Organizational-Behavior Exam Dumps and Practice Questions

Virtual teams use computer technology to unite physically dispersed members in order to achieve a common goal. The defining advantage of virtual teams is their ability to overcome the constraints of time and space, allowing people to work together who might otherwise not be able to collaborate on a work task. This is particularly beneficial for global organizations that need to pull together the best experts regardless of where they are located in the world.

However, virtual teams face unique challenges compared to face-to-face teams. Because they rely on electronic communication, they often suffer from a lack of nonverbal cues (like body language and tone of voice), which makes communication less rich and more prone to misunderstanding. Consequently, virtual teams often report lower levels of satisfaction with the interaction process and may take longer to build trust and rapport (refuting options B and D). To be effective, managers of virtual teams must ensure that the team has the right technology, that progress is closely monitored, and that efforts are made to create 'social presence' through occasional video calls or face-to-face meetings to build the trust that forms more naturally in traditional office settings. Despite these hurdles, the strategic benefit of accessing diverse talent from across the globe makes the virtual team an essential tool in the modern organizational landscape.

Attribution theory is a cornerstone of social perception in the workplace, explaining how we judge people differently depending on what meaning we attribute to a given behavior. When we observe an individual's behavior, we attempt to determine whether it was internally caused (under the person's control) or externally caused (forced by the situation). According to Harold Kelley's model, this determination depends on three specific factors: distinctiveness, consensus, and consistency.

Distinctiveness refers to whether an individual displays different behaviors in different situations. If Employee B is late for work but is generally reliable in all other tasks, the behavior has high distinctiveness, suggesting an external cause (like a traffic jam). Consensus occurs if everyone who faces a similar situation responds in the same way. If every employee who took the same route as Employee B was also late, consensus is high, pointing to an external cause. Consistency looks at whether the person responds the same way over time. If Employee B is late every single day, consistency is high, which usually leads the observer to attribute the behavior to internal causes (like a lack of discipline). By analyzing these three dimensions, Employee A forms a perception that dictates their reaction---whether that be empathy for a one-time external delay or disciplinary action for a recurring internal habit.

Groupshift is a phenomenon related to groupthink, specifically describing the way group members tend to exaggerate their initial positions when discussing a given set of alternatives. In a group setting, the collective decision often shows a shift toward a more extreme version of the position held by members before the discussion began. While many people assume groups always lead to more conservative decisions, groupshift demonstrates that the shift can move in either direction: toward greater caution or toward greater risk.

The shift toward risk is more common in many organizational settings. This occurs for several reasons: first, the shared responsibility of a group diffuses the accountability for any single individual, making them feel bolder. Second, members who are more willing to take risks may be perceived as more confident and thus exert more influence over the group's final decision. Conversely, if the initial atmosphere of the group is conservative, the discussion tends to reinforce that caution, leading to a 'shift' toward even more extreme avoidance of risk. Understanding groupshift is vital for managers because it highlights that group decisions are not necessarily 'average' or 'moderate' versions of individual opinions; rather, the social dynamics within a group can drive the collective toward extremes that no single member might have chosen independently. Recognizing this allows leaders to implement checks and balances, such as appointing a devil's advocate, to ensure that the group does not drift into a dangerous or overly timid position due to the social reinforcement of the shift phenomenon.

A Self-managed work team is a group of employees (typically 10 to 15) who perform highly related or interdependent jobs and take on many of the responsibilities of their former supervisors. In a traditional work structure, a supervisor would handle tasks such as planning and scheduling work, assigning tasks to members, making operating decisions, and taking action on problems. In a self-managed environment, the team collectively takes over these managerial duties.

These teams may even select their own members and evaluate each other's performance. The goal of organizing into self-managed teams is to increase employee involvement and empowerment, theoretically leading to higher job satisfaction and productivity through synergy and collective control. Unlike 'problem-solving teams,' which only make recommendations, self-managed teams have the authority to implement solutions and take full responsibility for outcomes. While this can be highly effective, the success of self-managed teams depends heavily on the organizational culture and the level of training provided to employees. If members are not prepared for the interpersonal demands of self-management---such as resolving internal conflicts or managing the pace of work---the team can struggle. However, when properly implemented, self-managed teams represent the highest level of team autonomy in organizational design.

Cohesiveness is generally viewed as a desirable trait in organizational groups because of its potential to improve group productivity. In a highly cohesive group, members are more likely to communicate effectively, experience less internal friction, and display higher levels of commitment to group goals. This internal synergy typically leads to a more efficient work process and higher quality output.

However, the relationship between cohesiveness and productivity is moderated by performance-related norms. If a cohesive group has high performance norms (standards for hard work and quality), productivity will be significantly higher than in a group with low cohesiveness. Conversely, if a highly cohesive group has low performance norms, their productivity may actually decrease because they are united in their desire to work less. Despite this nuance, the fundamental positive organizational outcome associated with fostering cohesion is the enhancement of the group's ability to produce results.