Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
.22
- . 89
- . 05
.06
.27
- . 03
- . 14
.23
.15
.20
.01
.17
.39
.27
- . 14
.36
..34
.25
.17
.39
.38
__
.21
.20
.36
.36
.32
.27
.09 .06
.05 .28 .65
.22 .26 .46 .46
Note. All correlations of greater absolute magnitude than .23 are significant at the p < .05 level. Given
the multitude of correlations tested (55), there is the possibility of capitalizing on chance. However, only
5%, or approximately 3 of the 55 correlation coefficients, would be significant if chance alone were
operating. Our results indicate 26 significant correlation coefficients, thus suggesting the need for further
examination.
ported: Commitment was positively related to task performance.
Task monitoring (Hypotheses 6b and 6c) was also positively
related to task performance, as was cooperation (Hypotheses
7b and 7c). Planning {Hypotheses 2b or 2c) and positive com-
munication (Hypotheses 4b and 4c) were not significantly re-
lated to task performance.
Group processes mediating relationship and performance.
We used the test for mediation described by Baron and Kenny
(1986) to test the contribution of the mediating processes be-
tween relationship level and task performance. First, the pre-
dicted mediators were regressed on relationship level. On the
basis of the previous analyses, we excluded planning and moni-
toring because they were not found to have significant main
effects of relationship, and we excluded positive communication
because it was not significantly related to performance. Commit-
ment and cooperation were significantly related to relationship
level ( f i - . 389, p< .001, andB = .184,p < .01, respectively).
Second, relationship level was significantly related to the depen-
dent variable, task performance (B = .45, p > .001). Third, the
effect of relationship became nonsignificant when the mediator
variables were included in the regression analyses on group
performance (average B = .09, all ps were ns). Thus, the medi-
ating role of commitment and cooperation on task performance
was supported (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
Task type, group process, and performance. To examine the
Table 4
Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables
Predicting Performance
Variable B SEB
Positive Communication
Planning
Commitment
Monitoring
Cooperation
Note. N = 106. R = .55.
*p < .01.
0.288
0.062
1.340
1.210
0.780
.228
.055
.134
.049
.154
-. 127
-. 190
.432*
.449*
.376*
hypotheses that task type moderates the relation between critical
evaluation (Hypotheses 3b and 3c) and morale-building commu-
nication (Hypotheses 4b and 4c), we conducted regressions
separately for each task. We used the positive communication
variable to test the hypothesis regarding morale-building com-
munication because it included the items designed to measure
morale-building communication. In support of Hypothesis 4b,
positive communication was positively related to performance
in the motor task (B = .22, p < .001), and in marginal support
of Hypothesis 4c, it was negatively related to performance in
the cognitive task (B = - . I 3 , p < .07, respectively). In addition,
critical evaluation was positively related to performance in the
cognitive task but negatively related in the motor task (B = .16,
p < .001, and B = -.21, p < .001, respectively). Although
friendship did not influence critical evaluation in this study (Hy-
pothesis 3a), Hypotheses 3b and 3c were supported: Critical
evaluation was positively related to performance in the cognitive
task and negatively related to performance in the motor task.
We included task order as a variable in our design to control
for task experience across tasks. A 2 (task) X 2 (relationship)
X 2 (order) ANOVA revealed significant main effects for order
on positive communication, F( l , 52) = 5.96, p < .05, and
commitment, F(l, 52) = 6.68,p < .05. Groups who performed
the cognitive task prior to the motor task had more commitment
(M = 4.96) than groups who performed the motor task prior
to the cognitive task (M = 4.66). Groups in which the motor
task preceded the cognitive task engaged in more positive com-
munication (A/ = 1.78) than those in which the cognitive task
preceded the motor task (M = 1.50).
Discussion
This study provides information about group processes that
mediate the effect of relationship level on task performance.
The results indicate that several process differences in friendship
and acquaintance groups account for the performance superior-
ity of friendship groups on both cognitive and motor tasks. Prior
research has suggested that friendship among group members
may harm a group's performance, because the group's focus
may be on social interaction rather than the task (Bramel &
786 JEHN AND SHAH
Friend, 1987; Homans, 1951). The results from this study indi-
cate that although friendship groups do communicate more and
provide more positive encouragement than acquaintance groups,
they also are more committed and more cooperative, which leads
to higher performance levels.
Regardless of the type of task the group performed, commit-
ment, cooperation, and task monitoring increased group perfor-
mance, thus demonstrating why friendship groups performed
better than acquaintance groups. There was no significant differ-
ence between the amount that friends and acquaintances
planned, nor was planning related to performance in either the
model-building task or the decision-making task. One explana-
tion is that tacit coordination occurred without discussion (Wit-
tenbaum, Stasser, & Merry, 1996), which was not captured by
our verbal coding scheme. This is unlikely, because our measure
of planning included self-report and video ratings of nonverbal
behaviors; however, the reliability for this scale was one of the
lowest (.71). In addition, Argote (1982) found that in organiza-
tions, in-process planning improves effectiveness when the task
has a high level of uncertainty. In our study we measured only
in-process planning, therefore missing any preplanning that
might have taken place (Weingart, 1992). In addition, both of
the tasks were very structured, with low levels of uncertainty;
therefore, it may not be surprising that we did not find significant
results for planning and performance.
Similar to Weldon et al. (1991), we found that task monitor-
ing was positively related to task performance. In addition, we
expanded Weldon et al.'s model by demonstrating that friend-
ship, cooperation, and commitment increase task performance.
Similar to Shah and Jehn (1993), we found that processes in
friendship groups are not consistent across tasks. Friendship
groups appear to engage in behavior and interaction patterns
beneficial to the task they are performing. This suggests a feed-
back mechanism that may be more common in friendship groups
than in acquaintance groups (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). Poor
performance reflects negatively on a group, and it is more diffi-
cult to disassociate oneself from a group of friends than from
a group of acquaintances (Tesser & Smith, 1980).
Processes not related to performance may be less likely to
occur in friendship groups because of associations among mem-
bers and the strong obligation to be committed to high perfor-
mance and the maintenance of a good group reputation. For
instance, although friendship groups communicated more than
acquaintance groups overall, when they worked on the cognitive
task, their conversation was more task focused (i.e., they en-
gaged in critical evaluation). Friendship groups also reduced
their level of morale building in the cognitive task, where emo-
tional arousal is not necessary for superior performance. Differ-
ences in task division in friendship and acquaintance groups
also existed. Friendship groups helped each other complete their
task components more in the motor task and engaged in more
critical evaluation in the cognitive task than did acquaintance
groups, who tended to work independently on both tasks. Thus,
one implication of this study is the adaptability apparent in
friendship groups as compared with acquaintance groups.
A main contribution of this research project is the use of
multiple methods to measure the group processes that lead to
task performance. Rather than depending solely on one source of
data, this project integrated survey responses, coded transcripts,
behavioral ratings, and objective measures of individuals' ac-
tions to provide a more thorough understanding of the mediating
group processes under investigation. The use of multiple meth-
ods enabled us to observe the group process constructs from
multiple perspectives and strengthened our understanding of the
constructs and the relation among them.
Limits of our study suggest interesting directions for future
research. Our research focused on a finite task in a limited
time frame. The time frame may affect the processes differently
depending on the type of task being performed. For instance, if
members performing a cognitive task have unlimited time to
collect and process information, morale building may produce
positive results (as it did in the motor task) rather than negative
ones, as our study demonstrated. The motor task in this study
focused on manual skill and dexterity, with very little informa-
tion-processing demands. The time that group members took
away from information processing during the cognitive task to
engage in morale building might have played a role in decreasing
performance. We also found that the counterbalancing of tasks
in our design led to a main effect of order. Groups who per-
formed the motor task first had higher levels of positive commu-
nication overall than did groups who performed the cognitive
task first. Groups who performed the cognitive task first had
higher levels of information sharing and commitment. It is inter-
esting that the processes associated with order were based on
the variables related to high performance in the first task (e.g.,
morale building in the motor task). This suggests a learning
effect, which we encourage future researchers to investigate.
The results from this study suggest numerous other directions
for future inquiry, particularly in the areas of group processes,
relationships, and tasks. Although numerous mediating pro-
cesses have been speculated to influence group performance,
our research focused on seven. Future research to identify and
investigate other mediating factors, such as conflict, diffusion
of responsibility, trust, advice, and work-flow patterns, is
needed. Our work focused on processes within a group's inter-
nal environment. Work by Gladstein (1984) has suggested that
both a group's internal and its external environment are im-
portant factors in its performance. It would be interesting to
investigate whether friendship and acquaintance groups exhibit
different external as well as internal group processes. The rela-
tionships that exist within a group may result in different interac-
tion patterns with external interfaces. Finally, rather than focus
solely on positive relationships within work groups, researchers
might also investigate processes in groups where interpersonal
dislikes, disputes, and conflicts prevail.
The group process focus of this paper departs from the tradi-
tional outcome-focused approaches (for other examinations of
group process see Liang, Moreland, & Argote, 1995; Shah &
Jehn, 1993; Weingart, 1992; Weldon et al., 1991). Outcome-
focused research has provided important information regarding
group composition and performance. However, this line of in-
quiry provides only a limited understanding of the link between
friendship and group performance. Investigating the mediating
processes that contribute to superior group performance pro-
vides a more comprehensive understanding of the process by
which friendship groups outperform acquaintance groups. On a
more general level, understanding the processes that mediate
group performance is essential to understanding how group dy-
FRIENDSHIP AND ACQUAINTANCE GROUPS 787
namics and interaction patterns lead to differing performance
levels. Knowledge of the processes necessary for superior per-
formance provides us with the tools necessary to train and man-
age better performing work teams.
References
Aboud, F. E. (1989). Disagreement between friends. International Jour-
nal of Behavioral Development, 12, 495-508.
Albrecht, T. L., & Ropp, V. A. ( 1984). Communicating about innovation
in networks of three U.S. organizations. Journal of Communication,
34, 78- 91.
Allison, G. T. (1971). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile
crisis. Boston: Little, Brown.
Argote, L. (1982). Input uncertainty and organizational coordination in
hospital emergency units. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 420-
434.
Argyle, M., & Fumham, A. (1983). Sources of satisfaction and conflict
in long-term relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45,
481-493.
Ashford, S.J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual
resource: Persona! strategies of creating information. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 370-398.
Austin, W. (1980). Friendship and fairness: Effects of type of relation-
ship and task performance on choice of distribution rules. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 402-408.
Bales, R. F. (1951). Interaction process analysis. Cambridge, MA: Ad-
dison-Wesley.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
Bandura, A., Reese, L., & Adams, N. E. (1982). Microanalysis of action
and fear arousal as a function of differential levels of perceived self-
efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 5~ 21.
Baron, R. M, & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 51, 1173-1182.
Berkowitz, L. (1954). Group standards, cohesiveness, and productivity.
Human Relations, 7, 509-519.
Bramel, D., & Friend, R. (1987). The work group and its vicissitudes
in social and industrial psychology. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 23, 233-253.
Brass, D. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of
individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 29, 518-539.
Brennan, R. L., & Prediger, D. J. (1981). Coefficient kappa: Some uses,
misuses and alternativeSj Journal of Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 41, 687-699.
Cialdini, R. B.
f
Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., &
Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field
studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366-375.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. R. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange
and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 37, 12-24.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. R. (1993). The difference between communal
and exchange relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 684-691.
Clark, M. S., Mills, J. R., & Corcoran, D. M. (1989). Keeping track of
needs and inputs of friends and strangers. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 15, 533-542.
Clark, M. S., Mills, J. R., & Powell, M. (1986). Keeping track of needs
in communal and exchange relationships. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 333-338.
Clark, M. S. , & Reis, H.T. (1988). Interpersonal processes in close
relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 609-672.
Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design 7
analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Cosier, R., & Schwenk, C. (1990). Agreement and thinking alike: Ingre-
dients for poor decisions. Academy of Management Executive, 4, 8 1 -
92.
Dailey, R. C. (1977). The effects of cohesiveness and collaboration on
work groups: A theoretical model. Group and Organization Studies,
2, 461-469.
Danowski, 3. A. (1980). Group attitude uniformity and connectivity of
organizational communication networks for production, innovation,
and maintenance content. Human Communication Research, 12, 251
270.
Davidson, L. R., & Duberman, L. (1982). Friendship: Communication
and interactional patterns in same-sex dyads. Sex Roles. 8, 809-821.
Davis, K. E., & Todd, M. J. (1982). Friendship and love relationships.
Advances in Descriptive Psychology, 2, 79-122.
Dean, J. W, & Sharfman, M. P. {1996). Does decision process matter?
A study of strategic decision-making effectiveness. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 39, 368-396.
Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance:
A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22, 175-186.
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with
certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Ex-
perimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 552-
564.
Georgopoulos, B. S. (1986). Organizational structure, problem solving,
and effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group
effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.
Gladstein, D. L., & Reilly, N. P. (1985). Group decision making under
threat: The tycoon game. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 613-
627.
Gottman, M. T, & Parkhurst, J. T. (1980). A developmental theory of
friendship and acquaintanceship processes. In W. A. Collins (Ed.),
Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (pp. 197-253). Hills-
dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Greenberg, J. (1983). Equity and equality as clues to the relationship
between exchange participants. European Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 13, 195-196.
Gruenfeld, D., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1993). Sociocognhion in work
groups: The evolution of group integrative complexity and its relation
to task performance. Small Group Research, 24, 383-405.
Guzzo, R. A. (1986). Group decision making and group effectiveness
in organizations. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Designing effective work
groups (pp. 34-71). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guzzo, R. A., &Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent
research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy, 47, 307-338.
Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup
relations in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 262-
313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.),
Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hackman, J. R. (1991). Groups that work (and those that don't). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J. R., Brousseau, K. R., & Weiss, J. A. (1976). The interac-
tion of task design and group performance strategies in determining
group effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
mance, 16, 350-365.
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction
process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed
788 JEHN AND SHAH
integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (pp. 1 56). New "Vbrk; Academic Press.
Harlow, R. E., & Cantor, N. (1995). To whom do people turn when
things go poorly? Task orientation and functional social contacts.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 329-340.
Hays, R. B. (1985). A longitudinal study of friendship development.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 909-924.
Henry, R. (1995). Improving group judgment accuracy: Information
sharing and determining the best member. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 62, 190-197.
Homans, G. C. (1951). The human group. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy deci-
sions and fiascos. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and
detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly,
40, 256-282.
Kaplan, R. E. (1979). The conspicuous absence of evidence that process
consultation enhances task performance. Journal of Applied Behav-
ioral Science, 15, 346-360.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1979). Interpersonal relations. New
York: Wiley.
Kim, J., & Mueller, C W. (1978). Introduction to factor analysis. Bev-
erly Hills, CA: Sage.
Klein, H. J., & Mulvey, P. W. (1995). Two investigations of the relation-
ships among group goals, goal commitment, cohesion, and perfor-
mance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61,
44-53.
Knapp, M. L., Ellis, D. G., & Williams, B. A. (1980). Perceptions of
communication behavior associated with relationship terms. Commu-
nication Monographs, 47, 262-278.
Ladd, G. W, & Emerson, E. S. (1984). Shared knowledge in children's
friendships. Developmental Psychology, 20, 932-940.
Larson, J., Christensen, C, Abbott, A., & Franz, T. (1996), Diagnosing
group?: Charting the flow of information in medical decision-making
teams. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 315-330.
Liang, D., Moreland, R., & Argute, L. (1995). Group versus individual
training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive
memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 384-393.
Lincoln, J. R., & Miller, J. ( 1979). Work and friendship ties in organiza-
tions: A comparative analysis of relational networks. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 24, 181-199.
McGrath, J. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McPherson, J. M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1987). Homophilly in voluntary
organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-to-face
groups. American Sociological Review, 52, 370-379.
Mikula, G., & Schwinger, T. (1978). Intermember relations and reward
allocation: Theoretical considerations of affects. In H, Brandstatter,
J. H. Davis, & H. Schuler (Eds.), Dynamics of group decisions. Bev-
erly Hills, CA: Sage.
Mowday, R. T, Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. (1982). Organizational link-
ages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New
\brk: Academic Press.
Nelson, J., & Aboud, F. E. (1985). The resolution of social conflict
between friends. Child Development, 56, 1009-1017.
Nemeth, C J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minor-
ity influence. Psychological Review, 93, 1-10.
Newcomb, A. F, & Brady, J. E. {1982). Mutuality in boys' friendship
relations. Child Development, 53, 392-395.
Newcomb, A. F., Brady, J. E., & Hartup, W. W. (1979). Friendship and
incentive conditions as determinants of children's task-oriented social
behavior. Child Development, 50, 878-881.
O'Reilly, C, & Caldwell. D. (1981). The commitment and job tenure
of new employees: Some evidence of postdecisional justification. Ad-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 26, 597-616.
O'Reilly, C, & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and
psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification,
and internalization on prosocial behavior. Academy of Management
Journal, 71, 492-499.
Pataki, S. P., Shapiro, C, & Clark, M. S. (1994). Children's acquisition
of appropriate norms for friendships and acquaintances. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, II, 427-442.
Rawlins, W. K. (1983). Negotiating close friendship: The dialectic of
conjunctive freedoms. Human Communication Research, 9, 255-266.
Rawlins, W. K. (1989). A dialectical analysis of the tensions, functions,
and strategic challenges of communication in young adult friendships.
In J. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 12, pp. 157-
189). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Robinson, S.. & Weldon, E. (1993). Feedback seeking in groups: A
theoretical perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 71 -
86.
Roloff, M. E. (1987). Communication and reciprocity within intimate
relationships. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal
processes (pp. 1-46). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Roloff, M. E., Janiszewski, C. A., McGrath, M. A., Burns, C. S., & Man-
rai, L. A. (1988). Acquiring resources from intimates: When obliga-
tion substitutes for persuasion. Human Communication Research, 14,
364-396.
Seashore, S. E. (1954). Group cohesiveness in the industrial work
group. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Shah, P., & Jehn, K. A. (1993). Do friends perform better than acquain-
tances? The interaction of friendship, conflict, and task. Group Deci-
sion and Negotiation, 2, 149-165.
Shure, G., Rogers, M., Larsen, I., & Tassone, J. (1962). Group planning
and task effectiveness. Sociometry, 14, 263-282.
Smith, K., Locke, E., & Barry, D. (1990). Goal setting, planning, and
organizational performance: An experimental simulation. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 118-134.
Stasser, G. (1992). Information salience and the discovery of hidden
profiles by decision-making groups: A "thought experiment." Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 156-181.
Stasser, G., & Stewart, D. (1992). Discovery of hidden profiles by
decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judg-
ment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 426-434.
Stasser, G., Taylor, L. A., & Hanna, C. (1989). Information sampling
in structured and unstructured discussions of three- and six-person
groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 67-78.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in
group decision making: Biased information sampling during discus-
sion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467-1478.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1987). Effects of information load and percent-
age of shared information on the dissemination of unshared informa-
tion during group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 53, 81-93.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Sundstrom, E., de Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams:
Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120-133.
Tesser, A., Millar, M., & Moore, J. (1988). Some affective consequences
of social comparison and reflection processes: The pain and pleasure
of being close. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
49-61.
Tesser, A., & Smith, J. (1980). Some effects of friendship and task
relevance of helping: Yon don't always help the one you like. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 582-590.
Thorns, P., Moore, K., & Scott, K. (1996). The relationship between
FRIENDSHIP AND ACQUAINTANCE GROUPS 789
self-efficacy for participating in self-managed work groups and the
Big Five personality dimensions. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
17, 349-362.
Van de Ven, A., Delbecq, A., & Koenig, R. (1976). Determinants of
coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Re-
view, 41, 322-338.
Van de Ven, A., & Ferry, D. (1980). Measuring and assessing organiza-
tions. New "York: Wiley.
Weingart, L. (1992). Impact of group goals, task component complexity,
effort, and planning on group performance. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 77, 682-693.
Weingart, L., & Weldon, E. (1991). Processes that mediate the relation-
ship between a group goal and group member performance. Human
Performance, 4, 3354.
Weldon, E., Jehn, K. A., & Pradhan, P. (1991). Processes that mediate
the relationship between a group goal and improved group perfor-
mance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 555-569.
Weldon, E., & Weingart, L. (1988, August). A theory of group goals
and group performance. Paper presented al the annual meeting of the
Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.
Whitney, K. (1994). Improving group task performance: The role of
group goals and group efficacy. Human Performance, 7, 55-78.
Williamson, G. M., & Clark, M. S. (1992). Impact of desired relation-
ship type on affective reactions to choosing and being required to
help. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 10-18.
Wktenbaum, G., Stasser, G., & Merry, C. (1996). Tacit coordination in
anticipation of small group task completion. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 32, 129-152.
Woodman, R. W., & Sherwood, J. J. (1980). The role of team develop-
ment in organizational effectiveness: A critical review. Psychological
Bulletin, 88, 166-186.
Wright, P. H. (1984). Self-referent motivation and the intrinsic quality
of friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 115
130.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Lowe, C. A. (1988). Cohesiveness and performance
on an additive task: Evidence for multidimensionality. Journal of
Social Psychology, 128, 547-558.
Appendix
Coding of Transcripts
Guidelines for Unitizing
1. The unit of analysis is a "thought unit"; thus, each separate thought
should be separated.
2. Acknowledgment of a previous statement is a separate unit (e.g.,
[Okay], [but I think we should also gluel).
3. Conjunctions separate a thought.
4. Check to see whether the sentence would convey the same content
if the preceding or ending phrase were omitted. If not, the two phrases
are coded as two units. If so, then code it as one unit. "Wait, they need
Popsicle sticks" is coded as two units. However, "Hey, they need Pop-
sicle sticks" would be coded as one unit.
5. Ignore the word oh.
Guidelines for Categorizing Statements on Audiotapes
1. Do not draw inferences about the purpose of a statement or intent
of the speaker in order to assign a code. Use the rules of content.
2. Categorize a unit as a particular type of statement only when it is
clearly an example of that category. If the content is ambiguous, catego-
rize the statement as uncodable.
3. Context can be used to determine the content of a unit. Consider
previous statement first. Refer to next statements if previous statement
does not help.
4. If the speaker repeats his or her remark at the request of another
group member, code the repetition.
5. Use a hierarchy. First, decide whether a statement involves planning,
monitoring, critical evaluation, or cooperation. If not, but the unit has
to do with building structures or making decisions, then the statement
is information sharing.
6. Responses to and acknowledgment of a category are given the same
code as that category.
Description of Content Categories for Audio Coding
1. Information sharing. Questions and statements about supplies in
the motor task and criteria regarding admissions standards or application
questions in the decision-making task, task-relevant discussions and in-
formation, and advice statements that do not constitute planning.
2. Planning. Questions and statements about whether a certain act
has been or should be performed, how a certain act should be performed,
and who is performing, can perform, or should perform a certain act.
How the job should be divided.
3. Critical evaluation. Disagreements or arguments over the order
in which the task should be done or about the way a group member is
performing his or her duties in the motor task. Disagreements about the
caliber of applicants in the decision-making task.
4. Morale-building communication. Positive evaluation of the
group's or a group member's ability to perform well.
5. Commitment. Statements about the attachment to the group and
the desire to be part of the group.
6. Monitoring. Questions or statements about the number of models
produced or applications completed, the number of each remaining, a
goal, and the time passed or remaining in the work session.
7. Cooperation. Statements about how members can help one an-
other, offers of assistance, and requests for help.
8. Uncodable. Units of which the content is unclear, even when
the context is considered, unfinished statements or questions, and
indications by the transcriptionist that something was said but was
indecipherable.
Rating Actions and Behaviors
Video Rating Categories
In each of the following categories, quoted phrases are the layperson
definitions given to the raters.
Information Sharing
"Talk a lot, very willing to discuss": This behavior is characterized
by lots of talking; free expression of ideas, thoughts, and feelings; and
free exchange of thoughts through speech or signals. Information sharing
may also entail being able to criticize without being apologetic as well
as talking, expanding discussion, and questioning rather than just agree-
ing or nodding.
{Appendix continues)
790 JEHN AND SHAH
Planning
"Formulating actions regarding time and function that will lead to
specific goals": This behavior involves a strategy worked out before or
during a task to accomplish the required goal (e.g., who should do
which task, how the task should be performed, and the like).
Examples:
For model building, deciding who should string balls, make bases,
make stick sets, and so forth, and deciding how best to accomplish
the task (e.g., string balls first and then wrap foil around middle
ball or wrap foil around ball first and then string balls accordingly).
For MBA applications, deciding how many applications each mem-
ber should read, deciding the criteria to use in accepting or rejecting,
and deciding whether to read applications individually or as a group.
Critical Evaluation
"Critically evaluate each other's ideas or works": This behavior is
characterized by differences of opinion, disagreement on die decisions
made among group members, disagreement on who should do what or
how something should be done, and arguments.
Examples:
For model building, conflicts over how to string the balls or in what
order to build the model and disagreement over the quality of the
work performed or how the task was made.
For MBA applications, disagreement on the qualifications of the
applicants and disagreement over whether to accept or reject the
application.
Morale-Building Communication
' 'Encouraging to perform better and positive reactions about the mem-
ber's or a group's performance": This behavior involves motivating
others by offering positive comments, setting an example for others to
follow, and displaying leadership; by exuding confidence, cheerfulness,
and a positive attitude; and by providing words of encouragement and
showing enthusiasm.
Commitment to Group
"Attachment to group": This behavior is marked by wanting to stay
and do things with the group; tending to things; making sure everyone
gets things done; feeling emotionally tied to the group; feeling dedicated
to members and the task at hand; feeling obligated to group members.
Examples:
High levels of commitment are demonstrated when a member ex-
pends time and energy to make sure that the group gets along; works
well with other members in completing the task; and shows high
levels of morale building, critical evaluation, planning, and the like.
Average levels of commitment are demonstrated by members work-
ing together to get the task done without much of a sense of obliga-
tion to remain together.
Low levels of commitment are demonstrated by a lack of dedication,
caring about what others think or do, and physical or mental effort
expended.
Task Monitoring
"Assessing the performance and the likelihood that the group will
reach its goal."
Examples:
Looking at the timer, counting the number of models, pacing oneself
to ensure completion of task or monitoring the performance of
others to ensure that they get done on time, and stopping what one
is doing when time is running out to help others complete a whole
model.
Cooperation
"Behavior that aids the performance of another group member or
contributes to the ease with which group members coordinate their
efforts; mutual assistance; helping": This behavior involves working
together toward achieving a common goal and displaying mutually bene-
ficial behavior.
Examples:
Cooperation includes asking for help (e.g., members indicating that
they are unsure of how to do something) and offering help (e.g.,
for model building, members handing each other material, indicating
where things are so other members do not have to search, anticipat-
ing others' needs by wrapping a ball or helping with stringing;
for the MBA application task, handing each other applications or
providing each other with grades or GMAT scores).
Concern With Friendship (Manipulation Check)
"Close, interpersonal tie; a positive, amiable preexisting relation-
ship"; This behavior is characterized by knowing, liking, or trusting
another person; being able to communicate openly and freely; no inhibi-
tions among members; feeling comfortable in the presence of other
members; and closer interpersonal relationships. Friendship may include
laughing, joking around, and having a good time with each other.
Cohesiveness (Manipulation Check)
"Esprit de corps, group spirit, would like to work in this group again,
attraction among members, closeness (not necessarily friendship of satis-
faction)": This behavior is marked by unity among group members, an
ability to get along or to perform as a group, and an ability to get along
and perform well even though members may not be friends.
Received March 18, 1996
Revision received November 19, 1996
Accepted November 20, 1996