Group entitativity refers to the degree to which people perceive themselves (and others) to be a unified, single team or collective. The greater the level of entitativity, the more people feel that the group fills their needs,2 and the more identification people have with their group.3 When people identify with their team, they think and behave in terms of “we” instead of “I.”4 And, when people think about their team, they assume that they should act in accordance with the principles of the team.5 When group members agree on which principle is most fundamental to them, their perceived entitativity is greater than when they do not agree about that principle, regardless of how many other principles they might agree about.6 In the face of a group transgression, outsiders recommend more severe punishments for high-entitativity groups than for low-entitativity groups.7

Group identity is the extent to which people feel their group membership is an important part of who they are. Membership in teams provides people with a sense of belonging. Group identity affects a number of beliefs and behaviors in teams. People with a greater sense of group identity judge their own group to have higher status.8 And, people who have been rejected from groups judge their own groups to be more meaningful and cohesive.9 People who are strongly identified with their groups feel particularly stressed when their attitudes differ from those of their group, and they avoid attempting to change the behavior of their group.10 People are more likely to identify strongly with their groups if they feel uncertain and value their group.11 When people feel uncertain about themselves, they are more likely to identify with radical groups.12

In many ways, group identity is an aspect that is present in all team members to a greater or lesser degree. In an extreme case, a person’s own identity may be fused with a group. In many organizational situations, the analysis of group identity raises questions about the people who are part of several groups and therefore may hold multiple group identities. We consider the question of identity fusion, multiple identities, and different kind of group bonds next.

Identity fusion refers to a blurring of the self–other barrier in a group, and group membership is intensely personal.13 When group members’ personal identities become fused with their social identities, their sense of self becomes nearly indistinct from their view of themselves as a group member. Fused people are more likely to endorse extreme behaviors on behalf of their group, and they are more willing to fight or die for their groups than a nonfused person, especially when their personal or social identities are activated. People who are fused with their group are more likely to endorse extreme behaviors for the group, help the group, and act speedily for the group, such as in racing an avatar.14

Once a person has formed a particular identity, experiences may either reinforce or fail to reinforce that identity. Self-verification is the process in which a person seeks confirmation of his or her personal self-views. For example, a person who is sensitive might want others to see them as caring. Indeed, people prefer to interact with people who verify their in-group identities more than people who enhance their identities.21

Sometimes people are threatened, such as when they are a member of a stigmatized group. However, by affirming either themselves or their group, they can increase their motivation to perform. People who are highly identified with their group are more

motivated when they engage in group affirmation; conversely, people who are less identified with their group are motivated by self-affirmation.22

When a person’s identity is fused with that of a group, experiences and outcomes that happen to the group affect the team member. Group-serving judgments offer a self-protective function for the team member, by enhancing the ego. For example, in a study of 81 simulated top management teams, superior firm performance was attributed to excellent teamwork, whereas inferior firm performance was attributed to external factors.23 The more cohesive the teams were, the more likely they were to make internal attributions, regardless of firm performance. When people make positive self-affirmations, they are less likely to show a group-serving judgment.24 Another form of group-serving attributions is retroactive pessimism, which occurs when people lower their evaluations of a group’s chances for success after a failed competition.25 Indeed, when supporters of two college basketball teams evaluated the chances for victory for each team, the most avid supporters of the losing team were the most likely to engage in retroactive pessimism.26

Group emotion can be reliably recognized by group members and outsiders, both on-site and through video ratings.39 Individual emotions get shared and spread among group members, much like a cold or flu spreads among people who live or work together. There

are implicit methods by which this happens, such as emotional contagion, vicarious affect, and behavioral entrainment, as well as conscious, deliberate processes, such as affective influence and affective impression management.40

Emotional intelligence is the ability to recognize emotions in ourselves and others and to use emotional knowledge in a productive fashion. Emotional intelligence is considered to be important in teams because it predicts behavior and performance; emotional intelligence in teams is positively linked to team performance.62 For example, in one investigation, 139 respondents were administered the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile, a measure of group members’ emotional intelligence when working in teams (see Exhibit 5-3 for the Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile). People with high

emotional intelligence preferred to seek collaborative solutions when confronted with conflict.63 Studies of professionals across various organizations and industries reveal that employees with higher emotional intelligence are more effective team players and have higher job performance.64

Leaders’ emotions strongly influence group emotion and performance. Harsh, negative leaders create demoralizing work environments. In extreme cases, this leads employees to engage in extreme behavior, including suicide. For example, Didier Lombard, former CEO of France Telecom was placed under criminal investigation for creating a toxic work environment that drove more than 30 employees to take their lives and dozens more to attempt suicide in a two-year period.65 One man stabbed himself during a team meeting and a woman jumped out of a window. Employees were given impossible performance goals and severely chastised when they did not meet their goals.

In addition, leaders’ ability to recognize emotions in their team members determines the effectiveness of their leadership. Emotional aperture is the ability to recognize diverse emotions in a team.66 The leaders who are the most likely to be effective at transformational leadership are those who can accurately recognize emotions, exude positive emotions, and are agreeable in nature.67 Furthermore, empathic leaders have employees with fewer complaints and daily goal progress is strongly related to a manager’s emotional aperture.68

Members of cohesive teams sit closer together, focus more attention on one another, show signs of mutual affection, and display coordinated patterns of behavior. Furthermore, members of cohesive teams who have a close relationship are more likely to give due credit to their partners. In contrast, those who do not have a close relationship are more likely to take credit for successes and blame others for failure.71 Cohesive groups are easier to maintain. Members of cohesive teams are more likely to participate in team activities, stay on the team and convince others to join, and resist attempts to disrupt the team.72 Cohesion increases conformity to team norms.73 This effect can be helpful when deviance endangers the team or harmful when innovation is required. Cohesive teams are more likely to serve team rather than individual interests.74 Most important, members of cohesive teams are more productive on a variety of tasks than are members of noncohesive groups.75 In a study of 81 simulated teams of competing airlines, top management cohesion was associated with superior returns.76

Cohesive teams are more productive than are less cohesive teams, but it could very well be that (1) more productive teams become more cohesive, (2) something other than cohesion is responsible for increased productivity, or (3) both. The link of cohesion with performance may depend on team norms: Cohesion amplifies norms favoring both high and low productivity.77 There are many ways to promote cohesion (see Exhibit 5-4).

Building cohesion in teams is often easier than we think.

• Help the team build identity Simply assembling people into a team is enough to produce some cohesion,78 and the more time people spend together (in a face-to-face

  • The Wegmans’ supermarket business model is simple: happy, knowledgeable, and superbly trained employees create a better experience for customers. Employees with little or no prompting may launch into exhaustive and friendly accounts of where the meat, fish, or produce they sell hails from, what each item tastes like, and how best to prepare it. Hundreds of staffers are sent on trips around the United States and world to become experts in their products. The company has no mandatory retirement age and has never laid off workers. All profits are reinvested in the company or shared with employees.

  • At Discover Financial Services, the belief is that active, happy employees are better performers. The 80-acre campus contains a 1.8-mile running trail, fitness center, and outdoor sand volleyball courts. Top executives regularly eat with employees in the cafeteria.

  • Slalom Consulting firm holds an annual retreat for employees and their families that is so popular that 85 to 90 percent of employees participate. Also popular is the monthlong sabbatical at 75 percent of pay after an employee logs three years with the company.

  fashion), the more cohesive they become.79 When team members think about their identity (i.e., what they stand for) and what they have in common, they become more cohesive.80

• Make it easy for the team to be close together Physical proximity and real or perceived similarity strengthen team cohesion.81

• Focus on similarities among team members Team members feel more cohesive when they focus on their similarities, rather than their differences.

• Put a positive spin on the team’s performance Teams are more cohesive when they succeed rather than fail, though some teams can preserve (if not strengthen) cohesion even when they fail.82

• Challenge the team External pressure and rewards for team performance also increase team cohesion.83

Many factors that produce greater cohesion in teams contradict those that promote diversity. We suggest that the manager first consider strategies for building diversity and then focus on building cohesion within the diverse team.

There are many different types of trust in teams and, for that matter, in any human relationship. We consider five: incentive-based trust, familiarity-based trust, similarity-based trust, social network trust, and implicit trust.

People in teams size up how “safe” they feel bringing up certain subjects and seeking assistance from the team.101 Psychological safety reflects the extent to which people feel that they can raise issues and questions without fear of being rebuffed. Psychological safety is important in teams that need to communicate knowledge about new technological procedures to one another and learn from one another.102 Team members in one hospital intensive care unit were asked three questions: (1) How comfortable do you feel checking with others if you have a question about the right way to do something? (2) How much do people in your unit value others’ unique skills and talents? (3) To what extent can people bring up problems and tough issues? When combined, these questions were used to create a measure of psychological safety. Team members who expressed greater psychological safety were more likely to engage in learning about how to use new technological procedures, which in turn predicted the success of implementation in the neonatal intensive care units.

It is critical for team members to not overestimate their status in their group. Disconcertingly, most people overestimate their status in groups, and, as a consequence, they are liked less by others and paid less for their work.107 Status enhancers are socially punished because people think they are disruptive to the group’s process. Accurate perceptions of one’s own status are so important in groups that following an experience of injustice by a third party (i.e., when a group member is unjustly treated by an outsider), the victim’s membership status in the group can be affirmed by punishing the offender. Specifically, by punishing outsiders, group members communicate to the victim that he or she is valuable and worthwhile to the group and is worth protecting.108

Status competition is the process by which people acquire the authority and legitimacy to influence their team. Even in teams with established status roles, status competition can emerge as certain members attempt to compete with the leader or for the leader’s attention and approval. Although it would seem that most team members would compete for status, people often opt for lower status positions. For example, when people believe they provide less value to the group, they prefer a lower status rank.109

Teams are not built from scratch. Instead, a member or two is added to a team that is changing its direction; members leave teams for natural (and other) reasons. Members of teams are continually entering and exiting; as a consequence, the team itself is constantly forming and reconfiguring itself. Group socialization is the process of how individuals enter into and then (at some point) leave teams. The process is disruptive, to be sure, yet it need not be traumatic or ill advised. When people begin to work together as a team, they begin a process of socialization, such that members of the team mutually shape each other’s behavior. More often, teams may undergo changes in membership, such that some members may leave and new ones may enter. The process of socialization is essential for team members to be able to work together and coordinate their efforts.

Most people think of socialization as a one-way process, wherein the team socializes the individual member—usually a newcomer—in the norms and roles of the team. However, as any leader can attest, the introduction of a new team member is a process of joint socialization. Facilitating newcomer effectiveness in teams is particularly important in high-technology industries in which knowledge workers transition frequently and the cost of integrating new employees is high.111 Three key predictors of newcomer performance are: newcomer empowerment, team expectations, and team performance.112 In an investigation of 65 project teams, newcomer performance improved over time, particularly early in socialization.113 Newcomer empowerment and the team’s expectation of the newcomer positively predicted newcomer’s performance. Moreover, newcomers who were empowered and performed well were less likely to express intentions to leave the team.

Think about a time when you joined an existing team. Perhaps you joined a study group that had been previously formed, accepted a summer internship with a company that had ongoing teams already in place, or moved to a different unit within your organization. In all of these instances, you went through a process of group socialization.114 Three critical things go on during group socialization that can affect the productivity of teams: evaluation, commitment, and role transition.

Role Transition

A person usually moves through a progression of membership in the team, going from nonmember to quasi-member to full member (see Exhibit 5-6). One key to gaining full member status is to be evaluated positively by the team and to gain the team’s commitment. This can often (but not always) be achieved by learning through direct experience with the team, and also through observations of others in the team. Indeed, newcomers in teams feel a strong need to obtain information about what

is expected of them;119 simultaneously, teams communicate this knowledge through formal and informal indoctrination sessions.120 However, newcomers may not learn crucial information they need to perform their jobs, such as information about the preferences of supervisors or administrative procedures, until they are trusted by their coworkers.121

People who join groups can engage in either self-verification or appraisal effects .122 Self-verification occurs when group members persuade others in the team to see them as they see themselves. In contrast, appraisal occurs when groups persuade members to see themselves as the group sees them. Of the two, self-verification is more prevalent than appraisal. When team members encourage their group to see them the way they see themselves, this heightens the feelings of connection to the team, lessens relationship (unhealthy) conflict, and improves performance on creative tasks. In contrast, when groups beseech individuals to see themselves as the group sees them, this improves performance on computational tasks (e.g., tasks that have a single correct answer).

The following strategies are especially useful for integrating new members into teams:

Upper Management and Leaders: Make It Clear Why the New Member Is Joining the Team

Many times, the introduction of a new team member is threatening for individuals, when it need not be. The manager should not assume that everyone is fully aware of why the newcomer is joining the team. Simple, clear, straightforward statements about how upper management sees the relationship between the individual and the team are needed early on before an unnecessary cycle of paranoia is set in motion.

Existing Team Members: Explain What You Regard to Be the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Team

It can be very revealing for existing team members to talk about their strengths and weaknesses when a new member joins. The new member can “see” the team through the eyes of each team member.

New Members: Understand the Team’s Goals and Processes

Existing members often expect newcomers to be anxious, passive, dependent, and conforming. Further, new members who take on those characteristics are more likely to be accepted by old-timers.123 What newcomers may not realize is that they inevitably pose some threat to the team. This is often because newcomers have a fresh and relatively objective view of the team, which causes them to ask questions or express opinions that are unsettling. New members can take initiative by demonstrating an interest in learning about the team. Remember that the team may be hypersensitive about past failures. Therefore, it is often a good idea to deflect defensive reactions by noting the team’s positive qualities. If newcomers are kept out of the loop, they suffer psychologically; their sense of trust diminishes and they don’t like their team members, particularly when their exclusion seems preventable.124 Peripheral members also react more negatively when an authority favors a prototypical group member over them, because peripheral members are highly insecure about their inclusion in the group.125

Existing group members (old-timers) are less accepting of “temporary” newcomers than “permanent” newcomers because they expect temporary newcomers to be different from their group.126 Paradoxically, temporary newcomers share more unique knowledge in groups than permanent newcomers and thus enhance their group’s decision quality. However, temporary newcomers cause teams to experience more conflict and less group identification.127 When newcomers criticize their workplace, their profession, or the community, they arouse more resistance in old-timers.128 Newcomers reduce old-timer resistance when newcomers distance themselves from their previous group. Groups with out-group (i.e., diverse) newcomers are less confident about their performance, but yet perform better than groups with in-group (homogeneous) newcomers.129

Contrary to popular opinion, turnover might benefit a group—through the exit of “old-timers” who lack the skills or motivation to help the group attain its goals and the entry of newcomers who possess needed skills.130 Three factors determine the extent to which newcomers can introduce change: (1) their commitment to the team; (2) their belief that they can develop good ideas for solving team problems; and (3) their belief that they will be rewarded. For turnover to have positive effects, it must outweigh the substantial benefits that group members derive from working together.131 In one investigation of turnover, teams worked on an air surveillance task over 2 days.132 On both days, specialists monitored changes in plane information (e.g., airspeed and altitude) and transmitted it to the commander, who integrated this information and assigned threat values to the planes. At the beginning of day 2, there was turnover: in some teams, one of the specialists was replaced with a specialist from another team; in other teams, the commander was replaced with a commander from another team. Teams performed better when newcomers had high rather than low ability; this was particularly pronounced when newcomers had high status (commander) rather than low status (specialist).

In a study of high-tech joint ventures in information technology and manufacturing industries, newcomers were more likely to help the team and perform better when supervisors offered developmental feedback.133

There are several “newcomer” roles: visitors, transfers, replacements, and consultants.134 Visitors are people who are expected to remain on the team for a short time and not viewed as instrumental to attaining long-term goals. Because they are viewed as lacking in commitment, their ability to change the team is muted.135 Transfers have recently belonged to a similar team and have expertise. Replacements take the place of former members. Consultants join the team to observe its work practices and suggest improvements.

One of the most frequently occurring but daunting challenges for teams is personnel turnover, defined as the entry of new members and/or the exit of old members.136 Turnover represents a change in team composition that can have profound consequences for team performance, because it alters the technical knowledge of the team, as well as the interpersonal dynamics. As might be expected, turnover disrupts group performance, especially when group members are reciprocally interdependent;137 when the group has high, rather than low, structure;138 and when the task is complex rather than simple.139

The decision to leave a group depends upon opportunities that exist outside the group as well upon threats that occur in one’s current group. In short, a group member may ask himself or herself, would it be easier to simply leave this group or should I stay with the team but argue about our differences? When people place a high level of esteem in their group, they are more likely to stay with the group and argue about their differences, but when they place a low level of esteem in their group, they are more likely to leave.140