Group Behavior Factors & Work Team Outcomes
This is an excerpt from the paper...
The purpose of this research study is to investigate the effects of group factors on work team outcomes. Specifically the study investigated effects of team membership on group factors and the ability of these group factors to predict organizational and employee outcomes. Subjects for the study included 30 male and 30 female employees, ten from each of three workgroups (programmers, analysts, or testers), chosen from those who volunteered from a local software development company. The hypotheses tested effects of team memberships on group factors of: autonomy, cohesion, diversity, conflict, training, rewards, empowerment, communication, and leadership and the ability of these group factors to predict organizational (increased quantity, quality, and timeliness) and employee (increased well being and work skills) outcomes. This study resulted in the following conclusions: group membership affected group cohesion, diversity, training, rewards, and leadership; group cohesion, diversity, rewards, and leadership predict quantity outcomes; group diversity and leadership predict quality outcomes; group cohesion, diversity, communication, and leadership predict timeliness outcomes; and group rewards predict work skill outcomes. Introduction to the Problem 1 Background and Statement of the Problem 2 Purpose of the Study 3 Theoretical Orientation 4 Significance of the study 5 Research Questions &
. . .
man behaviors are not universal. These authors criticize Tuckman and other theorists of group development since they do not include this premise. Alternatively, White et al. stated that obstacles to team building in an organization include that there is no focus on those being referred to when considering human behavior, and there is a lack of framework to understand the dynamics of people in groups. For example, group development must understand the different patterns of communication that are based on different socialization experiences according to gender, childhood experiences, and development.
Gunawardena, Nolla, Wilson, and Lopez-Islas (2001) studied cross-cultural differences in the group processes. The authors pointed out that use of the Internet and the World Wide Web is increasing to facilitate collaborative learning as well as teamwork in cross-cultural and cross-national settings. These groups interact and develop online. This points to the need to understand cultural differences and findings can be applied to the diverse populations found in today's American organization. Employee survey and focus group data was used to determine differences in perception regarding the Norming and Performing stages of group
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Hypotheses Hypothesis, Null Hypothesis, Corning Incorporated, Van Aken, Colquitt Noe, IraniáSharp Kagioglouá1997, Pneumafil Corporation, Corporation Technological, Trumble Diaz, Team Concept, team memberships, significant difference, difference team memberships, difference team, significant difference team, programmers analysts testers, programmers analysts, analysts testers, memberships programmers analysts, memberships programmers, team memberships programmers, factors significantly, significant =, employee outcomes, regression analysis,
Approximate Word count = 9160
Approximate Pages = 37 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Group Behavior Factors & Work Team Outcomes
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
