When Goal Orientations Collide: Effects of Learning and Performance Orientation on Team Adaptability in Response to Workload Imbalance

The authors draw on resource allocation theory (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989) to develop hypotheses regarding the conditions under which collective learning and performance orientation have interactive effects and the nature of those effects on teams' ability to adapt to a sudden and dramatic change in workload. Consistent with the theory, results of a laboratory study in which teams worked on a computerized, decision-making task over 3 performance trials revealed that learning and performance orientation had independent effects on team adaptability when teams had slack resources available for managing their changed task. Time helped explain the independent effects of performance orientation. Results also revealed that learning and performance orientation had interactive effects when teams did not have slack resources. Finally, the results of this study indicate that teams lacking slack resources were better able to balance high levels of learning and performance orientation over time with practice on the changed task. © 2010 American Psychological Association

When does teamwork translate into improved team performance? a resource allocation perspective

Drawing on resource allocation theory, the authors examined boundary conditions for the positive effects of two aspects of teamwork (backing up behavior and performance monitoring) on team performance. Participants were 276 undergraduate business students who were organized into 69 teams and who worked on a computer simulation across multiple performance episodes. Approximately half the teams experienced a workload distribution problem. Results indicated that performance monitoring had positive effects on team performance when teams experienced a workload distribution problem. Backing up behavior had positive effects only when teams had both a workload distribution problem and during early performance episodes. The findings of this study suggest that resource allocation theory can provide insights regarding when members should devote and coordinate their own individual resources to assist others in teams. The implications of these findings for future theory and practice regarding teamwork are discussed. © The Author(s) 2010

Does backing up behavior explain the efficacy-performance relationship in teams?

Although the relationship between collective efficacy beliefs and team performance has been well-documented, few studies have explored the causal mechanisms that might explain these effects. In the current study, the authors explore the role of backing up behavior, a specific form of teamwork behavior, in explaining why high efficacy beliefs lead to high levels of team performance. Participants were 416 undergraduate business students who were organized into 104 four-person teams. The teams worked on an interdependent, computerized, decision-making task. Results of the study revealed that collective efficacy beliefs were positively related to team performance and that backing up behaviors largely mediated these effects. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed. © The Author(s) 2011

Motivation in and of work teams: A multilevel perspective

[No abstract available

The Influence of Early Efficacy Beliefs on Teams' Reactions to Failing to Reach Performance Goals

Although a considerable amount of theoretical and empirical attention has been devoted to understanding individuals' responses to goal-performance discrepancies (GPDs), little attention has been devoted to examining how teams respond to GPDs. The present research sought to examine how teams responded to negative GPDs. We predicted that failing to reach higher goals would be perceived as less negative than failing to reach lower goals, and we examined the moderating influence of setting higher versus lower goals on how teams responded to performance that fell short of those goals. We also examined the role that efficacy beliefs that were formed early in those teams played in further explaining these effects. Results from 94 teams who all failed to reach self-set goals revealed that teams that failed to reach higher goals downwardly revised their goals less than teams that failed to reach lower goals. Early efficacy beliefs further explained these effects. High efficacy beliefs lessened the negative effects of failing to reach lower goals on subsequent goals. High efficacy beliefs also lessened the negative effects of failing to reach higher goals while low efficacy beliefs strengthened the negative effects of failing to reach higher goals. The implications of these findings for theory, research, and practice are discussed. © 2011 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2011 International Association of Applied Psychology

25 Years of Self-Organized Criticality: Solar and Astrophysics

Shortly after the seminal paper “Self-Organized Criticality: An explanation of 1/fnoise” by Bak et al. (1987), the idea has been applied to solar physics, in “Avalanches and the Distribution of Solar Flares” by Lu and Hamilton (1991). In the following years, an inspiring cross-fertilization from complexity theory to solar and astrophysics took place, where the SOC concept was initially applied to solar flares, stellar flares, and magnetospheric substorms, and later extended to the radiation belt, the heliosphere, lunar craters, the asteroid belt, the Saturn ring, pulsar glitches, soft X-ray repeaters, blazars, black-hole objects, cosmic rays, and boson clouds. The application of SOC concepts has been performed by numerical cellular automaton simulations, by analytical calculations of statistical (powerlaw-like) distributions based on physical scaling laws, and by observational tests of theoretically predicted size distributions and waiting time distributions. Attempts have been undertaken to import physical models into the numerical SOC toy models, such as the discretization of magneto-hydrodynamics (MHD) processes. The novel applications stimulated also vigorous debates about the discrimination between SOC models, SOC-like, and non-SOC processes, such as phase transitions, turbulence, random-walk diffusion, percolation, branching processes, network theory, chaos theory, fractality, multi-scale, and other complexity phenomena. We review SOC studies from the last 25 years and highlight new trends, open questions, and future challenges, as discussed during two recent ISSI workshops on this theme.Fil: Aschwanden, Markus J.. Lockheed Martin Corporation; Estados UnidosFil: Crosby, Norma B.. Belgian Institute For Space Aeronomy; BélgicaFil: Dimitropoulou, Michaila. University Of Athens; GreciaFil: Georgoulis, Manolis K.. Academy Of Athens; GreciaFil: Hergarten, Stefan. Universitat Freiburg Im Breisgau; AlemaniaFil: McAteer, James. University Of New Mexico; Estados UnidosFil: Milovanov, Alexander V.. Max Planck Institute For The Physics Of Complex Systems; Alemania. Russian Academy Of Sciences. Space Research Institute; Rusia. Enea Centro Ricerche Frascati; ItaliaFil: Mineshige, Shin. Kyoto University; JapónFil: Morales, Laura Fernanda. Canadian Space Agency; Canadá. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Nishizuka, Naoto. Japan National Institute Of Information And Communications Technology; JapónFil: Pruessner, Gunnar. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Sanchez, Raul. Universidad Carlos Iii de Madrid. Instituto de Salud; EspañaFil: Sharma, A. Surja. University Of Maryland; Estados UnidosFil: Strugarek, Antoine. University Of Montreal; CanadáFil: Uritsky, Vadim. Nasa Goddard Space Flight Center; Estados Unido