Author: Lynn Gencianeo Chin

Publisher: Stanford University

Published: 2011

Total Pages: 487

ISBN-13:

This dissertation examines the processes by which the intragroup division of labor structurally influences the development of group attachment. It specifically addresses a classic sociological issue over whether specialization in the division of labor is beneficial or detrimental to the development of person-to-group bonds and group cohesion. I propose that that solely looking at the independent effects of task specialization in isolation is problematic. Instead, I suggest that it is more beneficial to characterize the division of labor in terms of the different relational aspects that underline micro-interactional task structure. Towards this aim, my project proposes that interdependence in the division of labor is organized around three relational dimensions (task coordination, task differentiation, and skill specialization), which in combination exert complex influences on the development of person-to-group bonds. The first part of my dissertation research proposes a new original theory that specifies how these three relation dimensions differentially impact three independent processes by which group cohesion can endogenously grow from task structure. The second part of my dissertation centers around two major empirical analyses derived from data collected from a large-scale laboratory experiment. The first empirical study asks whether group bonding is higher in specialized teams? The second empirical study asks whether the impact of specialization changes when task specialization is no longer equally differentiated among group members, but is instead unequally divided amongst group members such that only a few group members possess unique skills important for team success? This project provides three major theoretical contributions: First, it addresses a fundamental issue that lies at the heart of sociology by asking what structural aspects of social interaction encourage individuals to become more attached to a group? Second, it re-conceptualizes the division of labor on an interpersonal level by breaking the concept down into its constituent parts to analyze how the division of labor actually works in real social interaction. Third, it brings insight to a major debate over whether organizational division of labor inhibits or enhances group solidarity by suggesting that the impact of task dimensions like specialization is not straightforward, but is complex and can only be examined while in simultaneous combination with other task dimensions.