TY - JOUR
T1 - Cutthroat cooperation
T2 - The effects of team role decisions on adaptation to alternative reward structures
AU - Beersma, Bianca
AU - Hollenbeck, John R.
AU - Conlon, Donald E.
AU - Humphrey, Stephen E.
AU - Moon, Henry
AU - Ilgen, Daniel R.
PY - 2009/1/1
Y1 - 2009/1/1
N2 - Structural Adaptation Theory proposes that it is more difficult for teams to change from competitive to cooperative reward conditions than it is for them to change in the opposite direction, and this has been labeled the cutthroat cooperation effect [Johnson, M. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Humphrey, S. E., Meyer, C. J., & Jundt, D. K. (2006). Cutthroat cooperation: Asymmetrical adaptation of team reward structures. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 103-120]. The current study investigated whether team role discussion can neutralize this effect and promote successful adaptation from competitive to cooperative reward structures. Consistent with our predictions, in a study that involved 75 four-person teams performing a complex task under cooperative reward conditions, we found that teams with a history of competitive rewards performed worse than teams with a history of cooperative rewards in a control condition. However, this effect was neutralized when teams allocated their roles in a team role discussion. This neutralization effect was driven by behavioral coordination and unmet expectations regarding conflict.
AB - Structural Adaptation Theory proposes that it is more difficult for teams to change from competitive to cooperative reward conditions than it is for them to change in the opposite direction, and this has been labeled the cutthroat cooperation effect [Johnson, M. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Humphrey, S. E., Meyer, C. J., & Jundt, D. K. (2006). Cutthroat cooperation: Asymmetrical adaptation of team reward structures. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 103-120]. The current study investigated whether team role discussion can neutralize this effect and promote successful adaptation from competitive to cooperative reward structures. Consistent with our predictions, in a study that involved 75 four-person teams performing a complex task under cooperative reward conditions, we found that teams with a history of competitive rewards performed worse than teams with a history of cooperative rewards in a control condition. However, this effect was neutralized when teams allocated their roles in a team role discussion. This neutralization effect was driven by behavioral coordination and unmet expectations regarding conflict.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=57249094309&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=57249094309&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.07.002
DO - 10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.07.002
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:57249094309
SN - 0749-5978
VL - 108
SP - 131
EP - 142
JO - Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
JF - Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
IS - 1
ER -