, NASA has already begun to explore how aspects of the mission are
likely to impact the crew’s ability to function effectively. You see, the crew of six to eight
astronauts assigned to the mission will be living and working together in a noisy capsule about
the size of an average kitchen for three years—it takes 6 months to get there, they’ll stay for 18
months, and then there’s the 6-month journey home. Given the constraints of their environment,
and the fact that the crew will be working long hours under very demanding conditions, it’s
inevitable that they’ll get on one another’s nerves on occasion. There’s literally no place to go to
escape minor annoyances, and as frustration builds, the probability of emotional outbursts and
interpersonal conflict increases.
Of course, it goes without saying that conflict among astronauts in a small space capsule
millions of miles away from Earth is not a good thing. Astronauts who fail to fulfill a
responsibility because they’re reoccupied with conflict could put the mission, and the lives of the
entire crew, in jeopardy, and this is true whether the conflict is bubbling beneath the surface or
has risen to the surface. Hard feelings could hinder teamwork as well, and the failure to
communicate an important piece of information or to provide help to a member of the crew in
need of assistance, as examples, could also lead to disaster. Unfortunately, however, the duration
and demands of the mission are almost without precedent, and therefore, the specific practices
that need to be implemented to facilitate crew functioning in this context are unknown.
To address this issue, NASA has awarded grants to psychologists to study teams that
have to live and work together in isolated, confined, and extreme environments for extended
periods of time. To help increase understanding of conflict and teamwork and how it can be
better managed, the psychologists are working on technology that tracks the whereabouts of each
crew member, as well as his or her vocal intensity and vital functions such as heart rate. This
information would be used to pinpoint where and when conflict occurs and to understand how
conflict influences subsequent crew interactions. The crew will be given feedback so they can
learn how conflict hurts teamwork and cohesion. This feedback could also motivate crews to
take the time to discuss teamwork issues and to devise ways to manage conflict and other process
problems. Although it’s impossible to anticipate all the potential issues that could arise on the
mission to Mars, NASA believes that research on team process is necessary to enhance the
viability and performance of the crew that is ultimately charged with the task.
1. Which team processes do you believe are most important to the crew of astronauts
traveling to Mars? Why? Are there specific team processes you feel are relatively
unimportant? Explain.
2. Describe additional types of information that could be collected by the psychologists to
help crews better understand their interactions and how they influence crew effectiveness.
3. Discuss how team training could be used to build effective processes for the crew
traveling to Mars.
TEAM DYNAMICS
OUTLINE
Defining Teams
Stages of Team Development
Models of Team Effectiveness
DEFINING TEAM
Defining teams
Team = two or more individuals who…
Exist to perform organizationally-relevant goals
Share one or more common goals
Interact socially
Exhibit task interdependencies – team members must rely on one another to perform their tasks effectively
Embedded in an organizational context that sets boundaries, constrains the team, and influences exchanges with other units
STAGES OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT
TEAM DEVELOPMENT
Tuckman’s Stage Model
Model of Team Development
FORMING
STORMING
NORMING
PERFORMING
ADJOURNING
TEAM DEVELOPMENT
Tuckman’s Stage Model
Forming
Characterized by uncertainty or anxiety
May depend on team leader for information and comfort
Storming
Issues associated with forming are resolved
Conflict over a number of issues
Team norms – e.g., # of meetings, communication
Leadership responsibilities
Necessary for groups to acknowledge disagreements
Some teams may never move past this stage
If conflict is too intense or personal
TEAM DEVELOPMENT
Tuckman’s Stage Model
Norming
Collection of people becomes a team
Role differentiation and group norms/behaviors develops
Function as a collective body instead of a collection of individuals
Performing
Accomplishing major group tasks
Not all teams reach this stage, but all have potential
TEAM DEVELOPMENT
Tuckman’s Stage Model
Adjourning
Group members move on
E.g., class project
Group members miss each other and have feelings of loss
E.g., high school sports
Reflect on experiences
Was the team successful?
Did I like my team members?
Was this a rewarding experience?
Influence views of working in teams
Influence whether members of a team can work together again in future
TEAM DEVELOPMENT
Tuckman’s Stage Model
Not strictly sequential
FORMING
STORMING
NORMING
PERFORMING
ADJOURNING
STORMING
NORMING
PERFORMING
ADJOURNING
Often cyclical
FORMING
TEAM DEVELOPMENT
Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Model
Teams go through periods of relative inertia versus rapid change
Depends on group members’ awareness of time/deadlines
For a given deadline
First half – task definition, approaching the task, internal conflicts
Second half – great deal of progress will be made
Practical Implications
Managers should be patient with teams in the beginning
Teams should be made aware of deadlines
DEFINING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
What makes a team effective?
DEFINING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Steiner (1972)
Actual productivity = potential productivity – process losses
Potential productivity – highest level of performance possible
Process losses – less-than-optimal ways of combining team members’ inputs
Generally caused by lack of coordination or reduced motivation among team members
E.g., basketball – ball hogging
Too basic/simplified
Does not account for factors that can change team productivity levels
Doesn’t ask what can teams/organizations do to improve team performance
Assumes that team goals are perfectly aligned with the organization’s goals
This is not always the case
DEFINING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Hackman (1987)
Team effectiveness = Three-dimensional construct
Output of the team
Long-term viability of the team
Impact of the team experience on individual members
Output
Teams are put together to accomplish tasks or goals
To be successful, team should meet or exceed performance standards
Winning isn’t everything
DEFINING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Hackman (1987)
Long-term viability
Is a team effective if it falls apart as soon as the task is completed?
Social processes should maintain or enhance capability of members working together in the future
Team member satisfaction
If experiences as members are largely negative – team was ineffective
Related to viability
People may begin to detest all future teamwork
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
McGrath’s model (1964)
Input-process-output sequence
Input
Process
Process
Output
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
McGrath’s model (1964)
Input
Individual-level – level/mix of skills, attitudes, personality characteristics
Team-level – structure, cohesiveness, size
Environment-level – group task characteristics, reward structure, stressors
Process
Team interaction – how team performs the task
Strategies, interpersonal harmony, shared task understanding, etc.
Output
Performance – judged quality of outputs, time taken to solve problem, # of errors made
Other outcomes – team member satisfaction, attitude towards team members, team cohesiveness after task
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
McGrath’s model (1964)
Input
Individual-level factors
Team-level factors
Environment-level factors
Output
Process
Performance outcomes
Team interaction process
Other outcomes
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Gladstein’s model (1984)
Similar to McGrath’s (input-process-output)
Team composition
Individual characteristics and elements of team structure
Skills, heterogeneity, organizational and job tenure
Team structure
Role/goal clarity, norms, task control, size, formal leadership
At organizational-level, resources available as well as rewards and supervisory control
Team process
Communication, level of support, conflict management, strategy discussion
Leads to team effectiveness
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Gladstein’s model (1984)
Major differences compared to McGrath’s Model
Inputs have a direct impact on team effectiveness
Team’s task characteristics (complexity, uncertainty, interdependence) moderates the relationship between team process and
effectiveness
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Gladstein’s model (1984)
Team-level
inputs
Team task
Team process
Organizational
-level inputs
Team
effectiveness
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Gladstein’s model (1984)
Support
Predicts perceptions of team effectiveness more than actual revenue
Task characteristics did not moderate (not much variability in tasks)
TEAM DYNAMICS
OUTLINE
Defining Teams
Stages of Team Development
Models of Team Effectiveness
DEFINING TEAM
Defining teams
Team = two or more individuals who…
Exist to perform organizationally-relevant goals
Share one or more common goals
Interact socially
Exhibit task interdependencies – team members must rely on one another to perform their tasks effectively
Embedded in an organizational context that sets boundaries, constrains the team, and influences exchanges with other units
STAGES OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT
TEAM DEVELOPMENT
Tuckman’s Stage Model
Model of Team Development
FORMING
STORMING
NORMING
PERFORMING
ADJOURNING
TEAM DEVELOPMENT
Tuckman’s Stage Model
Forming
Characterized by uncertainty or anxiety
May depend on team leader for information and comfort
Storming
Issues associated with forming are resolved
Conflict over a number of issues
Team norms – e.g., # of meetings, communication
Leadership responsibilities
Necessary for groups to acknowledge disagreements
Some teams may never move past this stage
If conflict is too intense or personal
TEAM DEVELOPMENT
Tuckman’s Stage Model
Norming
Collection of people becomes a team
Role differentiation and group norms/behaviors develops
Function as a collective body instead of a collection of individuals
Performing
Accomplishing major group tasks
Not all teams reach this stage, but all have potential
TEAM DEVELOPMENT
Tuckman’s Stage Model
Adjourning
Group members move on
E.g., class project
Group members miss each other and have feelings of loss
E.g., high school sports
Reflect on experiences
Was the team successful?
Did I like my team members?
Was this a rewarding experience?
Influence views of working in teams
Influence whether members of a team can work together again in future
TEAM DEVELOPMENT
Criticisms of Tuckman’s Stage Model
Not strictly sequential
FORMING
STORMING
NORMING
PERFORMING
ADJOURNING
STORMING
NORMING
PERFORMING
ADJOURNING
Often cyclical
FORMING
TEAM DEVELOPMENT
Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Model
Teams go through periods of relative inertia versus rapid change
Depends on group members’ awareness of time/deadlines
For a given deadline
First half – task definition, approaching the task, internal conflicts
Second half – great deal of progress will be made
Practical Implications
Managers should be patient with teams in the beginning
Teams should be made aware of deadlines
DEFINING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
What makes a team effective?
DEFINING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Steiner (1972)
Actual productivity = potential productivity – process losses
Potential productivity – highest level of performance possible
Process losses – less-than-optimal ways of combining team members’ inputs
Generally caused by lack of coordination or reduced motivation among team members
E.g., basketball – ball hogging
Too basic/simplified
Does not account for factors that can change team productivity levels
Doesn’t ask what can teams/organizations do to improve team performance
Assumes that team goals are perfectly aligned with the organization’s goals
This is not always the case
DEFINING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Hackman (1987)
Team effectiveness = Three-dimensional construct
Output of the team
Long-term viability of the team
Impact of the team experience on individual members
Output
Teams are put together to accomplish tasks or goals
To be successful, team should meet or exceed performance standards
DEFINING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Hackman (1987)
Long-term viability
Winning isn’t everything
Is a team effective if it falls apart as soon as the task is completed?
Social processes should maintain or enhance capability of members working together in the future
Team member satisfaction
If experiences as members are largely negative – team was ineffective
Related to viability
People may begin to detest all future teamwork
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
McGrath’s model (1964)
Input-process-output sequence
Input
Process
Process
Output
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
McGrath’s model (1964)
Input
Individual-level – level/mix of skills, attitudes, personality characteristics
Team-level – leader and role structure, cohesiveness, size
Environment-level – task characteristics, reward structure, stressors
Process
Output
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
McGrath’s model (1964)
Input
Individual-level factors
Team-level factors
Environment-level factors
Output
Process
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
McGrath’s model (1964)
Input
Process
Team interaction – how the team performs the task
Performance strategies, interpersonal harmony, shared task understanding, etc.
Output
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
McGrath’s model (1964)
Input
Individual-level factors
Team-level factors
Environment-level factors
Output
Process
Team interaction
processes
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
McGrath’s model (1964)
Input
Process
Output
Performance – judged quality of outputs, time taken to solve problem, # of errors made
Other outcomes – team member satisfaction, attitude towards team members, team cohesiveness
after completing task
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
McGrath’s model (1964)
Input
Individual-level factors
Team-level factors
Environment-level factors
Output
Process
Performance outcomes
Team interaction
processes
Other outcomes
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Example – Class group project
Input
Individual
Level:
Team
Level:
Environ
Level:
High Cog Ability
Low Agreeableness
3 members
Team grade
Output
Performance:
Process
100% grade
Effective Strategies
Low Interpersonal Harmony
Other
Outcomes:
Dislike team members
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Gladstein’s model (1984)
Similar to McGrath’s (input-process-output)
Team composition (individual-level factors)
Individual characteristics and elements of team structure
Skills, heterogeneity, organizational and job tenure
Team structure (team-level factors)
Role/goal clarity, norms, task control, size, formal leadership
Organizational-level (environmental-level factors)
Resources available as well as rewards and supervisory control
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Gladstein’s model (1984)
Input
Team Comp
and Structure
Organizational
-level
Output
Process
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Gladstein’s model (1984)
Team process
Communication, level of support, conflict management, strategy discussion
Leads to team effectiveness
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Gladstein’s model (1984)
Input
Team Comp
and Structure
Output
Process
Team process
Organizational
-level
Team
effectiveness
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Example – Class group project
Input
High Cog Ability
Low Agreeableness
3 members
Output
Process
Effective Strategies
Low Interpersonal Harmony
Amazing Lecture
Slides
100% Grade
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Gladstein’s model (1984)
Major differences compared to McGrath’s Model
Inputs have a direct impact on team effectiveness
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Gladstein’s model (1984)
Input
Team Comp
and Structure
Output
Process
Team
effectiveness
Organizational
-level
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Example – Class group project – Direct effect
Input
High Cog Ability
Low Agreeableness
2 members (1 leaves)
Output
Process
Effective Strategies
Low Interpersonal Harmony
Amazing Lecture
Slides
100%-20% = 80%
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Gladstein’s model (1984)
Major differences compared to McGrath’s Model
Team’s task characteristics (complexity, uncertainty, interdependence)
Moderates the relationship between team process and effectiveness
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Gladstein’s model (1984)
Input
Team Comp
and Structure
Output
Team task
Process
Team process
Organizational
-level
Team
effectiveness
MODELS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Example – Class group project – Moderation
Input
High Cog Ability
Low Agreeableness
3 members
Output
Process
Highly
Interdependent Task
Effective Strategies
Low Interpersonal Harmony
Amazing Lecture
Slides
80%
DETERMINANTS (INPUTS) OF TEAM
EFFECTIVENESS
DETERMINANTS (INPUTS) OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Team composition
Skill level – The more skilled members you have (+)
Most robust finding
Cognitive ability – The smarter your team (+)
Strongest when facing a novel task
Diversity of skills (+)
E.g., football team
Personality
High team average level of conscientiousness (+) and agreeableness (+)
Variability in conscientiousness, agreeableness, and endorsement of power distance (-)
Personality clash leads to negative conflict
Conscientiousness negatively related when requiring adaptation
DETERMINANTS (INPUTS) OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Team composition
Attitude
Preference for team work (+)
Similarity (+)
Groupthink (-)
DETERMINANTS (INPUTS) OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Task design
Whether the task a team is performing is appropriate for the team
Organizations often over zealous regarding team work
Interdependence (+)
Challenging, interesting, engaging (+)
Core job dimensions – autonomy, feedback, task variety, significance, and identity
DETERMINANTS (INPUTS) OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Organizational resources
Teams need resources similar to individuals
Equipment, budgetary resources, and time to accomplish tasks
Unique needs
Training – team work does not come naturally!
Work cooperatively with others, understanding how to coordinate efforts, conflict resolution
Meeting space/time
Leadership
Perceived management support
DETERMINANTS (INPUTS) OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS
Rewards
Important in determining team performance like individual performance
Not effective if only rewarding individual efforts
Team-based compensation
Interdependence
Team-based compensation most appropriate for high levels of interdependence
Otherwise, might be perceiv …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades