Page 148 - Štremfel, Urška, and Maša Vidmar (eds.). 2018. Early School Leaving: Cooperation Perspectives. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
P. 148
The finishing phase of ESL teams may occur at the level of a particu-
lar school or the system level (e.g. changes in legislation that would abol-
ish ESL teams).
Emergent states
Kozlowski and Ilgen (2006) take a slightly different perspective on team
processes. They argue that team processes are difficult to capture due to
their dynamic nature, so they focus on emergent states that are indicative
of the nature and quality of team processes. Thus, emergent states are not
processes in themselves; rather they are seen as products of team members
interacting with each other and with the task over time that tap qualities re-
lated to members’ attitudes, values, cognitions and motivations (Kozlowski
& Ilgen, 2006; Mark et al., 2001). The emergent states reflect team process-
es, but at the same time can also serve as an input (Kimoski & Mohammed,
1994; see Figure 22). As mentioned above, there are inconsistencies in the
literature regarding the distinction between team processes and emergent
states; thus some of the emergent states presented below overlap with the
team processes presented above (e.g. trusting, bonding and other interper-
sonal processes are closely linked to emergent states of team cohesion and
team conflict).
Authors propose three theoretical categories of emergent states/struc-
tures; emergent states for which there is solid empirical research evidence
that they are important for team functioning are described below (for a re-
view, see Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006):
1. Cognitive: team climate, team mental models and transactive
memory
2. Interpersonal, motivational and affective: team cohesion, team ef-
ficacy, team conflict
3. Behavioural: team competencies, team regulation.
Team climate
Team/unit/collective climate is defined as a shared perception of policies,
practices and procedures (both formal and informal) and was identified
as the most potent cognitive process in teams related to team effectiveness
(Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). A meta-analysis of empirical studies demon-
strated that the affective, cognitive and instrumental dimensions of general
148
lar school or the system level (e.g. changes in legislation that would abol-
ish ESL teams).
Emergent states
Kozlowski and Ilgen (2006) take a slightly different perspective on team
processes. They argue that team processes are difficult to capture due to
their dynamic nature, so they focus on emergent states that are indicative
of the nature and quality of team processes. Thus, emergent states are not
processes in themselves; rather they are seen as products of team members
interacting with each other and with the task over time that tap qualities re-
lated to members’ attitudes, values, cognitions and motivations (Kozlowski
& Ilgen, 2006; Mark et al., 2001). The emergent states reflect team process-
es, but at the same time can also serve as an input (Kimoski & Mohammed,
1994; see Figure 22). As mentioned above, there are inconsistencies in the
literature regarding the distinction between team processes and emergent
states; thus some of the emergent states presented below overlap with the
team processes presented above (e.g. trusting, bonding and other interper-
sonal processes are closely linked to emergent states of team cohesion and
team conflict).
Authors propose three theoretical categories of emergent states/struc-
tures; emergent states for which there is solid empirical research evidence
that they are important for team functioning are described below (for a re-
view, see Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006):
1. Cognitive: team climate, team mental models and transactive
memory
2. Interpersonal, motivational and affective: team cohesion, team ef-
ficacy, team conflict
3. Behavioural: team competencies, team regulation.
Team climate
Team/unit/collective climate is defined as a shared perception of policies,
practices and procedures (both formal and informal) and was identified
as the most potent cognitive process in teams related to team effectiveness
(Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). A meta-analysis of empirical studies demon-
strated that the affective, cognitive and instrumental dimensions of general
148
