Relationship between formal group characteristics and the perceived efficiency of work groups

Occupation: Head of the Department of Psychology of Management, Academy of Psychology and Pedagogy
Affiliation: Southern Federal University
Address: Rostov-on-Don, 105/42 Bolshaya Sadovaya Str.

Evgeniy Borokhovski

Occupation: Affiliate Associate Professor, Department of Education, Systematic Reviews Project Manager Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance (CSLP)
Affiliation: Concordia University
Address: 1455 Boulevard de Maisonneuve West

Journal name

Psikhologicheskii zhurnal

Edition

Volume 41 issue 1

Pages

18-30

Abstract

The study explored the relationships between formal quantitative characteristics of a work group (diversity by gender, age and length of group membership, workers’average age and duration of their work in the group) with indeces of job effectiveness and socio-psychological effectiveness of small groups, including those dependent on the group size and components (levels and types) of intragroup conflict. Forty-one groups – small-size companies and primary structural divisions in medium and large organizations – were surveyed. The total number of participants counted 334 employees. The study discovered and described various interconnections between formal group characteristics and performance indices dependent on the group size. In small groups, heterogeneity in the duration of group membership is positively associated with the measure of job effectiveness “meeting planned performance objectives and accomplishing ongoing tasks”, whereas heterogeneity in employees’ gender is negatively associated with the measure of socio-psychological effectiveness “psychological comfort in the group”. In large-size groups, the average age and average duration of group membership were positive predictors of the measures of job effectiveness “meeting planned performance objectives and accomplishing ongoing tasks” and “activity in difficult conditions”, whereas the average duration of group membership was positively associated with the measure of socio-psychological effectiveness “satisfaction with the group and the results of group performance.”

The components of intragroup conflict (interpersonal, micro-group and group conflicts of two types – activity-oriented and subject-oriented) in combination with the formal group characteristics created different effects on performance indices in the entire sample and in large-size groups. It was determined that the conflict may serve a catalyst that actualizes relationship of formal group characteristics with the indices of group effectiveness. The study also established that the components of intragroup conflict and formal group characteristics could have both a unidirectional and multidirectional action vector on certain indices of group efficiency. The results expand the idea that the relationships between formal quantitative group characteristics and group effectiveness can be direct and indirect alike.

Keywords

Formal group characteristics, group composition, group size, levels and types of conflict, job effectiveness, socio-psychological effectiveness

Received

10.12.2019

Publication date

27.12.2019

Number of characters

34526

Cite

GOST	Sidorenkov A., Borokhovski E. Relationship between formal group characteristics and the perceived efficiency of work groups // Psikhologicheskii zhurnal – 2020. – V. 41. – issue 1 C. 18-30 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://psy.jes.su/S020595920007860-2-1 (circulation date: 25.04.2024). DOI: 10.31857/S020595920007860-2
MLA	Sidorenkov, A., Borokhovski, Evgeniy "Relationship between formal group characteristics and the perceived efficiency of work groups." Psikhologicheskii zhurnal 41.1 (2020):18-30. DOI: 10.31857/S020595920007860-2
APA	Sidorenkov A., Borokhovski E. (2020). Relationship between formal group characteristics and the perceived efficiency of work groups. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal 41(1), pp.18-30 DOI: 10.31857/S020595920007860-2

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 1407

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Danilin K.E., Harash A.U. Diada ili triada? (K voprosu ob optimal'nom chislennom sostave kollektivnogo sub"ekta upravleniya). Social'no-psihologicheskie problemy rukovodstva i upravleniya kollektivom. Moscow, 1974. P. 14–15. (In Russian)

2. Rusalov V.M. O vzaimootnoshenii svojstv temperamenta i effektivnosti individual'noj i sovmestnoj deyatel'nosti. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. 1982. V. 3. № 6. P. 50–59. (In Russian)

3. Sidorenkov A.V. et al. Razrabotka instrumentariya issledovaniya gruppovogo i mikrogruppovogo konflikta v proizvodstvennyh gruppah. Rossijskij psihologicheskij zhurnal. 2016. V. 13. № 3. P. 89–106. (In Russian)

4. Sidorenkov A.V., Dorofeev V.A. Strukturnaya model' vnutrigruppovogo konflikta v proizvodstvennyh gruppah. Organizacionnaya psihologiya. 2018. V. 8. № 2. P. 8–28. (In Russian)

5. Sidorenkov A.V., Lokteva E.A., Mkrtchyan A.A. Instrumentarij issledovaniya tipov mezhlichnostnyh protivorechij i konfliktov v malyh gruppah. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. 2014. V. 35. № 2. P. 103–117. (In Russian)

6. Sidorenkov A.V., Ul'yanova N.Yu. Metodiki izucheniya effektivnosti malyh proizvodstvennyh grupp. Rossijskij psihologicheskij zhurnal. 2011. № 4. P. 9–16. (In Russian)

7. Sinyagin Yu.V. K probleme vzaimosvyazi gruppovoj kompozicii i effektivnosti. Problemy kommunikativnoj i poznavatel'noj deyatel'nosti lichnosti. Ul'yanovsk: Obltipografiya, 1981. P. 41–47. (In Russian)

8. Hasina P.L. Rolevoj sostav komandy i dinamika ee effektivnosti. Voprosy psihologii. 2009. № 4. P. 91–98. (In Russian)

9. Shchebetenko A.I. Dinamicheskaya harakteristika obshchitel'nosti v formirovanii gotovnosti k pedagogicheskoj deyatel'nosti: Avtoref. diss. … kand. psihol. nauk. Moscow, 1984. (In Russian)

10. Benoliel P., Somech A. The Role of Leader Boundary Activities in Enhancing Interdisciplinary Team Effectiveness. Small Group Research. 2014. 6 (1). P. 83–124.

11. Blau P.M. Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. New York, NY: Free Press, 1977.

12. Bowers C.A., Pharmer J.A., Salas E. When member homogeneity is needed in work teams: A Meta-Analysis. Small group research. 2000. 31 (3). Р. 305–327.

13. Chi N., Huang Y., Lin S. A. double-edged sword? Exploring the curvilinear relationship between organizational tenure diversity and team innovation: The moderating role of team-oriented HR practices. Group & Organization Management. 2009. 34. P. 698–726.

14. de Poel F.M., Stoker J.I., Van der Zee K.I. Leadership and organizational tenure diversity as determinants of project team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management. 2014. 39. P. 532–560.

15. Ely R.J. A Field Study of Group Diversity, Participation in Diversity Education Programs, and Performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2004. 25 (6). P. 755–780.

16. Halfhill T., et al. Group Personality Composition and Group Effectiveness: An Integrative Review of Empirical Research. Small Group Research. 2005. 36 (1). P. 83–105.

17. Halfhill T.R., Nielsen T.M., Sundstrom E. The ASA Framework: A Field Study of Group Personality Composition and Group Performance in Military Action Teams. Small Group Research. 2008. 39 (5). P. 616–635.

18. Jackson S.E., Joshi A. Diversity in Social Context: A Multi-Attribute, Multilevel Analysis of Team Diversity and Sales Performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2004. 25 (6). P. 675–702.

19. Jackson S.E., May K.E., Whitney K. Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision-making teams. Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations / Ed. by R.A. Guzzo, E.Salas. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995. P. 383–396.

20. Latane’ B. The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist. 1981. 36. P. 343–356.

21. Moon T. The effects of cultural intelligence on performance in multicultural teams // Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2013. 43 (12). P. 2414–2425.

22. Morgan B.B., Lassiter D.L. Team composition and staffing. Teams: Their training and performance / Ed. by R.W. Sweezey, E. Salas. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1992. P. 75–100.

23. Mullen B., Copper C. The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological bulletin. 1994. 115 (2). P. 210–227.

24. Olson B., Parayitam S., Bao Y. Strategic decision making: The effects of cognitive diversity, conflict, and trust on decision outcomes. Journal of Management. 2007. 33. P. 196–222.

25. Sidorenkov A.V., Borokhovski E.F., Kovalenko V.A. Group size and composition of work groups as precursors of intragroup conflicts. Psychology Research and Behavior Management. 2018. 11. P. 511–523.

26. Sidorenkov A.V., Pavlenko R.V. GROUP PROFILE computer technique: A tool for complex study of small groups. SAGE Open. 2015. 5 (1). P. 1–13.

27. Smith K.G., et al. Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1994. 39. P. 412–435.

28. van Dijk H., van Engen M.L., van Knippenberg, D. Defying conventional wisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related diversity relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2012. 119. P. 38–53.

29. Woehr D.J., Arciniega L.M., Poling T. Exploring the effects of value diversity on team effectiveness. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2013. 28. P. 107–121.

30. Wood W. Meta-analytic review of sex differences in group performance. Psychological Bulletin. 1987. 102(1). P. 53–71.

31. Zheng W., Wei J. Linking Ethnic Composition and Performance: Information Integration Between Majority and Minority Members. Small Group Research. 2018. 49 (3). P. 357–387.