Cutthroat Cooperation: Asymmetrical Adaptation To Changes In Team Reward Structures

To examine social interdependence theory dynamically, we develop a theory of structural adaptation based on “asymmetric adaptability.” We suggest that it is more difficult for teams to shift from competitive to cooperative reward structures than from cooperative to competitive structures. We show that teams that switch from competitive to cooperative reward structures demonstrate “cutthroat cooperation.” In their performance, marked by lower team decision accuracy and higher speed, they resemble competitive teams more than cooperative teams. Information sharing, also lower for cutthroat cooperation teams than for other cooperative teams, partially mediates the relationship between reward structure and accuracy.

[1]  N. Charness,et al.  Expert Performance Its Structure and Acquisition , 2002 .

[2]  E. Ramsden.  Group Process and Productivity , 1973 .

[3]  John B. Miner,et al.  The Validity and Usefulness of Theories in an Emerging Organizational Science , 1984 .

[4]  F. Glen.  The social psychology of organizations , 1976 .

[5]  Thomas L. Ruble,et al.  Support for a two-dimensional model of conflict behavior. , 1976 .

[6]  Arthur P. Brief,et al.  Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews , 2003 .

[7]  Daniel R. Ilgen,et al.  Structural contingency theory and individual differences: examination of external and internal person-team fit. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[8]  John R. Hollenbeck,et al.  Cooperation, competition and team performance: Toward a contingency approach , 2002 .

[9]  J. Bishop,et al.  An examination of organizational and team commitment in a self-directed team environment. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[10]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[11]  D. Harrison,et al.  Time, Teams, and Task Performance: Changing Effects of Surface- and Deep-Level Diversity on Group Functioning , 2002 .

[12]  M. Deutsch.  A Theory of Co-operation and Competition , 1949 .

[13]  Jennifer L. Berdahl,et al.  The Study of Groups: Past, Present, and Future , 2000 .

[14]  J. V. Maanen,et al.  Toward a theory of organizational socialization , 1977 .

[15]  Richard,et al.  Motivation through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory. , 1976 .

[16]  R. J. House,et al.  A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness , 1971 .

[17]  David B. Balkin,et al.  Toward a contingency theory of compensation strategy , 1987 .

[18]  R. Piedmont,et al.  The Revised NEO Personality Inventory , 1998 .

[19]  K. Williams,et al.  Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing , 1979 .

[20]  Gareth R. Jones,et al.  The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork , 1998 .

[21]  Samuel Juni,et al.  Revised NEO personality inventory , 1995 .

[22]  J. Shaw,et al.  Are financial incentives related to performance? A meta-analytic review of empirical research. , 1998 .

[23]  S. Fiske,et al.  The Handbook of Social Psychology , 1935 .

[24]  U. Bronfenbrenner.  Ecological systems theory. , 1992 .

[25]  Shawn L. Berman,et al.  Tacit Knowledge as a Source of Competitive Advantage in the National Basketball Association , 2002 .

[26]  A. Hargadon.  Organizations in Action:Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory (Book) , 2003 .

[27]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[28]  S. Sitkin,et al.  Explaining the Limited Effectiveness of Legalistic “Remedies” for Trust/Distrust , 1993 .

[29]  P. Costa,et al.  Normal Personality Assessment in Clinical Practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. , 1992 .

[30]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Social interdependence: interrelationships among theory, research, and practice. , 2003, The American psychologist.

[31]  Kara A. Incalcaterra,et al.  A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[32]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Can Interpersonal Competition Be Constructive Within Organizations? , 2003, The Journal of psychology.

[33]  Gina J. Medsker,et al.  RELATIONS BETWEEN WORK GROUP CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTIVENESS: IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGNING EFFECTIVE WORK GROUPS , 1993 .

[34]  S. R. Wallace.  Encyclopedia of psychology. , 1947, Psychological bulletin.

[35]  D. Hambrick.  High Profit Strategies in Mature Capital Goods Industries: A Contingency Approach , 1983 .

[36]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. , 1985 .

[37]  Henry Moon.  ASYMMETRIC ADAPTABILITY : DYNAMIC TEAM STRUCTURES AS ONE-WAY STREETS , 2004 .

[38]  Robert Sessions Woodworth,et al.  THE ACCURACY OF VOLUNTARY MOVEMENT , 1899 .