Team Resilience in Complex and Turbulent Environments: The Effect of Size and Density of Social Interactions Page: 7
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
TABLE 1: Results for M = 5 and M = 11 with density= 1.*
A = 10
A = 20
A = 10 0.97759 0.97829 0.07% 0.88434 0.80238 -9.27%
K = 3 Std. dev. 0.03352 0.02772 0.11891 0.11421
A = 20 0.97868 0.97616 -0.26% 0.86897 0.79684 -8.30%
Std. dev. 0.02900 0.03364 0.13352 0.12690
A = 10 0.82976 0.76812 -7.43% 0.74432 0.59060 -20.65%
K= 11 Std. dev. 0.23705 0.26384 0.27678 0.30948
A = 20 0.75272 0.66394 -11.79% 0.65326 0.49117 -24.81%
Std. dev. 0.26848 0.28888 0.29882 0.29246
Mean 0.91868 0.89489 -3.07% 0.81991 0.71089 -13.98%
* Differences in results are significant with p < 0.001 (t-test), except for the cases with K = 1 and = 0.75 and the case with K = 3 and A = 10 and 0.75.
The resilience performance is computed by averaging
the results in terms of efficacy V/Vmax across iteration
steps and replications.
5.1. The Effect of Size. Table 1 summarizes the results
achieved by the teams characterized by M = 5 and M = 11
and density=1 for all the twelve environmental scenarios.
As complexity rises (K = 1, 3, 11), performance decreases,
regardless of the values of magnitude and frequency of dis-
turbance. For example, in the case of A = 20 and M = 5, the
performance is 0.98508, 0.97759, and 0.82976 for K = 1, 3,
11, respectively. We also note that in all cases the team per-
formance diminishes as the magnitude of the disturbance
increases (moving from (= 0.75 to (= 4.89). For example,
for A =20 and M=5, the performance decreases from
0.98508 to 0.88537 as the magnitude rises. These trends run
as expected, confirming the validity of our simulation model.
We now analyze the direct effect of team size on the team
resilience. To do this, we compute the performance differ-
ence between the cases with M = 5 and M = 11 in percentage
to M=5 (see difference % in Table 1) for any K, fixed (.
Except for few cases where differences are not significant
(for K = 1, A= 10, 20 and(=0.75 and for K = 3, A= 10 and
(=0.75), in all the other cases, the performance difference
is significant and negative. This means that team size nega-
tively affects team resilience. Larger teams are less able to
adapt to disturbance and recover to configurations with high
performance. This follows from the fact that in large teams
the consensus seeking is slower than in small teams and
achieving a highly agreed solution is more difficult.
We also investigate the moderating effect of the mag-
nitude of disturbance on the relationship between team
size and the team resilience. We compare the performance
difference in the case of low versus high magnitude of dis-
turbance. We achieve that on average the performance
decrease is higher for (= 4.89. In particular, this difference
on average is equal to -3.07% and -13.98% in the case of
(= 0.75 and (= 4.89, respectively. This means that the mag-
nitude of disturbance plays a negative moderating effect on
the relationship between team size and team resilience. In
the case of disturbances with high impact on the environ-
ment, the negative effect of large-sized teams on resilience
is more pronounced.
In fact, when the level of disturbance is high (i.e., when
the landscape is changing quite a lot), team needs to make
new and strongly different decisions in order to reach an
optimal solution. However, large teams need more time to
agree on new decisions than small teams, thereby showing
worse performance compared to the latter.
We finally investigate the moderating effect of the fre-
quency of disturbance on the relationship between the team
size and resilience. First, we note that, except for the cases
with K= 1 whose performance difference is not significant,
the frequency of disturbance negatively affects resilience.
For example, in the case of M = 5 for K = 3 and (= 4.89,
the performance decreases from 0.88434 to 0.86897 moving
from A=10 to A=20. Moreover, it is noteworthy that, as
the team size rises from M = 5 to M = 11, the decrement in
the performance becomes more important as the frequency
of disturbance rises. In particular, on average such a perfor-
mance decrease due to size growth is -7.91% and -9.15%
for A =10 and A=20, respectively. This means that the fre-
quency of disturbance negatively moderates the relationship
between the team size and team resilience. In environments
characterized by high dynamicity, the negative effect of team
size is more pronounced. Since, as said above, a large number
of individuals reach consensus on a good solution in longer
time, compared to a small number of individuals, fast chang-
ing environments strongly prevent large teams from finding
good solutions, making them exhibit low performance.
5.2. The Effect of Density. In Table 2, the results con-
cerning teams with M=11 and three increasing values
Here’s what’s next.
This article can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Article.
Giannoccaro, Ilaria; Massari, Giovanni F. & Carbone, Giuseppe. Team Resilience in Complex and Turbulent Environments: The Effect of Size and Density of Social Interactions, article, July 24, 2018; Cairo, Egypt. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1234365/m1/7/: accessed April 25, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT College of Arts and Sciences.