Warren E. Watson

Cultural Diversity's Impact On Interaction Process and Performance: Comparing Homogeneous and Diverse Task Groups

The interaction process and performance of culturally homogeneous and culturally diverse groups were studied for 17 weeks. Initially, homogeneous groups scored higher on both process and performance effectiveness. Over time, both types of group showed improvement on process and performance, and the between-group differences converged. By week 17, there were no differences in process or overall performance, but the heterogeneous groups scored higher on two task measures, Implications for management and future research are given.

A proclivity for entrepreneurship: A comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and corporate managers

Abstract Despite intensive inquiry, relatively little is known about the entrepreneur, the central figure in entrepreneurship. The question of how an individual who operates his or her own business differs from a corporate manager remains unanswered. In addressing this question, the primary purpose of this study was to investigate the potential of psychological constructs to predict a proclivity for entrepreneurship. The research model includes three classic themes in the literature: achievement motivation, risk-taking propensity, and preference for innovation. A survey of 767 small business owner-managers and corporate managers was assembled from a 20-state region, primarily the southeastern United States. The participants completed a questionnaire composed of the Achievement Scale of the Personality Research Form, the Risk-Taking and Innovation Scales of the Jackson Personality Inventory and questions pertaining to numerous individual and organizational variables. Respondents were first divided into two groups, managers and small business owner-managers. Subsequently, due to the often cited variations in entrepreneurs, the owner-managers were further categorized as either an entrepreneur or small business owner, using the widely cited Carland et al. (1984) theoretical definitions. Entrepreneurs are defined by their goals of profit and growth for their ventures and by their use of strategic planning. Alternatively, small business owners focus on providing family income and view the venture as an extension of their personalities. In this study, both groups of owner-managers were simultaneously compared with managers using hierarchical set multinomial LOGIT regression. The results indicated that the psychological constructs are associated with small business ownership, but with some important caveats. As hypothesized, those labeled entrepreneurs were higher in achievement motivation, risk-taking propensity, and preference for innovation than were both the corporate managers and the small business owners. This profile of the entrepreneur as a driven, creative risk-taker is consistent with much of the classic literature concerning the entrepreneur. Nonetheless, not all of the owner-managers fit this profile. When compared with managers, the small business owners demonstrated only a significantly higher risk-taking propensity. In terms of the constructs studied, the small business owners were more comparable to managers than to entrepreneurs. In addition to theoretical and methodological implications, the results presented here have important implications for small business owner-managers of both types. A major issue is the connection between the owner’s psychological profile and the characteristics of the venture, including performance. It would appear that psychological antecedents are associated with owner goals for the venture. Some owners will be more growth oriented than will others, and performance should be assessed in light of the owner’s aspirations for the venture. Moreover, owners should be aware of their own personality sets, including risk preferences, which may be more or less suited to different venture circumstances, including those with relatively high levels of risk. Planning in small businesses appears to enhance venture performance. Research has demonstrated the connections between psychological factors and planning behaviors in small businesses. Those labeled entrepreneurs in this study have goals of profit and growth, and tend to engage in more planning. An awareness of these psychological preferences and concomitant attention to planning behaviors have the potential to improve the performance of the venture, irrespective of owner aspirations. Venture teaming is becoming more popular among entrepreneurs. Balanced venture teams appear to improve the chances of entrepreneurial success (Timmons 1990) , but a common source of conflict among venture team members is inconsistent or ambiguous motives for the new venture. Awareness of venture partners’ psychological predispositions in areas such as risk-taking could be used to identify and reconcile areas of potential conflict, and enhance the planning process in the small firm. In sum, an individual’s awareness of his or her psychological profile provides a number of advantages, not only to existing entrepreneurs, but also to aspiring entrepreneurs who should assess their perceived entrepreneurial opportunities against the backdrop of their psychological proclivity for entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurial Dispositions and Goal Orientations: A Comparative Exploration of United States and Russian Entrepreneurs

We refine and extend the study of entrepreneurial dispositions by linking three classic hallmarks of the entrepreneur—achievement motivation, risk–taking propensity, and preference for innovation—to the goal orientations of United States and Russian entrepreneurs. The results suggest that entrepreneurial dispositions vary according to culture and the entrepreneurs primary goal for the venture. The results have important implications for theoretical development linking dispositions and entrepreneurial behavior in different settings and for entrepreneurial education and government policy.

Team Orientation, Self-Orientation, and Diversity in Task Groups Their Connection to Team Performance Over Time

Members of more than 50 student groups involved in a team problem-solving environment were surveyed with the Group Style Instrument (GSI) to examine interpersonal group processes for task groups. Analyses of the GSI data resulted in team-oriented and self-oriented dimensions for both samples by comparing several factor models. In a second sample, more than 80 culturally diverse and nondiverse groups involved in a similar team problem-solving format completed the GSI at three points in time after they had completed team projects involving substantial collaborative member effort. For Sample 2, culturally diverse teams reported more self-oriented behaviors (SOBs) over time and performed better that nondiverse teams on two of the three projects. Periodic feedback regarding team performance and interpersonal processing was given to all teams. By the third team project, nondiverse teams performed better. Emphasis is given concerning the importance of managing the balance of team-orientated behaviors and SOBs within teams over time.

The influence of ethnic diversity on leadership, group process, and performance: an examination of learning teams

Abstract As growth in business applications for teams continues, a parallel interest in learning teams has become evident. Students are required to work together to take tests, solve problems, and complete team projects, which substantially affect their individual course evaluations. With the increase in the multicultural base of our educational institutions, we must look more intensively into the effect that ethnic factors have on how students work together. In addition, research on learning teams has been lacking in longitudinal analyses and in the examination of emergent leadership trends. This research focused on the effect that ethnic diversity had on learning team leadership, group process, and team performance. Seventy-five ethnically diverse and ninety ethnically non-diverse learning teams worked together for a 4 month period. In diverse teams, emergent interpersonal leadership activities were more important for team performance, while for non-diverse teams, task leadership was the critical leadership factor. Later in teams’ lives, self-orientation was reported more by non-diverse teams indicating a more individual focus. By the end of teams’ life cycle, the ethnically diverse teams performed higher on team project tasks. Conclusions are provided along with suggestions for future research.

The effects of human capital, organizational demography, and interpersonal processes on venture partner perceptions of firm profit and growth

Abstract Venture teams, which are comprised of two or more partners, are becoming one of the more popular and important modes of new business development. Traditionally, financial capital has been the primary perspective in assessing venture viability. To expand the venture evaluation horizon, we examined the effects of human capital, organizational demography, and interpersonal processes on partner evaluations of venture performance, defined as the presence of profit and growth. The results support this approach in analyzing venture teams, and we propose that this perspective be included in future venture viability assessment, and used for intervention to enhance venture success. Suggestions are provided for future research.

Team interpersonal process effectiveness in venture partnerships and its connection to perceived success

Abstract Many business ventures are started by entrepreneurial teams, and an extensive theoretical literature suggests that the interpersonal process of these teams impact venture performance. Whereas some work has been done to identify key issues in how well such teams work together, there has been no in-depth research to develop an instrument to measure specific dimensions of interpersonal process effectiveness. This article documents the importance of venture business, develops a measure to evaluate venture team interpersonal process effectiveness, and shows the relationship of interpersonal process effectiveness and partner agreement on specific aspects of interpersonal process to reports of venture success. Over 190 venture dyads were surveyed such that each partner evaluated themselves and their partner on items describing team interpersonalprocess. We found four dimensions for team interpersonal process: leadership, interpersonal flexibility, team commitment, and helpfulness. Leadership involved partners who contributed to the leadership functions of problem-solving, setting quality standards, continually improving, and setting goals. Interpersonal flexibility described partner exchange with the other partner. Team commitment meant having enthusiasm for team performance and focusing on common team goals. The final element was helpfulness, which involved helping their partner beyond what was required and being friendly and cooperative. We defined successfully perceived ventures as those in which the two partners independently agreed on evaluating the business to be both growing and profitable. Venture businesses that were described by the partners as not growing and/or not profitable were defined as less successfully perceived ventures. Teams that evaluated themselves as more effective on team interpersonal process also regarded themselves as more successful venture businesses. The factors that were evaluated as more effective in successfully perceived ventures were leadership, team commitment, and their mutual interaction. Our agreement hypothesis held for all three interpersonal perception perspectives. The first agreement correlation is a comparison of partner self-evaluations. The more successfully perceived ventures rated themselves similarly; the less successfully perceived ventures did not. The second agreement correlation was a comparison of what partners thought of each other and is the source of many interpersonal assumptions (Wilmot 1979). Partners from successfully perceived ventures agreed with each other, whereas the less successfully perceived ventures did not. The third agreement analysis was particularly noteworthy. It involved a comparison of one partners self-rating with how the other partner rated him/her. In addition to mere agreement, this represents an interpersonal verification or validity check between separate perceptual systems. As partners, this correlation suggests that you understand my contribution to the team in the same way that I understand my contribution to the team. When there is agreement on this perspective, miscommunication and interpersonal conflict may become less likely. As with the other two agreement indices, partners from successfully perceived ventures showed more agreement than partners in less successfully perceived ventures. An important notion is the use of these three perspectives to more fully utilize the team effectiveness instrument. Each of the perceptual perspectives is different, and a breakdown in one perspective may not always show in the others. However each view is critical to maintaining effective team interpersonal process. To develop a venture dyad, we suggest using our instrument as a tool to enhance a teams interpersonal process. When using an interpersonal method with venture dyads, there are several issues we should consider. First, team interpersonal process issues can be sensitive topics for discussion. In some cases, relationship building with a third party may be needed for this approach to be constructive. Second, a third party, familiar with team interpersonal process, should have a team meeting with the participants to establish a common vocabulary regarding our team concepts. Third, additional team interpersonal process items could be provided by the team to better fit the idiosyncrasies of each dyad.

Team Learning: a Potential Solution To the Problems of Large Classes:

of credit hours that can be taught by graduate faculty. In attempting to cope with these problems, many institutions have been forced to substantially increase class sizes to capitalize on the economies of scale. Unfortunately, this move to larger classes has often led to changes in both the instructional strategies that are employed and the content of the courses that are being taught. For example, the great majority of large classes are taught by the lecture method and student performance is evaluated through the use of true/false and multiple choice exams. This curtails both the

Group Interaction Behaviors that Affect Group Performance on an I ntellective Task

Interaction that occurs while a group completes a cooperative task describes how the group works. Group members working cooperatively on complex intellective tasks completed open-ended questionnaires that described interaction behaviors that facilitated and behaviors that interfered with their groups performance over the life of the group (four months). After considerable screening, these descriptions were adapted into behavioral items that made up a group style instrument. This instrument was administered at two points in time to an independent sample of subjects participating in similar groups. Descriptions of the facilitating and interfering interaction behaviors are provided. Group interaction is examined in terms of changes in responses to the items over time. The instrument was sensitive to levels of group performance, and descriptions of interaction behaviors that discriminated between performance levels are discussed. Applications for group feedback are described and implications for future research are given.

Differences in decision making regarding risk taking: A comparison of culturally diverse and culturally homogeneous task groups

Abstract This study examined the differences in the group decision making of culturally diverse and culturally homogeneous groups regarding tasks in which alternatives consisted of a wide range of risk. One hundred and nineteen subjects were divided into 14 culturally diverse groups (having members of three different ethnic/cultural backgrounds) and 18 culturally homogeneous groups. Each group was presented with a series of decision problems that required making choices of action involving varying degrees of risk. Significant differences were noted between the decisions made by the two types of groups, indicating differences in their risk-taking propensities. The rule of the more diverse the more conservative versus the more similar the more risky was developed from the results. Investigation of the group process also indicated interaction behavior differences between culturally diverse and culturally homogeneous groups. Diverse groups had more problems with interaction behaviors that interfered with problem-solving, whereas homogeneous groups indicated more facilitating interaction behaviors. Discussion of interaction differences due to cultural diversity is offered. Implications of findings for effective management of culturally diverse groups are also given.