The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Structure and Learning in Self-Managed Teams: Why “Bureaucratic” Teams Can Be Better Learners
Abstract
This paper considers the effect of team structure on a team's engagement in learning and continuous improvement. We begin by noting the uncertain conceptual status of the structure concept in the small groups literature and propose a conceptualization of team structure that is grounded in the long tradition of work on formal structure in the sociology and organization theory literatures. We then consider the thesis that, at least in self-managed teams dealing with stable tasks, greater team structure—i.e., higher levels of specialization, formalization, and hierarchy—can promote learning by encouraging information sharing, reducing conflict frequency, and fostering a climate of psychological safety; that is, we examine a mediated model in which the effect of structure on learning and improvement in teams is mediated by psychological safety, information sharing, and conflict frequency. This model was largely supported in a study of self-managed production teams in a Fortune 100 high-technology firm, although the observed pattern of mediation was more complex than anticipated. Higher structure was also associated with actual productivity improvements in a subsample of these teams. The theory and results of this study advance our understanding of team learning and underscore the importance of team structure in research on team processes and performance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.40.3.879 · Cited by 34,117
Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams
Edmondson, A. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2666999 · Cited by 12,026
A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.83 · Cited by 9,406
Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 · Cited by 4,774
A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict
Jehn, K. A. (1995) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393638 · Cited by 4,050
Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2391211 · Cited by 3,937 · cited 2×
“In fact, greater differentiation increases the need for the close coordination of differentiated parts, placing a premium on frequent and mindful information exchange (Adler 1992, Lawrence and Lorsch 1967).”
BackgroundTHE DYNAMIC NATURE OF CONFLICT: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF INTRAGROUP CONFLICT AND GROUP PERFORMANCE.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/3069453 · Cited by 2,487
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.413 · Cited by 2,385 · cited 5×
“…studies makes it clear that hierarchical status does not automatically compromise psychological safety in teams but, rather, that it depends on how hierarchical status is leveraged and, specifically, on whether those with higher status adopt a participative approach (Nembhard and Edmondson 2006).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAccounting for the effects of accountability.
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255 · Cited by 2,383
Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams
Barker, J. R. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393374 · Cited by 2,305
Explaining the Limited Effectiveness of Legalistic ‘Remedies’ for Trust/Distrust
Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.4.3.367 · Cited by 1,545
Socially Shared Cognition at Work: Transactive Memory and Group Performance
Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (1996) · What's Social about Social Cognition? Research on Socially Shared Cognition in Small Groups · doi:10.4135/9781483327648.n3 · Cited by 456 · cited 1×
“…of expert roles facilitates information sharing by making it clear that members possess different information and by clearly indicating where within the group particular types of information can be found (see Liang et al. 1995, Moreland et al. 1996, Moreland 1999, Moreland and Myaskovsky 2000).”
BackgroundBain, P. G., Mann, L., & Pirola-Merlo, A. (2001) · Small Group Research · doi:10.1177/104649640103200103 · Cited by 336
Cited by
Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of an Interpersonal Construct
Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014) · Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305 · Cited by 2,577
Psychological safety: a systematic review of the literature
Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.001 · Cited by 1,408
Psychological Safety: A Meta‐Analytic Review and Extension
Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/peps.12183 · Cited by 1,231
Inclusive leadership: how leaders sustain or discourage work group inclusion
Shore, L. M., & Chung, B. G. (2022) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/1059601121999580 · Cited by 303
Miao, Q., Eva, N., Newman, A., & Cooper, B. (2019) · Journal of Small Business Management · doi:10.1111/jsbm.12465 · Cited by 131
Metadata
- Authors
- Bunderson, J. S., & Boumgarden, P.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2010-06
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 609-624
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2167896490
- Cited by
- 339
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 10.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
