Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-14T04:02:41.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Social Dynamics at Work

Meetings as a Gateway

from Capturing and Understanding Dynamics and Processes of the Meeting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2015

By
Annika L. Meinecke  and
Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock
Edited by
Joseph A. Allen ,
Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock  and
Steven G. Rogelberg
Joseph A. Allen
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Omaha
Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Steven G. Rogelberg
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Charlotte
Get access

Summary

Abstract

Meetings offer an exciting gateway to dynamic social processes in organizations. During their meeting interactions, employees exchange information, build common ground, create new ideas, manage relationships, and make or break team climate. In this chapter, we highlight the potentials and possibilities for research on dynamic social processes during team meetings. Through the lens of a meetings researcher, we discuss how to address research questions and methodological issues in studying meeting interaction processes. By focusing on the observable behavioral conduct of meeting participants (i.e., their verbal communication), we show how micro-level interaction processes, emergent patterns, and the dynamics of social influence throughout a meeting can be revealed. The chapter includes a how-to guideline for researchers and practitioners interested in carrying out interaction analysis in team meetings. We illustrate our reasoning by providing data from a sample of 24 videotaped team meetings. Finally, we discuss limitations of behavioral research in team meetings. The chapter closes with a summary and future research questions in the area of dynamic social processes in organizational meetings.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science , pp. 325 - 356
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adair, W., & Brett, J. M. (2005). The negotiation dance: Time, culture, and behavioral sequences in negotiation. Organizational Science, 16, 33–51. doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agnew, C. R., Carlston, D. E., Graziano, W.G., & Kelly, J. R. (Eds.) (2010). Then a miracle occurs: Focusing on behavior in social psychological theory and research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, J. A., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2013). Manager-led group meetings: A context for promoting employee engagement. Group & Organization Management, 38, 534–569. doi:10.1177/1059601113503040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakeman, R., Quera, V., & Gnisci, A. (2009). Observer agreement for time-event sequential data: A comparison of time based and event-based algorithms. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 137–147. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.1.137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bales, R. F., & Cohen, S. P. (1982). SYMLOG: Ein System für die mehrstufige Beobachtung von Gruppen (J. Schneider & P. Orlik, Trans.). Stuttgart, Germany: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396–403. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195377798.003.0002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benes, K. M., Gutkin, T. B., & Kramer, J. J. (1995). Lag sequential analysis: Taking consultation communication research methodology to the movies. School Psychology Review, 24, 694–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, D. V. M. (2003). Development of the children's communication checklist (CCC): A method for assessing qualitative aspects of communicative impairment in children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 878–891. doi:10.1111/14697610.00388Google Scholar
Bonito, J. A., & Sanders, R. E. (2011). The existential center of small groups: Members' conduct and interaction. Small Group Research, 42, 343–358. doi:10.1177/1046496410385472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewerton, P., & Millward, L. (2001). Organizational research methods: A guide for students and researchers. London, UK: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carli, L. L., & Bukatko, D. (2000). Gender, communication, and social influence: A developmental perspective. In Ecke, T. & Trautner, H. M. (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 295−332). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Castorr, A. H., Thompson, K. O., Ryan, J. W., Phillips, C. Y., Prescott, P. A., & Soeken, K. L. (1990). The process of rater training for observational instruments: Implications for interrater reliability. Research in Nursing and Health, 13, 311–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chiu, M. M. (2000). Group problem solving processes: Social interactions and individual actions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 30, 27–50. doi:10.1111/1468–5914.00118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiu, M. M. (2008). Flowing toward correct contributions during groups' mathematics problem solving: A statistical discourse analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 415–463. doi:10.1080/10508400802224830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiu, M. M., & Khoo, L. (2005). A new method for analyzing sequential processes: Dynamic multilevel analysis. Small Group Research, 36, 600–631. doi:10.1177/104649405279309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, M. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, J. A., & Luong, A. (2011). Meeting design characteristics and attendee perceptions of staff/team meeting quality. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15, 90–104. doi:10.1037/a0021549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, T. (2000). Using video-recorded consultations for research in primary care: Advantages and limitations. Family Practice, 17, 422–427. doi:10.1093/fampra/17.5.422CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cronin, M. A., Weingart, L. R., & Todorova, G. (2011). Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet? Academy of Management Annals, 5, 571–612. doi:10.1080/19416520.2011.590297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dent, E., Brown, R., Dowsett, S., Tattersall, M., & Butow, P. (2005). The Cancode interaction analysis system in the oncological setting: Reliability and validity of video and audio tape coding. Patient Education and Counseling, 56, 35–44. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2003.11.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ducan, S., & Fiske, D. W. (1977). Face-to-face interaction: Research methods and theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Futoran, G. C., Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1989). TEMPO: A time-based system for analysis of group interaction process. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 211–232. doi:10.1207/s15324834bosp1003_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9–41. doi:10.2307/256496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gersick, C. J. G. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 274–309. doi:10.2307/256363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gersick, C. J. G. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16, 10–36. doi:10.2307/258605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goh, K. T., Goodman, P. S., & Weingart, L. R. (2013). Team innovation processes: An examination of activity cycles in creative project teams. Small Group Research, 44, 159–194. doi:10.1177/1046496413483326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gouran, D. S. (1999). Communication in groups: The emergence and evolution of a field study. In Frey, L. R., Gouran, D. S., & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 3–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Gouran, D. S., & Hirokawa, R. Y. (1996). Functional theory and communication in decision-making and problem-solving groups: An expanded view. In Hirokawa, R. Y. & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (2nd ed., pp. 55–80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidet, K. K., Tate, J., Divirgilio-Thomas, D., Kolanowski, A., & Happ, M. B. (2009). Methods to improve reliability of video recorded behavioral data. Research in Nursing and Health, 32, 465–474. doi:10.1002/nur.20334CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herzmark, G. (1985). Reactions of patients to video recording of consultations in general practice. British Medical Journal, 291, 315–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holland, J. H. (1998). Emergence from chaos to order. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horan, A. (2002). An effective workplace stress management intervention: Chicken soup for the soul at work employee groups. Work, 18, 3–13.Google ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, R. (1997). Checklist method of performance evaluation. In Peters, L. H., Greer, C., & Youngblood, S. A. (Eds.), The Blackwell encyclopedic dictionary of human resource management (pp. 41–42). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Business.Google Scholar
Jarboe, S. (1999). Group communication and creativity processes. In Frey, L. R., Gouran, D. S., & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 335–368). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Jarzabkowski, P., & Seidl, D. (2008). The role of meetings in the social practice of strategy. Organization Studies, 29, 1391–1426. doi:10.1177/0170840608096388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S. (2006). Kompetenzen messen, bewerten, entwickeln [Measuring, evaluating, and developing competencies]. Stuttgart, Germany: Schäffer Poeschel.Google Scholar
Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43, 130–158. doi:10.1177/1046496411429599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S., & Meyers, R. A. (2009). Complaint and solution-oriented circles: Interaction patterns in work group discussions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 267–294. doi:10.1080/13594320701693209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623–655. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keyton, J. (1999). Relational communication in groups. In Frey, L. R., Gouran, D. S., & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 192–222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Keyton, J., & Beck, S. J. (2009). The influential role of relational messages in group interaction. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13, 14–30. doi:10.1037/a0013495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, K., & Rudin, C. (2013). Machine learning for meeting analysis. Paper presented at the Twenty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved from http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/WS/AAAIW13/paper/viewFile/7087/6693Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., Grand, J. A., Braun, M. T., & Kuljanin, G. (2013). Advancing multilevel research design: Capturing the dynamics of emergence. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 581–615. doi:10.1177/1094428113493119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124. doi:10.1111/j.1529–1006.2006.00030.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Leach, D. J., Rogelberg, S. G., Warr, P. B., & Burnfield, J. L. (2009). Perceived meeting effectiveness: The role of design characteristics. Journal of Business Psychology, 24, 65–76. doi:10.1007/s10869–009–9092–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Allen, J. A., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). A sequential analysis of procedural communication in organizational meetings: How teams facilitate their meetings. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41, 365–388. doi:10.1080/00909882.2013.844847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Allen, J. A., & Meinecke, A. L. (2014). Observing culture: Differences in U.S.-American and German team meeting behaviors. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 252–271. doi:10.1177/1368430213497066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Kauffeld, S. (2010). The downside of communication: Complaining circles in group discussions. In Schuman, S. (Ed.), The handbook for working with difficult groups: How they are difficult, why they are difficult, what you can do (pp. 33–54). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.Google Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Meyers, R. A., Kauffeld, S., Neininger, A., & Henschel, A. (2011). Verbal interaction sequences and group mood: Exploring the role of planning communication. Small Group Research, 42, 639–668. doi:10.1177/1046496411398397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liker, J., & Franz, J. K. (2011). The Toyota way to continuous improvement: Linking strategy and operational excellence to achieve superior performance. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Liu, M. (2013). A phasic analysis of strategy sequences and their mediating effects on interaction goals and negotiation outcomes. Communication Research, 40, 337–359. doi:10.1177/0093650211408595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnusson, M. S. (2000). Discovering hidden time patterns in behavior: T-patterns and their detection. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 32, 93–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mangold International, Ed. (2010). INTERACT quick start manual V2.4. Retrieved from http://www.mangold-international.comGoogle Scholar
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376. doi:10.5465/AMR.2001.4845785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McComas, K., Tuite, L. S., Waks, L., & Sherman, L. A. (2007). Predicting satisfaction and outcome acceptance with advisory committee meetings: The role of procedural justice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 905–927. doi:10.1111/j.1559–1816.2007.00192.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, R. A., & Brashers, D. E. (1999). Influence processes in group interaction. In Frey, L. R., Gouran, D. S., & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 288–312). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Moreland, R. L., Fetterman, J. D., Flagg, J. J., & Swanenburg, K. L. (2009). Behavioral assessment practices among social psychologists who study small groups. In Agnew, C. R., Carlston, D. E., Graziano, W. G., & Kelly, J. R. (Eds.), Then a miracle occurs: Focusing on behavior in social psychological theory and research (pp. 28–56). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24, 249–265. doi:10.5465/AMR.1999.1893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolai, J., Demmel, R., & Farsch, K. (2010). Effects of mode of presentation on ratings of empathic communication in medical interviews. Patient Education and Counseling, 80, 76–79. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.10.014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noldus, L. P. J. J., Trienes, R. J. H., Hendriksen, A. H. M., Jansen, H., & Jansen, R. G. (2000). The Observer Video-Pro: New software for the collection, management, and presentation of time-structured data from videotapes and digital media files. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 197–206. doi: 10.3758/BF03200802CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olekalns, M., Brett, J. M., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Phases, transitions, and interruptions: Modeling processes in multi-party negotiations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 14, 191–211. doi:10.1108/eb022898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavitt, C. (1993). What (little) we know about formal group discussion processes: A review of relevant research. Small Group Research, 24, 217–235. doi:10.1177/1046496493242004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavitt, C. (1999). Theorizing about the group communication-leadership relationship: Input-process-output and functional models. In Frey, L. R., Gouran, D. S., & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 313–334). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Penner, L. A., Orom, H., Albrecht, T. L., Franks, M. M., Foster, T. S., & Ruckdeschel, J. C. (2007). Camera-related behaviors during video recorded medical interactions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31, 99–117. doi:10.1007/s10919–007–0024–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pieterse, A. N., van Knippenberg, D., & van Ginkel, W. (2011). Diversity in goal orientation, team reflexivity, and team performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 153–164. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, M. S. (1999). Group communication theory. In Frey, L. R., Gouran, D. S., & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 37–70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Porter, A., & Votta, L. (1998). Comparing detection methods for software requirements inspections: A replication using professional subjects. Empirical Software Engineering, 3, 355–379. doi:10.1023/A:1009776104355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Punj, G., & Stewart, D. W. (1983). Cluster analysis in marketing research: Review and suggestions for application. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 134–148. doi:10.2307/3151680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quera, V., Bakeman, R., & Gnisci, A. (2007). Observer agreement for event sequences: Methods and software for sequence alignment and reliability estimates. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 39–49. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.1.137CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roe, R. A., Waller, M. J., & Clegg, S. R. (Eds.) (2009). Time in organizational research. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, J. A., Shanock, L., Scott, C., & Shuffler, M. (2010). Employee satisfaction with meetings: A contemporary facet of job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 49, 149–172. doi:10.1002/hrm.20339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogelberg, S. G., Leach, D. J., Warr, P. B., & Burnfield, J. L. (2006). “Not another meeting!” Are meeting time demands related to employee well-being? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 83–96. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.91.1.83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogelberg, S. G., Scott, C. W., Agypt, B., Williams, J., Kello, J. E., McCausland, T., & Olien, J. L. (2014). Lateness to meetings: Examination of an unexplored phenomenon. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23, 323–341. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.745988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romesburg, C. (2004). Cluster analysis for researchers. Raleigh, NC: Lulu Press.Google Scholar
Sacket, G. P. (1979). The lag sequential analysis of contingency and cyclicity in behavioral interaction research. In Osofsky, J. D. (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (pp. 623–649). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sadler, P., & Woody, E. (2003). Is who you are who you're talking to? Interpersonal style and complementarity in mixed-sex interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 80–96. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.84.1.80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sauer, N. C., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). Meetings as networks: Applying social network analysis to team interaction. Communication Methods & Measures, 7, 26–47. doi:10.1080/19312458.2012.760729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schermuly, C. C., & Scholl, W. (2012). The Discussion Coding System (DCS) – A new instrument for analyzing communication processes. Communication Methods and Measures, 6, 12–40. doi:10.1080/19312458.2011.651346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulte, E.-M., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). Age, forgiveness, and meeting behavior: A multilevel study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28, 928–949. doi:10.1108/JMP-06–2013–0193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartzman, B. (1989). The meeting. New York, NY: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stachowski, A. A., Kaplan, S. A., & Waller, M. J. (2009). The benefits of flexible team interaction during crises. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1536–1543. doi:10.1037/a0016903CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tracy, K., & Dimock, A. (2004). Meetings: Discursive sites for building and fragmenting community. In Kabfleisch, P. J. (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 28, pp. 127–165). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tschan, F. (2002). Ideal cycles of communication (or cognitions) in triads, dyads, and individuals. Small Group Research, 33, 615–643. doi:10.1177/1046496402238618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (2012). Interdependence theory. In Van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, A.W., & Higgins, E. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 251–272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waller, M. J., Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E., & Giambatista, R. C. (2002). Watching the clock: Group pacing behavior under dynamic deadlines. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1046–1055. doi:10.2307/3069329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingart, L. R. (2012). Studying dynamics within groups. In Neale, M. A. & Mannix, E. A. (Eds.), Looking back, moving forward: A review of group and team-based research (Vol. 15, pp. 1–25). Bingley, UK: Emerald.Google Scholar
Wildman, J. L., Shuffler, M. L., Lazzara, E. H., Fiore, S. M., Burke, C. S., Salas, E., & Garven, S. (2012). Trust development in Swift Starting Action Teams: A multilevel framework. Group & Organization Management, 37, 137–170. doi:10.1177/1059601111434202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B., Paulus, P. B., Hirokawa, R. Y., Ancona, D. G., Peterson, R. S., Jehn, K. A., & Yoon, K. (2004). The functional perspective as a lens for understanding groups. Small Group Research, 35, 17–43. doi:10.1177/1046496403259459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittenbaum, G. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2008). Small-group research in social psychology: Topics and trends over time. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 187–203. doi:10.1111/j.1751–9004.2007.00065.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittenbaum, G. M., Vaughan, S. I., & Stasser, G. (1998). Coordination in task-performing groups. In Tindale, R. S., Heath, L., Edwards, J., Posavac, E. J., Bryant, F. B., Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Henderson-King, E., & Myers, J. (Eds.), Theory and research on small groups (pp. 177–204). New York, NY: Plenum.Google Scholar
Zijlstra, F. R. H., Waller, M. J., & Phillips, S. I. (2012). Setting the tone: Early interaction patterns in swift-starting teams as a predictor of effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 749–777. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.690399CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×