Newcomers in Self-Organising Task Groups: A Pilot Study

  • Kees Zoethout
  • Wander Jager
  • Eric Molleman


This paper describes the consequences of turnover, especially how a work group and a newcomer mutually adapt. We tested two groups, a group in which the task allocation gives space for a newcomer to fit in and a group in which this space was not available. For both groups, we tested conditions with newcomers being specialists, contributing to a specific part of the task, newcomers being generalists, being able to contribute in a global way, and a control condition with no newcomer. We studied the development of task allocation and performance. The results indicate that both the specialists and the generalists only contributed to a better performance when the task allocation provided the space for a newcomer to fit in.


Group Performance Team Performance Task Allocation Total Performance Time 101st Cycle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arrow H, McGrath JE (1995) Membership Dynamics In Groups at Work: A Theoretical Framework, Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 373–411Google Scholar
  2. Carley K (1992) Organizational Learning and Personnel Turnover, Organizational Science, 3–11, feb.Google Scholar
  3. Glebbeek AC, Bax EH (2004) Is High Employee Turnover Really Harmful? An Empirical Test Using Company Records, Academy of Management Journal 47–52, 277–286Google Scholar
  4. Gilbert N, Troitzsch KG (1999) Simulation for the social scientist, Buckingham [etc.]: Open University PressGoogle Scholar
  5. Guzzo R, Dickson MW (1996) Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology 47, 307–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hunt RG (1976) On the Work itself: Observations Concerning Relations between Tasks and Organizational Processes, in: EJ. Miller (ed.) —Task and Organization, Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, John Wiley & Sons, London [etc.]Google Scholar
  7. Ilgen DR, Hollenbeck JR, Johnson M, Jundt D (2005) Teams in Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models, Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543Google Scholar
  8. Levine JM, Moreland RL, Argote L, Carley KM (2005) Personnel Turnover and Team Performance, United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Technical Report 1157Google Scholar
  9. Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ (2001) A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes, Academy of Management Review, 26–33, 356–376Google Scholar
  10. Nembhard D. A (2000) The Effects of Task Complexity and Experience on Learning and Forgetting: A Field Study, Human Factors, vol. 42, issue 2, p272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. O’Connor KM, Grünfeld DH, McGrath JE (1993) The Experience and Effects of Conflict in Continuing Work Groups, Small Group Research, 24, 362–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Steiner ID (1972) Group process and productivity, Academic Press, Inc, New York and LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Tschan F, Cranach M von (1996) Group Task Structure, Processes and Outcome, M.A West (Ed), Handbook of Work Group Psychology, New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. Weick K (1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  15. Wilke HAM, Meertens RW (1994) Group Performance, Routledge, London, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Zoethout K, Jager W, Molleman E (2004) Self-organising social processes of task allocation, Cognitive Systems, vol 6-2,3, pp. 189–203 special issue on Multidisciplinary Aspects of LearningGoogle Scholar
  17. Zoethout K, Jager W, Molleman E (2006a) Formalizing Self-Organizing Processes of Task Allocation, Simulation Modelling Theory and Practice, 14, 342–359, special issue on simulating organisational processesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zoethout K, Jager W, Molleman E (2006b) Simulating the Emergence of Task Rotation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation vol. 9, no.1Google Scholar
  19. Zoethout K. (2006) Self-Organising Processes of Task Allocation: A Multi-Agent Simulation Study, Doctoral Thesis, University of Groningen, Labyrint Publication, RidderkerkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kees Zoethout
    • 1
  • Wander Jager
    • 1
  • Eric Molleman
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Management and OrganisationUniversity of GroningenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations