Figure 1 - uploaded by Yi-Ching Liu
Content may be subject to copyright.
The experimental site in Second Life.
Source publication
An experiment compared interaction process and task performance of groups composed of members with high or low preference for procedural order, assigned to an individual or group process accountability condition. Procedural order preference did not affect the use of procedures nor did procedures affect task performance. Competing hypotheses on the...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... using their own avatars, were provided the link to the experimental site in Second Life, in which the researcher placed a table, chairs, and white boards with task information posted on them (see Figure 1). After they completed informed consent forms, the experimenter, also through an avatar, provided the task instructions through the public chat window. ...
Citations
... In KE phase 6, Check and sustain, a KE loop is finished and its results are measured. Hence, the focus of the phase should be on reporting the measured results (Liu and McLeod, 2014). In Figure 1, column 3, we offer an overview of the required phase-related problem-solving behaviours that ought to dominate each phase (column 4 is explained in Section 3.3). ...
... Given that group processes emerge from group members' interactions (Kozlowski, 2015), the group's approach to a problem-solving task should occur naturally, bolstered by each member's self-efficacy to expose and use personal preferences and capabilities (Bandura, 1982;Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006). To give an example, when starting up, some group members might suggest following an orderly approach, whereas others may reject this suggestion, as they prefer to "go with the flow" (Liu and McLeod, 2014). This may lead to group quarrels on how to approach the task, even before starting. ...
... This may lead to group quarrels on how to approach the task, even before starting. One reason for such discussions in any KE phase can be attributed to individual differences in problem-solving preferences (Hirsh et al., 1992;Liu and McLeod, 2014). ...
Many groups in organisations are unsuccessful in problem solving. However, the principle of continuous improvement necessitates that organisations refine their employees’ problem-solving skills. In this mixed-method, field-based lab experiment, we explored the impact of a treatment to enhance the quality of group problem-solving processes.
We focused on the structured problem-solving process in Kaizen Events by differentiating six consecutive phases. Sixteen Kaizen Event groups (101 members) participated in a field-based lab experiment that used a lean simulation game to establish a group problem-solving context. Data was collected via video, surveys, and group interviews. We examined if a high-quality process is strengthened through group members’ elevated awareness of problem-solving preferences. Eleven groups received a treatment of tailor-made individual feedback to increase awareness of their problem-solving preferences. Additionally, we repeated the experiment in five control groups, where member preferences were not shared.
In the treatment groups, where problem-solving preferences had been shared, we observed a clear improvement in Kaizen Event process quality and higher problem-solving self-efficacy levels. Moreover, their self-reported Kaizen Event behaviour had changed. Within the control groups, the participants also reported that their problem-solving self-efficacy had improved, but this did not have a positive impact on the quality of the objectively measured Kaizen Event process.
By combining insights from Operations Management and Organisational Behaviour, we demonstrate that the structured Kaizen Event problem-solving process improves when group-members’ individual problem-solving preferences are shared. We thus add an individual level variable to the extant models of Kaizen Event success factors. Our results provide fresh insights into how to improve the continuous improvement process within organisations. Kaizen Event stakeholders and their facilitators are offered guidance on how to increase one’s awareness of own and others’ problem-solving preferences in group-based problem-solving events.
... The closeness of team members with a smaller subjective distance helps convert individual actions into coordination and collaborative team effort (Meyerson, Weick, and Kramer 1996;Dirks 1999). When teams are held accountable for how they make decisions, they exchange more information (Liu and McLeod 2014), and more often choose the correct alternative (Scholten, van Knippenberg, Nijstad, and De Dreu 2007). This evidence suggests that audit team members with a smaller subjective distance will feel more accountable, and therefore make more efforts to avoid AQTBs such as skipping audit steps or premature sign-off. ...
This paper uses unique survey data from a Swedish Big 4 firm to examine the association between audit quality threatening behavior (AQTB) and two types of distance between team members in audit teams (i.e., audit team distance): subjective distance as the perception of proximity, and communication distance as the percentage of communication via technology. Investigating the factors influencing AQTB is important because AQTB adversely affects audit quality. The results show that team members with greater subjective and communication distance engage in more AQTB, which suggests that audit firms should pay attention to team members’ subjective and communication distances and take actions to curb their negative impacts. Using rich data collected from real-world audit team experience, this study deepens our understanding of how different types of audit team distance impact auditors’ AQTB.
... Under this premise, shared accountability expectations will motivate teams to allocate their efforts and resources in ways that allow them to address expectations (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). For example, when a group is held collectively accountable for making quality decisions, members focus their energy on exchanging more information and achieving shared outcomes (Liu & McLeod, 2014;Scholten et al., 2007). Given the support for mutual causality, we predict a positive relationship between accountability and commitment at the launch of a team. ...
... Accountability has often been investigated as a potential antidote to process loss in group decision-making. For example, when teams are told they will be held accountable for how they make decisions, they exchange more information (Liu & McLeod, 2014) and more often choose the correct alternative (Scholten et al., 2007). Group members expecting to be collectively responsible display less groupthink than control groups. ...
Accountability is of universal interest to the business ethics community, but the emphasis to date has been primarily at the level of the industry, organization, or key individuals. This paper unites concepts from relational and felt accountability and team dynamics to provide an initial explanatory framework that emphasizes the importance of social interactions to team accountability. We develop a measure of team accountability using participants in the USA and Europe and then use it to study a cohort of 65 teams of Irish business students over three months as they complete a complex simulation. Our hypotheses test the origins of team accountability and its effects on subsequent team performance and attitudinal states. Results indicate that initial team accountability is strongly related to team trust, commitment, efficacy, and identifying with the team emotionally. In established teams, accountability increases effort and willingness to continue to collaborate but did not significantly improve task performance in this investigation.
... And second, the fact that group decisions need to be evaluated externally to compute payments creates accountability (Scholten et al., 2007), i.e., an expectation that one's own actions will be evaluated by "an external audience with the ability to mete out consequences" (Kou & Stewart, 2018, p.35). Such an expectation has been found to increase effort in information processing (Tetlock, 1983) and to raise the motivation to acquire and process information in general (Liu & McLeod, 2014). ...
While numerous studies have demonstrated the difficulty minority opinion holders face when trying to persuade a majority, the present research investigated the conditions under which minority members might second-guess themselves and become advocates for the majority’s position even when they have the best information. In a laboratory experiment, we examined whether the structure of monetary incentives (fixed amount vs. performance-based) and group decision-making procedure (collective decisions vs. group discussion then individual decisions) might mitigate second-guessing by minority members when they initially favor the objectively best choice. Our results indicated that compared with fixed-amount incentives, performance-based incentives increased overall information sharing in collective decision-making groups but not in individual decision-making groups. Second-guessing by minority members was most likely to occur in groups that received performance-based incentives and made decisions individually. As a result of second-guessing, these groups also made poorer decisions.
... Accountability has also been found to improve decisionmaking in teams of people with interdependent workflows. Teams accountable for their decision strategies engage in deeper, higher quality information exchange leading to more accurate decisions and less groupthink (Kroon et al., 1992;Liu & McLeod, 2014;Scholten et al., 2007). In other studies, decision quality did not improve with only outcome accountability (i.e., achieving a specific outcome, regardless of method) but did improve under process accountability (i.e., adhering to specific standards and practices) (De Dreu & Van Knippenberg, 2005; L. J. Chang et al., 2013;Lerner & Tetlock, 1999;Van Hiel & Schittekatte, 1998). ...
Accountability pressures have been found to increase worker engagement and reduce adverse biases in people interacting with automated technology, but it is unclear if these effects can be observed in a more laterally controlled human-AI task. To address this question, 40 participants were asked to coordinate with an AI agent on a resource-management task, with half of the participants expecting to justify their decision strategy, which comprised our accountability condition. We then considered the effects of accountability on performance, as measured by participants’ resource sharing behaviors, their individual, and joint task scores (throughput), and their perceived workload. Participants in the accountability group shared more resources with their AI partner, took more time to make decisions, and performed worse in the task individually, but had AI partners who performed better. We found no difference between groups on how prepared they felt they were to justify their decisions, and participants reported similar levels of workload. Results suggest accountability pressures can influence exchange strategies in human-AI tasks with lateral control.
... Furthermore, the book club facilitated the success of individual participants because it held them accountable. The literature suggests that group dynamics encourage motivation and desire to perform on an individual level (Liu & McLeod, 2014). To actively participate in book club discussions, participants had to seek understanding of the novel on their own time. ...
Background
People with chronic aphasia often exhibit a decrease in social engagement and reading ability that negatively influences quality of life. Book clubs can provide a supportive environment that facilitates both socialization and reading. However, limited data exist examining the use of book clubs for individuals with chronic aphasia.
Purpose
The purpose of this qualitative descriptive study was to describe the experiences, engagement, and reading supports used by people with aphasia participating for the 1st time in a book club.
Method and Procedure
Ten people with chronic aphasia and co-occurring reading deficits engaged in 7 book club sessions. Participants first completed a questionnaire about pre- and poststroke reading experiences. Individualized interviews with participants during and post–book club explored the experiences, preferences, and reading comprehension strategies used within the structure of the book club.
Results
Three main categories of findings emerged from the data analysis: (a) perceived changes in attitudes regarding reading and club participation post–book club, (b) variations in use of reading supports and strategies across participants, and (c) perceived social benefits of the book club.
Conclusion
The current study provides evidence that people with varying types and severities of chronic aphasia and reading comprehension challenges can successfully increase reading and social engagement through book club participation. The results from this study highlight the need to provide evidence to support services that extend beyond standard rehabilitation protocols and identify engaging ways to facilitate active participation in functional reading activities for people with chronic aphasia.
... And second, the fact that group decisions need to be evaluated externally to compute payments creates accountability (Scholten et al., 2007), i.e., an expectation that one's own actions will be evaluated by "an external audience with the ability to mete out consequences" (Kou & Stewart, 2018, p.35). Such an expectation has been found to increase effort in information processing (Tetlock, 1983) and to raise the motivation to acquire and process information in general (Liu & McLeod, 2014). ...
This paper reports an experiment testing the effectiveness of using monetary incentives to encourage better group decision making. The result is negative - performance-based incentives hurt group decision quality because the minority opinion holders who have valuable information second guess their own opinions.
... Those who are more extroverted are more likely to approach decisions-and problem-solving through social means. Another way to classify preference related to problem-solving is the level of organization, structure, and order involved in the problem-solving process (Burke & Aytes, 2002;Bormann, 1975;Liu & McLeod, 2014). This refers to an individual's inclination toward, and preference for, highly defined and structured problem-solving, whether alone or in discussions with others. ...
... This means that, in general, those who prefer organization and structure in problem-solving are more likely to have greater preference for structure in video games as well. Research on problem-solving suggests that a match between level of structure preference and the level of structure provided in a task results in greater effectiveness and speed of task completion (Liu & McLeod, 2014). Finding either a video game where the provided level of structure (e.g., in-game tutorials and guidance) matches the players' preferences or a player intentionally seeking the guidance and structure to their preference level when problem-solving in a video game likely results in a more positive problemsolving experience or may even result in better game play with faster problemsolving processes throughout. ...
Video game play is a pervasive recreational activity, particularly among college students. While there is a large research base focused on educational video game play and uses of games in the classroom, there is much less research focused on cognitive strategies and entertainment video game play. The purpose of this study was to investigate potential relationships between general problem-solving styles and problem-solving approaches in video games. One hundred and thirty-eight undergraduate college students completed online surveys about their video game play and also an assessment of general problem-solving style. A multivariate linear regression revealed relationships between general problem-solving styles and problem-solving preferences in video games, with a few differences when looking at specific genres of games. This study provides evidence that approaches to video game play can be a reflection of real-life problem-solving styles.
... Here we define group accountability as the implicit or explicit expectation that a group's collective actions will be justified to, and evaluated by, an external audience with the ability to mete out consequences. As such, group accountability is rooted in group members' expectations that they will be held accountable as a unit, and can be described as a state in which group members collectively feel accountable for team behaviors and performance (e.g., De Cremer & van Dijk, 2009;Gardner, 2012;Liu & McLeod, 2014;Valentine & Edmondson, 2015). This view of group accountability closely parallels Wallace, Johnson, Mathe, and Paul's (2011) definition of group accountability as a "collective expectation" that behaviors and decisions will be "subject to evaluation and justification by a salient organizational agent" (p. ...
... However, the existing body of research is less clear about the conditions under which accountability may be beneficial or harmful to collectives. On one hand, scholars have shown that group accountability benefits groups by optimizing resources, improving performance by limiting self-interested behavior (Mackinger & Jonas, 2012), increasing individuals' motivation to acquire and process information (Liu & McLeod, 2014), and triggering group members' displays of socially responsible behaviors (De Cremer & van Dijk, 2009). On the other hand, groups by their interdependent nature may obscure the link between accountability behaviors and outcomes. ...
... This literature review uncovered a wide variety of outcomes linked to accountability. When a group is held collectively accountable for the quality of its decision-making processes, its members are more motivated to focus on shared outcomes, to cooperate, to systematically exchange more information, and to produce more task solutions than they would be if accountability were implemented at the individual level (Liu & McLeod, 2014). Accountability improves task performance (e.g., sales in Mero, Guidice, & Werner, 2014) and promotes coordinating behaviors, such as team adaptation (Pinter et al., 2007;Unger-Aviram & Erez, 2016;van Kleef, Steinel, van Knippenberg, Hogg, & Svensson, 2007), communication with out-group members (van Kleef et al., 2007), and usage of information known by group members (Scholten, van Knippenberg, Nijstad, & De Dreu, 2007). ...
The group accountability literature over the past two decades is reviewed in this article. Results are organized according to the theoretical accountability framework proposed by London, Smither, and Adsit (1997). The reviewed literature suggests that group accountability is more dynamic than current conceptualizations allow, and that the priority of accountability demands shifts over time. Building on these insights, the authors extend London et al.’s model to accommodate group accountability as a dynamic interpersonal process. Specifically, they propose that group accountability is an emergent state that derives from group interactions as well as from external sources of accountability expectations. In this extended model, both the person within the group who is held accountable as well as other group members play key roles in transforming individual accountability up to the group level. Based on the combined results of the empirical review and expanded conceptual model, the authors identify directions for studies of group accountability.
... Problem-solving in teams has been the subject of many studies (Mei-Hsiang et al., 2014;Postrel, 2002;Frigotto and Rossi, 2012;Liu and McLeod, 2014;Hofmann, 2015). There are many different mechanisms of problem-solving in teams (Urlacher, 2014;Hastie and Kameda, 2005;Larrick and Soll, 2006;Brodbeck et al., 2007;Bahrami et al., 2010;Kameda et al., 2011) and their effectiveness may differ. ...
Purpose
– This paper aims to evaluate the effect of knowledge overlap, search width and problem complexity on the quality of problem-solving in teams that use the majority rule to aggregate heterogeneous knowledge of the team members.
Design/methodology/approach
– The paper uses agent-based simulations to model iterative problem-solving by teams. The simulation results are analyzed using linear regressions to show the interactions among the variables in the model.
Findings
– We find that knowledge overlap, search width and problem complexity interact to jointly impact the optimal solution in the iterative problem-solving process of teams using majority rule decisions. Interestingly, we find that more complex problems require less knowledge overlap. Search width and knowledge overlap act as substitutes, weakening each other’s performance effects.
Research limitations/implications
– The results suggest that team performance in iterative problem-solving depends on interactions among knowledge overlap, search width and problem complexity which need to be jointly examined to reflect realistic team dynamics.
Practical implications
– The findings suggest that team formation and the choice of a search strategy should be aligned with problem complexity.
Originality/value
– This paper contributes to the literature on problem-solving in teams. It is the first attempt to use agent-based simulations to model complex problem-solving in teams. The results have both theoretical and practical significance.
