Picture Perfect: A Task Interdependence and Communication Experiential Activity for Teams

Abstract

Effective communication in interdependent group tasks plays a pivotal role in organizational effectiveness, especially in today’s dynamic and global workplace. As the modern workplace evolves toward more remote work environments and dynamic work teams, the ability to adapt communication strategies across various job designs and work settings becomes increasingly crucial. In this article, we present an experiential learning activity designed for management education that delves into the impact of task design on communication. Drawing from theories of team interdependence, this immersive experience enables students to identify the essential facets of communication and their relationship with various types of task interdependence. It equips them with valuable skills and communication strategies that are vital for various types of teamwork across different types of settings. Suitable for a wide range of educational settings, this experiential activity serves as a valuable resource for management educators.

Keywords

task interdependence communication teams experiential

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barrick

M. R.

Bradley

B. H.

Kristof-Brown

A. L.

Colbert

A. E.

(2007). The moderating role of top management team interdependence: Implications for real teams and working groups. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 544–557. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.25525781

Bennett

Lemoine

G. J.

(2014). What a difference a word makes: Understanding threats to performance in a VUCA world. Business Horizons, 57(3), 311–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.01.001

Bluedorn

A. C.

(1993). The Thompson interdependence demonstration. Journal of Management Education, 17(4), 505–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299301700407

Brumagim

A. L.

(1995). A class exercise highlighting Thompson’s three types of organizational interdependencies. Journal of Management Education, 19(4), 508–512. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299501900409

Courtright

S. H.

Thurgood

G. R.

Stewart

G. L.

Pierotti

A. J.

(2015). Structural interdependence in teams: An integrative framework and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1825–1846. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000027

Crowne

K. A.

(2019). Puzzling in teams: A multipurpose group activity for teamwork, communication, problem solving, and creativity. Management Teaching Review, 4(4), 306–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/2379298118820786

Kolb

D. A.

(1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.

Marlow

S. L.

Lacerenza

C. N.

Paoletti

Burke

C. S.

Salas

(2018). Does team communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach? A meta-analysis of team communication and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144, 145–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.08.001

Mathieu

J. E.

Gallagher

P. T.

Domingo

M. A.

Klock

E. A.

(2019). Embracing complexity: Reviewing the past decade of team effectiveness research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 6, 17–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015106

10.

McCauley

K. D.

(2021). The arena: An activity to foster teamwork, communication, and cooperation in and across teams. Management Teaching Review, 6(3), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/2379298119883356

11.

Saavedra

Earley

P. C.

Van Dyne

(1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.61

12.

Schwarz

(2017, March 23). Is your team coordinating too much, or not enough? Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, 2–5.

13.

Thompson

J. D.

(1967). Organizations in action. McGraw-Hill.

14.

Vince

(1998). Behind and beyond Kolb’s learning cycle. Journal of Management Education, 22(3), 304–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299802200304