Small Group Research

Members of 43 three-person groups completed a deductive logic task. Each member was provided with unique clues and information indicating the utility of each clue. Objective validity varied because some clues were essential to problem solution and others were not useful. Social validity was manipulated by informing participants that some clues would likely be useful and that other clues were not likely to be useful. Clues were discussed more frequently if either objective validity or social validity was high, but the effects were not additive. Clues were discussed less frequently in the low objective validity–low social validity condition than in all other conditions. Alignment of both types of validity facilitated the group’s ability to focus on relevant information.

Groups rarely use the unique knowledge of their members when making decisions, focusing instead on knowledge that members have in common. This tendency to neglect the expertise of group members severely limits the effectiveness of group decision making. Previously, this problem has been addressed by showing that groups will pool task-relevant information and make effective decisions if members have knowledge of each other’s expertise. However, these studies are generally limited because they disregard why people use each other’s expertise once they are aware of it. The current study uses expectancy theory to investigate this issue and to link motivation to information exchange in groups. Results of a hidden profile study involving 40 groups indicated that expectancy motivation drives groups to use expertise awareness, exchange more unique information, and thus solve a hidden profile problem correctly.

In the present experiment, members of three-person groups read information about two hypothetical cholesterol-reducing drugs and collectively chose the better drug under high or low time pressure. Information was distributed to members as a hidden profile such that the information that supported the better drug was unshared before discussion. Correct solution of the hidden profile required members to pool their unshared knowledge. Some groups discussed the drug information from memory (memory condition). Others kept the drug information during discussion, accessing sheets that either indicated which pieces of information were shared and unshared (informed access condition) or did not (access condition). Low time pressure groups chose the better drug more often than high time pressure groups, particularly when groups had access to information. Groups in the informed access condition chose the correct drug more often than groups in the memory and access conditions. Memory groups showed the typical discussion bias favoring shared over unshared information, whereas groups with access to information during discussion reversed this bias. This effect was stronger under low than high time pressure.

Team composition literature has established associations of team personality composition and performance in previous research. This study adds to this literature by examining the positive relationship of mean core self-evaluations (CSE) and team performance as well as the moderating effect of team-member exchange (TMX) on this relationship. Using 63 senior business student teams engaged in a management-simulation exercise, there was no support for the main effect of CSE above any variance explained in team performance by mean levels of the Big 5 factors. However, there was strong support for TMX as a moderator where mean CSE was only found to positively relate with team performance when TMX was high. The discussion will detail the results and future directions for research.

This study focuses on a common-yet-understudied group process: supervisor-led group meetings at work. Specifically, the study explores the relationships among employees’ perceptions and reported behaviors with regard to such meetings. Respondents are 291 adults working in different organizations. Structural equation modeling of the data largely supports the hypothesized model. Employee perceptions of relationship quality with their supervisors (leader–member exchange) fully mediates the relationship between perceptions of supervisors’ fairness (interactional justice) in group meetings and perceived organizational support. Leader–member exchange also fully mediates the relationship between interactional justice perceptions and meeting citizenship behaviors—a new construct describing extra-role behaviors that support meeting processes—and between good meeting practices by the supervisors and meeting citizenship behaviors. Leader–member exchange partially mediates the relationship between good meeting practices and perceived organizational support. These findings highlight the importance both of supervisors’ behaviors within meetings that they lead and of the supervisor-led group meeting itself as a phenomenon worthy of future exploration.

This study utilized the social relations model (SRM) to examine the influence of interpersonal perceptions on team processes and outcomes. We hypothesized that the three components of the SRM (assimilation, consensus, and unique relations) would yield differential relationships with group process outcomes. We proposed that unique relations in members’ perceptions of group members, perceptual relationships specific to particular dyads within a focal group, would be a source of negativity within teams’ outcomes. Participants were undergraduates who worked in small groups for assignments for the duration of one semester; each member rated themselves and their teammates on five individual-level characteristics. Hypotheses about unique relations were supported. This component of the SRM model was positively related to conflict and negatively related to cohesion, showing the greatest relative importance among the three SRM components in predicting team process and outcomes.