team decision making
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

221
(FIVE YEARS 28)

H-INDEX

22
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhipeng Zhang ◽  
Li Zhu ◽  
Gong Chen ◽  
Lu Shang ◽  
Qiuyun Zhao ◽  
...  

Purpose Existing studies mostly rely on the static characteristics of team members, and there is still a lack of empirical investigation on how entrepreneurial team members make decisions through dynamic team process and how team members’ cognition influences team decision-making. The purpose of this study is to validate how entrepreneurial team heterogeneity affects team decision-making performance from the perspective of dynamic team process. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on the theory of input-process-output model, this study proposed and examined the mediating role of team interaction as well as the moderating role of proactive socialization tactics in the relationship between entrepreneurial team heterogeneity and decision-making performance. Based on a sample of 162 entrepreneurial teams that include pairing superiors and subordinates, hierarchical regressions and moderated mediation tests were used to test the hypotheses. Findings The research results show that the heterogeneity of entrepreneurial teams is positively correlated with both team interaction and decision-making performance. Team interaction plays a mediating role between entrepreneurial team heterogeneity and decision-making performance; information seeking of proactive socialization tactics moderates the impact of entrepreneurial team heterogeneity on team interaction. Originality/value Contributing to the literature on entrepreneurial team decision-making performance, this study identifies that proactive socialization tactics with a high level of information seeking can help entrepreneurial team members respond to environmental and organizational changes more effectively during team development and increase the effectiveness of team interaction. This finding helps us better understand the mechanism and context under which entrepreneurial heterogeneity may enhance the team’s decision-making performance.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivek Rao ◽  
Ananya Krishnan ◽  
Jieun Kwon ◽  
Euiyoung Kim ◽  
Alice Agogino ◽  
...  

Abstract Design team decision-making underpins all activities in the design process. Simultaneously, goal alignment within design teams has been shown to be essential to the success of team activities, including engineering design. However, the relationship between goal alignment and design team decision-making remains unclear. In this exploratory work, we analyze six student design teams’ decision-making strategies underlying 90 selections of design methods over the course of a human-centered design project. We simultaneously examine how well each design team’s goals are aligned in terms of their perception of shared goals and their awareness of team members’ personal goals at the midpoint and end of the design process, along with three other factors underpinning team alignment at the midpoint. We report three preliminary findings about how team goal alignment and goal awareness influence team decision-making strategy that, while lacking consistent significance, invite further research. First, we observe that a decrease in awareness of team members’ personal goals may lead student teams to use a different distribution of decision-making strategies in design than teams whose awareness stays constant or increases. Second, we find that student teams exhibiting lower overall goal alignment scores appear to more frequently use agent-driven decision-making strategies, while student teams with higher overall goal alignment scores appear to more frequently use process-driven decision-making strategies. Third, we find that while student team alignment appears to influence agent- and process-driven strategy selection, its effect on outcome-driven selection is less conclusive. While grounded in student data, these findings provide a starting place for further inquiry into of designerly behavior at the nexus of teaming and design decision-making.


2021 ◽  
pp. 237929812110372
Author(s):  
Nicole Bérubé

This role play focuses on team decision making and is designed for undergraduate and graduate human resource management (HRM) and organizational behavior (OB) courses. It can also support management seminars. Working within Employee Teams, Department Teams, or Manager Teams, students decide which three of five employees will obtain family responsibility leave. For HRM courses, the exercise focuses on interpreting and applying family responsibility leave, which illustrates day-to-day personnel planning. For OB courses, the debriefing centers on comparing decision-making models and discussing how beliefs and attitudes influence decision making; it also supports exchanges about the influence of conflict, domination, and groupthink on team decision making. For both OB and HRM courses, the exercise helps students compare individual and team decisions, discuss the effects of team composition on decision making, and analyze the fairness of their decisions. Instructors can conduct the activity in class or online.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (1) ◽  
pp. 14345
Author(s):  
Robert Fuller ◽  
Dusya Vera ◽  
Codou Samba ◽  
David W. Williams

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-137
Author(s):  
David C. Chan

I study team decisions among physician trainees. Exploiting a discontinuity in team roles across trainee tenure, I find evidence that teams alter decision-making, concentrating influence in the hands of senior trainees. I also demonstrate little convergence in variation of trainee effects despite intensive training. This general pattern of trainee effects on team decision-making exists in all types of decisions and settings that I examine. In analyses evaluating mechanisms behind this pattern, I find support for the idea that significant experiential learning occurs during training and that teams place more weight on judgments of senior trainees in order to aggregate information. (JEL D83, I11, J44, M53, M54)


2021 ◽  
pp. 257-270
Author(s):  
Gregory J. Funke ◽  
Michael T. Tolston ◽  
Brent Miller ◽  
Margaret A. Bowers ◽  
August Capiola

2021 ◽  
Vol 120 ◽  
pp. 105705
Author(s):  
Sonya J. Leathers ◽  
Roni Diamant-Wilson ◽  
Jill E. Spielfogel ◽  
Lee Annes ◽  
Amy Thomas ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document