TY - JOUR
T1 - Asymmetry in structural adaptation
T2 - The differential impact of centralizing versus decentralizing team decision-making structures
AU - Hollenbeck, John R.
AU - Ellis, Aleksander P.J.
AU - Humphrey, Stephen E.
AU - Garza, Adela S.
AU - Ilgen, Daniel R.
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was supported in part, by Grant N00014-02-1-0983 from the Cognitive and Neural Sciences Division of the Office of Naval Research . Although support for this work is gratefully acknowledged, the ideas expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily endorsed by the funding agency.
PY - 2011/1
Y1 - 2011/1
N2 - This study tested predictions derived from Structural Adaptation Theory (SAT) on the longitudinal effects of centralizing and decentralizing decision-making structures in teams. Results from 93 four-person teams working on a command and control simulation generally supported SAT, documenting that it was more difficult for teams to adapt to a centralized decision-making structure after formerly working within a decentralized structure, than it was to adapt in the alternative direction. The negative effects of centralized shifts were mediated by efficiency and adaptability, in the sense that former decentralized teams experienced the negative aspects of centralization (lack of adaptability), but not the positive aspects (efficiency). The dangers of employing structural reconfiguration to solve certain problems in teams are discussed, especially if these changes are based upon expectations generalized from cross-sectional research that did not directly observe teams that experienced true structural change.
AB - This study tested predictions derived from Structural Adaptation Theory (SAT) on the longitudinal effects of centralizing and decentralizing decision-making structures in teams. Results from 93 four-person teams working on a command and control simulation generally supported SAT, documenting that it was more difficult for teams to adapt to a centralized decision-making structure after formerly working within a decentralized structure, than it was to adapt in the alternative direction. The negative effects of centralized shifts were mediated by efficiency and adaptability, in the sense that former decentralized teams experienced the negative aspects of centralization (lack of adaptability), but not the positive aspects (efficiency). The dangers of employing structural reconfiguration to solve certain problems in teams are discussed, especially if these changes are based upon expectations generalized from cross-sectional research that did not directly observe teams that experienced true structural change.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78449307670&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78449307670&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.08.003
DO - 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.08.003
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:78449307670
SN - 0749-5978
VL - 114
SP - 64
EP - 74
JO - Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
JF - Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
IS - 1
ER -