What distinguish teams from social aggregates? A tool to assess the group development

• Autores: José Navarro Cid, Rocío Meneses, Cibeles Miralles Ortiz, Diana Moreno Rodríguez, Vânia Loureiro
• Localización: Anales de psicología, ISSN-e 1695-2294, ISSN 0212-9728, Vol. 31, Nº. 3, 2015, págs. 921-929
• Idioma: inglés
• DOI: 10.6018/analesps.31.3.183831
• Títulos paralelos:
  • ¿Qué distingue a los equipos de los agregados sociales? Un instru-mento para evaluar el desarrollo del grupo
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Dialnet Métricas: 3 Citas
• Resumen
  • español

    Esta investigación utiliza el constructo de desarrollo del grupo (GD) para distinguir grupos de trabajo y equipos altamente desarrollados de los meros agregados sociales. Los objetivos fueron desarrollar una escala capaz de medir este proceso emergente básico y estudiar la fiabilidad y vali-dez de constructo de la escala (de contenido, factorial, convergente y orien-tada al criterio). Los datos relativos al GD y otros procesos relacionados (entitatividad e identificación del grupo) y resultados del equipo (desempe-ño y efectividad del grupo) se obtuvieron de cuatro estudios sucesivos (4099 participantes pertenecientes a 559 grupos de trabajo de 12 organiza-ciones). Todos los estudios se llevaron a cabo utilizando un diseño trans-versal y correlacional. Los resultados revelaron una solución unidimensio-nal de la escala propuesta, que demostró validez y fiabilidad adecuadas. La escala no sólo es práctica (rápida y fácil de aplicar), sino que también es útil para los gestores y líderes de grupos ya que les proporciona una herramien-ta para determinar el grado en que sus grupos funcionan en realidad como equipos altamente desarrollados

  • English

    This research uses the construct of group development (GD) to distinguish highly developed workgroups and teams from mere social ag-gregates. The aims were to develop a scale capable of measuring this basic emergent process and to study the scale�s reliability and construct validity (content, factorial, convergent and criteria). Data concerning the GD, oth-er related processes (entitativity and group identification) and team outputs (group performance and team effectiveness) were gathered from four suc-cessive studies (4099 participants belonging to 521 workgroups in 13 or-ganizations). All the studies were carried out using a cross-sectional and correlational design. The results revealed an one-dimensional solution for the proposed measurement scale, which showed adequate reliability and validity. The scale is not only practical (quick and easy to apply) but also useful for group managers and leaders, since it provides them with a tool for determining the extent to which their groups are actually functioning as highly developed groups

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Andriessen, J. H. E. (2002). Working with groupware. Understanding and evaluating collaboration technology. London: Springer Verlag.
  • Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E. & Berdhal, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems. Formation, coordination, development and adaptation....
  • Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J. & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A metaanalytic clarification of...
  • Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability. Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J....
  • Burke, M. J., Finkelstein, L. M. & Dusig, M. S. (1999). On average deviation indices for estimating interrater agreement. Organizational...
  • Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS-Windows: basic concepts, applications, and programming. Thousand Oaks,...
  • Carpenter, S. & Radhakrishnan, P. (2002). The relation between allocentrism and perceptions of ingroups. Personality and Social Psychology...
  • Chiocchio, F. & Essiembre, H. (2009). Cohesion and performance: A meta-analytic review of disparities between project teams, production...
  • Gaertner, L. & Schopler, J. (1998). Perceived ingroup entitativity and in-group bias: An interconnection of self and others. European...
  • Hamilton, D. L. & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336-355. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.336
  • Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G. & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel...
  • Hogg, M. A., Turner, J. C. & Davidson, B. (1990). Polarized norms and social frames of reference: A test of the self-categorization theory...
  • Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and a test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179-185. doi: 10.1007/BF02289447
  • Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.),...
  • Lickel, D., Hamilton, D., Lewis, A., Sherman, S., Wieczorkowska, G. & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group...
  • Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., Alonso, A., DeChurch, L. & Panzer, F. J. (2005). Teamwork in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology,...
  • Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E. & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management...
  • McKimmie, B., Terry, D., Hogg, M. A., Manstead, A., Spears, R. & Doosje, B.(2003). Uncertainty reduction, self-enhancement, and ingroup...
  • Meneses, R., Ortega, R., Navarro, J. & de Quijano, S. D. (2008). Criteria for assessing the level of group development (GD) of work groups....
  • Sherif, M. (1967). Social interaction. Process and products. Selected papers by Muzafer Sherif. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
  • Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D. & Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-analysis of their relationships,...
  • Tuckman, B. W. & Jensen, M. A. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2, 419-427. doi:...
  • Wheelan, S. A. (2010). Creating effective teams. A guide for members and leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.