___________________________________________________________________________

Week 1: Science & Practice of Group Dynamics

ALL: Forsyth, Chs. 1, 2, & 16

Preface & Intro from:

J. R. Hackman (Ed.) (1990). Groups that work (and those that don't): Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Week 2: Individual, Member, and Group [Ind response #1]

ALL: Forsyth, Chs. 3 & 4

Hackman, PART TWO (87-153)

Week 3: Structure and Leadership [Ind response #2, Group essay A]

ALL: Forsyth, Chs. 5 & 12

Hackman, PART ONE (15-86)

Week 4: Cohesion, Development, Influence [Ind response #3]

ALL: Forsyth, Chs. 6 & 7

Hackman, Ch. 18

Note: grad students should be reading Whiteout by now

Week 5: Decision-Making & Information Processing [Ind resp #4, Group essay B]

ALL: Forsyth, Ch. 11

Hackman, Ch. 19 or 20

Packet A: Gruenfeld, D. H, Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y., & Neale, M. A. (1996). Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 1-15.

Packet B: Weisband, S. P. (1992). Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 352-380.

Week 6: Power & Conflict [Research reports due this week]

ALL: Forsyth, Chs. 8 & 9

Hackman, Ch. 10

Week 7: Group Performance [Ind response #5, Group essay C]

ALL: Forsyth, Ch. 10

Hackman, PART FOUR, intro & summary

Divide up case studies: Each member should read at least one of the cases in PART FOUR

NOTE: : This would be a good time to get started readingWhiteout. Make notes on aspects of group dynamics that catch your attention.

Week 8: Group Culture [Ind response #6, Group essay D]

ALL: Hackman, PART SIX intro and summary.

Divide up case studies: Each member should read at least one of the cases in PART SIX

Packet A: Armstrong, D. J., & Cole, P. (1996). Managing distances and differences in geographically distributed work groups. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.). Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace (pp. 187-215). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Packet B: Bettenhausen, K. L., & Murnighan, J. K. (1985). The emergence of norms in competitive decision-making groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 350-372.

Week 9: Intergroup Relations [Ind response #7, Group essay E]

ALL: Forsyth, Ch. 13

Hackman, Part SEVEN intro and summary

Divide up cases: Each group member should read Ch. 25 or 26 in PART SEVEN

Packet A: Rothbart, M., Davis-Stitt, C., & Hill, J. (1997). Effects of arbitrarily based category boundaries on similarity judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 122-145.

Packet B: Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Graetz, K. A., Drigotas, S. M., Currey, D. P., Smith, S. L., Brazil, D., & Bornstein, G. (1994). Interindividual-intergroup discontinuity in the prisoner's dilemma game. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38, 87-116.

Week 10: [first draft of take-home final for peer editing]

ALL: Forsyth, Ch. 14

Hackman, Conclusion (pp. 479-504)

FinishWhiteout, by Sage Walker

Finals Week:

Paper due by 11 a.m. Wed, March 17. Please hand in to me at my office that morning or give to the main psychology office at 131 Straub (open 8-12, 1-5) to be put in my mailbox. Late papers will have a 5-point penalty. No papers accepted after noon Thurs. March 18..