TASK AND OUTCOME INTERDEPENDENCE IN
TEAMS AS PREDICTORS OF EMPLOYEES‟ JOB
SATISFACTION - THE MEDIATING ROLE OF
PROCEDURAL JUSTICE
Master thesis paper, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
ABSTRACT
3 INTRODUCTION
The use of work teams in organizations has continued to grow over the last twenty years. A work team is a group of individuals who work interdependently to solve problems or carry out work (Hackman, 1987). With the increasing use of teamwork in organizations, team performance has become an imperative for organizations. Group design literature has long recognized employees‟ job satisfaction as a crucial form of group outcome (Hackman, 1987 as cited in Van der Vegt, Emans & Van De Vliert, 2000). For example, the job characteristics model of Hackman and Oldman (1980) regards satisfaction of group members‟ needs through job enrichment as an indicator for group effectiveness (Van der Vegt et al., 2000). In fact, job satisfaction of employees has important implications for team performance and productivity (Williams, 1998). Moreover, teams consisting of satisfied employees generally display higher commitment to organizational goals (Williams, 1998), team effort and creativity (Henne & Locke, 1985). Job dissatisfaction, on the contrary, can have a detrimental effect on team performance by increasing the causes for interpersonal conflicts, high absenteeism and turnover rates (MacIntosh & Doherty, 2010). It becomes evident that job satisfaction of employees is a crucial determinant for reaping the expected benefits of teamwork in organizations. Consequently, it is important to understand the factors associated with job satisfaction of team members.
in teams where task interdependence is low members can complete their collective goals by working independently (Fan & Gruenfeld, 1998).
Outcome interdependence, in contrast, is defined as the extent to which the outcomes a team member receives (e.g. praise, bonuses, organizational recognition, compensation, etc.) depend on the performance of the team (Wageman, 1995). The higher the level of outcome interdependence, the more individual outcomes are based on team rather than on individual performance. In teams where outcome interdependence is high, an individual‟s outcomes depend greatly on the collective efforts of other team members and on team‟s ability to coordinate and integrate individual performance into the team performance. An appealing example will be that of a team of students working on a school project, whose individual marks depend greatly on the extent to which their team successfully accomplishes the entrusted project.
Although task and outcome interdependence are related constructs, they can exist independently from each other. For example, employees working on an assembly line who depend on others‟ input in order to perform their own tasks (e.g. the assembly of a car) can receive rewards which are based solely on their individual performance. Or a team of sale agents who receive a team bonus for excellent performance, while performing individual tasks (e.g. a sale of a mortgage to a client). That is why, teams often perform under conditions of varying degrees of task and outcome interdependence, however, it is their interactional effect which is of a key importance for shaping members‟ job satisfaction.
According to Van der Vegt and colleagues (2000) the affective responses (job satisfaction, team satisfaction, job commitment and team commitment) in teams will depend upon an alignment between task and outcome interdependence. That is, individual members of a team would report more positive affective responses when outcome interdependence is high. In contrast, a mismatch or a combination between low task and high outcome interdependence, or high task and lower outcome interdependence would have unfavourable effects on job satisfaction and commitment (Van der Vegt et al., 2000). Their results proved that a match between high task and high outcome interdependence in teams would be of critical importance for members‟ job satisfaction.
5 outcomes, including employees‟ job satisfaction (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Greenberg, 1990; Lind & Tyler, 1988;; Schappe, 1998). For example, Alexander and Ruderman (1987) found that a significant portion of variance in employees‟ job satisfaction is due to perceived procedural justice in organizations. Similarly, Folger and Konovsky (1989) claimed that procedural justice has especially strong effects on the evaluation of and satisfaction with job characteristics and organization. Procedural justice deals with the perceived fairness of organizational procedures and has important implications for job satisfaction (Greenberg, 1987).
Task and Outcome Interdependence
A key defining characteristic of work teams is the interdependence between their members (Shea & Guzzo, 1996; Campion, Meddsker & Higgs, 1993). Interdependence is broadly defined as a situation in which team members have to cooperate and work interactively (Stewart & Barrick, 2000). There are two prominent types of interdependence, namely task and outcome interdependence.
Task interdependence is considered by researchers as an important structural and instrumental component of the work design (Campion et al., 1993; Shea & Guzzo, 1987; Van der Vegt et al, 2001). It is defined as the degree to which an individual‟s task performance depends upon the performance of the rest of team members (Wageman & Baker, 1997). When a team member is task interdependent, s/he must share materials, information, or expertise with the rest of the team in order to fulfill the task output requirements (Van der Vegt et al., 2000). Task interdependence thus stems from team members‟ work inputs- the degree to which they participate in this exchange of materials, information and skills. Generally, task interdependence can vary from low, which is relevant to an individual type of job, to very high as it is in most project teams, task forces and management teams. Under conditions of high task interdependence, it is common for team members to jointly diagnose, analyse and solve problems relying on the input from all team members (Van de Ven, 1976). They do so by involving in frequent communication, information-sharing and cooperation in the team, which in turn help to improve team‟s flexibility, responsiveness and learning from other team members (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Shea & Guzzo, 1987; Wageman & Baker, 1997).
Task interdependence is conceptualized as an individual-level variable because the degree of interdependence often varies among members of one team. To illustrate this Van der Vegt et al. (2000) use the example of a surgical team in which the degree of task interdependence between the surgeons and the anesthetists differ significantly. While surgeons and their assistants are very task interdependent and constantly need to coordinate their actions during an operation, the anesthetist can perform her/his task relatively independent from others in the team. Since one can expect considerable variance within a team, we will examine task interdependence as an individual-level variable.
7 etc) depend on the performance of coworkers (Wageman, 1995; 1997; Guzzo & Shea, 1987). Thus, in contrast to task interdependence, outcome interdependence in teams is a function of the distribution of team outcomes (Wageman & Baker, 1997). In teams where outcome interdependence is low, members receive rewards based on their individual performance (such as a commission), as opposed to teams with high outcome interdependence where members‟ rewards are based on the team‟s performance (a gain- or profit-sharing plan). The main benefit of high outcome interdependence in teams is that it provides incentives for cooperation (Wageman, 1995). Theoretically, high outcome interdependence should have this cooperation effect on team members because it creates conditions of a “common fate” (Fan & Gruenfeld, 1998). The fact that one member‟s success depends on the success of others in the team stimulates members to develop a sense of common fate and encourages the occurrence of “facilitative behaviours” such as offering help or advice (Rosenbaum, Moore & Cotton, 1980). It also reduces the occurrence of “blocking behaviours”, such as hoarding of resources, providing inaccurate or withholding valuable information (Rosembaum et al., 1980).
One should bear in mind that task and outcome interdependence are two independent constructs. For example, employees working on an assembly line who depend on others‟ action to perform their own tasks (e.g. the assembly of a car) can receive rewards which are based solely on their individual performance. In contrast, a team of sale agents can receive a bonus as a reward to their excellent team performance, despite performing individual tasks (e.g. a sale of a mortgage to a client). Though independent, task and outcome interdependence interact in their influence on job satisfaction. The way a possible match or a mismatch between task and outcome interdependence affects team member‟s job satisfaction will be examined by the present study.
Task Interdependence and Job Satisfaction
Research has shown that task interdependence can be both beneficial and detrimental to job satisfaction. With regard to its positive effects, high levels of task interdependence between team members entail extensive communication, planning and coordination among members which foster the perceived challenge on the job and help to boost members‟ job satisfaction (Campion et al., 1993; Van der Vegt et al., 2000). Moreover, high levels of task interdependence stimulate the interpersonal relations among members through the frequent task-driven interactions between team members, and thus create conditions for friendship relations to develop (Van der Vegt et al., 2000; Campion et al., 1993; Kiggundu, 1981). This extended personal interaction, in turn, can help to build job satisfaction as members experience greater commitment to their team (Van der Vegt et al., 2000).
9 outcome interdependence. In specific, researchers propose a “fit” model for task and outcome interdependence (Van der Vegt et al., 2000; Wageman & Baker, 1997; Guzzo & Shea, 1987).
The Moderating Role of Outcome Interdependence
The “fit” model of Van der Vegt et al. (2000) suggests a moderating role for outcome interdependence in the relationship between task interdependence and job satisfaction. That is, they argue that only a certain match between the level of task and outcome interdependence is capable of producing job satisfaction in team members (Van der Vegt et al., 2000). According to authors, a high-high match between these interdependences would help to mitigate the negative effects of increased task interdependence by stimulation of cooperative behaviours among team members, which would increase the affective responses in teams.
Therefore, we expect the relationship between task interdependence and members‟ job satisfaction to be positive when outcome interdependence is high, and respectively, to be negative when outcome interdependence is low. Only under conditions of match between task and outcome interdependence will the team be able to actually harvest the benefits of frequent interpersonal interaction, cooperation and collective thinking resulting from increasing levels of task interdependence. This is because outcome interdependence produces the necessary motivational incentives for cooperation between members (Deutsh, 1973; 1980; Johnson & Johnson, 1989 both cited in Van der Vegt et al., 2000; Wageman, 1995; Wageman & Baker, 1997; Bamberger & Levi, 2008). When a significant level of outcome interdependence is introduced in task interdependent teams, members tend to restrain from acting in ways that inhibit team‟s performance because this would be also detrimental to them. There are several reasons why high levels of outcome interdependence are preferred than low ones.
Second, high outcome interdependence in team creates social pressure on members to provide high-quality performance, (Fan & Gruenfeld, 1998) helps to increase their commitment to the team, and consequently their job satisfaction. In those teams, members would feel they need to avoid any losses to the team caused by low quality of input, because this would be detrimental not only to them but also to others in their team. Lencioni (2002) speaks of this effect of outcome interdependence on members‟ performance: “There is nothing like the fear of letting down respected teammates that motivates people to improve their performance”. And Brown (2006) adds that “letting down the team may be worse than letting down the boss”. As a consequence of the high outcome interdependence, members would perceive success as a collective process to which they all have to contribute with their best input. Wageman (1995) observes similar effect of high outcome interdependence during her experiment with teams of technicians in one printing company. She reports that teams with high levels of outcome interdependence often talk about excellent performance in collective terms. Members of these teams generally felt that they needed to clean after others who had been sloppy in their work, and were pleased later when rated as „role models‟ for their maintenance practices. In teams where both task and outcome interdependence were high, members were feeling satisfied not only with their immediate results on the task, but on a longer term basis when they felt proud being rated as “role models”. This increased their team commitment and job satisfaction.
In contrast, one would expect low outcome interdependence in teams to promote individual performance on tasks rather than collective, as team members have no direct incentive to cooperation with their team mates (Fan & Gruenfeld, 1998). Members will be more inclined to keep resources and valuable information for themselves rather than share it with others in the team, because this way they will be the only persons to benefit from these resources. In addition to that, low outcome interdependence can set up a basis for competitive relations to occur between team members (Guzzo & Shea, 1987; Colquitt, 2002). Team members will become interested in gaining access to more available resources that will increase their success on the task and chance to receive higher individual efforts, and will be less interested to share them with other team members. Therefore, low outcome interdependence will cause the relationship between task interdependence and job satisfaction to deteriorate.
11 one can be certain that a high-high match between task and outcome interdependence, rather than a mismatch (high-low), is capable of producing team members‟ job satisfaction. In particular, when a mismatch between task and outcome interdependence is present, members experience frustration with their job demands, loss of control over their work outcomes, and these contribute negatively to their job satisfaction. For example, employees working at an assembly line may need to cooperate and work in conditions of high task interdependence, but do not receive any interdependent rewards for their performance. Although their final product depends greatly on their collective efforts and cooperation between team members, they are not rewarded for this but instead receive only individual rewards. This could frustrate team members because they had invested more time and effort working as a team, which they could use to improve their individual performance on the task. This frustration can make them withdraw from cooperation as they will stop seeing the added value of working as a team. As a result their job satisfaction as members will drop.
Based on these arguments, we predict that the relationship between task interdependence and job satisfaction of team members would be positive when high level of outcome interdependence is present, and negative when this interdependence is low. We expect frequent interpersonal interaction, cooperation and collective thinking to contribute to job satisfaction of team members when outcome interdependence between them is high. In contrary, we predict these positive effects of task interdependence to be lost and process losses to occur in teams with low outcome interdependence, causing job satisfaction to lower.
H1: Outcome interdependence will moderate the relationship between task
interdependence and job satisfaction such that this relationship will be positive in high outcome interdependent teams, but negative in low outcome interdependent teams.
The Mediating Role of Procedural Justice
During the past decades, research has suggested that perceptions of organizational justice are especially relevant to job satisfaction (Locke, 1976 as cited in Schappe, 1998; Colquitt, 2002). Organizational justice is a multifaceted construct that includes both procedural and distributive justice (Martin & Bennett, 1996). Even though these two constructs are related, researchers have found them conceptually different. According to Folger and Konovsky (1989) the key distinction between the two is based on the fact that “distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of the amount of compensation employees receive”, whereas “procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of the means used to determine those amounts” (p.115). Historically, researchers have emphasized the role of distributive justice for shaping employees‟ attitudes towards the job, and have consistently neglected procedural justice (Greenberg, 1987; Martin & Bennett, 1996). However, procedural justice has a value on its own. Rather than simply being “the means” used to achieve distributive justice, procedural justice is an important predictor of individuals‟ evaluations of organizations and key organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction, commitment and evaluation of supervisor (Martin & Bennett, 1996; Greenberg, 1987; 1990; Alexander & Ruderman, 1987). That is to say, procedures used to determine a particular outcome can be more important to an employee than the actual outcome itself. Therefore, it seems relevant to examine procedural justice as a capable predictor of employees‟ job satisfaction. By incorporating procedural justice as a mediator in the relationship between task interdependence and job satisfaction, we aim to explain how and why a (mis)match between task and outcome interdependence will affect employees‟ job satisfaction.
13 consistency over time, bias suppression, accuracy, correctability, and representativeness (Konovsky, 2000; Leventhal, Karuza & Fry, 1980). Based on the extent to which organizational procedures accommodate these rules, employees judge the presence of procedural justice and react to this behaviourally and emotionally. The idea that employees respond to the perceived fairness of procedures which determine their outcomes is of a critical importance when studying the effects of a (mis)match between task and outcome interdependence in teams.
When there is a match between task and outcome interdependence, both team member‟s task accomplishment and her/his outcomes in the form of team bonuses or incentive pay depend on their cooperation as a team. To illustrate this we use an example from Wageman‟s (1995) study of technician teams who received team bonuses when they accomplish their maintenance tasks, and display exceptionally high performance in comparison with other teams. In case of a match, increased task interdependence between members will increase their need to cooperate, frequently interact and exchange valuable task resource with others in order to accomplish their tasks. While the high levels of outcome interdependence will stimulate these behaviours because their outcomes will depend on the performance of their teams. Thus, a match of task and outcome will make team members perceive procedures used to determine their individual outcomes seems fair because they recognize that being interdependent in their tasks they have only a limited amount of influence of their performance. Fair procedural treatment will thus mean that outcomes are determined when taking into account the amount of task interdependence between team members. Consequently, perceived fairness in procedural treatment will contribute to team members‟ positive attitudes towards their jobs and will increase individual job satisfaction.
individual outcomes. In other words, team members‟ performance on the task will greatly depend on the quality of team efforts, while their rewards will be based solely on their individual performance. This mismatch constrain the casual link between individual actions and rewards received (Vroom, 1964), thereby limiting both the freedom to choose strategies to influence performance and the capacity to affect outcomes individually. This may easily be perceived as procedurally unfair, as members will be rewarded for something they had limited control of. Consequently, unfair procedural treatment will lower members‟ job satisfaction and will increase the stress and frustration over job demands (Karasek, 1979). Prolonged exposure to stressors in work environment can also be associated with what is known as “job burnout” or psychological strain, that result from chronic an incongruence, or misfit, between the employee and the job (Maslach, 2003).
Based on these arguments, we predict that a match between task and outcome interdependence in teams will increase members‟ job satisfaction perceived procedural justice. Because team members will receive rewards which directly accrue with team‟s performance and they possess the ability to influence team‟s performance through cooperation and team efforts, members will perceive that as procedurally fair. In contrast, a mismatch of task and outcome interdependence will be associated with limited decision autonomy and control over their outcomes, that will be perceived as procedurally unfair as members will be rewarded for something they can only partly influence. Consequently, we expect a match between task and outcome interdependence to increase members‟job satisfaction, given the perceived procedural justice. Whereas, a mismatch between task and outcome interdependence will limit decision autonomy and control over individual outcomes, and will be perceived as unfair procedural treatment contributing to low job satisfaction of team members.
15 The above formulated relationships are illustrated in Figure 1, where a model of moderated mediation is presented.
FIGURE 1 Proposed model of study
METHOD
Sample and Procedures
The setting of this research was one of the leading banks in Malta. The participants were 69 bank employees organized in 13 permanent teams. These teams were each specialized in one specific area of retail banking: accounting and finance, investment, budgeting, credits and loans, and personal relations. They performed some tasks which were purely individual, but they also performed team tasks for which they had to work together. Team tasks were set by the executive board of the bank at the beginning of each year, and were grouped into team targets. An example of such a team task included a target under which one sales team had to reach an 11% increase in their sales for the second quarter of the year. To reach this target they all had to work as a team and needed to rely on each other for assistance and advice, as well as coordinate their actions during a given period to reach the goal at its end point.
In the year 2000, the bank implemented a team-based pay plan to cover all teams performing in the organization. The main purpose of this plan was to tie the team performance on the set targets with financial and other rewards (e.g. time off from work, pay, recognition). Based on the reached level of performance, a team of bank employees received a bonus increase which was equally distributed and every member of the team received the same bonus increase of his/her individual salary. When a team fully reached
Task Interdependence Procedural Justice Job Satisfaction Outcome
the set target, all its members received the full amount of bonus increase of their salaries. In the event of poor team performance and failure to reach the set targets, individual team members were not punished (e.g. by a decrease in their salaries), but rather just lost opportunity of bonus increase. The total pay package a team member receives was made up of individual salary (approximately 80% of total pay), individual bonuses (10%) and team bonuses (10%).
The sample of participating teams whose members were to fill in the questionnaire was random. They were approached during their training days organized at the Training Center of the bank, after an initial approval of the Head HR manager and the Head Training manager was obtained.
Data Collection
The data used for this study was gathered using questionnaires and one interview with the Senior HR manager of the bank. We obtained information regarding the interdependence in terms of tasks and outcomes. Data regarding the team size, demographics and organizational tenure was gathered through the questionnaire. From the 69 participants, 47 were female (66.2%) and 22 were male (31.0%). Participants‟ age ranged from 22 to 47 years, with an average of 34.6 years. All participants were from Maltese nationality. Participants were contacted to fill in the questionnaires during their training days. The questionnaires were distributed upon the beginning of the training day and received at the end of it, ensuring the participants enough time and freedom to fill in the questionnaire. All team members were required to attend the training which allowed all participants to be approached. Only two did not return filled questionnaires. The response rate was 97%.
Measures
All constructs were measured using statements which rated participants‟ agreement or disagreement on a 5-point Likert scale ( 1= “strongly disagree” to 5= “strongly agree”). Some of the answers were reversely scored to ensure that both negatively-keyed and positively-keyed items are represented.
17 completion of my work”, or “I have a one-person job: I rarely have to check or work with others (recoded)”.
Outcome interdependence (α= .66). Outcome interdependence consisted of three individual-level statements, which included the items: “In my team, members receive team rewards if the team performs well”, “In my team, members receive only individual rewards” and “In my team, members receive no team rewards if the team performs poorly (recoded)”. Because we found that the existent scale of Van der Vegt et al. (2000) reflected better goal and feedback interdependence than it does outcome interdependence, and alternative scales were not found, we decided to develop the current one.
Procedural justice (α= .91). Procedural justice was measured using fours items. Two of the items were adapted from the scale developed by Tyler (1994) to estimate procedural justice: “The procedures used by this organization to determine the amount of rewards are fair”; “The procedures used to evaluate my performance in order to determine my rewards were fair”. The other two items used here were developed by Hou, Smith, Tyler and Lind (1996): “I was treated fairly by my supervisor”, “I think the organization‟s pay procedures are fair”.
Job satisfaction (α= .84). Job satisfaction was measured using four items including the following examples: “I enjoy doing my job”, and “I am very satisfied with my job”. This scale was developed by Van der Vegt, Emans and Van de Vliert (2000), based on a revision of Hackman and Oldman‟s (1980) scale of general job satisfaction.
Control variables. Based on Steiner‟s (1972) suggestion that process losses in task interdependent teams grow with the size of the team, we controlled for in all our analyses because teams which consist of a larger number of members have to engage in considerable interpersonal interactions due to their multiple linkages between members, which may not only negatively affect their performance, but also motivation and satisfaction with their job (LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul, 2008). Moreover, motivation in bigger teams decreases due to the lack of control over their task outcomes (Guzzo & Shea, 1996). In contrast, small teams are considered as more flexible as members communicate and coordinate their efforts easily, and also stimulate members to develop friendships, attach to the team (Van der Vegt et al., 2000)
Data Analysis
whereby the task interdependence and job satisfaction relationship is transmitted by members‟ perceived procedural justice and conditioned on the level of outcome interdependence between members. By definition, the strength of the hypothesized indirect effect (mediation) is conditional on the value of the moderator (outcome interdependence) (Preacher, Rucker & Hayes, 2007). Accordingly, tests to confirm or reject the proposed hypotheses were conducted following a procedure of and using an SPSS macro developed by Preacher et al. (2007). This macro was used because it offers a method for estimating the significance of conditional indirect effects at different values of the moderation, as well as facilitates the use of recommended bootstrapping procedure (Cole, Walter & Bruch, 2008).
19 RESULT
Descriptive Statistics
The descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations for all variables of interest are presented in Table 1. The table presents the mean, standard deviations (SD), and variable intercorrelations. As evident from the table, task and outcome interdependence were unrelated, which suggests they are independent from each other and can exist separately. Task interdependence and job satisfaction were unrelated, whereas procedural justice was positively related to task interdependence (r = .53, p < .01) and to outcome interdependence (r = .28, p < .05). Results also indicated a positive relationship between procedural justice and job satisfaction (r = .34, p < .01).
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Study Variable Intercorrelations
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 1.0Task interdependence 4.28 0.52 0-- 2.0Outcome interdependence 3.48 0.79 0.16 0-- 3.0Procedural justice 4.12 0.71 000.53** 00.28* -- 4.0Job satisfaction 3.90 0.70 0.22 0.16 00.34** 0-- 5.0Team size 5.64 1.10 -.17 -.04 .02 -.07 Note. N= 69 individuals, * correlation is significant at p < .05, **correlation is significant at p < .01. Tests of Hypotheses
Table 2 presents the results obtained for hypotheses 1 and 2. Hypothesis 1 predicted that a match between task interdependence and outcome interdependence would result in team members‟ job satisfaction. Results indicated that this interactive effect was not significant (b = .07, t = .78, n.s.). This result is inconsistent with our predictions so hypothesis 1 was not supported.
alone established a significant relationship with job satisfaction (b = .02, t = .21, n.s.), respectively (b = .07, t = .85, n.s.). Procedural justice, however, was significantly correlated to job satisfaction (b = .20, t = 2.06, p < .05). The conditional indirect effect of the moderator was tested at the mean value (0.00), one standard deviation above (1.00) and below the mean (- 1.00). All three of the conditional indirect effects were positive (0.10), however, none of them (based on moderator values at the mean) was significant and different from zero (see middle of Table 2). Bootstrap confidence intervals set at 95% verified these results. Based on the obtained results, we conclude that the predicted relationship was not significant and that Hypothesis 2 was not supported.
TABLE 2
Regression Results for Conditional Indirect Effect
Predictor B SE T p Procedural justice Constant 0.01 0.10 0.01 .99 Task interdependence 0.49 0.11 4.60 .01 Outcome interdependence 0.20 0.11 1.88 .06 Job satisfaction Constant 3.88 0.08 46.6 .01 Procedural justice 0.20 0.10 2.06 .04
Task interdependence (TI) 0.02 0.10 0.21 .83
Outcome interdependence (OI) 0.07 0.09 0.78 .44
TI X OI 0.10 0.11 0.85 .40
Outcome interdependence Boot indirect effect Boot SE Boot ⱬ Boot p Conditional indirect effect at OI = M ± 1 SD
- SD (-1.00) 0.10 0.07 1.51 .13
M (0.00) 0.10 0.05 1.84 .06
- SD (1.00) 0.10 0.06 1.67 .09
Outcome interdependence Indirect Effect SE ⱬ p
Conditional indirect effect at range of values of OI
- 2.30 0.10 0.10 1.05 .29 - 2.09 0.10 0.09 1.11 .26 - 1.88 0.10 0.09 1.18 .23 - 1.67 0.10 0.08 1.25 .21 - 1.46 0.10 0.08 1.33 .18 - 1.24 0.10 0.07 1.41 .15 - 1.03 0.10 0.07 1.50 .13 - 0.82 0.10 0.06 1.60 .11 - 0.61 0.10 0.06 1.68 .09 - 0.40 0.10 0.06 1.75 .07 - 0.18 0.10 0.05 1.81 .07 00.03 0.10 0.05 1.85 .06 00.24 0.10 0.05 1.86 .06 00.45 0.10 0.05 1.84 .06 00.66 0.10 0.06 1.79 .07 00.87 0.10 0.06 1.72 .08 01.09 0.10 0.06 1.64 .10 01.30 0.09 0.06 1.54 .12 01.51 0.09 0.07 1.45 .14 01.72 0.09 0.07 1.36 .17 01.93 0.09 0.07 1.27 .20
21 Additional analysis
Close inspection of our sample showed that outcome interdependence was rather high (M = 3.48, SD = .79). This sample is thus in fact a high outcome interdependence setting. As we had explained in the theoretical sections, in such a setting, we would expect a direct positive relationship between task interdependence and job satisfaction mediated by procedural justice. Therefore, we performed an additional set of analysis to test for simple mediation by means of the macro developed by Preacher & Hayes (2004). We preferred this approach to the approach of Baron and Kenny (1986) because it addresses mediation more directly and avoids some of the problems associated with Baron and Kenny‟s (1986) steps of analysis by using a bootstrapping strategy. This is a technique which controls for non-normality and it gives an output in the form of “confidence intervals” instead of p-values. The results of these analyses are published in Table 3.
TABLE 3
Regression Results for Sobel Test
Variable B SE t p
Direct and total effect Step 1
Job satisfaction regressed on task interdependence 0.30 .16 1.86 .07 Step 2
Task interdependence regressed on procedural justice 0.72 .14 5.05 .01 Step3
Job satisfaction regressed on procedural justice, controlling for task interdependence
0.31 .13 2.28 .03
Step 4
Job satisfaction regressed on task interdependence, controlling for procedural justice
0.08 .18 0.43 .67
Value SE LL 95% CI UL 95% CI ⱬ p
Indirect effect and significance using normal distribution
Sobel 0.22 .11 .01 .43 2.04 .04
M SE LL 95% CI UL 95% CI
Boostrap results for indirect effect
Effect 0.23 .14 - .01 .53
Note: n = 69 individuals.Standardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size = 5,000. LL = lower limi; CI = confidence interval; UL = upper limit.
23 DISCUSSION
Research in the field of intrateam interdependences has long recognized and asserted the role of an alignment between task and outcome interdependence for predicting job satisfaction in teams (Van der Vegt et al.,2000; Shea & Guzzo, 1987; Wageman, 1995; Wageman & Baker, 1997). Some have found that team members are most satisfied with their jobs when their tasks and outcomes were set as either purely individual or purely team (Wageman, 1995). Others such as Van der Vegt and colleagues (2000) have argued that the relationship between task interdependence and job satisfaction is positive when the level of outcome interdependence is high, and respectively negative when it is low. Thus, a match between high task and outcome interdependence, rather than a mismatch, was capable of producing job and team satisfaction in individual team members. In contrast, a mismatch between these two interdependences resulted in negative affective responses of team members (Van der Vegt et al., 2000). Although consistent in its findings, the current literature on the interactional effect of task and outcome interdependence on job satisfaction has told us little about the underlying mechanism of this relationship.
The current study aimed at fulfilling this gap by proposing a mediating role for procedural justice in the relationship between the alignment of task and outcome interdependence and job satisfaction of team members. We developed a conceptual model which proposed that task interdependence would be positively related to job satisfaction only in the presence of high outcome interdependence, and that this interactional effect would be mediated by perceived procedural justice of members. By specifying procedural justice as a mediator in this relationship, we attempt to explain how a possible match between high task and outcome interdependence would result in perceived procedural justice and which, in turn, increase team members‟ job satisfaction. In contrast, a mismatch between these two interdependences would make them perceive procedures as unfair, since they would only have limited decision autonomy and control to influence their outcomes (Fan & Gruenfeld, 1998). This would be associated with decreased job satisfaction, due also to the fact that members would experience job stress and frustration with their job demand (Karasek, 1979).
individual job satisfaction. A possible explanation of this result will be the high outcome interdependence setting of our sample, which we predicts a direct positive relationship between task interdependence and job satisfaction mediated by procedural justice.
Probably the most important finding of our research is that procedural justice mediates the relationship between task interdependence and job satisfaction. In line with procedural justice literature (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Martin & Bennett, 1996), we predicted that fair procedural treatment of team members related positively with their job satisfaction. The results of our analyses support the view of some researchers that procedural justice is more important for predicting job satisfaction than distributive justice (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Martin & Bennett, 1996). Moreover, our results also serve to ascertain the belief that employees react in accordance to the degree of perceived procedural justice.
Limitations and future research
The present research has its subsequent limitations. The first weakness is that when we examined outcome interdependence we meant only the extent to which individual outcomes a team member receives accrue with team performance. In this sense we assess the outcomes in the form of rewards, bonuses and recognition. However, we failed to integrate in the study the degree to which members are presented with group goals, or what is referred to as goal interdependence, as most researchers suggest (e.g. Deutsch, 1973; Thomas, 1957) possible causing a lack of evidence in the interactional effect of task and outcome interdependence. We therefore, recommend future research to include goal interdependence in their study of outcome interdependence as they share a special intimate link between each other. Outcome interdependence prescribes a percentage of individual outcomes to be determined on the basis of team performance, and these outcomes will not be given unless team members achieve some team goal (Vijfeijken, Kleingeld, and Tuijl, 2002). That is, for outcome interdependence between team members to function effectively, members must share a level of goal interdependence, too.
25 degree to which members have strong autonomy preferences to work (Wageman, 1995). While some people like to work in a team, where they feel comfortable sharing resources, ideas about the task they are required to complete, others prefer to work independently. Autonomy preferences, in this sense, could have affected the interactional effect of task and outcome interdependence on job satisfaction of team members. Employees with strong autonomy preferences are attracted to work settings in which they have greater decision autonomy and control over their outcomes (Wageman, 1995). Their work would entail high levels of interaction and coordination with others in the team, and would make their work less predictive and controllable. Furthermore, team work would be constraining and frustrating for these employees, leading to lower job satisfaction (Wageman, 1995). Thus, individual differences in autonomy preferences could have moderated the effect of a match of task and outcome interdependence on job satisfaction of team members. For this reason future research should take into account the effect of autonomy preferences when studying a match of task and outcome interdependence in teams. According to Wageman (1995) autonomy preferences may moderate the relationship between task interdependence and individual job motivation and satisfaction. The author also expects this moderation effect of autonomy preferences to changes with the time an employee spends in team work. This way she suggests employees with strong autonomy preferences might slowly change to become comfortable working in a team, consequently feel happy with their job.
A final limitation of our research is the low internal consistency of the outcome interdependence measure (α = .66). Because we chose to develop ourselves a measure of outcome interdependence, which included only a small number of items, and did not include items measuring goal interdependence, we tend to believe this as a limitation. Therefore, we recommend future research to rely on other measures or those which have a higher internal consistency, and incorporates items measuring goal interdependence. For reasons which we explained above, we tend to think this will help future researchers examine the effect of outcome interdependence more fully and consistently.
affective reactions, such as job commitment for example. We expect that in organizations where employees are treated procedurally fair, job commitment to be higher (Schmitt & Dörfel, 1999). Moreover, future studies of teams can also take into account procedural justice for shaping team members‟ satisfaction. Given the current popularity of team work, procedural justice will be a relevant concept which can be investigated by researchers.
27 REFERENCES:
Alexander, S. & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behaviour. Social Justice Research, 1: 177-198.
Armstrong, M. (2010). Armstrong’s Handbook of Reward Management Practice: Improving Performance through Reward. (3rd ed.), London: Kogan Page.
Bamberger, A. P. & Levi, R. (2008). Team-based reward allocation structures and the helping behaviours of outcome-interdependent team members. Journal of Management Psychology, 24(4): 300-322.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51: 1173–1182
Brass, D.J. (1985). Technology and the structuring of jobs: Employee satisfaction, performance, and influence. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 35: 216-240.
Brown, T. (2006). Handbook of institutional pharmacy practice. American Society of Health-system Practices, Inc. 4th edition, Bethesda, MD.
Caulkin, S. (2009). We can‟t afford to give bosses a blank cheque. The Observer, 9 February, 7.
Campion, A.M. & Higgs, A.C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46:8323-850.
Campion, A.M., Papper, M.E. & Medsker, J. G. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49: 429-452.
Cohen, S.G. & Bailey, D.E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23: 239-290.
Cole, S.M., Walter, F. & Bruch, H. (2008). Affective mechanisms linking dysfunctional behaviour to performance in work teams: A moderated Mediation Study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5): 945-958.
Dailey, R. C, & Kirk, D. J. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as antecedents of job dissatisfaction and intent to turnover. Human Relations, 45: 305-317.
DeMatteo, J.S., Eby, L.T. & Sundstrom, E. (1998), “Team-based rewards: current empirical evidence and directions for future research”, Research in Organizational Behavior, 20: 141-83
De Coninck, B.J. & King, C.W. (2003). An examination of the test scores of the Folger and Konovsky measure of procedural justice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63: 516-532.
De Dreu, K.W.C. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3): 628-638.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven: Yale University Press. Duffy, M.K. & Shaw, J.D. (2000). The Salieri syndrome: Consequences of envy in
groups. Small Group Research, 31: 3–23.
Dulebohn, H.J. & Martocchio, J.J. (1998). Employee perceptions of the fairness of work group incentive pay plans. Journal of Management, 24(4): 469-488.
Fan, T.E. & Gruenfeld, H. D. (1998). When needs outweigh desires: The effects of resource interdependence and rewards interdependence on group problem solving. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20(1): 45-56.
Gehart, B., Minette, K. & Rynes, L. (2004). The importance of pay in employee motivation: Discrepancies between what people say and what they do. Human Resource Management, 43(4): 381-394.
Greenberg, J. (1987). Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: Do the means justify the ends?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(1): 55-61.
Greenberg, J. (1990).The interpersonal aspects of procedural justice: A new perspective on Pay fairness. Labour Law Journal, 41: 580-586.
Hackman, J. R. & Oldman, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hansen, G.D. (1997). Worker performance and group incentives: A case study. Industrial
and Labour Relations Review, 51(1): 37-49.
Henne, D. & Locke, E. A. (1985). Job dissatisfaction: What are the consequences? International Journal of Psychology, 20(1): 221-240.
29 Jones, C.D., Kalmi, P. & Kauhanen, A. (2010). Teams, incentive pay and productive efficiency: Evidence from a food-processing plant. Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 63(4): 606-626.
Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivation losses in task-performing groups: A social dilemma analyses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45: 819-828.
Karasek, R. A. Jr. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2): 285-298. Kiggundu, N.M. (1981). Task interdependence and the theory of job design. Academy of
Management Review, 6(3): 499-508.
Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3): 489-511.
Lagfred, W.C. (2005). Autonomy and performance in teams: The multilevel moderating effect of task interdependence. Journal of Management, 31(4): 513-529.
Lawler, E.E. (1976). Participation and pay. International Journal of Production Research, 14(3): 367-372.
Lawler, E.E. (1995). The new pay: A strategic approach. Compensation & Benefits Review, 27: 14-22.
LePine, A. J., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, L. C. , Mathieu, E. J. & Saul, R. J. (2008). Meta-analysis of teamwork processes: tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61(2): 273-307.
Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J. & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction, 167-218. New York: Springer-Verlang.
MacIntosh, E. W. & Doherty, A. (2009). The influence of organizational culture on job satisfaction and intention to leave. Sport Management Review, 13: 106-117.
Martin, L. C. & Bennett, N. (1996). The role of justice judgments in explaining the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Group & Organization Management, 21(1): 84-104.
Maslach, C. (2003). Job burnout: New directions in research and intervention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5): 189-192.
Jaques, E. (1961). Equitable Payment. London: Heinemann.
Jawahar, I.M. (2007). The influence of perceptions of fairness on performance appraisal reactions. Journal of Labour Research, 28:735-754.
Johnson, W.D., Johnson, T.R. & Stane, B.M. 1989. Impact of goal and resource interdependence on problem-solving success. The Journal of Social Psychology. 129(5): 621-629.
Jones, F., & Bright, J. (2001). Stress: Myth, theory and research. London: Prentice Hall Porter, L.W. & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial Attitudes and Performance.
Irwin-Dorsey: Homewood IL.
Rosenbaum, M. E.. Moore, D, L,, Cotton, J. L.. Cook, M. S.. Hieser, R. A., Shovar. M. N,, & Gray, M. J. (1980). Group productivity and process: pure and mixed reward structures and task interdependence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39: 626-642.
Shea, P.G. & Guzzo, A. R. (1987). Group Effectiveness: What really matters?. Sloan management Review, 28(3): 25-31.
Schmitt, M & Dörfel, M. (1999). Procedural injustice, procedural sensitivity, job
satisfaction and psychosomatic well-being. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29: 443-453.
Singer, M. S. (1992). Procedural justice in managerial selection: Identification of fairness determinants and associations of fairness perceptions. Social Justice Research, 5: 49-70.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York, Academic Press. Stewart, G. & Barrick, M. (2000). Team structure and performance: assessing the
mediating role of intrateam processes and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2): 135-148.
Thomas, E. J. (1957). Effects of facilitative role interdependence on group functioning. Human Relations, 10: 347-366.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
31 Van der Vegt, G., Emans, B. & Van der Vliert, E. (1999). Effects of interdependencies in
project teams. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(2): 202-214.
Van der Vegt, G., Emans, B., & Van de Vliert, E. (1998). Motivating effects of task and outcome interdependence in work teams. Group and Organizational Management, 23(2): 124-143.
Van der Vegt, G., Emans, B., & Van de Vliert, E. (2000). Team members‟ affective responses to patterns of intragroup interdependence and job complexity. Journal of Management, 26(4): 633-655.
Van der Vegt, G., Emans, B., & Van de Vliert, E. (2001). Patterns of interdependence in work teams: A two-level investigation of the relations with job and team
satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 54: 51-69.
Vijfeijken, H., Kleingeld, A., Tuijl, H., Algera, A. J., & Thierry, H. (2002). Task complexity and task, goal, reward interdependence in group performance
management: A prescriptive model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(3): 363-383.
Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Wageman, R. & Baker, G. (1997). Incentives and cooperation: The joint effects of task and reward interdependence on group performance. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 18(2): 139-158.
