Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T01:02:45.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - How Next-Generation Teams and Teaming May Affect the Ethics of Working in Teams

from Part II - Business Enterprises

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2019

By
Scott S. Wiltermuth  and
Alyssa J. Han
Edited by
Ali E. Abbas
Ali E. Abbas
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Get access

Summary

The way people work in teams is changing. The changes are affecting what work teams look like and how those teams function. In years past people worked for the same organizations for many years, perhaps even their whole careers (see Sullivan, 1999 for review). Because their colleagues also stayed in the same organizations for many years, they were likely to work on teams that had relatively stable memberships. This has changed. People now switch employers more frequently and they change roles within organizations more often (Miles & Snow, 1996; Rousseau & Wade-Benzoni, 1995). They are also more likely to work as independent contractors rather than as employees of the company and seek to develop a “boundaryless career” defined as “a sequence of job opportunities that go beyond the boundaries of a single employment setting” (DeFillippi & Arthur, 1996, p. 116).

Type
Chapter
Information
Next-Generation Ethics
Engineering a Better Society
 , pp. 158 - 181
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altman, B. W., & Post, J. E. (1996). Beyond the social contract: An analysis of the executive view at twenty-five larger companies. In Hall, D. T. (Ed.), The career is dead – long live the career (pp. 46–71). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Zhang, L., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Gossip as cultural learning. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 111–121.Google Scholar
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 445–464.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1993). The role of distinctiveness in social identity and group behaviour. In Hogg, M. A. & Abrams, D. (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 1–16). Hertfordshire, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444.Google Scholar
Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710–725.Google Scholar
Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2001). The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 956–974.Google Scholar
Chen, M., Chen, C. C., & Sheldon, O. J. (2016). Relaxing moral reasoning to win: How organizational identification relates to unethical pro-organizational behavior. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1082–1096.Google Scholar
Chidambaram, L. and Tung, L.L. (2005). Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups. Information Systems Research 16(2), 149–168.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026.Google Scholar
Crowston, K. (1997). A coordination theory approach to organizational process design. Organization Science, 8(2), 157–175.Google Scholar
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organizational design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191–233.Google Scholar
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organization information requirements, media richness, and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.Google Scholar
Davis, M. H. (2018). Empathy: A social psychological approach. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
DeFillippi, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1996). Boundaryless contexts and careers: A competency-based perspective. In Arthur, M. B. & Rousseau, D. M. (Eds.), The boundaryless career (pp. 116–131). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 265–279.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. C., & Harvey, J. F. (2017). Cross-boundary teaming for innovation: Integrating research on teams and knowledge in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 28(4), 347–360.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. C., & Harvey, J. F. (2017). Extreme teaming: Lessons in complex, cross-sector leadership. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1997). Sticking together or falling apart: In-group identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 617–626.Google Scholar
Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior: The effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychological Science, 20(3), 393–398.Google Scholar
Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2013). Self-serving altruism? The lure of unethical actions that benefit others. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 285–292.Google Scholar
Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2009). Dishonesty in the name of equity. Psychological Science, 20(9), 1153–1160.Google Scholar
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385.Google Scholar
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130.Google Scholar
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1995). Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In Lorsch, J. W. (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R. (2012). From causes to conditions in group research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 428–444.Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.Google Scholar
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116.Google Scholar
Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social Loafing and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107.Google Scholar
Heath, C., & Staudenmayer, N. (2000). Coordination neglect: How lay theories of organizing complicate coordination in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 153–191.Google Scholar
Hildreth, J. A. D., Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. (2016). Blind loyalty? When group loyalty makes us see evil or engage in it. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 132, 16–36.Google Scholar
Hill, N. S., Bartol, K. M., Tesluk, P. E., & Langa, G. A. (2009). Organizational context and face-to-face interaction: Influences on the development of trust and collaborative behaviors in computer-mediated groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 187–201.Google Scholar
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. I. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140.Google Scholar
Jones, G. R. (1984). Task visibility, free riding, and shirking: Explaining the effect of structure and technology on employee behavior. Academy of Management Review, 9(4), 684–695.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193–206.Google Scholar
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The psychology of organizations. New York, NY: HR Folks International.Google Scholar
Katz, L. F., & Krueger, A. B. (2016). The rise and nature of alternative work arrangements in the United States, 1995–2015. National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 819–828.Google Scholar
Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J. N. (2002). What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy of research. In Hinds, P. & Kiesler, S. (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 57–80). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kurland, N. B., & Pelled, L. H. (2000). Passing the word: Toward a model of gossip and power in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 428–438.Google Scholar
Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light in the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822–832.Google Scholar
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123.Google Scholar
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1996). Twenty-first-century careers. In Arthur, M. B. & Rousseau, D. M. (Eds.), The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era (pp. 97–115). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403–419.Google Scholar
Mortensen, M. (2014). Constructing the team: The antecedents and effects of membership model divergence. Organization Science, 25(3), 909–931.Google Scholar
Mortensen, M., & Hinds, P. (2002). Fuzzy teams: Boundary disagreement in distributed and collocated teams. In Hinds, P. & Kiesler, S. (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 283–308). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mortensen, M., Woolley, A., & O’Leary, M. (2007). Conditions enabling effective multiple team membership. In Crowston, K., Sieber, S., & Wynn, E. (Eds.), Virtuality and virtualization (pp. 215–228). Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
Mulvey, P. W. & Klein, H. J. (1998). The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy on group goal processes and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74, 62–87.Google Scholar
Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 913–923.Google Scholar
O’Leary, M. B., Mortensen, M., & Woolley, A. W. (2011). Multiple team membership: A theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 461–478.Google Scholar
Orbell, J. & Dawes, R. (1981). Social dilemmas. In Stephenson, G. M. & Davis, J. H. (Eds.), Progress in applied social psychology, (pp. 37–65). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492–499.Google Scholar
Organ, D. W. (1988). OCB: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85–97.Google Scholar
Pluut, H., Flestea, A. M., & Curşeu, P. L. (2014). Multiple team membership: A demand or resource for employees? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18(4), 333–348.Google Scholar
Polletta, F., & Jasper, J. M. (2001). Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 283–305.Google Scholar
Price, K. H., Harrison, D. A., & Gavin, J. H. (2006). Withholding inputs in team contexts: member composition, interaction processes, evaluation structure, and social loafing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1375–1384.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of american community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Retelny, D., Robaszkiewicz, S., To, A., Lasecki, W. S., Patel, J., Rahmati, N., Doshi, T., Valentine, M., & Bernstein, M. S. (2014). Expert crowdsourcing with flash teams. In Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (pp. 75–85). ACM.Google Scholar
Rocco, E. (1998). Trust breaks down in electronic contexts but can be repaired by some initial face-to-face contact. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 496–502). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
Ross, M., & Sicoly, F. (1979). Egocentric biases in availability and attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 322–336.Google Scholar
Rousseau, D. M., & Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (1995). Changing individual–organization attachments: A two-way street. In Howard, A. (Ed.), Changing nature of work (pp. 290–321). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Sally, D. (1995). Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis of experiments from 1958 to 1992. Rationality and Society, 7, 58–92.Google Scholar
Schnake, M. E. (1991). Equity in effort: The “sucker effect” in co-acting groups. Journal of Management, 17(1), 41–55.Google Scholar
Schrag, B. (2001). The moral significance of employee loyalty. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(1), 41–66.Google Scholar
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 195–202.Google Scholar
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Riel, Van, Cees, B M. (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1051–1062.Google Scholar
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653–663.Google Scholar
Straus, S. & McGrath, J. (1994). Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology 79(1), 87–91.Google Scholar
Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1996). Social compensation and the Köhler effect: Toward a theoretical explanation of motivation gains in group productivity. In Witte, E. H. & Davis, J. H. (Eds.), Understanding Group behavior: Small group processes and interpersonal relations (Vol. 2, pp. 37–65). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Sullivan, S. E. (1999). The changing nature of careers: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 25(3), 457–484.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W. G. & Worchel, S. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel, S. & Austin, W. G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations, (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 2–24.Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, S. I., John, E., & Valentine, M. (In Press). When equity seems unfair: The role of justice enforceability in temporary team coordination. Academy of Management Journal.Google Scholar
Thau, S., Derfler-Rozin, R., Pitesa, M., Mitchell, M. S., & Pillutla, M. M. (2015). Unethical for the sake of the group: Risk of social exclusion and pro-group unethical behavior. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 98–113.Google Scholar
Thompson, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1992). Egocentric interpretations of fairness and interpersonal conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51(2), 176–197.Google Scholar
Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 12(3), 17–29.Google Scholar
Trevino, L. K., & Victor, B. (1992). Peer reporting of unethical behavior: A social context perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 38–64.Google Scholar
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Umphress, E. E., & Bingham, J. B. (2011). When employees do bad things for good reasons: Examining unethical pro-organizational behaviors. Organization Science, 22(3), 621–640.Google Scholar
Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 769–780.Google Scholar
Valentine, M. A., & Edmondson, A. C. (2014). Team scaffolds: How mesolevel structures enable role-based coordination in temporary groups. Organization Science, 26(2), 405–422.Google Scholar
Valentine, M. A., Retelny, D., To, A., Rahmati, N., Doshi, T., & Bernstein, M. S. (2017). Flash organizations: Crowdsourcing complex work by structuring crowds as organizations. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 3523–3537). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119.Google Scholar
Van, M. V., & Hart, C. M. (2004). Social identity as social glue: The origins of group loyalty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(4), 585–598.Google Scholar
Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 145–180.Google Scholar
Wageman, R., Gardner, H., & Mortensen, M. (2012). The changing ecology of teams: New directions for teams research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 301–315.Google Scholar
Wageman, R., Nunes, D. A., Burruss, J. A., & Hackman, J. R. (2008). Senior leadership teams: What it takes to make them great. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
Walster, E. H., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Waytz, A., Dungan, J., & Young, L. (2013). The whistleblower’s dilemma and the fairness–loyalty tradeoff. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1027–1033.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. M., Straus, S. G., & McEvily, B. (2006). All in due time: The development of trust in computer-mediated and face-to-face teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(1), 16–33.Google Scholar
Wiltermuth, S. S. (2011). Cheating more when the spoils are split. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 157–168.Google Scholar
Zdaniuk, B., & Levine, J. M. (2001). Group loyalty: Impact of members’ identification and contributions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(6), 502–509.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×