Mary Ann C. Jensen

Bio: Mary Ann C. Jensen is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Tuckman's stages of group development. The author has an hindex of 2, co-authored 2 publications receiving 3858 citations.

Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited

Abstract: The purpose of this review was to examine published research on small-group development done in the last ten years that would constitute an empirical test of Tuckman's (1965) hypothesis that groups go through the stages of "forming," "storming," "norming," and "performing." Of the twenty-two studies reviewed, only one set out to directly test this hypothesis, although many of the others could be related to it. Following a review of these studies, a fifth stage, "adjourning," was added to the hypothesis, and more empirical work was recommended.

Stages of small-group development revisited.

Abstract: The purpose of this review was to examine published research on small-group development done in the last ten years that would constitute an empirical test of Tuckman's (1965) hypothesis that groups go through the stages of "forming," "storming," "norming," and "performing." Of the twenty-two studies reviewed, only one set out to directly test this hypothesis, although many of the others could be related to it. Following a review of these studies, a fifth stage, "adjourning," was added to the hypothesis, and more empirical work was recommended.

Teams in Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models

Abstract: This review examines research and theory relevant to work groups and teams typically embedded in organizations and existing over time, although many studies reviewed were conducted in other settings, including the laboratory. Research was organized around a two-dimensional system based on time and the nature of explanatory mechanisms that mediated between team inputs and outcomes. These mechanisms were affective, behavioral, cognitive, or some combination of the three. Recent theoretical and methodological work is discussed that has advanced our understanding of teams as complex, multilevel systems that function over time, tasks, and contexts. The state of both the empirical and theoretical work is compared as to its impact on present knowledge and future directions.

Demographic Diversity and Faultlines: The Compositional DYnamics of Organizational Groups

Abstract: In this article we address issues of diversity within organizational groups by discussing and summarizing previous approaches and by introducing a new variable—faultlines—which depends on the alignment of individual member characteristics. By analyzing a group's faultlines, we focus attention on the underlying patterns of group member characteristics, which can be an important determinant of subgroup conflict, particularly when the group's task is related to one of its faultlines. We discuss the dynamics of faultlines from the early to later stages of a group's development and show how they may be strongest and most likely when diversity of individual member characteristics is moderate.

Work Groups and Teams in Organizations

Abstract: Contemporary work organizations make heavy use of work teams to meet both immediate and strategic objectives. This chapter addresses the nature and dynamics of work teams. It emphasizes the types of teams that are commonly used in work settings and the processes that are key to their success. The extensive literature on work teams is reviewed and organized around the shifting demands the team's life cycle—from formation to disbanding. Special emphasis is given to research needs relative to team training and development and the role of team leadership. Keywords: composition; development; effectiveness; leadership; team life cycle; team processes; work teams

Work teams applications and effectiveness

Abstract: \" This article uses an ecological approach to analyze factors in the effectiveness of work teams--small groups of interdependent individuals who share responsibility for outcomes for their organizations. Applications include advice and involvement, as in quality control circles and committees; production and service, as in assembly groups and sales teams; projects and development, as in engineering and research groups; and action and negotiation, as in sports teams and combat units. An analytic framework depicts team effectiveness as interdependent with organizational context, boundaries, and team development. Key context factors include (a) organizational culture, (b) technology and task design, (c) mission clarity, (d) autonomy, (e) rewards, ( f ) performance feedback, (g) training/consultation, and (h) physical environment. Team boundaries may mediate the impact of organizational context on team development. Current research leaves unanswered questions but suggests that effectiveness depends on organizational context and boundaries as much as on internal processes. Issues are raised for research and practice. The terms work team and work group appear often in today's discussions of organizations. Some experts claim that to be effective modern firms need to use small teams for an increasing variety of jobs. For instance, in an article subtitled \"The Team as Hero,\" Reich (1987) wrote, If we are to compete in today's world, we must begin to celebrate collective entrepreneurship, endeavors in which the whole of the effort is greater than the sum of individual contributions. We need to honor our teams more, our aggressive leaders and maverick geniuses less. (p. 78) Work teams occupy a pivotal role in what has been described as a management transformation (Walton, 1985), paradigm shift (Ketehum, 1984), and corporate renaissance (Kanter, 1983). In this management revolution, Peters (1988) advised that organizations use \"multi-function teams for all development activities\" (p. 210) and \"organize every function into tento thirty-person, largely self-managing teams\" (p. 296). Tornatzky (1986) pointed to new technologies that allow small work groups to take responsibility for whole products. Hackman (1986) predicted that, \"organizations in the future will rely heavily on member self-management\" (p. 90). Building blocks of such organizations are self-regulating work teams. But University of Tennessee University of Wisconsin--Eau Claire University o f Tennessee far from being revolutionary, work groups are traditional; \"the problem before us is not to invent more tools, but to use the ones we have\" (Kanter, 1983, p. 64). In this article, we explore applications of work teams and propose an analytic framework for team effectiveness. Work teams are defined as interdependent collections of individuals who share responsibility for specific outcomes for their organizations. In what follows, we first identify applications of work teams and then offer a framework for analyzing team effectiveness. Its facets make up topics of subsequent sections: organizational context, boundaries, and team development. We close with issues for research and practice. A p p l i c a t i o n s o f W o r k T e a m s Two watershed events called attention to the benefits of applying work teams beyond sports and mih'tary settings: the Hawthorne studies (Homans, 1950) and European experiments with autonomous work groups (Kelly, 1982). Enthusiasm has alternated with disenchantment (Bramel & Friend, 1987), but the 1980s have brought a resurgence of interest. Unfortunately, we have little evidence on how widely work teams are used or whether their use is expanding. Pasmore, Francis, Haldeman, and Shani (1982) reported that introduction of autonomous work groups was the most common intervention in 134 experiments in manufacturing firms. Production teams number among four broad categories of work team applications: (a) advice and involvement, (b) production and service, (c) projects and development, and (d) action and negotiation. Advice and Involvement Decision-making committees traditional in management now are expanding to first-line employees. Quality control (QC) circles and employee involvement groups have been common in the 1980s, often as vehicles for employee participation ( Cole, 1982 ). Perhaps several hundred thousand U.S. employees belong to QC circles (Ledford, Lawler, & Mohrman, 1988), usually first-line manufacturing employees who meet to identify opportunities for improvement. Some make and carry out proposals, but most have restricted scopes of activity and little working time, perhaps a few hours each month (Thompson, 1982). Employee involvement groups operate similarly, exploring ways to improve customer service (Peterfreund, 1982). 120 February 1990 • American Psychologist Copyright 1990 by the American Psyc2aological A~mciafion, Inc. 0003-066X/90/$00.75 Vol. 45, No. 2, 120-133 QC circles and employee involvement groups at times may have been implemented poorly (Shea, 1986), but they have been used extensively in some companies

Researching the Community of Inquiry Framework: Review, Issues, and Future Directions

Abstract: Since its publication in The Internet and Higher Education, Garrison, Anderson, and Archer's [Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W.(2000). Critical inquiry in atext-based environment: Computer conferencing in highereducation.TheInternet andHigher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.] community of inquiry (CoI) framework has generated substantial interest among online learning researchers.Thisliteraturereviewexaminesrecentresearchpertainingtotheoverallframeworkaswellastospecificstudiesonsocial, teaching,andcognitivepresence.Wethenusethefindingsfromthisliteraturetoidentifypotentialfuturedirectionsforresearch.Some oftheseresearchdirectionsincludetheneedformorequantitatively-oriented studies,theneedformorecross-disciplinarystudies,and theopportunitiesforidentifyingfactorsthatmoderateand/orextendtherelationshipbetween theframework'scomponentsandonline course outcomes. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.