La rellevància de la potència de grup en l´efectivitat dels equips virtuals

  1. Lira Rodríguez, Eva M.
  2. Ripoll Botella, Pilar
Revista:
Anuari de psicologia de la Societat Valenciana de Psicologia

ISSN: 1135-1268

Año de publicación: 2013

Volumen: 15

Número: 1

Páginas: 13-28

Tipo: Artículo

Otras publicaciones en: Anuari de psicologia de la Societat Valenciana de Psicologia

Resumen

Literature on work teams has highlighted that power group is a determinant factor in group effectivity. Because of that, several studies analyze factors favoring its development and maintenance, together with its consequences, both in terms of performance and viability of the group over time and satisfaction. However, most of these studies are focused in traditional teams, based on face to face communication. Over the last years, virtual teams are increasing in organizations. After reviewing the State of the Art of group power in traditional teams, this work describes main results obtained in virtual teams and future research lines are suggested.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Akgün, A. E., Keskin, H., Byrne, J. i Imamoglu, S. Z. (2007). Antecedents and consequences of team potency in software development projects. Information & Management, 44, 646-656.
  • Alcover, C. M. (2003). Equipos de trabajo y dinámicas grupales en contextos organizacionales. En F. Gil i C. M. Alcover de la Hera (coords.), Introducción a la Psicología de las Organizaciones. Alianza Editorial.
  • Alcover, C. M. i Gil, F. (2000). Potencia en grupos: un constructo entre la autoeficacia y la motivación colectiva. Apuntes de Psicología, 18, 123-143.
  • Andriessen, J. H. E. (2003). Working with groupware: Understanding and evaluating collaboration technology. Londres: Springer Verlag.
  • Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I. i Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207-218.
  • Borgogni, L., Petitta, L. i Mastrorilli, A. (2010). Correlates of collective efficacy in the Italian Air Force. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59, 515-537.
  • Chen, G. i Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 549-556.
  • Chen, G., Kanfer, R., DeShon, R. D., Mathieu, J. E. i Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2009). The motivating potential of teams: Test and extension of Chen & Kanfer’s (2006) cross-level model of motivation in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 45-55.
  • Cohen, S. G. i Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290.
  • Dixon, K. R. i Panteli, N. (2010). From virtual teams to virtuality in teams. Human Relations, 63, 1177-1197.
  • Driskell, J., Radtke, P. i Salas, E. (2003). Virtual Teams: Effects of Technological Mediation on Team Performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 297-323.
  • Earley, P. C. (1999). Playing follow the leader: Status-determining traits in relation to collective efficacy across cultures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 192-212.
  • Edmonds, W. A., Tenenbaum, G., Kamata, A. i Johnson, M. (2009). The role of collective efficacy in adventure racing teams. Small Group Research, 40, 163-180.
  • Ensley, M., Carr, J. C. i Sajasalo, P. (2004). A social cognitive model of founding team dynamics. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Babson Park, MA: Babson Press.
  • Gibson, C. B. i Earley, P. C. (2007). Collective cognition in action: Accumulation, interaction, examination and accommodation in the development and operation of group efficacy beliefs in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 32, 438-458.
  • González, M. G., Burke, M. J., Santuzzi, A. M. i Bradley, J. C. (2003). The impact of group process variables on the effectiveness of distance collaboration groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 629-648.
  • Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., i Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A metaanalysis of team efficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819-832.
  • Guzzo, R. A. (1986). Group decision making and group effectiveness in organizations. En P. S. Goodman & Associates (eds.), Designing Effective Work Groups (p. 34-71). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J. i Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups: articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87-106.
  • Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. En J. Lorsch (ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (p. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t): Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Hackman, J. R. i Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. En L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (p. 1-55). NYC: Academic Press.
  • Hecht, T. D., Allen, N. J., Klammer, J. D. i Kelly, E. C. (2002). Group Beliefs, Ability, and Performance: The Potency of Group Potency. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 143-152.
  • Hernández, B., Jiménez, J. i Martín, M. J. (2007). Business Acceptance of Information and Communication Technologies: An Study of the Service Sector. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 4, 3-22.
  • Hogg, M. A., Hains, S. C. i Mason, I. (1998). Identification and leadership in small groups: Salience, frame of reference, and leader stereotypicality effects on leader evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1248-1263.
  • Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M. i Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From I-P-O models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517-544.
  • Jong, A., Ruyter, K. i Wetzels, M. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of group potency: a study of self-managing service teams. Management Science, 51, 1610-1625.
  • Jung, D. I. i Sosik, J. J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work group: The role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research, 33, 313-336.
  • Kayworth, T. R. i Leidner, D. E. (2000). The global virtual manager: a prescription for success. European Management Journal, 18, 183-194.
  • Kirkman, B. L. i Rosen, B. (1997). A model of work team empowerment. En R. Woodman & W. Pasmore (eds.), Research in organizational change and development (p. 131-167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • Kozlowski, S.W.J. i Bell, B.S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. En W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, i R. J. Klimoski (wds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (p. 333-375). Londres: Wiley.
  • Kozlowski, S. W. J. e Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77-124.
  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T. i Jensen, J. M. (2009). Building an infrastructure for organizational learning: A multilevel approach. En S. W. J. Kozlowski i Salas (eds.), Learning training and development in organizations (p. 361- 400). Nova York, NY: Routledge Academic.
  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R. i Smith, E. M. (1999). Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. En D. R. Ilgen i E. D. Pulakos (eds.), The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, personnel actions, and development (p. 240-292). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Larson, C. E. i LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Teamwork: What Must Go Right/What Can Go Wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Lee, C., Tinsley, C. H. i Bobko, P. (2002). An investigation of the antecedents and consequences of group-level confidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1628-1652.
  • Lester, S. W., Meglino, B. M. i Korsgaard, M. A. (2002). The antecedents and consequences of group potency: a longitudinal investigation of newly formed groups. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 352-368.
  • Lira, E. M. (2011). El rol de la potencia de grupo en el funcionamiento de los equipos virtuales. Un estudio longitudinal [The role of group potency on virtual teams functioning. A longitudinal study]. Tesi doctoral no publicada, Universitat de València, València.
  • Lira, E. M., Peiró, J. M., Ripoll, P. i Orengo, A. (2008). How do different types of intragroup conflict affect group potency in virtual compared with face-toface teams? A longitudinal study. Behaviour and Information Technology, 27, 107-114.
  • Lira, E.M., Ripoll, P., Peiró, J. M. i Zornoza, A. (2008). The role of information and communication technologies in the relationship between group effectiveness and group potency. Small Group Research, 39, 728-745
  • Lira, E. M., Ripoll, P., Peiró, J. M. i Zornoza, A. (2013). The role of information and communication technologies in the relationship between group potency and group maintenance outcomes. A longitudinal study. Behaviour and Information Technology, 32, 147-155.
  • Manz, C. C. i Sims, H. P. (1991). Superleadership: Beyond the myth of heroic Leadership. Organizational. Dynamics, 19(4), 18-35.
  • Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E. i Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.
  • Mathieu J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T. i Gilson, L. (2008). Team Effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse into the Future. Journal of Management, 34, 410-476.
  • McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. Nova York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
  • Pearce, C. L., Gallagher, C. A. i Ensley, M. D. (2002). Confidence at the group level of analysis: a longitudinal investigation of the relationship between potency and team effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 115-119.
  • Riggs, M. L. i Knight, P. A. (1994). The impact of perceived group success-failure on motivational beliefs and attitudes: a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 755-766.
  • Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A. i Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. En R. W. Swezey i E. Salas (eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (p. 3-29). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Sayles, L. R. (1958). Behavior in Industrial Work Groups: Prediction and Control. Nova York: Wiley.
  • Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K. i Cha, S. A. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1020-1030.
  • Shamir, B. (1990). Calculations, values, and identities: The sources of collectivistic work motivation. Human Relations, 43, 313-332.
  • Shea, G. P. i Guzzo, R. A. (1987), Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review, 28, 25-31.
  • Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W. D., Avolio, B. J. i Jung, D. I. (2002). A longitudinal model of the effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance. Group & Organization Management, 27, 66-96.
  • Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J. i Kahai, S. S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 89-103.
  • Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S. S. i Jung, D. I. (1998). Computer-supported work group potency and effectiveness: The role of transformational leadership, anonymity, and task interdependence. Computers in Human Behavior, 14, 491-511.
  • Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D. i Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 814-828.
  • Werner, J. M. i Lester, S. W. (2001). Applying a team effectiveness framework to the performance of student case teams. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 385-402.
  • West, B. J., Patera, J. L. i Carten, M. K. (2009). Team level positivity: investigating positive psychological capacities and team level outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 249-267.
  • Whiteoak, J. W. (2007). The Relationship among Group Process Perceptions, Goal Commitment and Turnover Intention in Small Committee Groups. Journal of Bussiness Psychology, 22, 11-20
  • Wong, A., Tjosvold, D. i Liu, C. (2009). Innovation by Teams in Shanghai, China: Cooperative Goals for Group Confidence and Persistence. British Journal of Management, 20, 238-251.
  • World Economic Forum (2011-2012). Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012. K. Schwab. Palgrave Macmillan.