The effects of social support on process gains

M A ST E R T H E SI S

Technology Management

The effects of social support on process

gains

An empirical study

2

The effects of social support on process

gains

An empirical study

Author

:

Merten Spelmink

Study

:

MSc Technology Management

Student number

:

1496441

Email

:

mertenspelmink@gmail.com

Faculty

:

Faculty of Economics and Business

University Supervisor

:

Dr. G.C. Ruël

University Co-Assessor

:

N. Ziengs MSc.

Date

:

17

January 2012

3

A

4

I

Traditionally, research has focused on the negative aspects teamwork such as social loafing (Williams, Harkins, & Latané, 1981; Harkins & Petty, 1982), free riding (Kerr et al, 1983; Jones, 1984), the sucker effect (Kerr, 1983) and soldiering (Dick, Tissington and Hertel, 2009). These effects are mostly related to a loss of motivation of the affected individuals which leads to decreasing team performance.

On the flipside, there is a stream in literature that found aspects that positively contribute to team performance. Several studies so far have been devoted to individuals that demonstrate higher motivation during team work compared to working alone (Hertel, 2000; Fiore et al., 2001; Hackman et al. 2005). Different studies on work teams argue that working in teams has the potential to enhance team member production and satisfaction (Hackman, 1980; Hellenthal, 2004; Gockel, Kerr, Seok and Harris, 2008; de Jong, Elfring, 2010). Research has shown that this is particularly true for less capable team members (Hertel et al. 2008). These studies have focussed on aspects of job design or job characteristics but have excluded other aspects related to working in teams. According to West, Brodbeck and Richter (2004), the critical research questions related to teams and performance are to discover how teams can work in the most effective way to finish their tasks and how organizations can be managed to allow teams to optimally contribute to the collective, organizational performance.

One emerging stream suggests that social support might be positively related to team performance (Hüffmeier and Hertel, 2011). Social support is conceptualized by Carson, Tesluk and Marrone (2007; p. 1222) as “team members’ efforts to provide emotional and psychological strength to one another”. A recent study by Hüffmeier and Hertel (2011) argues that social support may lead to process gains, which is defined as “an improvement in team processes over and above the simple combination or summations of individual members’ skills and knowledge” (Hüffmeier et al. 2011; p186). With this study, we expect to provide empirical evidence concerning social support and process gains.

According to Steiner, (1972) process gains may emerge either by team members exerting higher efforts to contribute to team goals or through a team benefitting from the coordination of individual contributions to the team performance. We refer to this distinction as motivational gains (higher efforts) and coordination gains (increased performance). Thus, within process gains we distinguish motivational- and coordination gains.

Within social support, a distinction can be between affective and task related support. The logic behind this distinction is that support can either be aimed at the person or the task that the person has to perform in team context. Affective support is aimed at the emotional state and thus the related motivation of the supported individual. It is based on forms of cheering and taps on the shoulder. Task related support is exerted by providing tangible support such as suggestions on how to perform a certain task or providence of assistance to a task (Hüffmeier et al., 2011). As such, the elements of social support are expected to play a vital role in motivating and coordinating team members to contribute to team processes and thereby realize process gains.

5 However, literature on the value of management in team context indicates there are several arguments in favour of management support. Griffith (1988) states that managers can be a valuable source of social support. Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) state supervisor support strengthens employee’s beliefs that the organization recognizes and rewards increased efforts and performance. Manager support can lead to positive effects for the employee (increased job satisfaction, heightened positive mood) and for the team, like increased affective commitment and performance (Rhoades et al. 2002).

The effects of social support have been conceptualized in a model of Social Support in Teams (Hüffmeier et al. 2011; p189). The authors propose a relation between social support from peers and process gains but so far, empirical evidence is lacking. Furthermore, no model so far has integrated social support from peers and management. Contradictions in literature (Griffith, 1988; Hüffmeier et al. 2011; Wayne, Shore, and Liden’s, 1997) on the added value of social support from management provide us with enough reason to take a closer look at the effects of social support.

Therefore we are interested in social support from different supporting types, the aim of this study is threefold. First we want to know whether social support is positively related to process gains (1). If so, we want to find out if there is a difference between support from management and support from peers (2). As a follow up, we want to know how perceived indispensability affects the effects of social support (3).

In order to provide answers to the questions that triggered this research, we conduct a survey study that focuses on the differences between types of social support from management and peers. Thus, this research contributes to existing research in three ways. First, the effects of social support are explored. Second, we will explore the differences between support from management and peers and third we will explore the effects of perceived indispensability on social support and process gains. The remainder of this study is organized as follows. The next section presents the research framework which provides the definitions and theory underlying the variables of social support. The research methodology, measurement instrument validation and analysis are to be found in the sections that follow. The final section of this work presents a discussion of the results, directions for further research and limitations of this study.

T

6 TABLE 1BASIC RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

Support by Peers Management Su p p o rt ty p e Affective A B Motivation Task related C D Coordination

Process gains are defined as an improvement in team processes over and above the simple combination or summations of individual members’ skills and knowledge. Within process gains, a distinction is made between motivational and coordination gains. Motivational gains are defined as higher efforts of an individual team member during team work as compared to individual work (Hüffmeier et al, 2011; p186). So far, there has not been a universally agreed definition of coordination gains. In the light of this research, we define coordination gains based on Fiore et al. (2001) as increased performance of the team member during team work as compared to the sum of their individual contributions, due to collaboration of the peers, regardless of – or in addition to – peers’ motivation gains and mere task learning effects. The dimensions of process gains will form the dependent variables of this study and will be operationalized in the method section.

Affective support contains the expression of recognition and encouragement of behaviour performed (Hüffmeier et al., 2011). The expressions of the supporter are intended to increase the motivation of the supported individual. In other words, affective support is directed to the emotional state and related motivation of a team member to put effort in a team task. Social recognition relates to the acknowledgement and appreciation of performed behaviour while encouragement relates to the anticipation of future behaviour of peers (Hüffmeier et al. 2011). When receiving recognition and encouragement from both peers and management, individuals are expected to be motivated to increase their efforts (Luthans and Stajkovic, 1999). We therefore expect affective support to be predominantly positively related to motivational gains.

Affective management support is expected to have a larger effect on motivational gains than peer affective support. By receiving affective support from management, individuals are expected to get the feeling they are valued by the organization. As stated by Rhoades et al (2002), recognition of performance and encouragement to contribute to the team by supervisors are expected to motivate the supported individual. Gouldner (1960) states that when one person is treating the other person well, the other person is obliged to return favourable behaviour. This reciprocity may be limited due to power differences between peer and manager but is expected to play an important role in affective support (Hüffmeier et al. 2011).

Following the logic of reciprocity between supervisor and team member and the fact that managers usually are ultimately responsible for team performance, we expect affective management support to lead to an increase of motivation. Furthermore we expect affective management support to lead to larger motivation gains than affective peer support since reciprocity of favourable behaviour between peers is not necessarily directed to work related performance or satisfaction. We therefore hypothesize the following:

H1. Affective management support leads to larger motivational gains than affective peer support.

7 provide tangible assistance with the task at hand. Task related support thus refers to behaviour which can be described as helping, assisting and providing tangible support to peers. Peers share information and assist each other when necessary, moreover they are able to distribute high work load, integrate personal efforts and share expertise knowledge on a range of tasks. Little is known about the effects of task related support but Hüffmeier et al (2011) provide us with indirect empirical evidence. Advice from experts has shown to increase an individual’s performance, the transfer of knowledge between peers has shown to be positively related to individual and team performance. Furthermore, task related support allows for advantages such as sharing workload to emerge, therefore it is expected that task related support predominantly leads to coordination gains.

Task related peer support is expected to have larger positive influence on process gains than management task support. According to Hüffmeier et al. (2011), management usually possesses little detailed knowledge about the tasks at hand. Furthermore, management does not relieve team members by taking over a part of their workload. Task related support refers to providing tangible assistance or task related information which enables the supported individual to increase his task performance. We expect that peers are able to provide more valuable task related support than management and therefore hypothesize the following:

H2. Peer task support leads to larger coordination gains than management task support.

On one hand, peer affective support has potential due to the voluntary reciprocity and favourable behaviour as defined by Gouldner (1960). On the other hand, task related support may have more impact due to advantages like shared expert knowledge and workload sharing. Workload sharing and shared expert knowledge have proven to be predictors of team performance (Rhoades et al. 2002) and relate to coordination gains while advantages from affective support have proven to be of value and relate to motivational gains (Hüffmeier et al. 2011). Following this logic and the logic of the hypotheses above, we hypothesize the following about peers and management:

H3. Peer task support leads to larger process gains than peer affective support.

In contradiction to peer affective support, we expect management affective support to have more effect on process gains than management task support. On average, due to management’s limited expert knowledge about the task at hand (Hüffmeier et al. 2011) and the absence of work load sharing (Rhoades et al, 2002), we expect management affective support to have a larger influence on process gains than management task related support. We therefore hypothesize:

H4. Management affective support has a larger influence on process gains than management task support.

However, we do expect that the main effects may be affected by the degree of indispensability. According to Kerr et al. (1983) a mechanism that forms a part of the motivational gains stresses one’s indispensability to the group. Instrumentality x Value models suggest that motivation is expected to increase when an individual sees that his efforts are highly instrumental to the group performance (Karau et al. 1983; Shepperd, 1993). High indispensability occurs when the performance of the team is contingent of the performance of the others (Kerr et al. 2007).

8 to the team task at hand is less visible. Low indispensability is expected to reduce the efforts of the peer to contribute to the team process because his/her contribution is less visible in the process and interactions are limited (Kerr et al. 2007).

Based on the logic above, we expect the degree of indispensability to both affect motivation and coordination gains and thus alter the effects of social support on process gains. With regard to peer and management support, we expect that in situations where perceived indispensability is low, affective support has more effect on process gains than task related support. On the other hand, when perceived indispensability is high, task related support is expected to have more effect on process gains than affective support. In order to determine the effects of indispensability, we hypothesize the following.

H5. The effects of management support on process gains are affected by the perceived indispensability of the supported individual.

H6. The effects of peer support on process gains are affected by the perceived indispensability of the supported individual.

By hypothesizing on the effects of perceived indispensability, we capture a variable that is very likely to affect the effects of social support on process gains.

Table 2 summarizes the hypotheses that were formulated. Area A refers to affective peer support, area B refers to affective management support, area C refers to peer task support and area D refers to management task support. The arrows represent the first four hypotheses. We compare the effects of area A and B on motivational gains (hypothesis 1) and the effects of areas C and D on coordination gains (hypothesis 2). Furthermore, we analyse the effects of areas A-C (hypothesis 3 and 5) and B-D (hypothesis 4 and 6) on process gains and look for differences in effect between these areas.

TABLE 2.SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES

Peers Management

Affective A

<

>

>

Task related C

>

Process gains Process gains

Support by Su p p o rt ty p e

9

M

This section is dedicated to the method that we used in this study. The survey study is used to provide empirical evidence which is currently lacking in the literature on social support and process gains.

Material and operationalization

Based on literature (Hackman, 1987; Wall, Kemp, Jackson and Clegg, 1986; Campion, Medsker and Higgs, 1993; Luthans et al. 1999; Hellenthal, 2004; Park, Baker and Lee, 2008), we have operationalized motivational gains in terms of team and task satisfaction whereas coordination gains have been operationalized in terms of individual and team performance. According to Campion et al. (2001), work group effectiveness is defined in terms of both productivity and employee satisfaction. The productivity terms are measured through individual and team performance whereas employee satisfaction is measured through team satisfaction and task satisfaction. These four perceptual measures combined form the dependent variables and represent the dimensions of process gains.

o Task satisfaction is conceptualized as the level of enjoyment and pleasure an individual perceives from the task he or she performs (Park, Baker and Lee, 2008). Since we use perceptual measures, task satisfaction is operationalized in questions like “I enjoy my work” and “the work I do motivates me”. Task satisfaction refers to motivational gains.

o Team satisfaction is conceptualized as the level of enjoyment and pleasure an individual gets from working in a team (Hellenthal, 2004). The operationalization with perceptual measure resulted in questions like “I am proud of this team” and “being part of this team motivates me”. Team satisfaction refers to motivational gains.

o Team performance is defined as the extent to which the productive output of a team meets or exceeds the performance standards of those who review and/or receive the output (Hackman, 1987: p323). By operationalizing this dimension of process gains, we have formulated questions like “this team is successful” and “this team works efficiently”. Team performance refers to coordination gains

o Individual performance refers to the extent to which the individual believes he or she has accomplished a given job (Hellenthal, 2004). The operationalization of this dimensions as a perceptual measure resulted in questions like “I am successful at my job” and “I am satisfied with the work I deliver”. Individual performance refers to coordination gains.

Next to the dependent variables, the independent variables have been operationalized in perceptual measures. We have identified two forms of support (task related and affective) which can be given from either peers or management. The main forms of support can be given from either peers or managers.

o Affective support is operationalized in terms of recognizing and encouraging desired behaviour of the supported individual. Since we use perceptual measures, we have operationalized perceived affective support with questions like: “My manager/team members express their confidence in my work” and “my manager/team member gives me the feeling I do my work correctly”.

10 at hand. In order to measure the perceived assistance, the scale included questions like “my manager/peer gives me information on how to perform the task at hand” and “my manager/peer assists me when I am about to miss a deadline”.

o Perceived indispensability has been operationalized in terms of initiated task interdependence. Initiated task interdependence is defined as the extent to which work flows from one particular job to one or more other jobs such that the successful performance of the latter depends on the initiating job (Kiggundu, 1981; p147). The scale included statements such as: ”in order for other team members to complete their task, they need my work” and “my team members need my advice to complete their tasks”.

TABLE 3.SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTS

Measures Definition References

Task satisfaction The level of enjoyment and pleasure an individual perceives from the task he or she performs.

Park, Baker and Lee, 2008

Team satisfaction The level of enjoyment and pleasure an individual gets from working in a team.

Hellenthal, 2004

Team performance The extent to which the productive output of a team meets or exceeds the performance standards of those who review and/or receive the output.

Hackman, 1987

Individual performance The extent to which the individual believes he or she has accomplished a given job.

Hellenthal, 2004

Affective support Expression of recognition and

encouragement of behaviour

performed by team members with the intention to increase the affect and motivation of the supported individual.

Hüffmeier et al. 2011

Task related support The transmission of information and tangible assistance with the intention to help fellow team members to perform their tasks.

Hüffmeier et al. 2011

Perceived indispensability The extent to which work flows from one particular job to one or more other jobs such that the successful performance of the latter depends on the initiating job

Kiggundu, 1981

Participants and procedure

11 group consisted of 90 respondents and averaged an age of 37.25 years. In total, 97 (68%) men participated where 44 (32%) women participated.

To measure the different theoretical concepts, we have used a questionnaire. We have chosen for a questionnaire due to two main reasons. First of all, we estimated the total amount of variables for this research to be over 10. Since the number of variables requires a fairly large amount of respondents, a questionnaire was the most suitable option. Secondly, the questionnaire allowed the researchers to ask many questions to many respondents in a fairly small amount of time. All respondents received an e-mail with a link to the questionnaire, allowing them to fill in the questionnaire on their own time. Below, we have added a summary of the items that were used in the questionnaire. A detailed overview of all individual items is available in table 7 of the appendix.

o Process gains (6 on individual performance, 6 on team performance, 6 on team satisfaction and 9 on task satisfaction)

o Affective support (5 on management support, 5 on peer support) o Task related support (5 on management support, 5 on peer support) o Perceived indispensability (5 items)

The questionnaire consisted of statements that the respondents could indicate on a five-point Likert scale (totally disagree – totally agree). In order to determine the reliability of a set of items, we use Cronbach’s α. Cronbach’s α measures the correlation between the items, ranging from -1 to 1 and expresses the internal consistency of a scale (Cronbach, 1951). Scales need to score at least above 0.6 to be considered reliable. The results of the reliability analysis are shown in table 4, which elaborates on the measure; the Cronbach’s α, the items that are used in the scale and items that were deleted to satisfy the reliability condition. The number of items for each scale is noted between brackets. A complete overview of the questionnaire has been included in the appendix (table 8). Cronbach’s α is based on the consistency of the respondent’s answers to the items in a scale. The inter-item correlation should be in the moderate range, as a rule of thumb this range is between 0.30 and 0.70 (Meyers, Gampst and Guarino, 2006). Inter item correlations below 0,3 indicate that these items measure different dimensions whereas scores above 0,7 indicate that the items measure the

same dimension. The item analysis revealed several items that showed low correlation with other

12 TABLE 4RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

Measure Cronbach's α Items Deleted

Individual performance 0.67 IP1, IP3, IP4, IP5, IP6 (4) IP2

Team performance 0,77 TEP1, TEP2, TEP3, TEP4, TEP6. (5) TEP5

Task satisfaction 0.79 TAS1 / TAS9 (9) -

Team Satisfaction 0.62 TES1, TES2, TES4, TES5 (4) TES3

Peer affective support 0.64 PR1, PR2, PR3, PE2 (4) PE1,

PE3

Peer task support 0.64 PITS1, PITS3, PBTS1, PBTS2, PBTS3 (5) PITS2

Management affective

support 0.70 ME1, ME2,ME3,MR3 (4) MR1, MR2

Management task support 0,75 MBTS1, MBTS3, MITS1, MITS3 (4) MBTS2

Perceived indispensability 0.89 TI1, TI3, TI5, TI7, TI9 (5) -

o 106 < N < 141 (N varies per scale due to missing scores)

Based on the reliability scores, we have created scales. The scales were created using sum variables of the selected items, respondents that miss one (or more) items from a scale are excluded. This may lead to extensive loss of data, therefore we use the filling method as suggested Ware, Brook, Davies-Avery, Williams, Stewart, Rogers, Donald and Johnston (1980) to avoid big losses of data. The missing scores of the respondents are filled with the mean from the other items of the scale, making N (=141) the same for all analyses from this point onwards.

In order to test the hypotheses, we analyse the Spearman correlations between the ordinal variables

as identified in table 4. We apply the ranges as provided by Cohen (1988) to interpret the strength of

the correlations. Cohen (1988) states that correlations ranging 0.1-0.3 are weak, 0.3-0.5 are moderate and >0.5 are strong.

The correlation table gives this study enough direction to test the first four hypotheses. In order to test the influence of perceived indispensability however, a variance analysis is conducted to assess both the main effects and interaction effects of different forms of support on the four dependent variables. The two forms of support, two types of supporter and initiated task interdependence together form a 2 x 2 x 2 MANOVA design.

The goal of the MANOVA is to compare categorical groups formed by independent variables such as management task support on group differences in the set of dependent variables formed by the dimensions of process gains. All independent variables have been categorized, based on a median split. All scores under the median are labelled “low” whereas the scores above the median are labelled “high”. Furthermore, the effects of perceived indispensability are analysed. The results will e.g. show what the differences of effect on process gains are between low/high peer task support with low/high initiated task interdependence.

R

In this section we will present the results of the statistical analysis which has been conducted to test

13 H1. Affective management support leads to larger motivational gains than affective peer

support.

H2. Peer task related support leads to larger coordination gains than management task support. H3. Peer task support leads to larger process gains than peer affective support.

H4. Management affective support leads to larger process gains than management task support. H5. The effects of manager support are affected by the perceived indispensability of the

supported individual.

H6. The effects of peer support are affected by the perceived indispensability of the supported individual.

A nonparametric procedure, the Spearman’s rank order correlation coefficient (i.e., Spearman's rho) was calculated to address each hypothesis previously delineated. The greyed area accentuates the correlations of social support with the dimensions of process gains (see table 5). The table shows all significant relationships at found at p < 0,05 or less and N=141.

TABLE 5.CORRELATIONS

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Peer Task Support

Correlation

Coefficient ,404 **

,637** ,394** ,221** ,397** Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000 ,000 ,009 ,000

2. Peer Affective Support

14 The Spearman’s rho reveals a statistically significant relationship between peer task support and team satisfaction (rs [141] = .394, p< .001), individual performance (rs [141] = .221, p<.009) and task satisfaction (rs [141] = .397, p<.001). The effect sizes of this relationship are moderate and weak (Cohen, 1988).

The Spearman’s rho reveals a statistically significant relationship between management affective support and team satisfaction (rs [141] = .177, p<.0.036), individual performance (rs [141] = .392, p<.001) and task satisfaction (rs [141] = .375, p<.001). The effect sizes of these relationships are moderate and weak (Cohen, 1988).

The Spearman’s rho reveals a statistically significant relationship between management task support and team satisfaction (rs [141] = .265, p<.0.002), individual performance (rs [141] = .336, p<.001) and task satisfaction (rs [141] = .406 , p<.001). The effect sizes of these relationship are moderate (Cohen, 1988).

Summarizing the correlation matrix, we have found significant relationships for three out of four types of social support with three out of four dimensions of process gains. The relationships all move in the positive direction, indicating that an increase of social support leads to an increase of process gains.

In accordance with Cramer and Bock (1966), a MANOVA was first performed on the means to help protect against inflating the Type 1 error rate in the follow-up ANOVAs. However, prior to conducting the actual statistical analysis in order to test the hypotheses, we have to determine whether the data that we have gathered from the questionnaire meets the assumptions for MANOVA analysis. In order to determine this, the following steps have been taken (see appendix for SPSS results)

Box's M tests MANOVA's assumption of homoscedasticity using the F distribution, it tests the null hypothesis that the covariance matrices do not differ between groups formed by the dependent variables using the F distribution. If p<.05, then the covariances are significantly different. Thus we want M not to be significant, rejecting the null hypothesis that the covariances are not homogeneous. The Box’s M value of 210.089 was associated with F= 1,982 and a p-value of .000, which was interpreted as significant based on Huberty and Petoskey’s (2000) guideline (p < .001). According to Layard (1974), a significant result may be due to non-normality rather than differences in the covariance matrices. However, a study by Kuhnel (1988) suggests that when the homoscedasticity assumption is violated, the MANOVA can provide false results.

In order to determine whether the data meets the homogeneity of variance assumption, another test called the Levene’s test is conducted. The homogeneity of variance assumption was tested for all four dependent variables. Based on a series of Levene’s F tests, the homogeneity of variance assumption was not violated p < .001. The test thus meet the assumption of equal group error variances, making MANOVA appropriate for this study.

15 TABLE 6RESULTS MANOVA

Multivariate Univariate Means

Source F p < Variable F p < Low High

(4,112) (1,115)

PTS 5,33 0,001 Team Satisfaction 15,50 0,001 3,16 3,56 Task Satisfaction 5,46 0,05 3,93 4,19

Low PTS High PTS PTS x MTS 5,57 0,001 Indiv. Performance 13,85 0,001 Low MTS 3,80 3,59

High MTS 3,89 4,12 Task Satisfaction 4,62 0,05 Low MTS 3,87 3,98 High MTS 4,03 4,37

PTS x PAS 3,32 0,05 Team Satisfaction 11,66 0,001 Low PAS 2,95 3,67 High PAS 3,34 3,49 Team Performance 5,26 0,05 Low PAS 2,97 3,43 High PAS 3,37 3,29 Task Satisfaction 4,42 0,05 Low PAS 3,87 3,98 High PAS 4,03 4,37

PTS x MAS 3,10 0,05 Indiv. Performance 5,34 0,05 Low MAS 3,74 3,57 High MAS 3,90 3,88

Low MTS High MTS MTS x PAS 3,99 0,005 Team Satisfaction 8,78 0,005 Low PAS 3,30 3,03

High PAS 3,23 3,44 Indiv. Performance 8,79 0,005 Low PAS 3,97 3,81 High PAS 3,52 4,17

*PTS = peer task support, MTS = management task support, PAS = peer affective support, MAS = management affective support.

With respect to the effects of peer task support, there are two significant univariate effects; task satisfaction and team satisfaction. The means shows that individuals with high peer task support are more satisfied with the team and task they work with. An increase in task related support thus leads to more satisfaction and the associated increased effort to contribute to the team of the supported individual. Notable is the effect of peer task support, which is represented in four out of five significant multivariate effects. The direction of this variable is expected, an increase in peer task support generally leads to higher scores on one or more dimensions. Furthermore, the interaction effects show that peer task support with any other variable also leads to a significant multivariate effect.

16 performance. The last significant multivariate effect is management task support with peer affective support, which has two significant univariate effects, team satisfaction and individual performance. Table 7 shows the results in which perceived indispensability (operationalized as initiated task interdependence) is used. The table uses the same layout as table 6 but makes a distinction between low and high initiated task interdependence, as can be seen in the grey areas. An explanation of the abbreviations is added below the table.

TABLE 7RESULTS MANOVA WITH PERCEIVED INDISPENSABILITY

Multivariate Univariate Means

Source F p < Variable F p < Init. TI Low Init. TI High

(4,112) (1,115)

Low PTS High PTS Low PTS High PTS PTS 5,33 0,001 Team Satisfaction 15,50 0,001 3,00 3,54 3,29 3,58

Task Satisfaction 5,46 0,05 3,92 4,00 3,94 4,40

Low MAS High MAS Low MAS High MAS MAS 2,88 0,05 Indiv. Performance 7,81 0,05 3,90 3,82 3,70 3,94

Low PTS High PTS Low PTS High PTS PTS * MTS 5,96 0,001 Indiv. Performance 10,85 0,001 L. MTS 4,07 3,33 3,53 3,85

H. MTS 3,90 4,02 3,88 4,24

PTS * MAS 3,1 0,05 Indiv. Performance 5,34 0,05 L. MAS 3,84 3,93 3,67 3,75 H. MAS 4,10 3,45 3,69 4,20

Low MTS High MTS Low MTS High MTS MTS * PAS 3,99 0,005 Team Satisfaction 8,78 0,005 L. PAS 3,44 3,08 3,54 2,93

H. PAS 3,26 3,41 3,31 3,69 Indiv. Performance 8,79 0,005 L. PAS 3,93 3,94 4,01 3,61 H. PAS 3,62 4,01 3,41 4,29

Low MAS High MAS Low MAS High MAS MTS x MAS 3,94 0,005 Indiv Performance 4,44 0,05 L. MTS 3,82 3,67 3,35 3,90

H. MTS 4,07 3,94 4,23 3,98 Task Satisfaction 5,48 0,05 L. MTS 4,04 3,57 3,57 4,30 H. MTS 4,17 4,08 4,33 4,35

PAS x MAS 2,51 0,05 Indiv. Performance 4,19 0,05 L. PAS 3,87 4,01 3,20 4,01 H. PAS 3,94 3,68 3,83 3,88

*PTS = Peer task support, MTS = Management task support, PAS = Peer affective support, MAS = Management affective support.

17 Since hypotheses 5 and 6 state that initial task interdependence moderates the effects of peer and management support, we are interested in the scores on the dimensions of process gains that differ across the degree of interdependence as well as the level of support. For each form of support, a distinction is made between low and high task interdependence.

In order to compare the results, we have calculated the differences in scores for low and high perceived indispensability (operationalized as initiated task interdependence) in table 7. When looking at high social support and compare the scores on the level of high initiated task interdependence, 14 out of 17 significant univariate effects show increased scores on the dimensions of process gains as compared to low initiated task interdependence.

Remarkable results (>0.5 point increase) can be found at the PTS x MTS effect with individual performance, PTS x MAS (high) with individual performance and MTS x MAS with task satisfaction. Furthermore, three negative differences can be found, of which the most remarkable one is PTS x MAS (low) with individual performance. Furthermore, increased levels of support tend to increase the levels of perceived satisfaction and performance. The most powerful forms of support, based on the high significance for both multivariate and univariate tests are PTS, PTS x MTS and MTS x PAS. When looking at PTS, high support under high initiated task interdependence scores 4.40 whereas low support with low initiated task interdependence scores 3.00.

Concluding, the correlation table provides this study with the results that are needed to accept or reject the first four hypotheses. However, due to unexpected results, such as a moderate relation of affective support with coordination gains (operationalized as individual and team performance) and task support with motivational gains (operationalized as team and task satisfaction), we conducted a MANOVA to further analyse the effects of social support on process gains.

D

The impetus of this study was to provide empirical information concerning the effects of social support and differences between peer and management support. This section is dedicated to the discussion of the results that were presented in the previous section. The analysis consists of two parts. The first part covers the main and interaction effects, the second part incorporates the influence of initiated task interdependence. We relate this to the goals of this study. First, we wanted to know whether forms of social support from peers and management have an effect on process gains. Second, we want to find out if there are differences between support from management and peers. Third, we want to know if and how perceived indispensability affects the effects of social support. We will now address the first goal of this research.

First goal

The first goal was to discover what effects the different types of social support would have on the dimensions of process gains. In order to compare the effects of social support, a correlation matrix is constructed. The correlation matrix shows several moderate relations between types of social support and dimensions of process gains. With respect to the first goal, we have a clear indication that social support is indeed related to process gains. The correlation matrix resulted in nine significant correlations of which six were in the moderate range. With respect to the first goal, the results indicate that social support leads to process gains.

18 coordination gains. Furthermore, we have found no significant results for peer affective support with dimensions of process gains nor have we found significant results for team performance, which is one of the dimensions of process gains. These issues stand out and will thus be addressed.

Distinction coordination and motivation gains

The significant correlations for peer task support and management task support with task- and team satisfaction contradict the prediction that task related support is directed towards the coordination gains only (operationalized in terms of individual and team performance). As it turns out, the dimensions of process gains cannot be separated as stated in the theory section. A clear indication of this inseparability is the strong correlation between individual performance and task satisfaction (r = 0.537, P<0.001). Motivation gains (i.e. team and task satisfaction) and coordination gains (i.e. individual and team performance) show several other high correlations (>0,5) between team satisfaction and team performance. There are several reasons to argue that task related support can be directed towards both motivation and coordination gains.

First of all, it is considered possible that behaviour associated with helping team members by providing information or sharing information (task related support) increases a peer’s identification with the team. Cross (2000) argues that the performance of a team partly depend on the team members’ identification with that team. Teams that consist of individuals that share high team identification are more committed to the team’s success and thus willing to contribute to the team processes (Van Der Vegt and Bunderson, 2005). Furthermore, team identification is linked to higher motivation and job satisfaction; teams with high identification are motivated to put more effort in a group’s success because it increases feelings of pride and respect (Van Dick et al. 2004). Finally, motivation gains may come from peers’ identification with the team (Gockel et al., 2008) when peers believe that the achievements of the team are important for their personal well-being (Van Dick et al., 2009).

A second argument for task related support to contribute to motivational gains lies in the plausible relationship with self- and group efficacy. Hüffmeier et al. (2011) argue that task related support may increase collective efficacy believes, as defined by Bandura (1986). High efficacy is associated with positive attitude towards changing behaviour and work patterns to perform better. In turn, peers that perceive their team to be highly skilled are expected to increase their will to become an active part of that team. The will to become an active part of a team is associated with the extra efforts an individual can demonstrate to contribute to the team’s success. Peers who see their team involvement as more self-enhancing will be more motivated to identify himself with the team. Furthermore, the principle of reciprocity suggests that individuals who receive high levels of task related social support may be motivated to reciprocate (Gouldner, 1960), which may again result in stronger team identification (Wiesenfeld, Raghuram and Garud, 2000).

19 Concluding on the distinction between coordination and motivation gains, there are enough reasons to deviate from the fairly “black and white” distinction that was made in the theory section. Task related support may lead to motivation gains and affective support may lead to coordination gains. Both aspects of process gains are addressed in this research and have led to significant results. The suggested separated relations of affective and task related support with coordination and motivational gains beforehand in the theoretical section need to be nuanced.

Insignificant results

With respect to the insignificant results of team performance and peer affective support, several potential weaknesses are identified. Peer affective support was measured through a four item scale (α = 0.64), the number of items is quite low, indicating that the validity of the scale is limited. With respect to team performance, which was measured using a 5 item scale and a Cronbach’s α of 0.77, no reasons were found that explain the lack of significant results.

Wrap up first goal

With respect to the first goal of this research, which was to discover the effects of social support on process gains, we notice the following. Significant correlations were found between all types of social support except for peer affective support with all dimensions of process gains except for team performance. Based on the follow up MANOVA, a statistically significant relationship was found for peer task support with process gains. Furthermore, we have found significant relationships for four interaction effects with one or more significant univariate effects. Peer task support on its own provides satisfaction among team members and shows significant interaction effects with all other forms of social support. The importance of peer task support is clearly distilled from the results and is in line with the theory section earlier in this paper.

Second goal

The second goal of this research was to find out whether there were differences between social support from management and peers. This goal relates to the first two hypotheses of this study. The results of the correlation matrix show how social support is related to process gains. Furthermore, the follow-up MANOVA has revealed some new insights with respect to other effects of social support.

The first two hypotheses state there are differences between the effects of social support from management and peers. Given the moderate correlations that were found in the correlation matrix, we cannot unambiguously state there are clear differences between peer task support and management task support. In order to further analyse the differences, the MANOVA was conducted. With respect to the follow up MANOVA, beforehand, the interaction effect of management task support and peer affective support was anticipated. Although management task support on its own had no significant multivariate or univariate effects, in combination with peer affective support we found significant univariate effects (team satisfaction, individual performance). From this analysis, it appears that peer affective support enables the management task support to have a significant effect.

20 Based on e.g. the social exchange theory Ensher, Thomas and Murphy (2001) found that the degree of reciprocity as well as the amount of social support that team members got from their managers predicted reciprocation in the form of team member satisfaction with their managers. Team members who feel that they have been well supported by their managers can be expected to reciprocate by performing better than those perceiving low level of social support from their managers. The relevance of affective management support can be found in the interaction effect with all other types of social support (see table 7).

Based on the results, we are not able to identify an unambiguous set of generic rules regarding the differences between management and peer support. Based on the correlation matrix, a clear difference is found between peer affective support and the other forms of support since peer affective support turned out to be insignificant for all dimensions of process gains. Based on the MANOVA, the effect of peer task support stands out, just as the effect of management affective support (see table 7). In theory, these forms of support were identified as most valuable to social support. We therefore regard peer task support and management affective support to be the most powerful single triggers of process gains and find that the theorized differences on management and peers are supported by the results of the MANOVA. As expected, peer support is most powerful in relation to tasks whereas management support is most important in relation to affection, as was stated in the hypotheses one up to and including four.

Third goal

The third goal of this research was to find out under which circumstances a certain type of support should be emphasized. We identified perceived indispensability as a variable which was likely to influence the effects of social support and thus designed a 2x2x2 MANOVA to analyse that interaction.

When analysing the results that incorporated the perceived indispensability (i.e. initiated task interdependence), we notice an increase in the number of significant multivariate effects. Tables 6 (plain effects) and 7 (including perceived indispensability) show different results.

On a general level, we find that an increased level of perceived indispensability tends to increase the perceived satisfaction (motivational gains) and performance (coordination gains) of the supported individual, thereby affecting the effects of social support. However, due to the absence of significant multivariate results with regard to management task support and peer affective support, we are not able to determine the preferred type of management/peer support along the line of perceived indispensability. However, the degree of indispensability has shown to affect the effects of social support. Generally, the scores in process gains tend to increase when the perceived indispensability increases.

This effect was anticipated, team members are expected to increase efforts and interact frequently. Interactions lead to other advantages of team work such as workload sharing (coordination gains), expert advice (coordination gains) and reciprocation of positive team oriented behaviour(motivational gains). Low indispensability is expected to reduce the efforts of the peer to contribute to the team process because his/her contribution is less visible in the process and interactions are limited

Managerial relevance

21 peers providing task related assistance, work load sharing and sharing expert knowledge since it both affects the motivation and coordination gains of the supported individual. Furthermore, the numerous interaction effects that have been found suggest that other types of social support are desirable. Although the value of management support is questioned by Hüffmeier et al. (2011), the interaction effects suggest that management support fills the voids that are left by e.g. peer task support.

Perceived indispensability has the potential for the manager to become an asset to steer the process gains of his team. However, since we have used a perceptual measure, the indispensability is not a variable that the manager can introduce. In order to increase the perceived indispensability of personal efforts, managers could for instance frame the task assignment in a clear and transparent way. Furthermore, feedback on achieving goals and communicating relationships between tasks and the individual’s contributions (Geister et al. 2006).

The results from this research with respect to perceived indispensability (operationalized as initiated task interdependence) have shown that high perceived indispensability initiated task interdependence combined with high social support leads to higher scores on the dimensions of process gains. Following the instrumentality x value models, which suggest that motivation increases when an individual sees that his efforts are highly instrumental to the group performance, it makes sense for managers to design the team tasks in such a way that team members feel instrumental to these tasks. Next to the design of team tasks, the results emphasize the importance of task related support from peers and affective support by management.

C

In this section, the results will be used to accept or reject the hypotheses that were formed in the theory section. In this study, the research questions were formed around the effects of social support. First, we wanted to know whether forms of social support from peers and management had an effect on process gains. Second, we wanted to find out if there are differences between support from management and peers and third, we wanted to explore how perceived indispensability affects the effects of social support.

We have formed several hypotheses around the research questions. On a general level, we have found significant moderate relations for all types of support except for peer affective support. Next to the correlation matrix, which provides this study with the information that is needed to test the first four hypotheses, the MANOVA provides us with results for the fifth and sixth hypothesis. Furthermore, the MANOVA provides us with several other findings that were unanticipated but substantive for this study.

We will now test all hypotheses, based on the discussed results of the previous section. Hypotheses testing

1. With respect to first hypothesis, which states that affective management support leads to larger motivational gains than peer affective support, the following can be concluded. The correlation matrix reveals a moderate relation between management affective support with one dimension of motivational gains (task satisfaction) and a moderate relation with a dimension of coordination gains (individual performance). No significant relations were found for peer affective support. Based on these findings, the first hypothesis is accepted. 2. With respect to the second hypothesis, which states that peer task related support leads to

22 moderate relation was found for management task support with a dimension of coordination gains (individual performance) whereas a weak correlation was found for peer task support with a dimension of coordination gains (individual performance). Based on these results, the second hypothesis is rejected.

3. With respect to the third hypothesis, which states that peer task support has more effect on process gains than peer affective support, the following is concluded. Three significant relations were found for peer task support with dimensions of process gains whereas no significant correlations were found for peer affective support. Therefore, we accept the third hypothesis.

4. With respect to the fourth hypothesis, which states that management affective support has more effect on process gains than management task support, the following can be concluded. We have found three significant correlations for management affective support as well as management task support. The differences between the types of support are small. Therefore, we cannot unambiguously conclude which type of support has more effect on process gains. The hypothesis is therefore not rejected, nor accepted.

5. With respect to the fifth hypotheses, which states that peer support is affected by perceived indispensability, the following can be concluded. The hypothesis indicates that along the line of perceived indispensability, the desired type of peer support changes. However, since no significant relationship was found for peer affective support on its own, the results do not provide us with enough information to determine whether peer affective support is desirable when the perceived indispensability changes. With respect to peer task support, the results follow the line of theory, suggesting that high task interdependence with high peer task support leads to higher scores on process gains. Based on these results, choose not to reject the hypothesis.

6. With respect to the sixth hypothesis, which states that management support is affected by perceived indispensability, the following can be concluded. The hypothesis indicates that along the line of perceived indispensability, the desired type of management support differs. For each type of management support, significant relations were found. The MANOVA however, does not provide this us with enough information to determine whether if the type of support should change when perceived indispensability changes. With respect to management affective support, the results somewhat contradict theory. We expected the effects of task support on process gains to be the largest during high perceived indispensability. However, though not with remarkable differences, the highest score of management affective support is noted at high perceived indispensability. We therefore choose to reject the hypothesis.

Substantive findings

We have identified several relationships that were not anticipated but are substantive for social support. The theory in this study made a clear distinction between the four types of social support, interaction effects were therefore not taken into consideration. However, we have identified nine significant interaction effects that can be of importance to the supported individual. The results suggest that focussing on one type of support (e.g. the strongest one, PTS) leaves a void that has to be filled by another form of support. Both affective and task related support are represented in the results, indicating that the supported individual desires both types of support.

Limitations and future directions

23 the relation between social support and process gains on a higher level is consistent with the theoretical arguments mentioned in the theory section. Nevertheless, it will be important for future research to further analyse the potential effects of the main effects of social support. The positive effects of social recognition on motivation and performance are well documented relations in literature but did not show a significant relation in this study.

A limitation of this study may lie in the operationalization of process gains, as discussed in the discussion section. The theorized distinction between motivation and coordination gains has not been found in the results section, indicating that the validity of this distinction is limited. Furthermore, the use of validated scales individual performance and team satisfaction caused some problems with the Cronbach’s α. The initial scales consisted of five or six items. However, the scales scored above the threshold of 0.6 after the deletion of two items. This is considered a weakness in the operationalization of two dimensions of process gains.

The results of this study were affected by the sample and method. For example, the sample was fairly small (N=141), the group of participants was fairly randomly chosen since the only condition was a job in a team context. Therefore, generalizing our findings for a particular environment may be speculative. We expect differences desired degree of task/affective support along the level of education. Furthermore, we used the perceptions of individual team members measured with a questionnaire. Due to single source data, the measured effects may be affected by method variance. Van der Vegt et al. (1998) argue this may result in spurious relationships between variables due to measurement with a common method. We therefore suggest that future research which is aimed at replicating the results of this study, should try other settings and the use of various methods and to measure the identified variables.

Another direction for further research is large amount of interaction effects that have been identified. This research has focused on the singular effects and differences between these effects. In order to develop valuable steering instruments to management, interaction effects need to be elaborated.

Final conclusion

24

R

 Aram, J.D., Morgan, C.P. and Esbeck, E.S. (1971), “Relation of collaborative interpersonal relationships to individual satisfaction and organizational performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 289-97.

 Atkinson, J.W., 1957. Motivational determinants of risk-taking behaviour. Psychological Review 64, 359–372.

 Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman

 Bornstein, G. and Erev, I. (1997), “The enhancing effect of intergroup competition on group performance”, in de Dreu, C.K.W. and van der Vliert, E. (Eds), Using Conflict in Organizations, Sage, London, pp. 116-28.

 Campion M.A, Medsker G.J, Higgs A.C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness—Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–850

 Caplow, T. (1957). Organizational Size. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1 , 4, 484-504

 Carson, J.B., Tesluk, P.E. and Marrone, J.A. (2007), “Shared leadership in teams: an investigation of antecedent conditions and performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 1217-34

 Clark, M.C., Payne, R.l., 1997, The nature and structure of workers' trust in management, Journal of Organisational Behavior, 18, 205-224

 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

 Collins, B.E., Guetzkow, H. (1964) A Social Psychology of Group Processes for Decision Making, Wiley, New York, NY.

 Conley, S., Fauske, J. and Pounder, D.G. (2004), “Teacher work group effectiveness”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 5, p. 663.

 Dirks, K.T. 1999, The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, (3), pp. 445-455.

 Ensher, E.A., Thomas, C. and Murphy, S.E. (2001), “Comparison of traditional, step-ahead, and peer mentoring on protégés support, satisfaction, and perceptions of career success: a social exchange perspective”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 419-38.

 Fenlason, F.J., Beehr, T.A., 1994 , Social Support and Occupational Stress: Effects of Talking to Others, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Mar., 1994), pp. 157-175

25 model development, in London, M. (Ed.), How People Evaluate Others in Organisations, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

 Geister, S., Konradt, U., Hertel, G, 2006, Effects of Process Feedback on Motivation, Satisfaction and Performance in Virtual Teams. Small Group Research, 37, 5, p459-489.

 Gockel, C., Kerr, N.L., Seok, D.-H., Harris, D.W. (2008) "Indispensability and group identification as sources of task motivation", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.44 No.5 pp 1316-21

 Gouldner, A., 1960. The Norm of Reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25 , 2, p161-178

 Griffith, J. (1988) "Measurement of group cohesion in US army units", Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Vol.9 No.2 pp149-71

 Hackman, J.R., 1987, The design of work teams, In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 Hackman, R. & R. Wageman (2005). A Theory of Team Coaching. The Academy of Management Review, Volume 30, Number 2, 269 – 287

 Haerem, T., Rau, D., 2007. The Influence of Degree of Expertise and Objective Task Complexity on Perceived Task Complexity and Performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 5, 1320-1331

 Harkins, S., & Petty, R. E. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1214–1230

 Hellenthal, A.J, 2004. A tale of two levels: There is an 'I' in team, Groningen.

 Hertel, G. (2000) "Motivation gains in groups: a brief review of the state-of-the-art", Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, Vol.31 No.4 pp169-75

 Hertel, G., Deter, C., & Konradt, U. 2003. Motivation gains in computer-mediated work groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2080–2105

 Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. 2005. Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 69–95

 Hertel, G., Kerr, N. L., & Messé, L. A. (2000). Motivation gains in performance groups: Paradigmatic and theoretical developments on the Köhler effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 580–601

26  Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Orlikowski, B. 2004. Managing distance by interdependence: Goal

setting, task interdependence and team-based rewards in virtual teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 1–28

 Hertel, G., Niemeyer, G., Clauss, A. 2008 "Social indispensability or social comparison? The why and when of motivation gains of inferior group members", Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol.38 No.5 pp1329-63

 Howell, D. C. (2007). Statistical methods for psychology. Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.

 Huberty, C. J., & Petoskey, M. D. (2000). Multivariate analysis of variance and covariance. In H. Tinsley and S. Brown (Eds.) Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modelling. New York: Academic Press.

 Hüffmeier, J., Hertel, G. (2011) "Many cheers make light the work: how social support triggers process gains in teams", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol.26 No.3 pp185-204

 Jong, B.A. de, Elfring, T, 2010, How does trust affect the performance of on-going teams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring and effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 3, 535-549.

 Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes, 65, 681–706.

 Kemmelmeier, M., & Oyserman, D. 2001. Self-construals and consequences of upward social comparison: The ups and downs of thinking about a successful other. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 311–320

 Kennedy, J.L. 1971. The System Approach: A Preliminary exploration study of the relationship between team composition and financial performance in business games. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(1), 46-49

 Kerr, N. L. 1983. Motivation losses in task-performing groups: A social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 819–828

 Kerr, N. L., Messé, L. A., Seok, D.-H., Sambolec, E. J., Lount, R. B., Jr., & Park, E. S. (2007). Psychological mechanisms underlying the Köhler motivation gain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 828–841

 Kerr, N.L., Seok, D.H. 2011, ‘… with a little help from my friends’: friendship, effort norms, and group motivation gain", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol.26 No.3 pp205-18

 Kerr, N.L., Seok, D.H., Sambolec, E.J., Lount, R.B., Park, E.S., 2007, Psychological Mechanisms Underlying the Köhler motivation gain, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33:828  Kuhnel, S. M, 1988, "Testing MANOVA Designs with LISREL," Sociological Methods Research,

27  Konradt, U., Hertel, G., & Schmook, R., 2003, Quality of management by objectives,

task-related stressors, and non-task-task-related stressors as predictors of stress and job satisfaction among teleworkers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 61-79.  Le Pine, J., Piccolo, R.F., Jackson, C.L., Mathieu, J.E., Saul, J.R., A Meta-Analysis of Teamwork

Processes: Tests of a Multidimensional model and Relationships with Team effectiveness criteria, Personnel Psychology, 61, 273-307

 LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. 2001. Peer responses to low performers: An attributional model of helping in the context of groups. Academy of Management Review, 26, 67–84.

 Lount, R. B., Jr., Park, E. S., Seok, D.-H., Messé, L. A., & Kerr, N. 2007. Impression management concerns and group motivation gains.

 Luthans, F., Stajkovic, A.D. 1999 "Reinforce for performance: the need to go beyond pay and even rewards", Academy of Management Executive, Vol.13 No.2 pp49-57

 Manners Jr. G. 1975, Another Look at Group Size, Group Problem Solving, and Member Consensus. Academy of Management Journal18 (4):715-724

 Meyers, L.S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.

 Oldham, G. R. Hackman, J. R. 1980, Work design in the organisational context. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 2, p247, 32p

 Park, H.S., Baker, C, Lee, D.W., 2008, Need for cognition, task complexity and Job Satisfaction, Journal of Management engineering. 24:2, 111-117.

 Rhoades, L, Eisenberger, R. , 2002, Perceived Organisational Support: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 4, 698-714

 Salas E, Rozell D, Mullen B, Driskell JE. (1999). the effect of team building on performance, Small Group Research, 30, 309–329.

 Seta, J. J. 1982. The impact of comparison processes on co-actors' task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 281–291

 Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67–81

 Steiner, I. D. 1972. Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press

 Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. 1996. Social compensation and the Köhler effect: Toward a theoretical explanation of motivation gains in group productivity. In E.Witte & J.Davis Eds., Understanding group behaviour: Vol. 2. Small group processes and interpersonal relations pp. 37–65. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

28 conceptualization of organizational identification: which aspects really matter?, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, p. 171-91.

 Van Dick, R., Tissington, P.A., Hertel, G. (2009) "Do many hands make light the work? How to overcome social loafing and gain motivation in work teams", European Business Review, Vol.21 pp233-45

 Van der Vegt, G.S. and Bunderson, J.S. (2005), Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: the importance of collective team identification, Academy of Management Journal, 48, 3, p. 532-47.

 Weber, B., Hertel, G. 2007 "Motivation gains of inferior group members: a meta-analytical review", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.93 No.6 pp973-93

 West, M, Brodbeck, F.C., Richter, A.W., Does the 'romance of teams' exist? The effectiveness of teams in experimental and field settings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 77, 467–473

 Wiesenfeld, B.M. Raghuram, S, Garud, R. 2001, Organizational identification among virtual workers: the role of need for affiliation and perceived work based social support, Journal of Management 27, pp. 213-229