TEAM PERFORMANCE?
Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
2
WHEN AND HOW DOES A STAR PERFORMER’S PROSOCIAL MOTIVATION BOOST
TEAM PERFORMANCE?
ABSTRACT
The presence of star performers is valuable in organizations because star performers can bring
disproportionate contributions and enhance team performance. Yet, how and when a star contributes to team
performance remains undefined. I propose two types of contribution; individual and collective contribution,
and examine these as mediating factors affecting team performance. As research found that motivation is
an important drive to reach goals, I posit that prosocial motivation plays an important role to a star’s
contribution in a team. Previous research on stardom did not highlight the effect of (prosocial) motivation
to the star impact. Therefore, I propose that the star’s prosocial motivation fosters team performance via
individual and collective contribution. Further, I propose that this indirect effect is stronger when the star
receives more peer support. Testing the hypotheses with survey data of 25 teams, this research did not find
evidence to support the hypotheses. However, evidence was found that stars differ in their contributions
when the star is pro-socially motivated. Limitations and future directions of this study are discussed.
3
INTRODUCTION
“Superior talent will be tomorrow's prime source of competitive advantage” (Chambers, Foulon,
Handfield-Jones, Hankin & Michaels, 1998: 2). Already in 1998 research demonstrated star members would
be important for organizations and this interest in star members has been growing. Currently, in different
businesses there are bidding wars for star performers (Groysberg, Polzer, Elfenbein, 2011).
Stars can be seen as employees with the highest performance in their work units (Aguinis &
O’Boyle Jr., 2014; Call, Nyberg & Thatcher, 2015). A line of star research has been emerging suggesting
that stars are beneficial for organizations (Kehoe, Lepak & Bentley, 2018) and add more organizational
value compared to non-stars (Call et al., 2015).
In current research inconclusive findings exist on what star performers bring to teams and whether
stars have positive or negative effect on team performances. For example, research suggests that star
members have positive effects on co-workers and organizations through their disproportionate contributions
(Call et al., 2015). Star members can bring knowledge spillovers, resources, developmental support and
guidance to co-workers (Kehoe & Tzabbar, 2015). However, Li, Li, Li and Li (2019) found that a star’s
presence in a team restricts non stars’ learning behavior and may hurt their individual’s contributions. Even
more, star performers indirectly have negative effects on team outcomes such as team creativity (Li et al.,
2019).
4
individual contributions of stars. Moreover, Li et al. (2019.) explored the impact of stars on peer learning,
implying the collective contributions of stars that may inspire members’ learning and
development. Consequently, star performers may contribute in teams through individual (e.g. generating
own ideas) and collective contribution (e.g. incorporating other people's ideas).
Therefore, in this research I propose two types of star contribution: individual and collective
contribution, inspired by the two general idea contribution types of Elsbach and Flynn (2013). In this
research I define individual contribution as actions that are indicative of expressing someone’s own actions
in team processes, whereas collective contribution entails someone’s actions that are actively involving
other members in team processes. Specifically, I aim to examine the mediating role of the individual and
collective star contributions in teams.
Team researchers have widely recognized that team members ought to be motivated to contribute
to team processes. The most relevant theory is the MIP-G model (motivation information processing-group
model) of De Dreu, Nijstad and Van Knippenberg (2007), which suggests that members are driven by
epistemic (understanding the world) and social motivation (wanting outcome distributions between oneself
and others) to share their insights or to help others for team tasks. Social motivation has two dimensions;
pro-self and prosocial motivation. An individual with pro-self-motivation is concerned with only the
individual’s own outcomes while an individual with a prosocial motivation is concerned with fairness and
collective outcomes (De Dreu et al., 2007). Prior studies often assume that stars express their novel ideas
(Li et al., 2019) and contribute largely through task performance (Groysberg et al., 2011). However, based
on the MIP-G model one can expect that stars also ought to be motivated to contribute to team processes
and team performance.
5
I posit that the star’s prosocial motivation may shape the star’s contributions to a team. More specifically, I
propose the star's prosocial motivation to be a positive predictor of individual contributions (predominantly
someone’s own actions in team processes) and collective contributions (actions that are actively involving
other members in team processes), which in turn leads to increased team performance.
In addition, the star performer’s prosocial motivation to contribute in team information processes is
assumed to be subject to the stars’ concern for collective outcomes and the contextual support of co-workers.
Groysberg, Lee and Nanda (2008) suggested that when stars switch employers, they are likely to decline in
performance through the lack of support of their previous co-workers. Peer support refers to the extent to
which an individual receives emotional and instrumental support from co-workers (Fenlason & Beehr, 1994;
Holton et al., 1997). Moreover, according to Bowling, Beehr and Swader (2005) it is likely that support in
a work setting (peer support) can be reciprocated with a different type of support in return. Therefore, I
propose that stars’ contributions are subject to support the co-workers, which may affect team performance.
In this research, I examine the role of the star’s received peer support as a moderator along the indirect effect
of the star's prosocial motivation on team performance via two proposed types of the star’s individual and
collective contribution.
By examining the relationship between the star’s prosocial motivation, the star’s types of
contributions, the star’s received peer support to team performance, this research contributes to both theory
and practice. As earlier research about stardom did not examine the (prosocial) motives of stars on team
performance, this research advances the stardom literature by investigating the effect of the star’s prosocial
motivation and the relationship with two types of star contributions. This study helps practitioners to
understand when and why the star’s contribution to team performance is more pronounced. By examining
the before mentioned relationships, it contributes to practice by helping managers to understand how stars
can have different impacts on team processes and team performance.
6
Aguinis and O’Boyle Jr. (2014) have defined stars by assessing their relative productivity and
performance to delineate outputs in context of others. More extensively, stars are defined as employees who
show “disproportionately high and prolonged (a) performance, (b) visibility, and (c) relevant social capital”
(Call et al., 2015, p. 623); where high means relatively high (Aguinis & O’Boyle Jr., 2014) and prolonged
means for a sustained period (Call et al., 2015). Given that a star’s visibility with great colleague effects
(e.g. being recognized) can be referred to as a ‘celebrity’ and that having a relatively larger social capital
can be referred to as a ‘social star’ (Call et al., 2015), I define stars as employees with the highest
performance in their work units. This definition is a combination of both Call et al., (2015) and Aguinis and
O’Boyle Jr. (2014).
As aforementioned, stars seem to enhance benefits in team context and can positively affect a firms'
productivity (Call et al., 2015). However, stars might constrain other co-workers’ opportunities to shine in
an organization (Kehoe & Tzabbar, 2015). Therefore, the star’s contribution deviates in team processes. On
the whole, star performers can show different types of contributions in a team, such as bringing in relevant
social capital (Call et al., 2015), contributing their unique ideas (Li et al., 2019) or sharing their knowledge
in information processes (Kehoe, Lepak & Bentley, 2018). Elsbach and Flynn’s (2013) classification of
information contributions can be linked to understand the types of contributions that stars express. As
mentioned before, Elsbach and Flynn (2013) argue that there are two types of information contributions in
team processes: idea giving and idea taking. Idea taking behavior includes considering ideas, that can be
discussing and thinking about offered ideas, soliciting ideas (asking for help and for ideas) and incorporating
ideas (using ideas of others). Idea giving behavior, on the other hand, includes promoting and offering ideas
(Elsbach & Flynn, 2013). Both idea giving and idea taking behavior are important in team processes to bring
beneficial team outcomes, hence team performance.
7
as well (e.g. discussing ideas), pointing at collective contributions. Therefore, the type of contribution (idea
giving and idea taking) that a star employee will perform, may be more individually or collectively focused.
To follow up on these findings, this research proposes two types of star contributions that I aim to
test: individual contributions and collective contributions. I foresee that a star expresses these two types of
contributions in teams. For instance, individual contributions (predominantly someone’s own actions in
team processes) consist of providing the best ideas (Girotra et al., 2010). Collective contributions (actions
that are actively involving other members in team processes) includes utilizing knowledge that support
learning of co-workers by e.g. discussing ideas (Kehoe & Tzabar, 2015). Therefore, these two types of
proposed contributions may help to understand what stars express in teams and how this impacts team
performance.
Star motivation and star contributions
Prior research highlighted the importance of stars in organizations as they can create value for the
organization (Aguines & O’Boyle, 2014; Call et al., 2015; Groysberg et al., 2011; Kehoe et al., 2018).
However, research shows that stars can also impact team outcomes negatively (Li et al., 2019), and for
instance decrease group effectiveness (Groysberg et al., 2011). In line with these findings, Call et al. (2015)
state that past research suggests that the star’s impact can lead to contradictory outcomes and adds that past
research does not explain when or why the star’s impact leads to both positive and negative outcomes. To
create more understanding in the star’s impact, Call et al. (2015) invited researchers to link motivation to
stardom research. Since motivation can drive behaviors, motivation can be an important element to examine
in the relation to the star’s deviating contributions in teams and the impact on team performance.
8
motivation has two different dimensions; the pro-self and the prosocial motive. The pro-self-motive can be
seen as the preference for outcomes distributions that maximize the individual’s own benefit. In addition,
the prosocial motive is the preference for fair and joint outcome distributions between oneself and other
group members (De Dreu et al., 2007). Thereby, these two dimensions may drive individuals to contribute
to maximize their own benefits (pro-self) or to strive for beneficial group outcomes (prosocial) in team
processes.
A meta-analysis of the effects of motivation on negotiation strategies show correlational evidence
that prosocial negotiators reach more often common agreements and engage more in problem solving than
pro-self-negotiators (De Dreu, Weingart, & Kwon, 2000). These results show that a prosocial motive may
shape someone’s contribution in team processes and that this may influence team performance outcomes in
turn. The prosocial motive from the MIPG-Model is therefore relevant to star members who are presumably
included to benefit the team. A prosocial motive of the star may shape the star’s type of individual or
collective contributions in teams.
In line with the theory of De Dreu et al. (2007), I expect that if stars have a prosocial motive, they
are motivated to come to collective and fair team outcomes. Since stars are assumed to possess valuable
resources for team processes (Call et al., 2015), I expect that the star’s prosocial motivation drives them to
express individual contributions to benefit team performance. This research posits the star’s prosocial
motivation to increase the star’s individual contribution. Moreover, I expect the star’s valuable individual
contributions will lead to higher team performance in turn.
Considering the collective contributions of stars, this research proposes the star’s prosocial
motivation increases the stars to collaborate and to incorporate their own and the group’s ideas and interests.
Consequently, this research proposes the star’s prosocial motivation will increase the star’s collective
contributions will increase, which in turn will lead to increased team performance. This leads to the
following two hypotheses:
9
Hypothesis 1b: The star’s prosocial motivation has a positive and indirect effect on team
performance via the star’s collective contribution.
The moderating role of peer support
According to Tezci, Sezer, Gurgan and Aktan (2015), an individual’s desire to perform can be
influenced by different factors. I posit that the star’s prosocial motivation shapes the star’s contribution,
where the star’s motivation occurs at the individual level of the star. However, stars are also part of groups
in this research, since the stars are member of teams at work. Since groups (and teams) act as information
processors (De Dreu et al., 2007), stars engage in social information processes with other team members as
well.
Social cues can be seen as signals that arise from group membership and include influence processes
and behaviors by other members (Holton, Bates, Seyler & Carvalho, 1997). Similarly, social cues may arise
in teams with stars since they are a member of a group. The social cues that stars receive may be important
since the success of stars depend on cooperation with co-workers (Kehoe & Tzabbar, 2015).
10
The study of Tezci et al. (2015) suggests that there is a positive correlation between individuals
who receive support from their environment and that individual’s motivation. Their study suggests that
received support encourages the individuals to take responsibilities and to achieve success. This positive
correlation may be explained by the equity theory of Bowling et al. (2005) who argue that individuals might
want to avoid negative feelings of unfairness or guilt when they do not equally give and receive support.
Moreover, the findings of Bowling et al. (2005) suggest that individuals might contribute in ways that match
the received benefits. In line with this theory, the study of Zhou and George (2001) suggests that the support
of co-worker may provide a promotive context for to solve problems or to combine objects in useful ways.
More specifically, the results suggest that peer support is likely to be reciprocated in useful contributions of
the receiver, which in turn may lead to more team performance. In line with this reasoning, the before
mentioned equity theory is relevant for stars, because stars are ought to express contributions and enhance
team performance (Call et al., 2015).
Consequently, I expect that when stars receive peer support, stars can reciprocate their contributions
that may be useful to increase team performance, such as providing their ideas to other members (Li et al.,
2019), pointing at the proposed type of the star’s individual contributions. I expect that when a star
experiences high levels of peer support, the star is more likely to increase his or her individual contribution
in the team, which in turn leads to higher team performance.
In addition, since support is suggested to have an effect on how problems are solved collectively
(Zhou & George, 2001), peer support may reciprocate the star’s collective contributions that benefit team
performance. Hence, this research posits that when a star receives high levels of peer support, the positive
relationship between the star’s prosocial motivation and the stars collective contribution is more positive
and will increase team performance. Thus, I hypothesize the following, which is in line with hypothesis 1a
and 1b:
11
Hypothesis 2b: The star’s received peer support moderates the indirect effect of the star’s prosocial
motivation on team performance via the star’s collective contribution, such that the star’s prosocial
motivation fosters team performance via individual contribution when the star receives more peer support.
FIGURE 1
Conceptual model
METHOD
Sample and procedure
12
is 32.67 years) (M = 88.88, SD = 107.24). The average individual performance score of the 25 stars was
5.71 and ranged from 4.14 to 7 (SD = .62).
To reduce common source biases, I collected data from team leaders and team members separately.
All surveys were administered online in Dutch or English. Since the original survey items were developed
in English, I used a back-translation process (Brislin, 1986) to increase the accuracy of the translation from
English to Dutch. Team leaders reported the performance of the team members and the team as a whole,
while team members reported prosocial motivation, received peer support, individual and collective
contribution of individual members. At the 20
thof March 2020 the surveys were sent out by email. After the
first request, I sent four reminders in a period of 5-6 weeks. As soon as the data was collected, I altered the
names into numbers to ensure confidentiality.
Measures
Unless otherwise noted, all items are measured using a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree,
7= strongly agree).
Identification of the star member. Team leaders rated the individual performance (read down
below) of team members and I identified the star by selecting the team member whose performance score
was highest compared to other members the within the team. When there were more stars in a team, I
calculated for all scales the average score of the multiple stars in that team and divided them by the number
of stars. Since the adopted measures described below are originally not specific measures for stars, I
captured the scores of the stars for these measures to refer to for example the star’s prosocial motivation.
Consequently, I utilized these scales below as the star’s prosocial motivation; the star’s received peer
support; the star’s individual contribution and the star’s collective contribution.
13
Star’s individual contribution. Individual contribution was self-rated by team members. I adapted
the items of idea giving (promoting and offering ideas) behavior from Elsbach & Flynn (2013) to develop
a 4-item scale to measure individual contribution (α = .72). An example of an altered item is: ‘In the team
process I attempt to sell others my ideas/proposals’. I added new items to create a comprehensive scale for
individual contribution. An example of a new item is: ‘In the team process, I actively contribute ideas to
solve the problem(s)’.
Star’s collective contribution. I developed a 5-item scale to measure collective contribution (α =
.72), adapted from idea taking (considering, incorporating and soliciting) behavior (Elsbach & Flynn, 2013).
Team members self-rated the items and an example of an altered item is: ‘In the team process, I actively ask
others to contribute to solve the problem(s)’.
Star’s received peer support. Team members self-rated their received peer support with three items
of the social support scale of Campion, Medsker and Higgs (1993). Examples of the scale are ‘Being in my
team gives me the opportunity to work in a team and provide support to other team members’ and ‘Members
of my team help each other out at work when needed’ (α = .68).
Team performance. I measured team performance with an altered version of the team performance
scales from Anacona & Caldwell (1992) and Mohammend & Nadkarni (2011), (α = .86). Team leaders
rated the performance of their team on 7 items using a 7-point Likert scale (1= far below average, 7= far
above average). Examples of these items are ‘Please rate the team's efficiency (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992)
and ‘Please rate the team’s innovation’ (Mohammand & Nadkarni, 2011). I added the option ‘not applicable’
for one item: ‘If applicable, rate the client's satisfaction with the team's performance (on the last project)’. I
added this option since it is possible that this item does not apply for every team, e.g. when a team does not
have to work directly for a client.
7-14
point Likert scale (1= far below average, 7= far above average) with 7 items (α = .89). I adapted the items
from two scales measuring team performance of Ancona and Caldwell (1992) and Mohammend and
Nadkarni (2011). An example of this altered scale is ‘Please rate the quality of this team member’s overall
performance (Mohammand & Nadkarni, 2011). I included the option ‘not applicable’ for the following item:
‘If applicable, rate the client's satisfaction with the team member's performance (on the last project)’. I added
his option in the individual performance measure since it is possible this item does not apply for every team
context.
RESULTS
Preliminary, I assessed assumptions for normality and outliers. I checked for the dependent
variable whether abnormalities were visible. I detected no outliers within 3.29 standard deviations on the
low, nor the high end of the distribution. Through a Shapiro-Wilk test, I checked the distribution of the
data further for normality. Results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, showed that the dependent variable
was normally distributed ( p = .22), and that team performance distribution is slightly positively skewed
and Platykurtic (skewness = .40, SE = .46; kurtosis = -.47, SE = .90).
In Table 1 the descriptive statistics and correlations for the study variables are presented.
---
Insert Table 1 about here
---
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
15
model and the one-factor model are significant (χ2diff = .00, p < .001). Therefore, this justified my choice
of treating individual contribution and collective contribution of the star performers as two separate
variables.
---
Insert Table 2 about here
---
Since prosocial motivation, peer support, individual contribution and collective contribution were reported
by the same source (team members), I ran CFA to examine the discriminant validity of these concepts. As
Table 3 depicts, The four-factor model fits the items better (X
2/Df = 1.78; RMSEA = .08; CFI = .84; TLI
= .81), than to the one-factor model (X
2/Df= 3.46; RMSEA = .15; CFI = .48; TLI = .40). The Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) showed that the differences between the four-factor model and the one-factor model
are significant (χ2diff = .00, p < .001).
---
Insert Table 3 about here
---
Hypotheses Testing
16
contribution did not affect team performance (b = .23, SE = .20, t = 1.15, p = .26). Altogether, I found no
evidence to support for hypothesis 1a.
---
Insert Table 4 about here
---
I tested hypothesis 1b using PROCESS Model 4. Hypothesis 1b proposed that a higher level of the
star’s collective contribution positively mediates the relationship between the star’s prosocial motivation
and team performance, such that the star’s prosocial motivation increases team performance. As shown in
Table 4, the indirect effect of star’s prosocial motivation on team performance via star’s collective
contribution was not significant (b = .05, SE = .13, LLCI = -.16, ULCI = .27), which is in contrast with my
prediction. The entire mediation model explained 14% of the variance in team performance (R² =.14).
Hence, I did not find support for hypothesis 1b. More specifically, I found that star’s prosocial motivation
was significant and positively related to the star’s collective contribution (b = .50, SE = .19, t = 2.70 p =
.01). Nevertheless, I found a positive but not significant effect of the star’s collective contribution on team
performance (b = .09, SE = .24, t = .37, p = .71), as shown in Table 4. Therefore, no I found no evidence
to support hypotheses 1a.
---
Insert Table 5 about here
---
17
low level of the star’s received peer support (-1 SD, b = .14, SE = .15, LLCI = -.13, ULCI = .34). Moreover,
I found no conditional significant indirect effect for the mean level (b = .07, SE = .09, LLCI = -.08, ULCI =
.21), or the high level (+1 SD, b = .02, SE = .08, LLCI = -.12, ULCI = .14). Hence, Hypothesis 2a was not
supported.
I tested Hypothesis 2b using PROCESS model 7, proposing that star’s received peer support
moderates the indirect effect of the star’s prosocial motivation on team performance via the star’s collective
contribution, such that the star’s prosocial motivation fosters team performance via collective contribution
when the star receives more peer support. As shown in Table 5, the moderation mediation index was not
significant (b = -.02, SE = .10, LLCI = -.20, ULCI = .11). The interaction effect between prosocial motivation
and star’s received peer support show a negative and not significant relationship with a star’s collective
contribution (b = -.23, SE = .26, t = -.88, p = .39). Moreover, I found no significant conditional indirect
effect for the low level of received peer support (-1 SD, b = .07, SE = .22, LLCI = -.25, ULCI = .48) the
mean level (b = .05 , SE = .15, LLCI = -.18, ULCI = .30) or the high level (+1 SD, b = .03 , SE = .11, LLCI
= -.16, ULCI = .20). Consequently, I found no evidence to support hypothesis 2b.
Supplementary analysis
18
---
Insert Table 6 about here
---
As Table 6 depicts, via the star’s individual contribution the moderated mediation index was not
significant (b = -.04, SE = .09, LLCI = -.18, ULCI = .07). In addition, via the star’s individual contribution
I found no significant conditional indirect effect for the low level of received star non-star performance gap
(-1 SD, b = .06, SE = .12, LLCI = -.11, ULCI = .22). Also, I found no significant support at the mean level
(b = .02 , SE = .09, LLCI = -.14, ULCI = .12), or the high level (+1 SD, b = -.02 , SE = .14, LLCI = -.26,
ULCI = .13) of star non-star performance gap. Therefore I found no evidence to support a moderated
mediation effect in which star non-star performance gap moderates the indirect effect of the star’s prosocial
motive on team performance via the star’s individual contributions. Further, as shown in the results of Table
6, I found that via the star’s collective contribution the moderation mediation index was not significant (b =
-.04, SE = .09, LLCI = -.18, ULCI = .07).
In addition, via the star’s collective contribution I found no significant conditional indirect effect
for the low level of received star non-star performance gap (-1 SD, b = .15, SE = .20, LLCI = -.15, ULCI =
.48). Also, I found no significant support at the mean level (b = -.01 , SE = .15, LLCI = -.25, ULCI = .21),
or the high level (+1 SD, b = -.18 , SE = .25, LLCI = -.52, ULCI = .16) of star non-star performance gap.
Hence, I found no evidence to support a moderated mediation effect in which star non-star performance gap
moderates the indirect effect of the star’s prosocial motive on team performance via the star’s collective
contributions.
DISCUSSION
19
First, results suggest that the star’s prosocial motivation is related to the star’s collective
contribution. However, I found no evidence to support that a star’s individual contribution or collective
contribution mediates the relationship between a star’s prosocial motivation and team performance. In
addition, I did not find evidence that peer support moderates the indirect effect of the star’s prosocial
motivation on team performance via a star performer’s individual contribution or collective contribution,
such that a star performer with a higher level of peer support is increased pro-socially motivated to contribute
and thereby promoting team performance. Similarly, additional analysis showed no significant moderation
mediation effect on team performance with performance gap as moderator.
Theoretical implications
The present research adds to the existing stardom literature in understanding how stars contribute
in teams. Although I did not find evidence to support my hypotheses, this study builds upon the knowledge
about what stars contribute. Previous research illustrates that stars create value in teams by expressing
meaningful contributions, which may include e.g. sharing tacit knowledge in teams (Kehoe et al., 2015),
bringing in useful suggestions for solutions (Li et al., 2019), or social capital (Call et al., 2015). I elaborated
on the contribution of stars in teams. I proposed two new types of contributions that stars may express in
teams that I adapted from Elsbach and Flynn’s idea contributions (2013). Results of this study suggest that
stars express two different types of contributions in teams, namely individual contribution and collective
contribution.
20
motivation were more likely to contribute in a collective way. In line with the theory of De Dreu et al.
(2007), the outcomes of this research confirms that the type of motivation has influence on the contributions
of members within teams. Even more, this study contributes to the existing MIP-G theory since these results
suggests that this theory also applies for key players in teams like star members.
Moreover, this study advances the literature of De Dreu et al. (2007) with two new types of
information processing, namely collective and individual contributions. The MIP-G model considers that a
certain type of motivation influences e.g. the depth in which information is processed by team members and
how the information is integrated into group outcomes (De Dreu et al., 2007). It extends the theory that in
the group processes stars show different types of contributions. Further, it extends the MIP-G theory since
this study implies that prosocial motivation has an effect on the type of contributions that members express
in group processes, namely individual or collective contributions.
Practical Implications
This study suggests that prosocial motivation inferences the type of the stars’ contributions in teams.
The results imply that the prosocial motivation of the star may lead to more collective contributions from
the star. This might have an import implication for managers, if they want to want to increase prosocial
behaviors of stars and if they want them to contribute in a collective way. I argue that the prosocial
motivation of the star members is an important drive to increase collective contributions in teams and
therefore managers could attempt to increase the prosocial motivation of stars.
Limitations and future research
The present research has some important limitations and future research directions. The first
limitation is that the survey study was conducted during the arising corona-crisis. This external influence
has been impacting people’s daily life and work life. It is therefore possible that respondents had less
opportunity to fill in the survey. This might have interfered with the next limitation, namely that the sample
size of 25 teams was small. It is possible that the stars might have been better represented in this research
with a bigger sample size.
Met opmerkingen [HM1]: Nog even MIPG lezen maar
