Search

Evaluations of people’s work value form the cornerstone of several important group processes, but few studies examine how team task structure shapes evaluations of group members’ contributions. This research proposes and tests a theoretical model outlining how two qualitatively different forms of task interdependence influence individual evaluations of the absolute and relative value of team members’ work. Resource and Process interdependence have traditionally been confounded in studies on task interdependence. Resource interdependence refers to the degree to which people hold different expertise, while process interdependence is the degree to which people synchronize and coordinate their work (Courtright et al. 2015). I hypothesize that while high resource and high process interdependence should both enhance perceptions of the absolute importance of one’s own and others’ work contributions, they should exert opposite influence over relative work evaluations. Results from a 4-condition laboratory experiment indicate that resource and process interdependence differentially impact the development of work evaluations, although not in the way predicted.High resource interdependence actually emphasizes needing others more than being needed, while high process interdependence equally promotes perceived mutual dependence.Additional analyses also suggest that task structure and perceived task competence affect perceptions of group members’ work-value through different mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research reexamines Durkheim’s classic premise that the division of labor influences whether social integration is founded around collective perceptions of similarity versus mutual dependence. Utilizing a laboratory experiment to examine the division of labor on an interactional level, this paper tackles two questions. First, do task specialization and task overlap differentially encourage collective perceptions of ingroup similarity and mutual need? Second, do task specialization and task overlap differentially utilize perceptions of ingroup similarity and mutual need when developing social attachment? This research investigates whether task-overlapping teams are more likely to develop “mechanically”-based social integration than “organically”-based integration, and vice versa for task-specialized teams. Results show that while task specialization was more likely to foster “expertise-based” need for others, this perception did not produce feelings of social integration. Instead, task-specialized teams were more likely to develop cohesion and attachment based around perceptions of in-group similarity. Further, task-overlapping teams were not more likely to build social solidarity around perceived similarity, but were more likely to foster group cohesion and attachment around perceived need for partners. Findings underscore the importance of reexamining the concept of mutual need and suggest Durkheim’s original argument has unexpected complexities when analyzed on an interactional level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]