The power of teams: Do self-managing work teams influence managers' perceptions of potency? Page: 2
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Jung, Murry, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Hackman, 1990, 2002; Spreitzer, Noble, Mishra, &
Cooke, 1999). These internal dynamics may have an effect upon how the team views itself
(Gibson, 1999). At the earliest stages of development, a new group reflects individual differences
and a heterogeneous attitude regarding commitment and identification within the group ("How
do I do my task"). Members are self-interested and tasks may be seen as compulsory. This initial
stage of development results in a decline in team performance (Kennedy, 2002). Farrell, Schmitt,
& Heinemann (2001) regard this phase as ambiguous and confusing to new members, and note
that in order for a team to move toward a more advanced stage, members need to develop a team
culture that reflect responsibilities, procedures, and decision making.
As the group gains experience together, a collective attitude forms where the individual
identifies more within the context of the group ("How do I do our task"). This phase is defined
by emerging rules and expectations that mold an increasing sense of belonging (Gist, Locke, &
Taylor, 1987). The team learns how to handle conflict, determines how the work should be done,
and establishes a set of norms that becomes the basis of the team's culture (Farrell et al., 2001).
Finally, within the most advanced stages of team development, members move beyond their own
self interests by endorsing a collective perspective regarding their responsibilities to each other
and to the team ("How do we do our task"). Members express a great sense of solidarity, are
more effective at their tasks, and share a sense of respect toward one another. This shift from
individual mind-set to shared perspective allows the team to view itself as a collective entity with
a common set of social roles and a shared purpose (Avolio et al., 1996). Farrell et al. define this
stage as one in which behavior is regulated by a shared culture. Although members come and go,
what remains within the team are the established patterns and routines of social and behavioral
interactions (Gibson, Randel, & Earley, 2000; Wageman, 1997). Table 1 (see Appendix A).
describes the stages of team development adapted from Katzenbach and Smith (1993).
Here’s what’s next.
This thesis 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 Thesis.
Hass, Nicolette P. The power of teams: Do self-managing work teams influence managers' perceptions of potency?, thesis, December 2005; Denton, Texas. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc4961/m1/8/: accessed May 22, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; .