STRUCTURING FOR TEAM SUCCESS

INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF NETWORK STRUCTURE AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY ON TEAM POTENCY AND
PERFORMANCE Christian Tröster , Ajay Mehra , Daan van Knippenberg
KEY PROBLEM STATEMENT
Understanding the interactive effects of a team’s task network structure and its cultural diversity on the team’s
potency and its performance

• Out of the two distinct approaches to evaluate the potential of working teams – Compositional (focuses on relevant
demographic characteristics of team members) and Structural (focuses on the patterns of connections between team
members), more emphasis was laid on compositional theories and the network affect on a team’s output has received
less attention.

• This research paper tries to examine the possibility that team diversity and structure of a team’s workflow network
interactively determine the determine the confidence a team has in its ability to perform (‘‘team potency’’) and how
it actually goes on to perform (‘‘team performance’’)

• This research uses data from 91 self-managed teams (456 individuals, 60 nationalities) to test the hypothesis built

Degree to which the team members are Extent to which one or more members are
Density Centralization disproportionately central in the team’s
interconnected
network
Hypothesis 1: The centralization of a team’s workflow network will have an inverted U-shaped relationship with team
performance such that the team performance will be greatest at a moderate level of centralization

• Easier for team members • More efficient in terms

Overburdening of central individuals in the team
to use and understand of time needed to arrive
• Enhances overall at a decision
coordination by allowing • More creativity in the Elicits the resentment of those relegated to the peripherals of
and more efficient team the network
interpreting of complex
Failure of central team member can disrupt the workflow of
information
the entire team
Centralized Decentralized
Decision Decision The teams are likely to be overwhelmed by tasks of
coordination and experience bottlenecks in workflow
Making Making

Centralization Vs. Disadvantages of

Decentralization Over centralization

Optimum level of centralization for maximum

team performance
 Hypothesis 2: The higher a team’s workflow density the higher the team’s potency
In dense networks,

Knowledge and support more easily shared as it enhances willingness and motivation of team members to share
Promote interpersonal trust as member reputations becomes readily observable and accessible
Higher level of interpersonal communication fostering openness and interpersonal learning
Members likely to experience enhanced social support thus displaying better coping mechanisms and self efficacy

High satisfaction in team members

Promotes a sense of equity and fairness regarding how the team has organized for task accomplishment
Sense of interpersonal trust and positive mood
Enhance feelings of efficacy in the group
Possibilities for collective sense making about the team’s capabilities to perform effectively

High Potency

Better channeling of motivation and resources to meet the challenges and learn from them
Higher team effort and team satisfaction
Hypothesis 3: The positive relationship between team workflow network density and team potency will be stronger in
teams that are high in cultural diversity (in terms of member nationality) compared to teams that are low in cultural
diversity

Individuals from different countries have different beliefs High cultural diversity
on how best to organize for task performance thus leading
to clashes over how to structure the flow of work
Similar attraction theory implies that culturally diverse
teams are more likely to face challenges in building and High uncertainty
sustaining interpersonal interaction and cooperation among
team members
Social categorization theory implies conflicts to be higher Members look to network structure
in diverse teams as in group members tend to be treated even more as indicator of
more favorably performance potential

Cultural Diversity Uncertainty

Members interpret a dense network
pattern as a reason for confidence in
team’s ability to perform well
Hypothesis 4: The inverted U-shaped relationship of team workflow network centralization with team performance
will be moderated by the team’s cultural diversity such that the level of team workflow centralization that is optimal
for team performance will be higher for teams that are high in cultural diversity compared to teams that are low in
cultural diversity

Causes Effects

Team Network Density Team Potency

More Higher
More nationality disagreements and centralization for
Centralization Team Performance diversity conflicts on how to optimal team
organize for work performance
Inefficiencies in
Under centralization
information flow
Overburdening of central
Over centralization
individuals

Combining all the four hypothesis thus

interlinking potency, performance with
network density, network centralization and
cultural diversity
 METHODOLOGY

Sample Data : 91 student teams (456 individuals, 60 nationalities)

Collection of data: The Roster Method
• Respondents were presented a list of all names of their team members
Step 1:

• Respondents were asked to rate for each team member the extent to which they agreed with the statement that individual team members provided them with
Step II: relevant inputs for their work

• Collected friendship relations data for control purposes, by asking respondents to choose between having a friendship relationship with a team member (coded as
Step III: 1) or not having a friendship relationship (coded as 0).

• Data on the workflow network in teams were collected via an online survey in week 5 (response rate: 95 percent)
Step IV:

• Data on team potency were collected using an online survey in week 9 just two days before the teams handed in their final reports (response rate: 98 percent)
Step V:

• Data on team performance were collected directly from evaluators in week 11 (response rate: 100 percent)
Step VI:

Measures: Team performance; Team potency; Workflow network centralization; Workflow network density; Cultural
diversity.
 ANALYSIS

The performance score for each team was based on the evaluation of one of eight judges, each of whom was provided
with the same grading rubric. Because judges evaluated more than one group, team performance could be correlated
within raters, which violates the OLS assumption of independence of observations and generates invalid test statistics.

clustered • Hypotheses 1
regression • Hypotheses IV
analysis

Standard • Hypotheses II
OLS regression • Hypotheses III
analysis
 RESULTS

Results of clustered regression analysis predicting team Results of Regression Analysis

performance. Predicting Team Potency.

Note: N = 92. Standardized regression coefficients are reported together with standard errors.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001, significance levels are one-tailed.
Upon analysis of the results, we can see that all the 4 hypothesis made in the study are proven to be correct.

Hypothesis 1: As hypothesized the coefficient for the squared term for centralization was negative and significant (b = 0.46, p < 0.01)
and indicates that the curve has an inverted U-shaped curve. Also, The maximum performance was reached only at higher levels of
centralization (+0.73 SD). Other than this point network centralization had a negative influence on performance.

Hypothesis II: From the Results of Regression Analysis Predicting Team Potency – Model 2, we could observe that only the coefficient
for network density(b = .19, p < .001) is significant. This suggest that workflow network density (and not network centralization)
positively influences team potency, hence hypothesis 2 is also supported.

Hypothesis III: From the Results of Regression Analysis Predicting Team

Potency – Model 3, we could observe that the regression coefficient for
network density (b = .18, p < .001) and the interaction term between
network density and cultural diversity (b = .07, p < .05) are both significant.

Upon plotting the relationship between workflow network density and team
potency for high levels (+1 SD) and low levels (-1 SD) of cultural diversity,
figure shows that workflow network density had a stronger relationship
with team potency for culturally diverse teams
(b = .25, p < .001) than for more homogeneous teams (b = .11, p < .05).
Influence of workflow network density
and cultural diversity on team potency
Hypothesis IV: From the Results of clustered regression analysis predicting team performance – Model 3, we could observe that
term representing the interaction between network centralization and cultural diversity was significant (b = 0.24; p < 0.05) and the
squared main effect of centralization was also significant and negative (b = 0.66; p < 0.01) , indicating that the curvilinear
relationship between workflow network centralization and performance differed for high and low levels of cultural diversity.

Upon plotting the interaction at two levels of cultural diversity (+1 SD/-

Influence of workflow
network centralization
and team diversity on
team performance
1 SD), figure shows that the maximum of the curve was just above the
mean of network centralization for teams low in cultural diversity
(+0.56 SD) and almost half standard deviation higher for highly cultural
diverse teams (+0.92 SD) indicating that the diverse teams required
almost half a standard deviation more centralization to perform
optimally compared to more homogeneous teams.

As a whole our results suggests that the structure of emergent workflow networks in teams help shape team
performance. However, that the effects of network structure on team performance are likely to vary as a function of
the kind of tasks that teams have to accomplish.
 KEY FINDINGS
 Dense workflow networks promoted team potency (team’s confidence in
its ability to perform) it was the development of moderately centralized
workflow networks that facilitated team performance.
When centralization was low, teams may have lacked the necessary
coordination for effective performance; when it was too high, team
performance suffered, presumably because the central nodes become
overburdened and because the peripheral nodes resented the
disproportionate influence that central nodes had over how work was
accomplished.

 These network effects, moreover, were more pronounced in teams that were
diverse (in terms of member nationality) than in teams that were
relatively homogenous. These results indicate support for the idea that
team diversity may be a key contingency factor in the relationship
between a team’s network structure, the level of team potency achieved
within the team, and the team’s performance.

 Also the effects of network structure on team performance are likely to

vary as a function of the kind of tasks (complexity level) that teams have
to accomplish.
HOW DOES THE PAPER HELP A MANAGER?

To help increase team performance by effective exchange of information and coordination of team tasks

To effectively structure the team’s work flow network thereby increasing the confidence of a team (Team Potency)

Categorize teams based on team’s cultural diversity and their network density within the team

To concentrate on control variables that have significant effect on the team performance and the team potency

Assess team attributes such as prior experience and performance, mean levels of personality, external support, goal clarity, verbal
persuasion, leadership styles, and the diversity of functional competencies available within a team in a timely manner

To organize work flow network in an optimum and sufficiently centralized way to avoid poor task performances by the team

Helps in creating a balance between delivery of faster and creative solutions by the team
 GROUP 1
Name Roll Name Roll
Arunit Chatterjee 19BM63075 Anuj Parmar 19BM63086
Harish Dasari 19BM63057 Garima Agarwal 19BM63110
Harivanam Srinivas 19BM63055 Harshit Kumar Singh 19BM63058
Samuel David 19BM63113 Mageshwaran S 19BM63064
Shubham Paul 19BM63123 N Pradeep Kumar 19BM63034
Shimon P Silvester 19BM63004 Sagar Patel 19BM63032
Vishnu Prasanth Rajaraman 19BM63129

Thank You