This article investigates the relationship between work-group members’ cognitive style (as measured by Allinson and Hayes’s Cognitive Style Index), the group’s task and setting, and the way in which group members behave in the group. Behavior of a homogeneous analytic, a homogeneous intuitive, and a heterogeneous group was observed in a mechanistic setting and analyzed using discourse analysis. This study is discussed in light of a previous study in which homogeneous analytic and homogeneous intuitive groups worked in an organic setting. These two studies use different methodologies (quantitative approach versus qualitativediscursive). The benefits of methodological eclecticism are discussed.
Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (1996). The Cognitive Style Index: A measure of intuitionanalysis for organizational research. Journal of Management Studies, 33(1), 119-135.
2.
Armstrong, S. J., Allinson, C. W.,& Hayes, J. (1997). The implications of cognitive style for the management of student-supervisor relationships. Educational Psychology, 17, 209-217.
3.
Armstrong, S. J., Allinson, C. W.,& Hayes, J. (2003). Formal mentoring systems: An examination of the effects of mentor/protégé cognitive style on the mentoring process. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 1111-1137.
4.
Armstrong, S. J.,& Priola, V. (2001). Individual differences in cognitive style and their effect on task and social orientations of self managed work-teams, Small Group Research, 32(3), 283-312.
5.
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
6.
Bales, R. F., Cohen, S. P., & Williamson S. A. (1979). SYMLOG: A System for the Multiple Level Observation of Groups. New York: Free Press.
7.
Banister, P., Burman, E., Parker, I., Taylor, M., & Tindall, C. (1994). Qualitative methods in psychology: A research guide. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
8.
Belbin, R. M. (1981). Management teams: Why they succeed or fail. Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann.
9.
Belbin, R. M. (1993). Team roles at work. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
10.
Bion, W. R. (1961). Experiences in group and other papers. London: Tavistock.
11.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
12.
Ellis, D. G., & Fisher, B. A. (1994). Small group decision making: Communication and the group process(4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
13.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
14.
Frank, B. M., & Davis, J. K. (1982). Effect of field-independence match or mismatch on a communication task, Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(1), 23-31.
15.
Furnham, A., Brewin, C. R., & O’Kelly, H. (1994). Cognitive style and attitude to work, Human Relations, 47(12), 1509-1521.
16.
Gruenfeld, L. W.,& Lin, T.-R. (1984). Social behavior of field independents and dependents in an organic group. Human Relations, 37, 721-741.
17.
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology(pp. 1-99). New York: Academic Press.
18.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1982). The manual of learning styles. Maidenhead, England: Honey.
19.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
20.
Jaques, D. (1991). Learning in groups(2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.
21.
Kirton, M. J. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 42, 622-629.
22.
Kogan, N. (1983). Stylistic variation in childhood and adolescence: Creativity, metaphor and cognitive style. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child(Vol. 3, pp. 630-706). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
23.
Leonard, D.,& Straus, S. (1997, July). Putting your company’s whole brain towork. Harvard Business Review, 111-121.
24.
Littlepage, G. E., Cowart, L., & Kerr, B. (1989). Relationship between group environment scales and group performance and cohesiveness. Small Group Behavior, 20(1), 50-61.
25.
Magnuson, D., & Endler, N. S. (1977). Interactional psychology: Present status and future prospects. In D. Magnuson& N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology(pp. 641-655). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
26.
Miller, A. (1987). Cognitive styles: an integrated model. Educational Psychology, 7(4), 251-268.
27.
Murphy, H. J., Kelleher, W. E., Doucette, P. A., & Young, J. D. (1998). Test-retest reliability and construct validity of the Cognitive Style Index for business undergraduates. Psychological Reports, 82, 595-600.
28.
Napier, R. W., & Gershenfeld, M. K. (1984). Groups: Theory and experience(2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
29.
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimising claims. Human Studies, 9, 219-229.
30.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.
31.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1989). Fragmented ideologies: Accounts of educational failure and positive discrimination, Text, 9(2), 175-190.
32.
Priola, V. (2001). Management of group work: A multi-methodological study of the implications of cognitive style on group processes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sunderland, England.
33.
Priola, V., & Smith, J. L. (2001, July). The chameleon researcher: Multiple paradigms for inquiry in social science. Paper presented at the British Psychological Society, Social Psychology Section Annual Conference, Surrey, England.
34.
Riding, R.,& Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive style: An overview and integration. Educational Psychology, 11(3/4), 193-215.
35.
Riding, R. J., Glass, A., & Douglas, G. (1993). Individual differences in thinking: Cognitive and neurophysiological perspectives. Educational Psychology, 13(3/4), 267-279.
36.
Riding, R., & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive style and learning strategies: Understanding style differences in learning and behaviour. London: David Fulton.
37.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement, Psychological Monographs, 80.
38.
Sbisá, M. (1992). Affetto e Diritto come dimensioni dell’interazione verbale [Affection and law as dimensions in verbal interaction]. In C. Galimberti (Ed.), La Conversazione. Prospettive sull’interazione verbale. Milano, Italy: Guerini.
39.
Schrage, (1995). No more teams!New York: Doubleday/Currency.
40.
Sinclair, A. (1992). The tyranny of a team ideology. Organization Studies, 13, 611-626.
41.
Turk, D. C.,& Salovey, P. (Eds.). (1988). Reasoning inference and judgement in clinical psychology. New York: The Free Press.
42.
Witkin, H. A. (1976). A cognitive style in academic performance and in teacher-student selections. In S. Messick (Ed.), Individuality in learning(pp. 38-72). San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
43.
Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1977). Field dependence and interpersonal behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 661-689.
44.
Witkin, H. A., Goodenough, D. R.,& Karp, S. A. (1967). Stability of cognitive style from childhood to young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(3), 291-300.
45.
Zaccaro, S. J. (1991). Nonequivalent associations between forms of cohesiveness and grouprelated outcomes: Evidence for multidimensionality. Journal of Social Psychology, 131(3), 387-399.
46.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Lowe, C. A. (1988). Cohesiveness and performance on an additive task: Evidence for multidimensionality. Journal of Social Psychology, 128(4), 547-558.
