Organisational Behaviour, London Business School.
J Appl Psychol. 2013 Sep;98(5):732-58. doi: 10.1037/a0033593. Epub 2013 Aug 5.
Scholars have invoked subgroups in a number of theories related to teams, yet certain tensions in the literature remain unresolved. In this article, we address 2 of these tensions, both relating to how subgroups are configured in work teams: (a) whether teams perform better with a greater number of subgroups and (b) whether teams perform better when they have imbalanced subgroups (majorities and minorities are present) or balanced subgroups (subgroups are of equal size). We predict that the impact of the number and balance of subgroups depends on the type of subgroup-whether subgroups are formed according to social identity (i.e., identity-based subgroups) or information processing (i.e., knowledge-based subgroups). We first propose that teams are more adversely affected by 2 identity-based subgroups than by any other number, yet the uniquely negative impact of a 2-subgroup configuration is not apparent for knowledge-based subgroups. Instead, a larger number of knowledge-based subgroups is beneficial for performance, such that 2 subgroups is worse for performance when compared with 3 or more subgroups but better for performance when compared with no subgroups or 1 subgroup. Second, we argue that teams perform better when identity-based subgroups are imbalanced yet knowledge-based subgroups are balanced. We also suggest that there are interactive effects between the number and balance of subgroups-however, the nature of this interaction depends on the type of subgroup. To test these predictions, we developed and validated an algorithm that measures the configurational properties of subgroups in organizational work teams. Results of a field study of 326 work teams from a multinational organization support our predictions.
学者们在许多与团队相关的理论中都提到了亚组，但文献中仍存在一些未解决的问题。在本文中，我们将解决其中两个问题，这两个问题都与工作团队中的亚组配置有关：（a）团队是否可以通过增加更多的亚组来提高绩效；（b）团队在亚组不平衡（多数群体和少数群体都存在）或平衡（亚组大小相等）时表现是否更好。我们预测，亚组数量和平衡的影响取决于亚组的类型——亚组是根据社会认同形成的（即基于身份的亚组）还是根据信息处理形成的（即基于知识的亚组）。我们首先提出，团队受到两个基于身份的亚组的不利影响比受到任何其他数量的亚组的影响更大，但对于基于知识的亚组，2 个亚组配置的独特负面影响并不明显。相反，更多的基于知识的亚组对绩效有益，因此与 3 个或更多亚组相比，2 个亚组的绩效更差，但与没有亚组或 1 个亚组相比，绩效更好。其次，我们认为当基于身份的亚组不平衡时，团队的表现会更好，但基于知识的亚组是平衡的。我们还认为，亚组的数量和平衡之间存在交互作用——然而，这种交互作用的性质取决于亚组的类型。为了检验这些预测，我们开发并验证了一种算法，该算法可以测量组织工作团队中亚组的配置属性。来自一家跨国公司的 326 个工作团队的实地研究结果支持了我们的预测。
