Measuring team processes: The comparability and
generalizability of team process variables.
Master Thesis
BA Change Management
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
1
ABSTRACT
In current literature on team process measurement, the selection of process variables is often
not extensively discussed. This research compares process variables to assess whether they
measure team process in a comparable way. Team reflexivity, team communication and team
cohesion are reviewed and the relationship of these variables to team effectiveness is. A
sample of 73 teams is examined, using multiple measurement scales to assess all process
variables. Results indicate that the measures are not generalizable and not representing team
process in a similar way. The relationship to the outcome variable is also not comparable. These findings are explained by the complexity and interrelatedness of numerous variables and the exclusion of effects of temporality. Therefore, these process variables cannot be used interchangeably. These results imply that the selection of process variables in measuring team processes is crucial and requires more attention in literature.2
Table of Contents
1.
INTRODUCTION
3
1.1 Temporality in process measurement
3
1.2 Theoretical gap and research aim
4
1.3 Research question
4
2.
LITERATURE REV IEW
4
2.1 Variance theory and process theory
4
2.2 Temporality
5
2.3 Process variables
6
2.4 Team effectiveness
10
3.
METHODS
10
3.1 Data collection
10
3.2 Measurement scales
11
3.3 Control variables
13
3.4 Data analysis
14
4.
RESULTS
15
4.1 Factor analysis
16
4.2 Reliability analysis
17
4.3 Correlation analysis
18
4.4 Linear regression analysis
18
5.
DISCUSSION AND RESULTS
20
5.1 Discussion
20
5.2 Theoretical implications
22
5.3 Managerial implications
22
5.4 Limitations and further research
23
5.5 Conclusion
23
6.
REFERENCES
24
3 1. INTRODUCTION
In current business environments, which are becoming more dynamic and integrated continuously, the formation of teams has become a well-established way of coping with change processes (Hu & Liden, 2015). Since there are many variables which influence the change processes of teams, it is rather difficult to measure a team process. Many different variables have been researched to improve measurement of team process change. Some of these variables, such as strategic orientation (Woolley, 2011), leadership style (Somech, 2006), intragroup processes (Gladstein, 1984; Jordan, Feild & Armenakis, 2002; Mathieu & Schulze, 2006), diversity (Chatman & Flynn, 2001; Donnelon, 1993), conflict (Jehn, Northcraft & Neale, 1999) and reflexivity (Schippers, Den Hartog, Koopman, & Wienk, 2003; Widmer, Schippers, & West, 2009; Nederveen Pieterse, van Knippenberg, & van Ginkel, 2011) are widely accepted as important constructs of team processes. The outcomes of these process measures are mostly focusing on team job satisfaction (Acuña, Gómez, & Juristo, 2008; Mathieu & Schulze, 2006; Jehn et al., 1999) or team performance (Gladstein, 1984; Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000; Antoni & Hertel, 2009). Performance and satisfaction are underlying aspects of team effectiveness (Gladstein, 1984). These variables have been elaborated on extensively in research.
1.1 Temporality in process measurement
Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas and Van de Ven (2013) argue that most literature on processes is excluding the influence of time. However, they state that, given the critical importance and
inescapability of time and timing, this plays a crucial role in organizations. Capturing effects of time requires longitudinal data collection. In literature there are two types of theories, being process theory and variance theory (Mohr, 1982). Mohr (1982) states that the main differences between variance theory and process theory is that variance theory is based on characteristics which develop from a foundation in the necessary and sufficient, whereas process theory only build it foundation on the necessary. In variance theories, the ordering of time of the variables is immaterial to the outcome (Mohr, 1982). The relation between variables is measured in constant state, as if they all happen at the same time. Variance theory predominates in academic research and it is still used to explain
4 1.2 Theoretical gap and research aim
However, in current literature a comparison between the effects of different process variables and the extent to which they measure process in a similar way does not exist yet. Many different variables are used to account for team process effects, without clearly creating a distinction between the
different variables. In the literature this aspect has not been discussed before and the choice of concept is typically not thoroughly discussed. Therefore, this paper will elaborate on the differences and similarities of using different variables for team process measurement on team effectiveness. To test this,a set of three well-established measures for team process are selected. This selection is also based on the ability of these three variables to predict team effectiveness (Antoni & Hertel, 2009). If the variables are similar, they should also relate to outcome variables in a similar way. In current
literature, reflexivity, cohesion and communication have shown to be related to each other. Hoegl and Parboteeah (2006) found that social skills and project management skills are antecedents of reflexivity, concluding that communication and interaction are positively related to team reflexivity. Lee (2008) found that the relationship between team reflexivity and performance of newly developed products is moderated by team cohesiveness. Also the relationship between team cohesiveness and the level of communication has been examined extensively. Lott and Lott (1961) state that the level of
communication within the team positively influences team cohesiveness. This clearly indicates that the process variables are related to each other. Therefore, it could be possible that they measure team process in a comparable way. The goal of this study is to research if process variables used for measuring the processes in teams are measuring comparable or different things.
1.3 Research question
Based on the identified gaps in existing literature and the review of the literature, the following research question has been developed:
Do different process variables and their measurement instruments measure team processes in a comparable way?
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Variance theory and process theory
5
is not focusing on how this happens (Van de Ven, 1992). Secondly, processes are described as being categories of concepts. The process is described as a collection of several individual and
organizational actions. These concepts are operationalized as constructs and the measurements of these variables are fixed entities (Van de Ven, 1992). In this definition of processes it is also not possible to measure how an event occurred, it is only possible to observe whether it happened or not. Weingart (1997) describes this as characterizing group process based on the frequency of behaviors. The third definition that is given by Van de Ven (1992) is process as a developmental event sequence. This sequence of events indicates the incorporation of timing in the changes that are occurring. This theory builds it foundation on the necessary, but this alone is not sufficient. There exist other factors which influence how and when an event occurs. This historical developmental perspective is more complex, but it is focused on discovering the question how processes unfold. This definition is in line with the concept of process theory. The way that a team process is defined is a first step towards distinguishing between process theory and variance theory.
As mentioned before, the fundamental difference can be explained by the necessary and sufficient conditions of a precursor (Mohr, 1982). In variance theory, explanations are based on causality. If a precursor happens, the outcome will happen as well. However, if the precursor does not happen, the outcome will not happen either. In process theory the precursor is necessary as well, but it is not sufficient on its own. There is a combination or rearrangement of components needed, which is based on probabilistic processes and external forces (Mohr, 1982). This can eventually cause the outcome to happen and the timing is crucial in this process. As Markus and Robey (1988) describe: ‘outcomes are (partially) predictable from a knowledge of process, not from the level of predictor variables’ (p. 590). Van de Ven (1992) distinguished four different families in process theory: life cycle, teleology, dialectics and evolution. These families have some fundamental differences in regard to being predictive or explanatory and in regard of having a set sequence of required stages or not (Van de Ven, 1992). Models of group performance commonly see group process as a mediator. Weingart (1997) argues that it can be both a moderator and a mediator, and that this view can enrich the understanding of the influence that processes can have on actual performance.
2.2 Temporality
6
such a question time is not playing an important role. Langley et al. (2013) argue that knowing what works is irrelevant if you do not know how to reach the thing that works. Therefore, they argue that process theorizing is more concerned with producing know-how knowledge instead of variance theorizing know-that types of knowledge. Process theory requires longitudinal, rich and varied data to capture time effects (Sandberg & Tsoukas, 2011). However, longitudinal data collection is not always available or easily accessible.
Research of the effects of processes on team effectiveness and performance builds largely on McGrath’s (1964) input-process-output model (IPO model). In this model the effects of team input on team outcomes are mediated by the team’s interaction processes. Team input is considered on
individual-level, group-level and environment-level factors. Hackman and Morris (1975) have added to this model and explain team outcomes as performance outcomes and additional outcomes like team member satisfaction, attitude change and socio-metric structures. Many authors modified the IPO framework, mostly by enlarging the context or addressing the temporal effects that seem to be
neglected in McGrath’s original model (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp & Gilson, 2008). The model is also criticized for its inability to explain multiple types of different processes and outcomes. From this criticism, new models have been created which were including more mediating mechanisms (Marks, Mathieu & Zaccaro, 2001; Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson & Jundt, 2005). Marks et al. (2001) created a distinction between processes and emergent states. Emergent states are defined as ‘properties of the team that are typically dynamic in nature and vary as a function of team context, inputs, processes, and outcomes’ (Marks et al., 2001, p.357). These emergent states describe motivational, affective states of a team rather than an actual process. The input-process-output model was changed by Ilgen et al. (2005) to an input-mediator-output model. They argue that, besides processes including team members’ actions, also emergent states like potency, safety and collective affect, have mediating effects on team outcomes. Feedback loops and potential interaction effects between inputs, processes and outputs are also included in this model.
2.3 Process variables Team reflexivity
The effects of reflexivity on team processes and team outcomes have gained more interest in current literature (Schippers et al., 2003; Widmer et al., 2009; Nederveen Pieterse et al., 2011). Currently, it is one of the main process variables used for measuring processes. Team reflexivity can be defined as ‘the extent to which group members overtly reflect upon, and communicate about the group’s objectives, strategies, and processes, and adapt them to current or anticipated circumstances’ (West, Garrod & Carletta, 1997, p.296). Team with high reflexivity are more aware of the
7
have a more proactive approach than non-reflexive team have (West et al., 1997).
Schippers et al. (2003) found that the effect of reflexivity on satisfaction and performance is highly significant. Also, the relationship team reflexivity and team effectiveness is found to be positively related (Carter & West, 1998). West (2000) describes reflexivity as a continuous process, which can be split up into three main components: reflection, planning and action/adaptation.
Reflection is considering how processes are executed in the teams, analyzing this, and learning from it. Planning is developing implications and goals from the analysis performed earlier. The action stage is the actual implementation and the goal-directed behavior towards new strategies and processes (West, 2000). Reflexivity has the ability to improve team performance by team’s discussing task-related issues and group processes and eventually make better decisions (Schippers, Homan, & van Knippenburg, 2013).
Building on this three-stage process of West (2000), reflexivity used as an intervention can also positively affect team performance (Gurtner, Tschan, Semmer & Nägele, 2007). Team reflexivity differs by the levels of complexity in teams. West (1996) argues that teams with complex jobs and environmental uncertainty require more reflection and evaluation in order to complete the job successfully. Low complexity teams can rely more on routine, which counters the idea of reflexivity. Team reflexivity has also been related to several other process variables. Hoegl and Parboteeah (2006) found that social skills and project management skills are antecedents of reflexivity, concluding that communication and interaction are positively related team reflexivity. Lee (2008) found that the relationship between team reflexivity and performance of newly-developed products is moderated by team cohesiveness. Schippers et al. (2003) found that team size and team tenure having effects on the effectiveness of team reflexivity, therefore they suggests that these variables are controlled for.
Brav, Anderson and Lantz (2009) address the importance of temporal differences in measuring the effects of reflexivity. Teams are often formed for problem-solving activities, aiming to reach a specific goal. Reflexivity in the beginning phase of such projects is expected to be more crucial in order to achieve the goals than the reflection in later stages, when the tasks and planning of the project are already established. Therefore, Brav et al. (2009) argue that the phase of team development and the focus of reflection can account for inconsistencies in findings on team reflexivity.
Team communication
8
communication is often discussed in combination with both coordination and cooperation. Marks et al. (2001) distinguish several components of interaction, such as conflict management, confidence building and affect management. Mohammed and Angell (2004) describe communication in terms of giving and using each other’s constructive feedback, sharing personal feelings with other team members and encouraging them to do the same, and involving all team members in discussions. Mohammed and Angell (2004) also stress the importance of relational conflict in interaction, in which they find that team orientation and team process can weaken the conflicts in teams. Killumets,
D’Innocenzo, Mainard and Mathieu (2015) state that interpersonal processes play a key mediating role in achieving both individual-level and team-level effectiveness and is essential for individuals to strengthen the willingness to remain within the organization.
Findings on the effect that communication can have on outcome measure differ largely. For example, there are findings that communication frequency is negatively related to performance (Smith, Smith, Olian, Sims, O’Bannon, & Scully, 1994). Ancona and Caldwell (1992) also found a negative relationship on self-rated performance in a research focusing on new-product teams. Smith et al. (1994) argue that this decreased performance is due to the increased time needed to communicate more frequent and to the delay that more communication has on decision-making. However, there are also papers who state that the communication in teams positively affects team outcomes (Keller, 1994; Katz, 1982). Lanzetta and Roby (1960) state that communication is a better measure for team
outcomes than team member knowledge and skills are. Tschan (1995) added the importance of communication cycles in enhancing team outcomes. The ideal communication cycles starts with task preparation and ends with evaluation. Tschan (1995) found that in small teams, who adapted this communication cycle, team outcomes were improved. Moreover, findings differ when communication occurs in teams with complex or routine tasks. When tasks are complex or unclear, communication is expected to be helpful. Also, when team members do not share the same representation of the aim of the task, communication positively influences effectiveness (Gersick & Hackman, 1990). However, when task are routine, communication does not enhance performance or effectiveness (Mueller, 1992). Katz (1982) stresses the importance of team tenure in the composition of the teams. Variations in communication activities can be stronger when the tenure differences are not considered during the composition of the team. Carley (1986) argues that increased team familiarity can lead to the
establishment of communication patterns, which requires less communication among members of the team. This indicates that there is a need to control for team tenure in the measurement of
communication.
9
there is literature that stresses the importance of adding temporality in researching team
communication. Klonek, Quera, Burba and Kauffeld (2016) used a sequential analysis to capture temporal effects and they found that negative action-oriented communication did not occur early in projects, but only appeared in later stages.
Team cohesion
Cohesion is a term which originally derives from the psychology research fields, but currently also is considered important in organizational research (Jordan et al., 2002). Therefore, team cohesion is used as process variable influencing team outcomes in several papers (Evans & Dion, 2012; Mullen & Copper, 1994; Beal, Cohen, Burke & McLendon, 2003). Team cohesion can be defined as the unifying feeling among teammates that draws them together and keeps them together (Hogg, 1992). Basically, it is the attraction that an individual feels towards the group, and because of this attraction the individual stays with the group. Individuals who distrust or dislike their team members, which is opposed to cohesiveness, are less likely to participate in teambuilding activities which enable positive effects for the entire team (Salas, Grossman, Hughes and Coultas, 2015). Hackman (1987) mentions that social cohesion can be seen as one of the critical success factors in teams. Beal et al. (2003) found that cohesion can be divided into three components, being interpersonal attraction, task commitment and group pride. Interpersonal attraction measures the subjective feelings that team members have on others. This captures the shared liking for or attachment to the members of the group. Task
commitment touches upon the work-related cohesion that team members experience among them. Group pride is the subjective feeling of being happy and proud to be part of the team (Beal et al., 2003).
Mullen and Copper (1994) created a meta-analysis on the relation between cohesion and performance in teams, concluding that the effect is highly significant but that the magnitude is small. However, this small magnitude could be due to the criterion used in defining cohesion and
10
Salas et al. (2015) mention the importance of timing in measuring team cohesion. Carless and De Paola (2000) demonstrated that team cohesion varies as a function of time. Chang and Bordia (2001) also state that the effect of cohesion on team effectiveness depends on time effects. In the first measurement period they found mainly task cohesion to be influencing performance, whereas in the second time period they found social cohesion to be a more important influencer of team performance (Chang & Bordia, 2001). This can easily be explained by several factors, such as team tenure. A team that exists for less than one year will never be as cohesive as a team that already works together for five years. Marks et al. (2001) classify cohesion as an emergent state, thereby emphasizing the
importance of timing of measurement. Cohesion based on interpersonal attraction is formed over time, as it involves an emergent network of feelings as members get to know each other (Hogg, 1992). Comparable issues arise when team cohesion is measured in the developmental phase of a team, where group-level agreement is less likely to occur (Mullen & Copper, 1994). Therefore, team cohesion will be very difficult to measure is developing teams.
2.4 Team effectiveness
Effectiveness is one of the key objectives for organizations. It has been researched as important output variable of team processes extensively. Hackman (1987) identified three indicators of effectiveness in teams, being outputs produced by the group, the consequences the group has for its members, and the enhancement of the team’s capability towards performance in the future.
Effectiveness is mostly defined in terms of the outputs that a group produces and the consequences that the team has for the members in the team (Hackman, 1987; Guzzo and Dickson, 1996). Gladstein (1984) developed a model on group effectiveness, identifying many group process components which are positively influencing group effectiveness. For example, trust and communication are positively influencing the effectiveness of a team. Gladstein (1984) divided team effectiveness into performance and satisfaction. Picolli, Powell and Ives (2004) applied the same definition, stating that effectiveness consist of team performance and individual satisfaction.
3. METHODS
In this section the data collection and the development of the questionnaire are explained. In this questionnaire, multiple measurement scales from process variables are adapted. These measurements are instruments. Also, the data analysis process is explained.
3.1 Data collection
11
companies are active in the lighting industry, agriculture, furniture and the energy sector. In total, 73 teams participated in the survey. All companies were located in the Netherlands and all companies communicated in Dutch. Therefore, all communication and the survey itself were presented in Dutch. The questionnaire was created by adapted measurement scales from existing literature. The positioning of questions in a survey is sensitive towards ordering bias. Respondents focus on the first and the last questions, whereby less attention will be given to questions positioned in the middle of a survey (Malhotra, 2010). In order to minimize positioning bias, the question ordering is randomized per questionnaire.
3.2 Measurement scales
An important note here is to assess whether the questionnaire data based on 5-point Likert scales should be analyzed as being ordinal or interval data. The Likert scale used in the questionnaire ranges from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’. Therefore, the distance between the choice options is not precisely defined and not precisely measure. This would indicate that is should be treated as ordinal data. However, many researchers analyzed Likert-scale data with interval measurement. Then, item scores can be averaged to create construct scores. According to Allen and Seaman (2007) this is appropriate if normality assumptions are met. If so, data can be analyzed following a parametric procedure. Carifio and Perla (2007) also conclude that Likert data can be indexed and tested using parametric measures. The data shows normality among all independent and dependent variables. Therefore, the data is assumed to be interval and parametric measures are used to analyze it. Team reflexivity
Team reflexivity is defined as 'the extent to which group members overtly reflect upon, and communicate about the group's objectives, strategies and processes, and adapt them to current or anticipated circumstances' (West et al., 1997). The effects of reflexivity will be assessed using a measurement scale created by Swift and West (1998). These authors developed a 16-item scale, from which they found 9 items to be significant in measuring reflexivity. Most literature until now has adopted this measurement scale for team reflexivity (Schippers et al., 2007; De Dreu, 2007). These items will be measured using a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree). The items in this part of the survey are: ‘The team often reviews its objectives’; ‘The methods used by the team to get the job done are often discussed’; ‘We regularly discuss whether the team is working
12 Team communication
Communication among team members is measured using a 5-item measurement scale developed by Temkin-Greener, Gross, Kunitz and Mukamel (2004). Temkin-Greener et al. (2004) have compiled a survey assessing interdisciplinary team processes, in which communication is assessed among others. Main focus of the items is on the quality and effectiveness of communication among team members. Initially, this measurement scale was designed by Shortell and Rousseau (1989). Both questionnaires were designed for measuring team process in long-term medical care research. However, after reviewing the items, it is appropriate to utilize the items in a business study. The following items were included in the questionnaire: ‘Team plans and schedules very effective’; ‘When team members talk, we understand each other’; ‘Information passed between team members is accurate’; ‘There is effective communication between team members about their objective’; and ‘Team members are not well informed regarding events that happened on other shifts’(reverse coded). Team cohesion
Stokes (1983) has developed a measurement scale for team cohesion, which will be used in this research. In this 9-item scale, a distinction between attraction to the group and interpersonal attraction is made. Stokes (1983) based the measurement scale largely on the Gross Cohesion
Questionnaire of Gross (1957), which is the most widely used measurement scale of cohesion (Stokes, 1983). Conyne (2011) acknowledges that this scale currently is still one of the most influential and multidimensional measurements scales in literature. This scale touches upon facets of both social and task cohesion. Two items were deleted beforehand, because they were not applicable to our
respondents. Hence, seven items were included. The items were transformed from open-ended
questions to statements, in order to allow use of a Likert scale. After this, all items were measurable on a 5-point Likert scale. The following items were incorporated: ‘My team members are in line with my idea of ideal team members’; ‘I feel included in team activities’; ‘I find the activities in which I participate as a member of the team attractive’; ‘If my team members decide to dissolve the group by leaving, I would try to dissuade them’; ‘If I were was asked to participate in another project like this one, I would like to be with the same people I am in my present group’; ’I like my current team’ and ‘my team should meet more often’.
Team effectiveness
13
their research on demographic heterogeneity and cooperative norms in work teams. Team effectiveness is a broad and strong indicator of team output, and therefore it is measured in this research. Team effectiveness is measured by a 5-item Likert scale adapted from research by Campion, Papper and Medsker (1996). This scale addresses the team’s productivity, quality of the work and service that the team delivers, and assesses how fast the team reacts to emerging problems. This is in line with the key attributes of group-produced outputs defined by Guzzo and Dickson (1996): quality, customer satisfaction and speed. It accounts for a broad view on team effectiveness without reviewing company data. The following items are included: ‘The work done of my team is of high quality’; ‘The team provides a high level of customer service’; ‘The team’s productivity can be considered high’; ‘The team completes its work on time’; and ‘The team responds quickly to problems’.
3.3 Control variables Team size
Following Beal et al. (2003), this research will control for team size. Beal et al. (2003) stress that size can influence cohesion and performance of teams. Since this research does not aim to investigate differences due to size, the variance in size is controlled in the analysis. The size of a team can potentially have an effect on the process variable that is being measured. Therefore, current literature largely controls for size in research on communication (Mohammed & Angell, 2004), reflexivity (Schippers et al., 2003; Hoegl & Parboteeah, 2006) and cohesion (Gentry, 1980; Wolfe & Box, 1987). Moreover, many authors researching processes focusing on effectiveness (Hu & Liden, 2015) and performance (Somech, 2006; Mohammed & Angell, 2004) as team outcomes also incorporate team size as a control variable. LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu and Saul (2008) directly researched the moderating effect of team size on performance and effectiveness. They concluded that a moderated relationship exist, which tends to be stronger if the team size is larger. Hence, current literature stresses the importance of team size on team processes. Therefore, it is included as a control variable in this research.
Team tenure
14
of the team leader. Since this study incorporates both effectiveness and performance as outcomes, it is important to control for team tenure. Following Keller (2001), tenure is controlled for on the team level. Keller (2001) argues that this is related to interpersonal contacts, knowledge bases, and group performance.
Team interdependence
Another controlled variable will be the team interdependence. This should be controlled, since the level of interdependence can influence the need for communication, cohesion and reflexivity. It can also affect the relatedness of the process variables to team outcomes. To control for interdependence, a measurement scale of Van der Vegt and Janssen (2003) is used. This 5-item scale is focused on task interdependence, which is defined as the degree to which the ability to complete tasks requires interaction among team members (Shea & Guzzo, 1987). Within-group task interdependence can influence team effectiveness and team performance by strong moderation effects through other variables (Langfred, 2000; LePine et al., 2008). Hence, it is included and controlled for in this research.
3.4 Data analysis
15 4. RESULTS
In this study 73 teams are included, originating from four different companies. All respondents were working in teams and answered the survey as representative of the team.. The companies originated from the lighting industry, agriculture, energy and the furniture industry. On average, the respondents were employed by their company for 10,12 years. Respondents were 60,3 percent male and 39,7 percent female, with an average age of 41,82 years. More descriptive statistics based on demographics and team structures can be found in Table 1.
Table 1: Descriptive statistics: Personal and team characteristics.
Variable Category/level Mean (standard deviation)
Age Years 41,82(11,423)
Gender Male
Female
60,3% 39,7% Education Primary education
Secondary education College degree University degree 1,4% 28,8% 42,5% 27,4% Professional experience Junior Medior Senior 20,5% 41,1% 38,4% Team size Average of persons per team 5,89(3,208) Employment Average years within
company
10,12(7,715) Team tenure Average years within team 4,03(2,886)
4.1 Factor analysis
16
excluded from the analysis. After this process of excluding the items without the appropriate loadings on a factor, 9 items were accepted. These are divided in five items on reflexivity, two items on communication and two items on cohesion. As can be found in Table 2, the three factors all exist of items of one process variable. This factor analysis rotated the loadings using Varimax rotation
methods. These results strongly indicate that the instruments do not measure team process in the same manner.
Table 2. Explanatory factor analysis.
Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
RX1 ,649 RX2 ,887 RX3 ,769 RX4 ,839 RX8 ,709 COM2 ,830 COM4 ,807 TC4 ,858 TC7 ,834
Notes: N=73. PCA with varimax rotation. 4.2 Reliability analysis
After cleaning the data for items that did not have significant loadings, the reliability of the data is checked. A reliability analysis is performed, which determines the Cronbach’s alpha of the variables. Nunnaly (1978) argued for required score for Cronbach’s alpha of ,7. In Table 3 the Cronbach’s alpha per variable is depicted.
Table 3. Cronbach’s alpha.
Variable Cronbach’s Alpha Team reflexivity ,861
Team cohesion ,648
Team communication ,631
Effectiveness ,822
17
on whether these Cronbach’s alphas are acceptable or not. Both measurements scales are based on 2 items, after the data cleaning. Verhoef (2003) argues that Cronbach’s alpha is irrelevant when
checking reliability for two-item scales. A Cronbach’s alpha test compares every combination of every item with all others. Since there are only two items, it does not explain much (Verhoef, 2003). To test reliability for these scales, the Pearson r correlation is calculated from the items. Team communication (r =,480, Sig. = ,000) and team cohesion ( r = 0,478, Sig. = 0,000) both score moderate correlations. As Verhoef (2003) suggest, composite reliability scores can be calculated as well. Bagozzi and Yi (1988) defined the following equation to calculate composite reliability score:
Based on this formula, the CR scores of all factors have been calculated. These scores are depicted in Table 4.
Table 4: Composite reliabilities.
Variable λ λ² ɛ CR
Team reflexivity 3,853 3,007 1,993 0,882 Team communication 1,637 1,341 ,659 0,803 Team cohesion 1,692 1,431 ,569 0,834 Team effectiveness 3,226 2,612 1,388 0,882
Bagozzi and Yi (1988) state that composite reliability score should be higher than 0,6. As can be seen in Table 4, all composite reliabilities are higher than 0,8. Therefore, the scales are assumed to be reliable in this study.
4.3 Correlation analysis
The first step in analyzing whether the measurement instruments are comparable is creating a
18 Table 5. Correlation matrix for included variables.
Reflexivity Communication Cohesion Effectiveness Reflexivity 1,00
Communication ,462** 1,00
Cohesion ,205 ,168 1,00
Effectiveness ,392** ,496** -,121 1,00
Notes: *. Correlation is significant at the 0,05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0,01 level (2-tailed).
4.4 Linear regression analysis
Both earlier performed tests tend to suggest that the measurement instruments used in this study do not represent and measure team process in identical ways. However, the relationship of the process
variables and the outcome variable, team effectiveness, needs to be tested as well. A linear regression analysis on team effectiveness is performed. First, to check whether the effectiveness items are measuring the same, a factor analysis is performed on these items. This indicated that one item
extracted a communality of ,361. All other communalities and loadings were higher than ,7. Therefore, this particular item was excluded from the analysis. Team effectiveness is analyzed based on 4 items. Team size, team tenure and team interdependence are included as control variables. If the instruments measure process in a comparable way, the coefficients and the significance of the variables on team outcomes are expected to be similar. The results of the regression analysis are depicted in Table 5. Both models are linear regression models with team effectiveness as dependent variable. Model 1 is including only control variables and Model 2 includes control variables and the independent variables. As shown in Table 4, both models F-values are highly significant. This indicates that the model is acceptable and that the results can be interpreted. This model also shows that the adjusted R² of the second model is higher, which indicates that this model fits the data better. Team interdependence (B = 2,74, t = 2,490, p < 0,05) and team communication (B = ,362, t = 3,311, p < 0,05) show significant relationships with team effectiveness. The control variable team interdependence significantly
influences effectiveness, as was also concluded in studies by De Dreu (2007) and LePine et al. (2008). Team reflexivity (B = ,216, t = 1,807, p = 0,075) is close to the significance level of 0,05, but the p-value is too high. Team cohesion (B = -,129, t = -1,326, p = ,190) is insignificant and its effects of team effectiveness appears to be negative. Only team communication is significantly related to team effectiveness. The other process variables have an insignificant effect on team effectiveness. From those variables, team reflexivity has a positive t-value and team cohesion has a negative t-value. Table 4. Linear regression model characteristics.
19
Notes: *. Correlation is significant at the 0,05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0,01 level (2-tailed).
Table 5. Linear regression coefficients on team effectiveness. Standardized coefficients t-value P-value Model 1 Intercept - 3,501 ,003* Team interdependence ,475 4,178 ,000** Team size ,026 ,225 ,823 Team tenure ,089 ,831 ,409 Model 2 Intercept - 1,678 ,098 Team interdependence ,274 2,490 ,015* Team size ,019 ,185 ,854 Team tenure ,048 ,489 ,627 Team reflexivity ,216 1,807 ,075 Team communication ,362 3,311 ,002* Team cohesion -,129 -1,326 ,190
Notes: *. Correlation is significant at the 0,05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0,01 level (2-tailed).
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 5.1 Discussion
This research tried to achieve several goals concerning the measurement of processes within teams. Mainly, the relationship between different variables used in measuring processes are found not be measuring team processes in the same way. The analysis proved that team reflexivity, team cohesion and team communication all have different influences on the outcome of team processes. In the
explanatory factor analysis, all variables loaded on a separate factor with all items related to measuring that particular variable. The correlation matrix did show correlations between the constructs, but these correlations were too low to suggest that the variables are measuring team process similarly. The correlations were significant, which could mean that the variables are overlapping. The regression analysis tried to find comparable relationships of the variables to team effectiveness, but also here large differences became evident. The regression coefficients and p-values were diverse in
20
This implies that the measurements scales are not interchangeable which can account for explaining team processes. This indicates that the variables are incapable of accounting for everything that occurs within a process.
Even though they are intended and used to measure team process in a comparable way, it can be questioned whether these variables are actually capable of explaining the same phenomena. Cohesion, reflexivity and communication are all suggested to be important factors in team processes. However, it is likely that they are part of sub-processes and that there are other influences on team process to which these variables are interrelated. For example, team reflexivity is related to team-members’ social skills ( Hoegl & Parboteeah, 2006), diversity (Widmer et al., 2009) and personality (Schippers et al., 2007). For communication there are also numerous interrelated concepts, such as conflict (Marks et al., 2001) or leadership style (Hambley, O’Neill & Kline, 2007). Also, for team cohesion literature found multiple related variables like creativity (Amabile, 1996) or team interventions (Grossman, 2006). This indicates the level of complexity and the interrelatedness of several sub-processes within team processes. Therefore, it seems logical that measuring processes based on a single instrument is incapable of generating comparable results to another instrument. It is not possible to use a single measurement scale to incorporate all influences that affect team process.
Secondly, the analysis is performed based on variance theory. Important in this is how time could affect this study. The variance-based measurement, as is applied in this research, is criticized largely by process theorists for suppressing effects of time in measuring team processes (Langley et al., 2013; Van de Ven, 1992). Schippers et al. (2007) present a variance-based measurement scale for assessing the effects of team reflexivity on team process. This scale, which is largely based on the Swift and West (1998) scale applied in this research, suggest that it is possible to measure team reflexivity without inclusion on time effects. None of the items used to measure reflexivity are related to temporal effects. However, research suggests that time influences can have an effect the
21
Team communication is an important factor in team processes. Results suggest that team communication structurally measures different aspects of team process compared to the other process variables. Communication was measured using items that did not refer to temporal issues. However, it has been suggested that communication effects change over time (Klonek et al., 2016). As Carley (1986) suggests, team tenure is important in communication. The results show that communication is significantly related to team effectiveness, which makes it the best proxy in these research for predicting team effectiveness and possibly the best proxy for measuring team processes in this study. However, from a process theory perspective, the measurement is not complete. As mentioned earlier, communication is complex and influenced by temporal effects. Therefore, variance-based theory is too simplified and cannot capture all effects of communication in teams.
Team cohesion is the process variable which showed the lowest correlation with the other process variables. Hence, it is measuring something considerably different. In literature, team cohesion is suggested to positively relate to team outcomes (Mullen & Copper; 1994). However, in the effect is insignificant and negative. Team cohesion is a construct in which time does play an important role. Therefore, excluding time from this analysis, can also account for the differences in measurement with the other variables. Carless and De Paola (2000) argue that cohesion varies over time. Chang and Bordia (2001) even stated that this directly affects outcomes, where cohesion effects increase
outcomes stronger over a longer time period. By not including temporality the true effects of cohesion on team processes are not visible.
Lastly, to relate this discussion to the research question of this study: the process variables that are compared in this study do no measure team processes in a comparable way. In three different analyses, the instruments were not comparable. The relationship to team effectiveness of the process variables was also very diverse.
5.2 Theoretical implications
This research delivers two theoretical implications. Firstly, by the comparison that is performed on different proxies for the measurement of team process, this research implies that there are differences between process variables. In research, the choices for specific variables used to measure team processes are remain largely unexplained. This research implies that process variables are not
interchangeable. Measuring team processes is a complex task, in which the choice and argumentation for the process variables and their measurement scales is crucial.
22
related to several other processes that cannot be identified if temporality is not included. Therefore, research on team processes should make use of data collection techniques in which time can be incorporated. This could account for a larger understanding of team process and how processes evolve over time. This implication stresses that process theory is able to explain processes and variables influencing processes in team in a more complete and distinct way than in the application of variance theory.
5.3 Managerial implications
The managerial implications are considerably in line with the implications on the theoretical level. First, when processes of teams are investigated within a company, it matters which constructs of the teams are reviewed. It should be noted that the concepts are highly interrelated and complex, which implies that with selecting several seemingly important variables it will not be certain that the entire team process can be effectively measured.
Secondly, if team processes are measured in organizations, the temporal effects are important to include. Distinctions should be made in measuring teams in developing stages or teams in mature stages. Variables which can be used as proxies of team process can evolve over time. These proxies are influenced by situational factors, external events and probabilistic factors. Therefore, a single measured team process, could indicate team outcomes that are not representative.
5.4 Research limitations and further research
A limitation of this research is the rather limited amount of respondents that are incorporated in the analysis. There were 73 teams in this research. The number of items included in the questionnaire is high, which results in low respondent per question ratio. Clearly, increasing the sample size leads to higher generalizability.
23
The final limitation concerns the self-assessment of respondents. Schippers et al. (2007) argue that some relations between variables, when using respondents who assess themselves, may result from common method and common source variance. Therefore, further research on the generalizability of team process variables should include multiple ways of data collection. Problems with self-assessment biases could be overcome with real-time observations, interviews with multiple team members or by questionnaire data from supervisors..
5.5 Conclusion
24 6. References
Acuña, S. T., Gómez, M., & Juristo, N. (2008). Towards understanding the relationship between team climate and software quality: A quasi-experimental study. Empirical Software Engineering, 13, 401-434.
Allen, E., & Seaman, C. (2007). Statistics Roundtable: Likert Scales and Data Analyses. Quality Progress, 40(7), 64–65.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. New York, NY: Westview Press.
Ancona, D. G. (1990). Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 334-365.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External process and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 527-548.
Antoni, C., & Hertel, G. (2009). Team processes, their antecedents and consequences: Implications for different types of teamwork. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(3), 253-266.
Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (1990). Age and work performance in
nonmanagerial jobs: The effects of experience and occupational type. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 407-422.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
Barrick, M. R., Steward, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377-391.
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989–1004.
Brannick, M. T., Salas, E., & Prince, C. (2009). Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
Brav, A., Andersson, K., & Lantz, A. (2009). Group initiative and self-organizational activities in industrial work groups. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18 (3), 347-377.
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307-311.
Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. K.(1996). Relations between work team
25
Carless, S. A, & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31, 71–88.
Carley, K. (1986). Knowledge acquisition as a social phenomenon. Instructional Science, 14, 381-438. Carter, S. M., & West, M. A. (1998). Reflexivity, effectiveness, and mental health in BBC-TV
production teams. Small Group Research, 29(5), 538-601.
Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244–266.
Chang, A., & Bordia, P. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion-group performance relationship. Small Group Research, 32, (4), 379-405.
Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2001). The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 956-974.
Carifio, J., & Perla, R. J. (2007). Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 106-116.
Cox, T. H., Lobel, S. A., & McLeod, P. L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 827-847.
Conyne, R. K. (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Group Counseling. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team
effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 628-638.
De Dreu, C. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. The Journal Of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741-749. Donnelon, A. (1993). Cross functional team in product development: Accommodating the structure to
the process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10, 377-392.
Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L.(2012). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 43(6), 690-701.
Foushee, H. C. (1984). Dyads and triads at 35,000 feet: Factors affecting group process and aircrew performance. American Psychologist, 39, 885-893.
26 Games, 11(4), 451-460.
Gersick, G. J., & Hackman, J. R. (1990). Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 307-338.
Gladstein, D. L. (1984) Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.
Gross, E. F. (1957). Empirical study of the concepts of cohesiveness and compatibility. Unpublished honors thesis. Department of Social Relations, Harvard University. Reprinted in W. C. Schutz (1966) The interpersonal underworld (p. 137-139). Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavioral Books.
Grossman, R. (2014). How do teams become cohesive? A meta-analysis of cohesion’s antecedents. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.
Gurtner, A., Tschan, F., Semmer, N. K., & Nägele, C. (2007). Getting groups to develop good strategies: Effects of reflexivity interventions on team process, team performance, and shared mental models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 127-142. Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: recent research on performance
and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-338.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741-763.
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 45-99.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J.W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior, p.376-389. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F. Jr. , Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis, (5th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hambley, L. A., O’Neill, T. A., & Kline, T. J. (2007). Virtual team leadership: The effects of leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 103(1), 1-20.
Hansen, D. E. (2016). Cohesion in online student teams versus traditional teams. Journal of Marketing Education, 38(1), 37-46.
Hoegl, M., & Parboteeah, K. P. (2006). Team reflexivity in innovative projects. R&D Management, 36, 113-125.
27
Hosseini, M. R., Chileshe, N., Zuo, J., & Baroudi, B. (2015) A Discourse on the Concept of Virtuality in Globally Dispersed Teams. In Camillo, A.A. (Eds.) Global Enterprise Management, 2, 57-74. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2015). Making a difference in the teamwork: Linking team prosocial
motivation to team processes and team effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1102-1127.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology,56, 517-543.
Jordan, M. H., Feild, H. S., & Armenakis, A. A. (2002). The relationship of group process variables and team performance. Small Group Research, 33(1), 121-150.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 237-249.
Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity and on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 81-104.
Keller, R. T. (1994). Technology-information processing fit and the performance of R&D project groups: A test of contingency theory. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 167-179. Keller, R. T. (2001). Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development:
Diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), 547-555.
Kelley, K., Clark, B., Brown, V., & Sitzia, J. (2003) Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 15(2), 261-266.
Killumets, E., D’Innocenzo, L., Maynard, M. T., & Mathieu, J. E. (2015). A Multilevel Examination of the Impact of Team Interpersonal Processes. Small Group Research, 46(2), 227-259. Klonek, F. E., Quera, V., Burba, M., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). Group interactions and time: Using
analysis to study group dynamics in project meetings. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 20(3), 209-222.
Kong, D. T., Konczak, L. J., & Bottom, W. P. (2015). Team performance as a joint function of team member satisfaction and agreeableness. Small Group Research, 46(2), 160-178.
Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Bell, S. T. (2001). Work groups and teams in organizations. In Borman, W. C. Ilgen, D. R & Klimoski, R. J. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12, 333-375. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Langfred, C. W. (2000). Work-group design and autonomy: A field study of interaction between task interdependence and group autonomy. Small Group Research, 31(1), 54-70.
28 Management Journal, 56(1), 1-13.
Lanzetta, J. X, & Roby, T. B. (1960). The relationship between certain group process variables and group problem-solving efficiency. Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 135-148.
Lee, T. S. L. (2008). The effects of team reflexivity and innovativeness on new product development performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108(4), 548-569.
LePine, J. A., Picollo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of team processes: tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273-307.
Leenders, R. T. A. J., Contractor, N., & DeChurch, L. (2016). Once upon a time: Understanding team processes as relational event networks. Organizational Psychology Review, 6(1), 92-115 Lewis, M. (2007). Stepwise versus hierarchical regression: Pros and cons. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, San Antonio.
Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1961). Group cohesiveness, communication level, and group conformity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(2), 408-412.
Malhotra, N. K. (2010). Marketing research: An applied orientation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376.
Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988). Information technology and organizational change: causal structure in theory and research. Management Science, 34(5), 583-598.
Martin, E., & Good, J. (2015). Strategy, team cohesion and team member satisfaction: The effects of gender and group composition. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 536-543.
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. The Journal Of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273-283.
Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410-463.
Mathieu, J. E., & Schulze, W. (2006). The influence of team knowledge and formal plans on episodic team process performance relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 605-619. McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
Mello, A. L., & Delise, L. A. (2015). Cognitive diversity to team outcomes: The roles of cohesion and conflict management. Small Group Research, 46(2), 204-226.
29
Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 1015-1039.
Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mueller, G. F. (1992). Psychological and communicational influences on coordination
effectiveness. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 337-350.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227.
Nederveen Pieterse, A., van Knippenberg, D. & van Ginkel, W. P. (2011). Diversity in goal orientation, team reflexivity, and team performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 153-164.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Picolli, G., Powell, A., & Ives, B. (2004). Virtual teams: team control structure, work processes, and team effectiveness. Information Technology & People, 17(4), 359-379.
Salas, E., Grossman, R., Hughes, A. M., & Coultas, C. W. (2015). Measuring team cohesion: Observations from the science. Human Factors, 57(3), 365-374.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of applied psychology, 92(4), 1020-1030.
Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2007) Reflexivity in teams: A measure and correlates. Applied psychology: An International Review, 56(2), 189-211.
Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D .N., Koopman, P .L., & Wienk, J .A. (2003). Diversity and team outcomes: the moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity and the mediating effect of reflexivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 779-802.
Schippers, M. C., Homan, A. C., & van Knippenberg, D. (2013). To reflect or not to
reflect: Prior team performance as a boundary condition of the effects of reflexivity on learning and final team performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 6–23.
Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987). Groups as human resources. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 5, 323-356.
Smith, K., Smith, K., Olian, J., Sims, H., O'Bannon, D., & Scully, J. (1994). Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 39(3), 412-438.
Somech, A. (2006) The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 132-157.
30
Stokes, J. (1983). Components of group cohesion: Inter-member attraction, instrumental value, and risk taking. Small Group Research, 14(2), 163-173.
Swift, T. A., & West, M. A. (1998). Reflexivity and group processes: Research and practice. Sheffield: The ESRC Centre for Organization and Innovation.
Temkin-Greener, H., Gross, D., Kunitz, S. J., & Mukamel, D. (2004). Measuring interdisciplinary performance in long-term care setting. Medical Care, 42(5), 472-481.
Tschan, F. (1995). Communication enhances small group performance if it conforms to task requirements: The concept of ideal communication cycles. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,17(3), 371-393.
Van Aken, J., Berends, H., & van der Bij, H. (2012). Student Projects. In Problem solving in
organizations: A methodological handbook for business and management students. Cambridge University Press.
Van der Vegt, G. S. & Janssen, O. (2003). Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal of Management, 29, 729-751.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 169-188.
Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology,89(6), 1008-1022.
Verhoef, P. C. (2003). Understanding the effect of customer relationship management efforts on customer retention and customer scale development. Journal of Marketing, 67, 30-45. Weingart, L. R. (1997). How did they do that? The ways and means of studying group process.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 189-239.
West, M. A. (1996). Reflexivity and group effectiveness: A conceptual integration. In M.A. West (Ed.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Product development teams. California: JAI.
West, M. A. (2000). Reflexivity, revolution and innovation in work teams. In Johnson, D. A. & Beyerlein, S. T. (Eds.), Advances in the interdisciplinary study of work teams: Product development teams. (1-29). Stamford, Connecticut: JAI Press.
West, M. A., Garrod, S., & Carletta, J. (1997). Group decision-making and effectiveness: Unexplored Boundaries. In Cooper, C. L., & Jackson, S. E. (Eds.), Creating tomorrow‘s organizations (p.293-317). Chichester: Wiley.
Widmer, P. S., Schippers, M.C., & West, M.A. (2009). Recent developments in reflexivity research: A review. Psychology of Everyday Activity, 2(2), 1-11.
31
and Sutton, R. M. (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior (77-140). Greenwich: JAI Press, Woolley, A. W. (2011). Playing offense vs. defense: The effects of team strategic orientation on
team process in competitive environments. Organizational Science, 22(6), 1384- 1398. Wolfe, J. & Box, T. M. (1987). Team cohesion effects on business game performance. Developments
32
7.
APPENDIXA. Appendix: Questionnaire.
Vragenlijst voor onderzoek naar team processen
33
Geachte werknemer,
U neemt deel aan een onderzoek dat bepaalde elementen in team processen in kaart tracht te brengen. Het doel van dit onderzoek is om meer inzicht te krijgen in deze factoren en hoe ze verhouden ten opzichte van team prestatie. Het invullen van de vragenlijst kost 5 minuten. Uw antwoorden vallen onder het privacy reglement van de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Uw antwoorden blijven anoniem voor uw leidinggevende en zullen alleen door de onderzoeker van de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen worden gebruikt voor wetenschappelijk onderzoek. De
onderzoeksresultaten worden gepresenteerd op een zodanige wijze dat de uitkomsten niet te herleiden zijn tot individuele organisaties, teams of teamleden.
We maken gebruik van gevalideerde stellingen. Sommige van deze lijken misschien op elkaar. Ik verzoek u echter toch om alle vragen te beantwoorden, dit is zeer belangrijk voor ons. Denkt u bij het invullen aan het team waarin u momenteel het meeste werk verricht. U kunt het antwoord
omcirkelen dat volgens u het meest van toepassing is op de situatie binnen uw team. In geval van twijfel kunt u het beste afgaan op het eerste antwoord dat bij u opkomt. Er zijn geen foute antwoorden.
Als u verder nog vragen of opmerkingen heeft, twijfel dan niet om contact op te nemen met de onderzoeker via het e-mailadres f.d.de.vries.1@rug.nl. Bij voorbaat hartelijk dank voor uw bereidheid tot deelname aan dit onderzoek!
Teamprocessen
Geef a.u.b. aan in welke mate u het eens bent met de volgende
stellingen. Denk aan de manier waarop de volgende processen
binnen uw team van toepassing zijn.
Volledig mee oneens Niet eens, niet oneens Volledig mee eens
