17
Making Group Process Work: Harnessing Collective Intuition, Task Conflict, and Pacing
GERARDO A. OKHUYSEN AND BETH A. BECHKY
Imagine, if you will, two groups with very similar members. Both have exceptionally talented individuals at the helm, committed participants, and compelling challenges that they must respond to. However, while in one group members actively share information, disagree with one another, and press ahead for action, in the other group members are passive, have little discussion of the challenges for the group, and adopt attitudes that make getting along more important than getting work done. The difference between these two groups is at the crux of this chapter and answers the question, does group process matter? By group process, we simply mean how group members go about interacting and making choices to get their work done.
The groups we discuss include shop floor teams that develop process improvements, surgery teams, cross-functional product development groups, police crisis teams, ongoing task forces, film project teams, and top management teams. In general, these are groups that demand active engagement and intense interaction among group members (Ashforth and Fried, 1988; Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, and Bourgeois, 1997a; Louis and Sutton, 1991).
Our central argument is straightforward. Although the membership of groups enables and constrains many of their activities, a central element that causes some groups to succeed and others to fail is group process. With a positive group process, a team of average individuals can perform better than a group of superstars with a bad group process. For us, group process opens the doors to the performance of individuals as part of a successful group. With poor group process, the doors to that performance remain closed.
Many people naively believe that effective group process requires group members to make difficult process tradeoffs: conflict comes at the expense of speed, speed sacrifices getting along, and getting along cannot happen with conflict. Yet we think that the reality of effective group process is different. After all, conflict is absolutely essential for effective groups, especially ones facing difficult choices in situations of high uncertainty (see Chapter 18, this volume). Timing and speed matter too. A decision made too late can cost money or leave an organization hopelessly behind the competition, leading to its failure. Group members also need to be able to work together in an ongoing way to complete their work. In our view, superior group process involves solving the classic tradeoffs of group process, not making them. That is, great group process is fast and responsive, with members acting under pressure. It is also conflictual and respectful, with group members who can disagree with one another and yet can walk away from meetings with mutual deference and the will to work together in the future. Importantly, not all groups adopt the same tactics to achieve great group process. Instead, groups adopt approaches that are ideally suited to their own circumstances.
In this chapter, we describe three principles that help create great group process. These are: creating collective intuition, stimulating task-related conflict, and driving the pace of action. We argue that each of these antecedents consists of a cluster of tactics that shape group process. These tactics are interrelated such that they work with one another, supporting each other and offering synergies in group process. We also describe the pivotal role of the leader in shaping the group process that emerges.
One of the myths of group process is that relying on extensive information is a problem. The argument goes like this: the cost of gathering information is very high, and large amounts of information are often ignored anyway due to the excessive demands on the time of group members (March and Simon, 1958; Simon, 1955). Therefore, it is not particularly useful to gather large amounts of information. In addition, since the perception and interpretation of information is fraught with personal and social biases, information must be treated with suspicion. As a consequence, group members should move ahead without spending too much time worrying about having all of the relevant information.
In contrast, recent research takes a different view (Dean and Sharfman, 1996; Eisenhardt and Bourgeois, 1988; Wally and Baum, 1994). Groups with great process rely on more, not less, information than less effective groups. The difference is in the kind of information that they use. Ineffective groups rely on either historical information about past performance or speculative information about how the world might unfold (Eisenhardt, 1989). In contrast, groups with superior process center their attention on real-time and fact-based information about current operations.
Gathering information: exploiting expertise and profiting from variety
For many groups, the involvement of individuals in the front lines of the action is critical to gather information. In film crews, individuals in every department are responsible for bringing potential problems to everyone else’s attention (Bechky, 2006). Difficulties staffing a shooting crew, the absence of equipment, and the late arrival of actors or actresses are all communicated to those affected, providing critical and timely information on the performance of the crew. This intensity of information gathering is also evident in police crisis teams, with officers trying to understand “what’s happening” in a moment-by-moment manner (Okhuysen, 2005). Each officer on the team plays an important role in gathering extensive real-time information. During missions, snipers double as observers, calling in information they glean from their observation perch about suspects, such as movement within an apartment or other activity. Perimeter team members cover the area surrounding the location, searching for possible escape routes for the suspects or places where adding officers might be useful. At the same time, detectives contact city building departments to get the blueprints for the apartments, homes, or businesses where suspects are holed up. The typical outcome of this team is an efficient and safe resolution of standoff situations, with suspects surrendering with no loss of life.
Further, research suggests that real-time information about the situation is particularly effective when different members of the group are responsible for specific pieces of it (Eisenhardt, 1989). In effect, members of groups with superior process adopt deliberately distinct information roles in the group. Often these roles are along the lines of functional expertise like engineering or marketing. This partitioning of responsibility for information cultivates a variety of different perspectives and provides depth of knowledge by focusing the attention of specific members on particular features of the situation. Not only is the information likely to be more accurate given that the group is leveraging the expertise of its members, but it is also likely to be obtained more quickly. This focus is not only effective for information that affects the internal operations of the crew, but also for external information that can lead members to a more effective group process by focusing their attention on important stakeholders (Ancona, 1990; Ancona and Bresman, 2007).
Of course, simply having knowledgeable individuals in a group paying attention is of little use if their information is not available to be used collectively by the group. Indeed, one of the main challenges of group process is to ensure that information is effectively exchanged with all other members of the group (Stasser, 1992; Stasser and Stewart, 1992). In order to share and use information effectively, groups with great process engage in frequent interactions. For example, some management groups set up “can’t miss” meetings, police crisis teams engage in extensive information sharing during briefing meetings, and film crews continuously update one another using walkie-talkies on set. In general, these groups have a large number of regular interactions among members (Eisenhardt et al., 1997a; Bechky and Okhuysen, 2008).
The importance of real-time information, partitioned responsibility for that information, and frequent meetings appears in many organizational groups. For example, Eisenhardt (1989) examines group process among top management teams in start-up ventures in the computing industry. In particular, she describes how the members of one team, at a firm with the pseudonym Zap, operate. First of all, members of the management team at Zap claim to “over-MBA it” and to “measure everything.” And they come close. They focus their attention on a wide variety of raw internal and external measures of current operations like bookings, backlog, revenue per employee, cash, and scrap in preference to refined, accounting-based indicators like profit.
Exploiting information: fostering positive interactions and dissimilarity of knowledge
Why does this combination of real-time information gathered and collectively shared by group members lead to effective group process? One reason is that this combination of tactics is fast. In particular, continual tracking of information acts as an early warning system that allows group members to spot problems and opportunities sooner. Groups that are mindful and attentive to such cues can respond more quickly (Levinthal and Rerup, 2006; Weick and Sutcliffe, 2001). This is especially true when group members have developed a routine for working together, either because they know each other well (Eisenhardt, 1989) or because they act on well-rehearsed roles (Bechky and Okhuysen, 2008; Edmondson, Bohmer, and Pisano, 2001). Therefore, when situations arise, members can go right to the problem, rather than groping about for relevant information. In addition, the development of distinct roles helps the information gathering process by ensuring that multiple perspectives are always represented (Eisenhardt, 1989), which in turn increases the potential range of action in the group (Schweiger, Sandberg, and Rechner, 1989).
For many teams concerned with fast performance, real-time information gathered by group members and shared together creates a collective intuition, a store of knowledge based on the experiences of the group that is related to the challenges they face over time. Through their experience, members develop an ability to build linkages among seemingly disparate pieces of information and to recognize and process information in blocks or patterns (Isenberg, 1986, 1988). Through repeated exposure to data, these patterns become recognizable, often subconsciously, even when there is only a small amount of current information available. This pattern processing is faster and more accurate than processing single pieces of information or waiting for additional information, and is a useful result of previous experience. Through the development of a collective knowledge base, all group members can also tap into relevant experiences when new situations appear (Thompson, Gentner, and Loewenstein, 2000), allowing them to make sense of complex situations quickly and elaborate responses to surprises (Bechky and Okhuysen, 2008). This “collective intuition” can help a group become faster and more effective in its work.
A second reason that this combination of tactics builds effective group process is that the intense interaction creates groups whose members are more likely to disagree. Familiarity and friendship make such frank conversation easier because group members are less constrained by politeness and more willing to express diverse views (Okhuysen, 2001). In situations where developing this interpersonal familiarity is not possible, such as film crews where strangers come together for a few weeks to complete a shoot or emergency trauma teams in hospitals whose membership is constantly changing, the presence of strong roles can substitute for familiarity (Bechky, 2006; Klein, Ziegert, Knight, and Xiao, 2006). The presence of well-defined roles in these groups instantly achieves two objectives. First, it brings different perspectives to bear on a problem because each role represents a different point of view. Second, because each member is expected to be an expert in his or her role, bringing up problems or disagreements is a natural part of the role-based structure.
The familiarity that group members develop through their intense interactions is also one element that allows them to disagree in the short term, and yet still get along in the long term (Valley, Neale, and Mannix, 1995). Familiarity in a group develops as a consequence of the interactions among members and is constantly reinforced as members discover information regarding the expertise and preferences of their co-workers (Reagans, Argote, and Brooks, 2005). For groups where the deliberation of decisions is important, such as top management teams, the development of familiarity makes it easier for group members to separate task conflict from relationship or interpersonal conflict (Eisenhardt, 1989). Familiarity keeps task conflict from becoming relationship conflict through trust (Simons and Peterson, 2000). This trust comes from increased and intense interaction that allows the group to build common goals, ensuring the commitment and participation of all members. The familiarity that develops from intense and frequent interactions increases interpersonal knowledge regarding beliefs and norms, and makes work interactions easier (Jehn and Shah, 1997; Okhuysen, 2001; Shah and Jehn, 1993). In addition, groups that are successful in the long term distinguish themselves by having a proactive stand towards conflict, engaging conflict resolution strategies in a collective manner (Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, and Trochim, 2008). As individuals increase their knowledge about others and build trust in other members they are able to “agree to disagree” on substantive issues without engaging in personal attacks or recriminations.
The use of real-time information as part of the deliberations of the group also helps members engage in productive conflict and yet still get along (Eisenhardt et al., 1997a). The argument is as follows. In groups, disagreement can be viewed as personal or as issue based (Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995, 1997; Schweiger et al., 1989). Personal conflict tends to create a dysfunctional process in which members listen poorly, fail to engage, and are distracted from the problem-solving task for the group. In contrast, issue-based conflict is related to superior group process (see Chapter 18). By relying on facts, people tend to attribute disagreement simply to issue-based differences among reasonable people. This attribution helps group members to avoid becoming sidetracked by personal agendas, to become task focused, and move more quickly to the central challenges facing the group. It also helps them to avoid becoming bogged down in arguments about what might be. Facts depersonalize discussion because they are not some member’s fantasies, guesses, or self-serving desires. An emphasis on factual data creates a culture of problem solving, not personalities. The explicit anointing of individuals as experts adds to the effect, making it easier for the group to call on them to share their perspective on a given issue (Stasser, Stewart, and Wittenbaum, 1995). By providing specific areas of the organization that members represent and are responsible for, the use of group roles for information gathering helps to limit politicking by mitigating “turf” battles.
A key challenge for groups is developing interaction patterns that allow them to disagree, so that they can reach the best outcome possible. Consider the following story. On a hot and dusty August afternoon, a farming family was sitting on their front porch trying to get some relief from the heat of the Midwest summer. One family member suggested an outing to Abilene, about a two-hour drive away, to get some lemonade. Another member agreed. Before long, the whole family was in the car, on the way to Abilene. With the sun beating down on the roof, the trip in the crowded car was even more unpleasantly hot than sitting on the family porch. The lemonade was not particularly memorable either. In frustration, one member finally expressed regret at ever leaving the porch. With that, everyone chimed in that they had never really wanted to go to Abilene in the first place. They had all simply assumed that everyone else wanted to go to Abilene, and so they agreed to go too. The above story, dubbed the Abilene Paradox, has been told in a variety of ways and has become a classic parable in organizational behavior (Harvey, 1988). In the Abilene Paradox, every group member disagrees with the group choice, but does not express that disagreement. No one voices objections because each assumes that the other group members agree with the stated position and its underlying assumptions. Because no one expresses disagreement, no one realizes that conflict exists. This, in turn, leads to increased internal pressures to self-censor opinions. In its extreme form, the Abilene Paradox leads to a poor group process in which group members engage in activities or adopt directions that no one in the group agrees with simply because no one is willing to be the first voice of dissent.
The Abilene Paradox is only one example of many that showcase a common problem: not enough conflict in a group - although many people intuitively worry about the destructive effects that unimpeded conflict can have on groups. However, the reality is that the hazard is often the reverse, that a group will not have sufficient conflict and instead suffer from passivity and lack of energy. Groupthink (Janis, 1982), for example, is an extreme phenomenon where conflict is not only avoided, but actively suppressed by members. In situations where Groupthink emerges, a lack of critical thought and of realistic assessment of alternatives are consequences of too little conflict.
Groups with effective process have to exhibit extensive differences of opinion. In effective groups, members recognize that conflict is a natural feature of many organizational situations in which reasonable people should and often do disagree. Further, as research demonstrates, conflict stimulates innovative thinking, and creates better understanding of the options. This leads to better choices and implementation. Without sufficient conflict, group members have an impoverished process. They miss opportunities to question assumptions and overlook key elements of their situation. Given the value of conflict, groups with effective process make conflict part of that process.
Creating conflict: using devices to foster disagreement
One way that groups create conflict in their process is through team composition. For example, top management teams that are diverse in terms of age, gender, functional background, experience, and so forth are likely to see the world in different ways and so naturally create conflict. That is, the natural differences that exist across their areas of responsibility (e.g. marketing vs. logistics), focus of concern (e.g. labor unions vs. consumers), or other differences (e.g. gender) generate perspectives that disagree with one another. For example, it would not be unusual for a member representing manufacturing to be in conflict with the opinions of the marketing or R&D department.
Oppositional roles in a group may also develop through interaction, as group members naturally organize into antipodal roles such as short vs. long term, or status quo vs. change (Guetzkow and Gyr, 1954) in response to their perceptions of balancing the natural tensions within a group. In top management teams, one member who is particularly concerned with the current status of the organization may have major disagreements with someone whose focus is the future of the organization.
Another way in which conflict is introduced by members of a group is through the deliberate development of multiple alternatives for any given issue (Eisenhardt, 1989; Okhuysen, 2001). As different alternatives are explored, disagreements over assumptions, outcomes, and objectives are clarified. This clarification, while conflictive, can lead to the development of greater confidence among group members that they have adequately explored the issues as well as a higher-quality process overall. This, in turn, helps make sure that the best options, those that reflect the true underlying objectives of the group, are the ones selected. Effective decision-making groups highlight this diversity of knowledge and opinions and actively exploit it to uncover potential alternatives for the group (Schweiger and Finger, 1984; Schweiger, Sandberg, and Ragan, 1986).
Task conflict can also be generated by using framebreaking heuristics that lead to new perspectives and thinking. One such heuristic is forecasting (Eisenhardt et al., 1997a). Forecasting involves imagining future scenarios (i.e. assumptions about how the future will unfold) and then playing out various options in light of these scenarios. As a result, members can better grasp the range of possible futures and their options within them. A related heuristic is backcasting. Using this technique, the group builds alternative future scenarios. Having developed these different future scenarios, group members choose the most desirable ones and then reason backwards to figure out how to achieve those futures. For members of police crisis teams, these approaches are second nature (Okhuysen, 2005). During training sessions officers actively discuss different ways in which missions can unfold, always with an eye to be prepared for that eventual contingency. Similarly, during briefing meetings for missions officers discuss their preferences for the outcomes of the mission (e.g. capturing suspects, collecting evidence, using low levels of force), and work backward to develop approaches to the situation that will tip the odds in favor of achieving those objectives.
Framebreaking heuristics can also involve members taking on particular roles within the group. Sometimes the role-playing simply means taking the perspective of a key competitor or opponent or the point of view of an important constituent in the group’s discussion. Group members may also take on a formal devil’s advocacy role (Schweiger and Finger, 1984; Schweiger et al., 1989). The devil’s advocate is a group member who is charged with questioning the assumptions and approaches of the group through critical evaluation. Since this role is formalized, it allows the devil’s advocate to deeply explore issues and request clarification from other group members without the risk of censure that may come to an individual who pointedly disagrees with the group. Overall, role-playing heuristics allow members to argue and discuss alternatives with less risk of being reproached by other members of the group (Feldman, 1984; Murnighan and Conlon, 1991).
In other groups, differences of opinion and the value they bring to the group process take on different forms. For example, in surgery teams it is important that every group member feel safe raising his or her voice to highlight problems or unanticipated situations (Edmondson et al., 2001). However, the strong hierarchies that sometimes exist in these groups make it difficult, if not impossible, for low-status members to express their opinions. Here, the development of psychological safety, trusting the group to respect and support the individual who is raising his or her voice, is critical if the group is to perform well. Skillful leaders and group members are able to create psychological safety by valuing disagreement and giving voice to all members of the group (Edmondson et al., 2001). In film crews, in contrast, many of the concerns for things that can go wrong, such as safety for mechanical or electrical installations, are embodied in the roles of specific individuals. Any conflict that derives from fulfilling those roles in a proficient manner, such as by raising worries about things that could go wrong, is acceptable in the situation (Bechky, 2006).
Exploiting conflict: using conflict to achieve positive outcomes
Why do conflict-creating devices such as diverse groups, framebreaking heuristics, multiple alternatives, and role execution lead to more effective group process? Obviously, they hasten the emergence of conflict and so accelerate the entire group process. Rather than waiting or hoping that conflict will emerge, group members simply create that conflict. Less obviously, these tactics often give group members confidence that they are not overlooking key information and perspectives. Armed with such confidence, group members are likely to have a faster process. That confidence is especially crucial in situations where the barriers to group execution are as much emotional (i.e. fear of the unknown) as they are cognitive. More obviously, these tactics clearly improve group process by helping group members to come up with more varied viewpoints on their actions. They encourage group members to think over time, to reverse their usual path of thinking, and to assume new lenses for viewing the activities of the group. Through all of these tactics, group members are likely to develop a process that is more highly conflictual.
Finally, the combination of a diverse group, multiple alternatives, and especially framebreaking heuristics and role structures affects group process by legitimating conflict. This helps group members to get along even as they disagree. For instance, when crew members on film sets voice their concerns about task accomplishments to other group members, they do so politely, often after first thanking their colleagues for things they are doing right (Bechky, 2006). These tactics normalize conflict by encouraging group members to frame conflict as less centered on personal differences and more centered on problem solving. That is, they put a cooperative, not competitive, perspective on the group process. For example, the use of a devil’s advocate allows the group to formalize task conflict and use it as part of its work process. The artificial addition of such task conflict into the group allows members to capitalize on the group’s problem-solving advantages, while at the same time providing legitimacy for the emergence of conflict within the group. The legitimacy of conflict that is afforded group members through the adoption of such tactics contributes to the prevention of premature and even false consensus.
One of the striking features of the literature on group process is the lack of attention to time. Of course, there are some exceptions (including those noted below), but very often authors ignore or misunderstand time. Yet, in the world of real groups, time is critical. In fact, with the emergence of the Internet, the convergence of consumer electronics with computing and telecommunications, and the globalization of work, attention to time is becoming crucial for many groups. In places like Silicon Valley, quips like “snooze, you lose” or “the worst decision is no decision at all” underscore the importance of time. For other groups, such as police crisis teams, the timing of action is critical: acting too soon or not soon enough are both problematic. For film crews, pacing is central to maintaining control over the work. Pacing keeps group members moving forward, even as it gives them opportunities to adjust to unforeseen problems and unexpected opportunities, towards the completion of their work.
Setting the pace: adopting a rhythm of action
One way to drive the pace of the group is simply by developing a natural rhythm of action. For example, Eisenhardt (1999) describes how top management teams develop a sense of how long strategic decisions should take. Through the experience of decision making and the practice of self-reflection, they come to understand when a process is taking too long, which implies that the group is either tackling too large an issue or is simply slowing down. They also develop a sense of when the process is too fast, as in situations where management teams become overly ambitious and, in the process, develop increasingly fast spirals that lead to ineffective decision processes and outcomes (Perlow, Okhuysen, and Repenning, 2002). Similarly, Brown and Eisenhardt (1997) studied product development groups and found that the more successful ones developed a rhythm for their process around consistent lengths of their projects. This rhythm accelerated and focused the project teams. Overall, pacing in a group reflects the collective experience of individuals, and yields more effective outcomes (Eisenhardt, 1999).
For other groups the pacing of action is quicker and progress on the task is more immediate. Film crews, for example, place great value on making continuous progress - every minute of production add to the total cost of the film, because people and materials are in place to do the work. This ongoing pressure for progress is reflected in the actions of crew members, who are always ready to quickly move to the next task or to correct mistakes as the situation demands (Bechky, 2006). Similarly, for police crisis teams every second increases the danger in a situation since time gives suspects the opportunity to respond, sometimes violently, to the actions of officers. Officers are therefore prepared to take immediate action at every moment if the situation demands it, even when great uncertainty remains (Okhuysen, 2005).
For project groups, the use of deadlines is another way to set the pace of the group process (Gersick, 1989). Deadlines influence the group process by providing an easy measure of the progress that the group has made. For example, if a group is one third of the way to its deadline but has not completed one third of the work, members can easily conclude that an increase in activity is necessary. In a particularly interesting study, Gersick (1989) found that groups with deadlines often paused at the midpoint of their schedule in order to assess their progress towards their goals in light of the deadline. As a result of this pause, the groups often had an opportunity to assess their group process and to make major changes in that process in order to improve group performance.
More generally, milestones and even simple process interventions such as “watch your time” or “ask others about their information” can effectively alter the process of groups. Such milestones and simple group interventions often trigger group members to stop and think, to evaluate their work, and to discuss potential changes in group process or direction. During these interruptions, group members have an opportunity to focus critically on their process and look for better ways to accomplish the task (Okhuysen and Eisenhardt, 2002). That is, the group members are able to address accumulated problems, discuss future directions, and take action. The result is a group process with alternating periods of both full engagement on the task and opportunities to change the direction and process of the group.
Group members also set the pace of their work through the way in which they make choices or decisions. Police crisis teams and film crews often face unexpected events that can slow or stop their progress, and responding to them directs the pace of their work. Rather than looking for perfect solutions to these challenges given the time pressure, in these situations members “make do” with the materials and people they have at hand, and they develop improvised responses to the unexpected events. Police snipers, for example, will use armored vehicles, utility poles, or even trees as lookout posts if other locations, which could be better, safer, and more comfortable, cannot be found. Making do with what is immediately available, or bricolage, allows different types of teams to continue making progress on the task by overcoming the challenge that the unexpected situation represents (Bechky and Okhuysen, 2008).
For top management groups, using consensus with qualification as a decision rule is important in pacing their activity (Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, and Bourgeois, 1997b). Consensus with qualification is a two-step process. First, group members try to reach consensus. But, if they cannot do so, then group members make the choice by some sort of decision rule such as the most involved member chooses, the group votes, or the leader decides. By formally separating discussion and deliberation from the choice that has to be made, members of effective groups can ensure that everyone’s ideas and opinions are heard, even if they are ultimately not part of the solution that is chosen. Consensus with qualification allows the group to move forward with its work rather than getting bogged down in endless discussions when agreement is hard to achieve.
Exploiting the pace: ensuring progress on the task
Why does the combination of rhythm, deadlines and milestones, simple interventions, improvisation and bricolage, and consensus with qualification lead to more effective group process? The obvious reason is that each of these tactics contributes to moving the group along more quickly. But more importantly, they can also drive a pace for the group, creating an internal process metronome that keeps the group moving forward. So, for example, milestones help group members to pace their activity (Okhuysen and Eisenhardt, 2002). Consensus with qualification provides a way for the group to stop an endless search for consensus that can waste time and energy as members pursue an objective that cannot realistically be achieved in a reasonable timeframe. Similarly, deadlines set pace and close group discussion.
This combination of tactics also helps group members to oscillate their attention from task execution to improvement of their problem-solving strategy and/or group process. Such opportunities to stop and think create greater self-reflection. For police crisis teams, these moments to stop and think occur away from their missions, during training and rehearsal sessions or mission briefing and debriefing sessions, where the group can collectively contribute to the reflective activity (Okhuysen, 2005). Self-reflection by these teams stimulates thinking and conflict within the group by often providing opportunities to examine and change group process and task strategy.
Finally, setting the pace through internal rhythms, deadlines and milestones, simple interventions, bricolage, and consensus with qualification helps group members to get along. Such tactics signal the need to focus on advancing the task, even when group members disagree. They also provide a legitimate platform for group members to address issues of ineffective group process including personal (as opposed to task) conflict. Consensus with qualification is particularly useful for helping group members to avoid the frustration of endless consensus seeking in decision-making groups. It helps them to take a realistic view of conflict as valuable and inevitable. At the same time, consensus with qualification lets group members resolve conflict (and maintain pace) in a way that is typically perceived as equitable (Eisenhardt, 1989). Most group members want a voice in their group’s decisions, but rarely believe that they must always get their preferred choice.
Overall, tactics such as deadlines and milestones, rhythm, bricolage, consensus with qualification, and simple interventions set a pace for group process that keeps groups on track in terms of time while still offering opportunities for reflection and change in their process. In contrast, groups whose members do not use these tactics are prone to ineffective use of time. They may make decisions so quickly that they forget important information or miss sight of their broader objectives (Perlow et al., 2002). More likely, they will become bogged down in searches for consensus. These group members often stress the rarity of what they do, rather than recognizing its repetitive nature. They oscillate between letting critical issues languish and making “shotgun” moves with little thought.
Thus far, we have argued that the tactics that are associated with creating collective intuition, stimulating quick task conflict, and setting the pace of the group all contribute to effective group process - that is, fast and high-conflict group process where members nonetheless get along. In this section, we focus briefly on the important role that the leader of the group plays in developing a great group process (see Chapter 15).
Guiding leadership: setting the tone for positive group processes
First of all, it is important to recognize that leaders have a disproportionate influence on group process. This influence is sometimes exerted in a negative, even if unintended, fashion. For example, surgeons can sometimes curtail the discussion of contrarian points of view during operations, limiting the opportunities for team members to contribute to the work of the group (Edmondson et al., 2001). But leaders can also use their asymmetrical influence on group process more positively. This is particularly the case when they provide legitimacy or “cover” to others in the group. In the same surgery teams (Edmondson et al., 2001), the surgeon in charge plays a disproportionate role in establishing the norms of the group. When the surgeon is open to the opinions of others and facilitates reflective practices in the team, members are more likely to point out problems and alternative solutions, especially if doing so requires side-stepping the hierarchy of the operating room. Similarly, junior members of trauma care teams such as interns are empowered to act by the “hands-off” approach of attending doctors, which puts pressure on interns but also gives them confidence to act to respond to the patients’ needs (Klein et al., 2006). In decision-making teams, the leader can adopt framebreaking heuristics such as devil’s advocacy more readily than can other members. By requesting multiple alternative approaches to a problem, the leader legitimates differences of opinion.
Leaders can also disproportionately influence the process of the group by stimulating explicit and even contrived attempts to have fun. Humor is effective within groups because it relieves tension and improves the cooperative outlook of team members as well as their listening skills (Eisenhardt, 1999). Humor bridges differences among group members as well (Kahn, 1989; Ziv and Gadish, 1990). Humor works as a defense mechanism to protect people from stressful situations that can arise in groups. Using humor, people can distance themselves from such situations by putting those situations into a broader life context, often through the use of irony. Humor, particularly given its ambiguity, can blunt the threatening edge of negative information. Group members can speak in jest about issues that might be threatening if said directly. Humor can convey serious messages in a less threatening way.
Blockbuster
The crew of Blockbuster, a large studio-funded film, arrives on the set and each member receives a walkie-talkie, after which the head of each department reports for the kick-off production meeting. Here, the first assistant director takes everyone through the shooting schedule in detail, discussing potential problems with locations, equipment, effects, and costumes. After the meeting, each lead passes on the information to the members of his or her department, gathering ideas and suggestions on how to deal with the expected challenges and with potential problems. As production gets rolling over the next few hours and days, crew members bump into colleagues they recognize, saying things like, “Didn’t we work together on Talk to the Animals in 2006?” The cinematographer and the first assistant camera operator reminisce about the Rocky sequel they worked on in Philadelphia, saying to a newcomer, “We’ve been working together for 20 years.” They joke that in this business, it sometimes feels like you are married to your colleagues.
Over the course of the next six weeks of production, there is a constant chatter about what is going on, with up-to-the-minute updates on activities. There are constant conversations about what is going on among people, sometimes in person and sometimes simply over the walkie-talkies. On the grip channel, for example, the key grip informs his crew that they are shooting a different scene from the one they had planned, saying, “I’m sorry, guys, we need to reorganize. I need four of you over by the technocrane.” When unusual incidents or concerns arise, crew members bring it to the attention of the person they think should know. For instance, when an actor in a minor role trips and falls during early morning filming and complains of a hurt wrist, five or six different crew members report this injury to the unit production manager later in the day, when he arrives on the set. Crew members also jump into action when they think they can help out, even if they are not asked. When a fire starts in a garbage can on set, two location assistants grab a cooler filled with water, run down the hill and extinguish the fire.
The heads of departments meet frequently over the course of the day, formally and informally. Particularly important are the meetings in the morning, when the work for the day is discussed, and the ones at the end of the day, when they check in on the progress of the shoot and talk over the scenes planned for the next day. When the executive producer, for instance, asks “What is going on with the aerial effects?” both the cinematographer and the unit production manager chime in. “We are having some trouble with the weather; it is too windy, and they are predicting more clouds and wind tomorrow. I don’t think we can do it,” says the cinematographer. But the unit production manager disagrees: “No, my weather service says it should clear up by tomorrow, and I think we should move ahead with it.” The executive producer considers the two different opinions and decides the crew should prepare for the aerial shots the next day. Also at the end of every day, the executive producer or the unit production manager reports on their progress to the vice president of operations at the studio, on the other side of the country. She has them keeping very close track of the “hot costs,” the daily tally of expenses the production incurs.
Reality Show
In contrast to the smooth operation of Blockbuster, Reality Show is having some trouble with its work. The production of this film is part of a reality television show. The crew members on this set are mostly unfamiliar to one another, because they were hired directly for the series and the heads of the departments did not get to select their own crew. Moreover, there are many novices on the crew. For example, the director of the film is a first-timer, chosen by a television audience vote, and knows nobody else on the set.
On this film set, you hear a lot of talking, but it is not about the tasks or the work on the project. Crew members are very worried about their careers, positioning themselves and posturing for the television cameras. “Why wasn’t I in on that decision? That’s part of my job,” gripes one producer to the camera. There are repeated blow-ups on the set between the newbie director and the cinematographer, who have very different ideas about the tone of the film, and who continually point fingers at one another and develop an intense dislike of each other. “He thinks he’s an auteur,” complains the director, while the cinematographer rejoins, “He has no clue what he is doing!” After a few days, the cinematographer stops attending the morning meetings, and arrives only as the crew is ready to begin shooting.
One morning, the cinematographer looks through the camera and says, “Why wasn’t that barn wall repainted? It is in the picture!” The set dressers, who were told by the director not to paint the wall when the cinematographer was not around, rush over and begin talking, while everyone else waits. Because key crew members are absent or arguing, key decisions are delayed. Information that is important also goes missing, causing even more problems. For instance, for the first three weeks of the shoot the director is not aware that the lead actor does not know how to ride a motorcycle, even though others on the set know this. Somehow, this bit of information falls through the cracks. Two days before the climactic bike chase scene is going to be shot the director talks to the actor about it and, delaying the shoot even more, the scene has to be pushed off for several days while they teach him to ride. The project continues to be plagued by these difficulties, and ends as a failure.
CONCLUSION
This chapter discussed some of the factors by which groups achieve a great process. A great group process is one that is responsive, that includes conflict, and where group members get along. The antecedent conditions that we discussed include sets of tactics around building collective intuition, stimulating quick conflict, and setting the pace of the group. We also indicated that the leader has a particularly powerful influence on the process of the group. Using research on groups, this chapter highlights some of the key ways to understand and improve group process. The result of such improvements can be high-quality and timely outcomes that improve the odds of the long-term survival of the group and its organization.
Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123-148.
Ancona, D. G. (1990). Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 334-365.
Ancona, D. G., and Bresman, H. (2007). X-Teams: How to Build Teams that Lead, Innovate, and Succeed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Ashforth, B. E. F., and Fried, Y. (1988). The mindlessness of organizational behavior. Human Relations, 41, 305-329.
Bechky, B. A. (2006). Gaffers, gofers, and grips: role-based coordination in temporary projects. Organization Science, 17, 3-21.
Bechky, B. A., and Okhuysen, G. A. (2008). The element of surprise: Responding to the unexpected through organizational bricolage. Working paper.
Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., and Trochim, W. M. K. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 170-188.
Brown, S. L., and Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 1-34.
Dean, J. W., and Sharfman, M. P. (1996). Does decision process matter? A study of strategic decision-making effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 368-396.
Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., and Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 685-716.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 543-576.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1999). Strategy as strategic decision making. Sloan Management Review, 40(3), 65-72.
Eisenhardt, K. M., and Bourgeois, L. J. III (1988). Politics of strategic decision making in high velocity environments: Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 737-770.
Eisenhardt, K. M., Kahwajy, J. L., and Bourgeois, L. J. III (l997a). Conflict and strategic choice: How top management teams disagree. California Management Review, 39, 42-62.
Eisenhardt, K. M., Kahwajy, J. L., and Bourgeois, L. J. III (1997b). How management teams can have a good fight. Harvard Business Review, 75, 77-85.
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9, 47-53.
Gersick, C. J. G. (1989). Marking time: predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 274-309.
Guetzkow, H., and Gyr, J. (1954). An analysis of conflict in decision-making groups. Human Relations, 7, 367-381.
Harvey, J. B. (1988). The Abiline paradox: The management of agreement. Organizational Dynamics, Summer, 17-43.
Isenberg, D. J (1986). Thinking and managing: A verbal protocol analysis of managerial problem solving. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 775-788.
Isenberg, D. J. (1988). How senior managers think. In D. E. Bell, H. Raifa, and A. Tversky (eds), Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative, and Prescriptive Interactions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Jehn, K. A (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.
Jehn, K. A (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530-557.
Jehn, K. A., and Shah, P. P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 775-790.
Kahn, W. A. (1989). Toward a sense of organizational humor: Implications for organizational design and change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 25, 45-63.
Klein, K. J., Ziegert, J. C., Knight, A. P., and Xiao, Y. (2006). Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 590-621.
Levinthal, D., and Rerup, C. (2006). Crossing an apparent chasm: Bridging mindful and less-mindful perspectives on organizational learning. Organization Science, 17, 502-513.
Louis, M. R., and Sutton, R. I. (1991). Switching cognitive gears: From habits of mind to active thinking. Human Relations, 44, 55-76.
March, J. G., and Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Murnighan, J. K., and Conlon, D. E. (1991). The dynamics of intense work groups: a study of British string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 165-186.
Okhuysen, G. A. (2001). Structuring change: Familiarity and formal interventions in problem solving groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 794-808.
Okhuysen, G. A. (2005). Understanding group behavior: How a police SWAT team creates, changes, and manages group routines. In K. D. Elsbach (ed.), Qualitative Organizational Research (pp. 139-168). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Okhuysen, G. A., and Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Integrating knowledge in groups: How simple formal interventions enable flexibility. Organization Science, 13, 370-386.
Perlow, L. A., Okhuysen, G. A., and Repenning, N. (2002). The speed trap: Exploring the relationship between decision making and the temporal context. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 931-955.
Reagans, R., Argote, L., and Brooks, D. (2005). Individual experience and experience working together: Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Management Science, 51, 869-881.
Schweiger, D. M., and Finger, P. A. (1984). The comparative effectiveness of dialectical inquiry and Devil’s Advocacy: The impact of task biases on previous research findings. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 335-350.
Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., and Ragan, J. W. (1986). Group approaches for improving strategic decision making: A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, Devil’s Advocacy, and consensus. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 51-71.
Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., and Rechner, P. L. (1989). Experiential effects of dialectical inquiry, Devil’s Advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 745-772.
Shah, P. P., and Jehn, K. A. (1993). Do friends perform better than acquaintances? The interaction of friendship, conflict, and task. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2, 149-165.
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99-118.
Simons, T. L., and Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102-111.
Stasser, G. (1992). Information salience and the discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: a “thought experiment”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 156-181.
Stasser, G., and Stewart, D. (1992). Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 426-434.
Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., and Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 31, 244-265.
Thompson, L., Gentner, D., and Loewenstein, J. (2000). Avoiding missed opportunities in managerial life: Analogical training more powerful than individual case training. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 60-75.
Valley, K. L., Neale, M. A., and Mannix, E. A. (1995). Friends, lovers, colleagues, strangers: The effects of relationships on the process and outcome of dyadic negotiations. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 5, 65-93.
Wally, S., and Baum, J. R. (1994). Personal and structural determinants of the pace of strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 932-956.
Weick, K. E., and Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the Unexpected. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ziv, A., and Gadish, O. (1990). The disinhibiting effects of humor: Aggressive and affective responses. Humor, 3, 247-257.
Successful vs. unsuccessful groups
Briefly describe two groups that you have participated in, one that you consider was successful and one that was unsuccessful, explaining the work the groups were trying to accomplish. After you have described the groups, build a table in which you compare the two groups, noting similarities and differences in building collective intuition, the presence or absence of conflict in the group, and how pacing and timing affected the work process. Finally, describe the lessons you can draw from the successful group and describe how, in retrospect, you might have tried to change the dynamics in the unsuccessful group to improve its work process.
Improving group process
Describe a group that you are currently participating in where you would like to improve the group process. After describing the group and its work, indicate how well the group is performing with regards to building collective intuition, exploiting task conflict, and pacing the work. Which elements of group process do you feel need attention? What benefits do you think you could get from improving them? Lastly, describe in detail the actions that you can take to change or modify the group process to gain those benefits.