Interactions in engaged work teams: a qualitative study

Purpose The aim of this study is to describe work-engaged teams in terms of interpersonal interaction. Design/methodology/approach Six teams (N = 31 individuals) were videotaped during a decision-making task, for one hour. Based on a priori defined categories, the authors coded the videos in terms of the degree of interaction between team members, the physical distance between members, the degree of team’s activation and the valence of their interaction. The videos were also coded in terms of motivational and affective processes. Team work engagement was assessed using questionnaires. Findings Highly engaged team members work physically close and have an increment on their interactions up until the task’s temporal midpoint. They have an initial peak of activation and show more positive emotional valence in the first and the last moments of the task. The most interpersonal processes used are affective. The worst performing team had the highest initial interaction levels followed by an abrupt decrease both in their levels of interaction and in their levels of activation. Simultaneously, they present higher peaks of positive emotional valence. Practical implications Although engaged teams are essentially characterized by the presence of positive interactions, it is fundamental to alternate more “exited” and fun moments with more task focused ones and collective interaction moments with individual work. Originality/value This study answers to Kozlowski and Chao’s (2012) call for studying emergence in a more direct way, using qualitative analysis of video data.

[1]  I. Inceoglu,et al.  Measuring states and traits in motivation and emotion. A new model illustrated for the case of work engagement , 2016 .

[2]  A. Bakker,et al.  The work engagement grid: predicting engagement from two core dimensions , 2016 .

[3]  Andrew P. Knight,et al.  Mood at the Midpoint: Affect and Change in Exploratory Search Over Time in Teams That Face a Deadline , 2015, Organ. Sci..

[4]  A. Bakker,et al.  Team work engagement: A model of emergence , 2014 .

[5]  M. Patterson,et al.  The role of weekly high‐activated positive mood, context, and personality in innovative work behavior: A multilevel and interactional model , 2014 .

[6]  A. Bakker,et al.  Empirical validation of the team work engagement construct , 2014 .

[7]  A. Bakker,et al.  Job Crafting at the Team and Individual Level , 2013 .

[8]  R. Bales Interaction process analysis; a method for the study of small groups. , 2013 .

[9]  Marisa Salanova,et al.  Teams make it work: how team work engagement mediates between social resources and performance in teams. , 2012, Psicothema.

[10]  Steve W. J. Kozlowski,et al.  The Dynamics of Emergence: Cognition and Cohesion in Work Teams , 2012 .

[11]  Christian Heath,et al.  Some ‘technical challenges’ of video analysis: social actions, objects, material realities and the problems of perspective , 2012 .

[12]  P. Curșeu,et al.  Task and relationship conflict in short-term and long-term groups The critical role of emotion regulation , 2012 .

[13]  R. Peterson Overconfidence and Hubris: Too Much of a Good Thing , 2012 .

[14]  N. Schwarz Feelings-as-information theory. , 2012 .

[15]  Michael Frese,et al.  The affective shift model of work engagement. , 2011, The Journal of applied psychology.

[16]  A. Bakker,et al.  Subjective Well-being in Organizations , 2011 .

[17]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  The Power of Small Wins , 2011 .

[18]  Dominic Barton,et al.  Capitalismo para el largo plazo , 2011 .

[19]  Klaus Krippendorff,et al.  Computing Krippendorff's Alpha-Reliability , 2011 .

[20]  Seth A. Kaplan,et al.  The benefits of flexible team interaction during crises. , 2009, The Journal of applied psychology.

[21]  David Holman,et al.  A classification of controlled interpersonal affect regulation strategies. , 2009, Emotion.

[22]  R. Roe Time in applied psychology: The study of "what happens" rather than "what is." , 2008 .

[23]  Marta Sinclair,et al.  Measuring Emotion: Methodological Issues and Alternatives , 2008 .

[24]  Klaus Krippendorff,et al.  Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data , 2007 .

[25]  Daniel R. Ilgen,et al.  Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams , 2006, Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society.

[26]  J. Meyrick What is Good Qualitative Research? , 2006, Journal of health psychology.

[27]  Gilad Chen,et al.  Toward a Systems Theory of Motivated Behavior in Work Teams , 2006 .

[28]  Mary E. Zellmer-Bruhn,et al.  THE EFFECT OF TEMPORAL ENTRAINMENT ON THE ABILITY OF TEAMS TO CHANGE THEIR ROUTINES , 2004 .

[29]  John E. Mathieu,et al.  A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes , 2001 .

[30]  Caroline A. Bartel,et al.  The Collective Construction of Work Group Moods , 2000 .

[31]  A. Bandura Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy.

[32]  J. George,et al.  Feeling good-doing good: a conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[33]  C. Gersick,et al.  Habitual routines in task-performing groups. , 1990, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[34]  Anat Rafaeli,et al.  Expression of Emotion as Part of the Work Role , 1987 .

[35]  L. James,et al.  Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. , 1984 .

[36]  E. A. Locke,et al.  Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique That Works! , 1984 .

[37]  J. Russell A circumplex model of affect. , 1980 .

[38]  Klaus Krippendorff,et al.  Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology , 1980 .

[39]  T. Bonoma,et al.  Managing Organizational Conflict: A Model for Diagnosis and Intervention , 1979 .

[40]  R. Bales,et al.  Symlog, A System for the Multiple Level Observation of Groups , 1979 .