Team Research Newsletter
For nearly three years, TeamTrainers™ Consulting's Head Coach, Jim Morgan, published a free monthly newsletter, TeamResearch News. It summarized the latest
information from studies or articles on business teams, along with
guidance on how to apply that research in the workplace. Though the
newsletter is no longer published, its archive remains available here as a
public service.
Each issue of TeamResearch News contains four to six
research summaries, each containing these sections:
- "Study" or "Article":
This contains a description of the academic "study" or
business magazine "article" and its results stated in plain English.
In the case of studies, I tell you a little about what kind of study
was done and who the test subjects were (see About Research Studies below).
- Application: Here
you'll find my suggestions on how to put the findings to use in your
work group or team. Frequently these aren't based just on what the study
said, but on its findings within the context of my prior research and
experience.
- Source: I always
provide a full citation so you can have a look for yourself. Unless
otherwise noted, all sources were found in the Foster Business Library
or Suzzallo-Allen Library at the University of Washington.
You may reprint any part of these newsletters at no charge in any electronic or print publication for which authors do not receive pay for individual articles, subject to the conditions below. This includes but is not limited to company and nonprofit organization newsletters, Web sites, intranets, etc. If authors are sometimes paid on a per-word or per-article basis, contact
me to arrange reprint rights. The conditions for free publication are:
- The author ("Jim Morgan") should be credited.
- "TeamResearch News" must be cited, containing at
least the name and the publication date (shown at the top of this page).
- A link to this page must be provided, either
written out or (in Web formats) as a link from the newsletter title:
"www.teamresearchnews.com."
- Please notify
me of the publication.
The right to reprint does not imply the granting of any other rights, and all copyrights remain the property of Jim Morgan.
Good researchers always list the "limitations" of
their studies, i.e., the reasons their findings may not apply to people
differing from the individuals studied. Unfortunately, some consultants
and journalists don't make those limitations clear. Since I only use
research studies from "refereed" journals—those whose articles have been
reviewed by independent scientific peers of the authors—you can feel
comfortable that they meet at least the minimum standards for proper
science. But you should note the:
- Size of the study:
The more people there were in the test, the more comfortable you can
feel that the results would apply to a wider range of people.
- Type of test and test
subjects: A laboratory test using undergraduate students may produce
results far different from a workplace study with employees. However,
lab test results are far less likely to be "contaminated" by variables
the researcher can't easily control in the real world. Neither is
necessarily better than the other; but results of one type are
considered more likely to match reality if they agree with those found
by the other type.
- Body of knowledge: A study that builds on and is consistent
with earlier research is more reliable than an early test of a new
theory. Most studies I report on in TeamResearch News fit the first category; if
they're in a new area of inquiry, I'll let you know.
You often hear business success (or failure) stories through the media, consultants, or your colleagues. If you aren't
skeptical about what you're told, you could commit money to a technique
that won't work for your company, or mistakenly avoid a technique that would. Writers and
speakers often misunderstand that two concepts being related doesn't mean one caused the other, or fail to consider the unique circumstances that may have played a role in the outcome. Regarding
each claim as to why a success or failure occurred, ask yourself whether
there were:
- Other possible causes than those the story
suggests.
- Special circumstances in the unit studied that
allowed the technique to work or caused it not to.
- Companies built on less-flashy but better-proven
techniques that succeeded with (or in spite of) the techniques the story
attribute a success to.
- Companies that succeeded despite using (or even
because of) a technique that caused a failure in the story you heard.
- Other reasons the people in the story focused on
those techniques (public relations, deflecting personal blame, etc.).
Let's say you are going to look at the link between "Item A" and "Item B." A perfect negative "correlation," shown numerically as -1.0 (on a scale of -1.0 to +1.0), means that when Item A goes up one step, Item B goes down one step (and vice versa—correlation by itself does not show which movement causes the other). At the other extreme, a perfect
positive correlation of +1.0 means when either item goes up one step, so
does the other. A 0.5 correlation would mean that when one item moves one
full step, the other moves only a half step, while a correlation of 0
would mean there is no connection at all between the movements of the two.
In short, the distance of the number from zero shows the strength of the
link, and the sign (positive or negative) shows whether the items move in
the same or opposite directions.
- May 2006: Formal teams raise profits; internal
networking; team self-reflection; champions and innovation.
- April 2006: Monitoring team member effort;
gender differences in teamwork; peer rating bias; role confusion and
satisfaction.
- March 2006: Meeting effectiveness; value
statements; emotion in e-mails; factions within teams.
- February 2006: Long-term team coaching; group
task satisfaction; sense of control over fate; lone dissenters.
- January
2006: No issue.
- December 2005: Team "virtuality"; unfairness
derails agreement; corporate boards and stakeholders; how HR practices
effect performance.
- November 2005: Software team best practices;
responsibility to employees; planning in high-cooperation jobs; using
lab and field research.
- October 2005: "Lean office" events; peer
reviews; ability and trust; helping behaviors.
- September 2005: Improvisation training; team vs.
individual freedom; informal communications; managing expert teams;
team-based pay.
- August 2005: Sexual harassment; project
preparation; standard processes vs. creativity; shared sense of justice.
- July 2005: Leading self-managed teams;
successful workplace democracy; work councils; teams in manufacturing;
mass collaboration.
- June 2005: Mix of experience for success; time,
type, and conditions for coaching; mutual understanding and cooperation.
- May 2005: Leader mood effects; charisma and
change; employee forums; steps for delegation.
- April 2005: Team development stages; employee
resistance to teaming; support for/from team and company; teamwork
ethics.
- March 2005: Workplace safety; guilt and
competition; skill sets, tasks, and helping; uncooperative members
affect team data; mental models.
- February 2005: Socializing and effectiveness;
kaizen's lessons for teams; internal versus external learning; how and
why to write objectives.
- January 2005: HR myths about teams; empowering
individuals without hurting teams; reducing conflicts from diversity;
team reflection improves innovation.
- December 2004: Decision consensus and
efficiency; virtual team knowledge review; workplace democracy; middle
manager role in change.
- November 2004: Teamwork vs. diversity training;
top teams waste time; when trust hurts performance; factors in social
loafing.
- October 2004: In-team expertise; factors in
sense of ownership; emotion and conflict; sources of cooperation; MBAs
are not managers.
- September 2004 :
No issue.
- August 2004: Virtual team needs; HR and people
management; knowledge seeking; goal contagion.
- July 2004: Power and conflict; virtual team
empowerment; trust of newcomers; team citizenship; racial effects on
team ratings; "Action Items" technique.
- June 2004: Top team cohesion; leadership styles;
virtual team tools and techniques; team leader political skills.
- May 2004: Creating shared leadership (2); goals
and team performance; structural diversity and performance; making
virtual teams work.
- April 2004: Diversity's down side; white-collar
group pay; teaming's effect on managers; shared vision; project team
cooperation.
- March 2004: 360° feedback systems; top
manufacturers and teams; culture effects on empowerment; team manager
tactics.
- February 2004: Subgroups and diversity; work
cell tips; diversity and team performance; virtual teams; BMW's
empowerment success.
- January 2004: Expectations and newcomer
performance; team challenges, freedom, and performance; rewarding
competition; problem-solving versus training.
- December 2003: Delta Air's employee involvement;
team learning (two articles); workplace helping; Toyota and
Japanese-style management.
- November 2003: Executive bonuses (two articles);
awareness of member expertise; top leadership without a leader; building
team trust.
- October 2003: Managing self-managed teams;
union-management partnerships; task conflict; teambuilding activities.
- September 2003: Effects of information sharing;
cutting management levels; researcher and business teams.
- August 2003: Benefits of job control and
support; acceptance of team-based pay; on-the-job training; misleading
business stories.
- July 2003: Costs of avoiding conflict; effects
of member bad mood on teams; cross-cultural communication; Federal
Reserve team success; elements in team member support; online
collaboration.
| 
