Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science
- The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Figures
- Contributors
- Book part
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Premeeting Activities and Context
- Part III The Meeting Itself
- Capturing and Understanding Dynamics and Processes of the Meeting
- Tools and Models for Promoting Meeting Success
- 21 Designing and Executing Effective Meetings with Codified Best Facilitation Practices
- 22 Finding the Gorilla
- 23 Information Utilization in Meetings
- 24 What Is Consensus and How Is It Achieved in Meetings?
- 25 Creativity and Meetings
- Part IV Special Types of Meetings
- Part V Synthesis and Conclusion
- Book part
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
22 - Finding the Gorilla
The Impact of Complexity and Diversity on Meeting Process
from Tools and Models for Promoting Meeting Success
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2015
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science
- The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Tables
- Figures
- Contributors
- Book part
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Premeeting Activities and Context
- Part III The Meeting Itself
- Capturing and Understanding Dynamics and Processes of the Meeting
- Tools and Models for Promoting Meeting Success
- 21 Designing and Executing Effective Meetings with Codified Best Facilitation Practices
- 22 Finding the Gorilla
- 23 Information Utilization in Meetings
- 24 What Is Consensus and How Is It Achieved in Meetings?
- 25 Creativity and Meetings
- Part IV Special Types of Meetings
- Part V Synthesis and Conclusion
- Book part
- Author Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
Abstract
Experienced leaders with decades of successfully leading organizations are much more likely today than in the past to make poor decisions or to be unceremoniously removed from their positions of authority. The underlying causes of these actions seem to be the failure to realize that complexity is the “new norm.” The new norm is responsible for subtle changes that are affecting meeting process, team composition, and the way problem solvers need to view the world as it grows more diverse. This chapter provides an understanding of the causes and impacts of complex systems on modern meeting planning. It introduces the concepts of a collective knowledge team (CKT) that uses diversities in a positive way to solve complex, nonlinear problems and of cognitive style theory as a powerful tool for managing team diversity and change. It also identifies 10 team task and work task competencies that appear to be crucial to team process success. Finally, it presents a complex meeting process model that incorporates complex theory, team and cognitive theory, critical skills and competencies, and the management of diversity and change into a meeting process model that, when used effectively, could increase success in modern-day problem solving.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science , pp. 504 - 532Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015
References
Albon, R., & Jewels, T. (2014). Mutual performance monitoring: Elaborating the development of team learning theory. Group Decision Negotiation, 23, 149–164. doi:10.1007/s10726–012–9311–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allinson, C. W., & Hayes, J. (1996). The cognitive style index: A measure of intuitition-analysis for organizational research. Journal of Management Studies, 33, 119–135. doi:10.1111/j.1467–6486.1996.tb00801.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, S. J., Cools, E., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2012). Role of cognitive styles in business and management: Reviewing 40 years of research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14, 238–262. doi:10.1111/j.1468–2370.2011.00315.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, G. C., Batchelor, J. H., Seers, A., O'Boyle, E. H. Jr., Pollack, J. M., & Gower, K. (2014). What does team–member exchange bring to the party? A meta-analytic review of team and leader social exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 273–295. doi:10.1002/job.1885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basadur, M. S., & Gelade, G. A. (2006). The role of knowledge management in the innovation process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15, 45–62. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8691.2006.00368.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basadur, M., Gelade, G., & Basadur, T. (2013). Creative problem-solving process styles, cognitive work demands, and organizational adaptability. Journal of Applied Behavior Science, 50, 80–115. doi:10.1177/0021886313508433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989–1004. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.88.6.989CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, S.T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595–615. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.92.3.595CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonito, J. A., Gastil, J., Ervin, J., & Meyers, R. A. (2014). At the convergence of input and process models of group discussion: A comparison of participation rates across time, person, and groups. Communications Monographs, 81, 179–207. doi:10.1080/03637751.2014.883081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodeur, C. W. (2006). Measuring team process: Using changing theory to improve problem solving outcomes (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0017263/brodeur_c.pdfGoogle Scholar
Burke, W. W. (2002). Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Burke, C. S., Salas, E., Wilson-Donnelly, K., & Priest, H. (2004). How to turn a team of experts into an expert team: Guidance from the aviation and military communities. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13, 96–104. doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.009829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cools, E., & Van den Broeck, H. (2007). Development and validation of the cognitive style indicator. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 141, 359–387. doi:10.3200/JRLP.141.4.359–388CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curseu, P. L., & Schruijer, S. G. L. (2010). Does conflict shatter trust or does trust obliterate conflict? Revisiting the relationship between team diversity, conflict, and trust. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14, 66–79. doi:10.1037/a0017104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, T. L., & McIntyre, R. M. (1997). A conceptual framework for teamwork measurement. In Brannick, M. R., Salas, E., & Prince, C. (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and application (pp. 10–45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
D'Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2014). A meta-analysis of different forms of shared leadership-team performance relations. Journal of Management, 20, 1–28. doi:10.1177/0149206314525205Google Scholar
Duit, A., & Galaz, V. (2008). Governance and complexity – Emerging issues for governance theory. Governance, 21, 311–335. doi:10.1111/j.1468–0491.2008.00402.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390–405. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.71.2.390CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gadinger, F., & Peters, D. (2014). Feedback loops in a world of complexity: A cybernetic approach at the interface of foreign policy analysis and international relations theory. Cambridge Review of International Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09557571.2013.872599Google Scholar
Goetz, T. (2011, June). Harnessing the power of feedback loops. Wired. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/2011/06/ff_feedbackloopGoogle Scholar
Goldman, S. L., Nagel, R. N., & Preiss, K. (1996). Agile competitors and virtual organizations: Strategies for enriching the customer. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R. (2012). From causes to conditions in group research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 428–444. doi:10.1002/job.1774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199–1228. doi:10.2307/20159363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity of group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 4, 1029–1045. doi:10.2307/3069328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, J., & Allinson, C. W. (1998). Cognitive style and the theory and practice of individual and collective learning in organizations. Human Relations, 51, 847–871. doi:10.1177/001872679805100701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homan, A. C., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & DeDreu, C. K. W. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1189–1199. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.92.5.1189CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Homberg, F., & Bui, H. (2013). Top management team diversity: A systematic review. Groups & Organization Management, 38, 455–479. doi:10.1177/1059601113493925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1128–1145. doi:10.1037/a0015978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jablokow, K. W. (2005). The catalytic nature of science: Implications for scientific problem solving in the 21st century. Technology in Society, 27, 531–549. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.08.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jablokow, K. W., & Booth, D. E. (2006). The impact and management of cognitive gap in high performance product development organizations. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 23, 313–336. doi:10.1016/j.jengtecman.2006.08.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43, 130–158. doi:10.1177/1046496411429599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirton, M. J. (2003). Adaption-innovation: In the context of diversity and change. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kuziemsky, C. E., Borycki, E. M., Purkis, M. E., Black, F., Boyle, M., Cloutier-Fisher, D., … Wong, H. (2009). An interdisciplinary team communication framework and its application to healthcare e-teams system design. BMC Medical Informatics, 9, 1–15. doi:10.1186/1472–6947–9–43Google Scholar
Le, Q. B., Seidl, R., & Scholz, R. W. (2012). Feedback loops and types of adaptation in the modelling of land-use decisions in an agent-based simulation. Environmental Modeling & Software, 27, 83–96. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364815211002003#.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, C., Lee, Y., Chen, H., Hsieh, P., Yeh, Y., & Lin, M. (2014). The impact of team diversity, task interdependence, team conflict, and team cooperation on job performance: Using real estate brokers as examples. International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 3, 415–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Allen, J. A., & Kauffeld, S.(2013). A sequential analysis of procedural meeting communication: How teams facilitate their meetings. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41, 365–388. doi:10.1080/00909882.2013.844847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, K. T. (1943). Psychology and the process of group living. Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 113–131. doi:10.1080/00224545.1943.9712269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovelace, K. J., Manz, C.C., & Alvers, J.C. (2007). Work stress and leadership development: The role of self-leadership, shared leadership, physical fitness and flow in managing demand and increasing job control. Human Resources Management Review, 17, 374–387. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martins, L. L., Schilpzand, M. C., Kirkman, B. L., Ivanaj, S., & Ivanaj, V. (2013). A contingency view of the effects of cognitive diversity on team performance: The moderating roles of team psychological safety and relationship conflict. Small Group Research, 44, 96–126. doi:10.1177/1046496412466921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief Introduction. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.Google Scholar
McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H., & Berdohl, J. (2000). The study of groups: Past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 95–105. doi:10.1207/S15327957Pspr0401_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, H. H., & Foti, R. J. (2013). The impact of shared leadership on teamwork, mental models and performance in self-directed teams. Group Process and Intergroup Relations, 16, 46–57. doi:10.1177/1368430211422923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molly, C. (2012). Catalyzing innovation: Managing enterprise research and development. Industrial Biotechnology, 8, 276–278. doi:10.1089/ind.2012.1537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mott, P. E. (1972). The characteristics of effective organizations. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Page, S. E. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton, N J: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Page, S. E. (2011). Diversity and complexity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Porter, C. O., Holenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Ellis, A. P., West, B. J., & Moon, H. (2003). Backing up behaviors in teams: The role of personality and legitimacy of need. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 391–403. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.88.3.391CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Post, C. (2012). Deep-level teams composition and innovation: The mediating roles of psychological safety and cooperative learning. Group & Organization Management, 37, 555–588. doi:10.1177/1059601112456289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salas, E., Burke, C. S., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). Teamwork: Emerging principles. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2, 339–356. doi:10.1111/1468–2370.00046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50, 540–547. doi:10.1518/001872008×288457CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “Big Five” in team work? Small Group Research, 36, 555–599. doi:10.1177/10464964052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salas, E., Stagl, K. C., Burke, C. S., & Goodwin, G. F. (2007). Fostering team effectiveness in organizations: Toward an integrative theoretical framework of team performance. In Dienstbier, R. A., Shuart, J. W., Spaulding, W., & Poland, J. (Eds.), Modeling complex systems: Motivation, cognition and social processes: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 51, pp. 185–243). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Schei, V., & Rognes, J. K. (2005). Small group negotiation: When members differ in motivational orientation. Small Group Research, 36, 289–320. doi:10.1177/1046496404273145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Bantam.Google Scholar
Senge, P., Scharmer, C. O., Jaworski, J., & Flowers, B. S. (2005). Presence: An exploration of profound change in people, organizations, and society. New York, NY: Currency.Google Scholar
Simons, D. (2010, April, 28). The monkey business illusion. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfYGoogle Scholar
Skinner, N., & Fox-Francoeur, C. (2013). Personality implications of adaption-innovation: VI. Adaption-Innovation as a predictor of disease proneness. Social Behavior and Personality, 41, 223–228. doi:10.2224/sbp.2013.41.2.223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stum, J. (2009). Kirton's adaption-innovation theory: Managing cognitive styles in times of diversity and change. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 2, 66–78.Google Scholar
Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2014). Do organizations spend wisely on employees? Effects of training and development investments on learning and innovation in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 393–412. doi:10.1002/job.1897CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Talke, K., Salomo, S., & Rost, K. (2010). How top management team diversity affects innovativeness and performance via the strategic choice to focus on innovation fields. Research Policy, 39, 907–918. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.04.001awCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, M. C. (2001). The moment of complexity: Emerging network culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1969). General systems theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York, NY: George Braziller.Google Scholar
Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on workgroup cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27, 141–162. doi:10.1177/014920630102700202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, W., Vredenburgh, D., & Rogoff, E. G. (2013). Informational diversity and entrepreneurial team performance: Moderating effect of shared leadership. International Entrepreneurial Management Journal, 1–17. doi:10.1007/s11365–013–0274–3Google Scholar