Full Circle Associates

Catching up with some good links. No time for comments! Sigh!Work groups perform best when expertise is judged from task-relevant cues

Bunderson's study shows that people rely on these social cues as well as specific, task-relevant characteristics such as experience and education — which are much more valid — in inferring the expertise of fellow group members.

"People are more likely to rely on valid cues when the group has been together longer and when the group has a more democratic decision-making style," Bunderson said, based on his study findings. "And my work confirms that groups perform better when they rely on valid cues."

The study also looked at the issue of influence and power within work groups. Bunderson found no evidence that status cues have any affect on influence within the groups except through perceived expertise. "This finding raises important questions about the nature of influence in task groups," the study states. The results support two routes to influence in task groups: influence through recognized expertise, and influence through legitimate authority, signaled by a formal leadership role assignment.

"Why is this important?" Bunderson said. "In an increasingly knowledge-intensive economy, organizations are becoming more and more likely to rely on groups of specialized experts to perform complex knowledge work. These groups simply can't be effective unless they can identify and utilize the expertise of their members."

"If we are going to crack this nut, we need to understand how and when different member characteristics will lead to expertise attributions," Bunderson said.

Bunderson's paper suggests several future research topics, including whether the hypotheses apply to homogenous groups such as same-sex teams or groups of one ethnicity, or to virtual teams where there is no opportunity to observe social cues.

"More work in this vein should yield important insights into the management of expertise in groups of knowledge workers," Bunderson said