|
Article Excerpt
Introduction
As organizations more heavily rely on groups to make decisions, researchers have placed increasing attention on the ways in which groups manage information. Organizations rely on groups because they can access a larger amount and greater diversity of information than individuals. A group's potential to draw on this information does not automatically imply, however, that it will be accessed or effectively incorporated into the group decision (Wittenbaum et al. 1996). Research suggests that members often fail to exchange their uniquely held information and that this problem can even worsen over time (Kim 1997). The study presented in this paper seeks to extend our understanding of these issues by exploring the reasons why such deterioration in information sharing, and ultimately performance, might occur. To address this question, this study (1) investigates how beliefs about coworkers may affect the group information-sharing process, (2) considers whether their implications for performance may depend on the inf ormation-sharing context in which these beliefs arise, and (3) explores the mechanisms underlying these relationships through a content analysis of group discussions.
Changes Over Time
A group's ability to manage information has been shown to undergo profound changes over time. The literature on transactive memory, for example, has shown that experience can enable groups to encode and retrieve information in a manner that allows each member to focus on a specific aspect of the task and on how his or her role relates to those of others in their group (Wegner 1987, Liang et al. 1995, Moreland 1999). This research contends that, as a result of this change, groups are able to reduce their information loads and ultimately improve their performance. Similarly, research on shared mental models indicates that, over time, groups can develop collective understandings or shared mental models of their situation and that these organized bodies of knowledge can facilitate communication, improve coordination, and improve group performance (e.g., Orasanu and Salas 1993).
Recent evidence suggests, however, that a group's ability to manage knowledge does not always improve over time. This evidence is provided by a small number of studies that have investigated the implications of experience for group discussion and performance. Although the exchange of information among members can be essential for performance, groups often focus on information they share in common rather than the potentially valuable information any individual member may hold (e.g., Stasser and Stewart 1992, Winquist and Larson 1998). While one might expect that this discussion bias would diminish over time, initial findings suggest that it may sometimes worsen as groups gain experience with the task and/or team (Kim 1997, Wittenbaum 1998, see also Gruenfeld et al. 1996 for results that depend on the distribution of information).
Kim (1997), for example, found that groups in which members had previously worked together on a similar task displayed a larger discussion bias and achieved lower task performance than groups with no prior experience with coworkers or the task and groups whose prior experience was limited to either coworkers or the task. One explanation for this effect is the "curse of knowledge," which refers to people's tendency to overestimate the ability of others to accurately solve a problem (e.g., Camerer et al. 1989, Fussell and Krauss 1992, Nickerson et al. 1987). Kim (1997) suggested that members of experienced groups may have exhibited a larger discussion bias and achieved lower performance because their greater familiarity with both the task and team may have made them more susceptible to the "curse of knowledge," which would lead them to believe that their partners were already aware of their privately held information and, thus, lead them to exert less effort to communicate it than members of inexperienced group s.
A more thorough explanation for Kim's (1997) findings, however, is that experience may shape a range of beliefs about coworkers (e.g., due to increased familiarity with the task and/or team, members' schemas about how relationships and/or capabilities should develop over time, and so on) and that each of these beliefs can affect the sharing of information in groups. This notion is based on research in which perceptions of high-coworker competence and motivation were found to lower member efforts and collective performance (Williams and Karau 1991) as well as on the potential implications of such perceptions for group coordination and discussion (Wittenbaum et al. 1998, 1999). In this study, I consider these two perceptions and their likely effects on the discussion bias (including the mentioning, repetition, and proportion of critical versus noncritical information), teamwork (including performance monitoring, feedback, closed-loop communications, and backing-up behaviors), and task performance.
Task Competence
Although many kinds of ability can be identified, this study focuses on a type of ability that would be most relevant for the work group conditions under investigation (i.e., task competence). Competence is defined as the degree to which one possesses the technical and interpersonal skills required for one's job (e.g., Butler 1991). Thus, we might expect that perceptions of competence in coworkers should affect members' beliefs that their partners will be able to successfully complete the task.
Perceptions of coworker competence may affect group information sharing and performance in two ways. First, perceptions of coworker competence may affect member orientations toward their task. Whereas perceptions of high-coworker competence should foster the belief that one's own contributions are less necessary and entice members to exert less effort on their task (i.e., engage in social loafing), perceptions of low-coworker competence should compel members to increase their efforts to compensate for the inadequate contributions of their partners (i.e., engage in social compensation) (Williams and Karau 1991). Second, perceptions of coworker competence may affect group member orientations toward their team. Members may feel a greater need to obtain positive evaluations from their coworkers when the perceived competence of their coworkers is high versus low, and research suggests that the desire for such enhancement may increase their focus on commonly held information (Wittenbaum et al. 1999).
These differences should, furthermore, have important implications for group discussion and performance. When information is partially shared, members' reduced efforts and increased need for positive evaluations, due to perceptions of high-coworker competence, should impair the information sharing process by increasing the discussion bias, reducing teamwork, and lowering task performance. When information is fully shared, however, perceptions of coworker competence may still affect members' efforts and need for positive evaluations, but this should be less likely to influence information sharing in a manner that would increase the discussion bias, reduce teamwork, or lower performance, because group members already possess full access to this information. Thus, we might expect that whereas perceptions of high-coworker competence should foster a larger discussion bias, less teamwork, and lower task performance relative to perceptions of low-coworker competence when task information is partially shared, these e ffects should be less likely when task information is fully shared.
HYPOTHESIS 1A. Perceptions of high-coworker competence will foster a larger discussion bias than perceptions of low-coworker competence when task information is partially shared.
HYPOTHESIS 1B. Perceptions of high-coworker competence will foster less teamwork than perceptions of low-coworker competence when task information is partially shared.
HYPOTHESIS 1C. Perceptions of high-coworker competence will foster lower task performance than perceptions of low-coworker competence when task information is partially shared.
Achievement Motivation
As with competence, motivation can be exhibited in many ways. This study focuses, however, on the type of motivation that would be most relevant for the work group conditions under investigation (i.e., achievement motivation). Motivation is, therefore, defined as the degree to which one seeks to pursue high standards of achievement rather than being influenced by factors that might hinder achievement.
Williams and Karau (1991) examined the effects of perceived coworker motivation on the incidence of social loafing versus social compensation in groups by considering a context in which participants independently worked to contribute to the collective goal. The implications of this perception might differ, however, in contexts where group members must interact with one another to develop a collective solution (i.e., when achievement depends on the performance of the entire group). In such cases, the perception of high motivation in coworkers suggests that these coworkers will not only increase their own efforts but also demand increased efforts from others. Perceptions of high-coworker motivation should, therefore, foster the belief that coworkers will monitor their efforts, deter attempts to social loaf, and expect them to make substantive contributions. Thus, group members should exert greater efforts to develop well-reasoned opinions when perceptions of...
|
