Positive mood and team-directed learning behavior:
Assessing the Relationship and the Moderating Role of
Perceived Individual and Team Feedback
ByBO ERMES
Master Thesis, MSc HRM
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
May 2011
Gedempte Oude Gracht 97-2 2011 GN Haarlem Tel.: +31(0)6 30107715 E-mail: c.p.ermes@student.rug.nl
Student number: s1808656
Positive mood and team-directed learning behavior:
Assessing the Relationship and the Moderating Role of
Perceived Individual en Team Feedback
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
Organizations increasingly rely on teams to realize important organizational strategies and operational tasks (Edmondson, Dillon & Roloff, 2006). In this research, a team is defined as “a set of two or more people who interact dynamically, interdependently, and adaptively toward a common and valued goal, each having specific roles or functions to perform” (Salas,
Brannick & Roach, 1992). In such interactions, team members are forced to communicate with and react to each other. Each team member carries out activities that contribute to problem discussion and solving (Hirst, Van Knippenberg & Zhou, 2009). These individual-level activities are called team-directed learning behavior (Walter & Van der Vegt, 2009). Examples of such behavior include seeking information, addressing differences of opinion, seeking feedback, reflecting on results, asking for help, and experimenting (Edmondson, 1999; Yang & Chen, 2005; Hirst, Van Knippenberg & Zhou, 2009). Team-directed learning behavior seems to be crucial in a teams‟ level of success; Yang and Chen (2005) argue that when teams are low on learning ability, difficulties will be encountered in their quality improvement process. Or, as De Geus (1988) more generally claims: „The ability to learn faster than your competitor may be the only sustainable competitive advantage‟. On that account, researchers are increasingly interested in comprehending the factors that enable and improve team learning (Edmondson, 2007).
also taking the individual level into consideration, the team learning literature may gain a greater understanding of the factors that actually affect the amount of team-directed learning behavior that individual team members demonstrate (Walter & Van der Vegt, 2009). With this information specific actions can be taken to increase team-directed learning behavior, along with other interconnected factors, like organizational success.
The present paper argues that individual team members‟ positive mood may explain some of the differences in the extent to which team members show team directed learning behavior. There have been many studies focusing on the role of mood at work (e.g. Miner & Glomb, 2010; Bartel & Saavedra, 2000; Watson, 2000). Employees often experience both positive and negative moods, because of a wide range of factors. Essentially, mood at work refers to the stream of affective experience that includes both mood states (Watson, 2000). The term mood is often confused with the term emotion. However, moods tend to be longer lasting but often have weaker states of uncertain origin, whereas emotions are more intense, more short lived, and have a clear object or cause (Fisher, 1998). Thus, emotions are directed to something or someone, and moods are not. Empirical research has started to confirm the impact of positive mood on a number of work outcomes, including task quality, productivity, and efficiency (George, 1991; Staw & Barsade, 1993; Staw, Sutton & Pelled, 1994).
However, positive mood is not always considered positive in the existing literature. Baas, De Dreu and Nijstad (2008) find no significant difference in positive and negative mood for the level of creativity, possibly one of the key factors of team-directed learning behavior.
The moderating variables that are examined in the present study are perceived team feedback and perceived individual feedback. Organizations are always seeking ways to improve performance, at the individual level as well as at the team level. One way to control performance is to offer team members feedback (Likert, 1959). According to the Business Dictionary1, feedback is the process in which the effect or output of an action is returned (fed-back) to modify the next action. Feedback is known to direct attention toward aspects of the task on which feedback is available (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Feedback can be used as a resource to achieve personal, team related or organizational goals. It can be provided at two different levels; at the individual level and at the team level (Archer-Kath, Johnson, & Johnson, 1994). So, a team member can receive feedback on his or her personal performance (individual-level feedback), or a team member can receive feedback about the performance of the group as a whole (team-level feedback). At the individual level, it is well known that providing performance feedback is one of the most effective interventions available to improve learning and task performance (Locke & Latham, 1990). Other research shows that individual feedback is very beneficial for team outcomes (Jentsch, Navarro, Braun, &
Bowers, 1994; Zajonc, 1962). Moreover, many studies indicate that providing team feedback also results in improved outcomes for the team (Berkowitz & Levy, 1956; Becker, 1978; Brown & Porter, 2006). This makes the assumption that both individual- and team-level feedback are critical moderators of the relationship between team members‟ positive mood and team-directed learning behavior, plausible.
Figure 1 shows a conceptual model of the expected relationships between team member positive mood and team-directed learning behavior. The model suggests that the relationship between team member positive mood and team-directed learning behavior is moderated by team members‟ perceptions of team- and individual feedback.
FIGURE 1
Research model: expected relationships
Individual-level feedback H2
Team member positive mood H1 H3
Team-level feedback
In sum, the current study attempts to make a contribution to the team learning literature by providing new insights on the reasons for team-directed learning behavior to occur. Walter and Van der Vegt (2009) already conducted research on the relationship between team member positive mood and team-directed learning behavior, as well as on the moderating role of perceived team feedback. What distinguishes this particular study from their research is that individual-level feedback is now also part of the expectations concerning the moderating variables, whereas Walter and Van der Vegt neglected this type of feedback in their study. Team-level feedback turns out to be important when being a part of a team, but individual-level feedback seems also to be necessary to inform team members about their own, actual performance. DeShon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner and Wiechmann (2004) state that individual intentions and actions are nested within the team and cannot be left
unaccounted for. Individual interests also affect the way team members behave, not just the team‟s interests. These individual interests need to be mapped and evaluated through
individual-level feedback. This paper takes a different approach from the existing literature on team learning behavior to understanding why some teams show more team-directed learning behavior than other teams do, and why some team members demonstrate more team-directed
learning behavior than other team members do. Previous research has largely neglected this individual-level influence.
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
Little research has been done to understand the relation between mood and team-directed learning behavior as such, although various learning-related constructs have been discussed in previous studies. For example, George and Zhou (2002, 2007) argue that positive mood is significantly and positively associated with creativity. This statement is supported by a number of other studies (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller & Staw, 2005; Brief & Weiss, 2002; Hirt, Melton, McDonald & Harackiewicz, 1996), which argue that positive mood benefits creativity. Another learning-related construct, sharing information, is discussed by Stroessner, Mackie and Michalsen (2005). They investigated the effects of positive mood on the nature and degree of information processing and found a significant positive relationship between these variables.
been examined. The validity of their results is unclear and requires further examination, given that their respective findings may suffer from common method bias.
Hypothesis 1: A team member‟s positive mood is positively related to his or her team-directed learning behavior.
One goal of this study is to develop a deeper understanding of how positive mood and individual-level feedback together relate to team-directed learning behavior. Some indications can be found for feedback to shape the relationship between positive mood and team-directed learning behavior. Mood is an undirected force that activates people, but the focus of this activation could be just anything, such as individual performance or team performance (Walter & Van der Vegt, 2009). However, feedback could provide direction for the action potentials mood activates – i.e., feedback has been shown to steer people‟s behavior in a certain direction, e.g., by connecting certain behaviors with rewards (Ilgen, Fisher & Taylor, 1979). Focusing on individual feedback, the level of perceived individual feedback should be low for positive mood to affect team-directed learning behavior in a positive way, because a high level of individual-level feedback is expected to direct individuals‟ efforts to their own, individual performance instead of their team‟s interests (Tindale, Kulik, & Scott, 1991; Van der Vegt, De Jong, Bunderson, & Molleman, 2010). Here, the activation potentials of positive mood are directed away from the team, to the individual. Hence, positive mood will not benefit team-directed learning behavior. Besides, improved performance at the individual level does not necessarily lead to improved performance at the team level (Tindale et al., 1991). When individual feedback is relatively low, however, chances of individuals demonstrating team-directed learning behavior raise. Here, the activation potentials of
directed away from the team. Hence, there is a greater chance for positive mood to be positively related with team-directed learning behavior.
Hypothesis 2: Perceived individual feedback moderates the relationship between an individual‟s positive mood and team-directed learning behavior. This relationship is positive only when perceived individual feedback is relatively low.
Research on team feedback shows some interesting results. Barr and Conlon (1994) state that team-level feedback, provided that it is positive, results in greater persistence intentions among group members. This means that individual team members‟ intentions to persist at a new behavior enhance. In a review of the literature on team feedback, Nadler (1979) concludes that team-level feedback results in improved attitudes toward the team, which could indicate that team members‟ behavior will be more headed toward an efficient, effective, and open cooperation among the team members. The present study attempts to determine how perceived team feedback shapes the relationship between positive mood and team-directed learning behavior. Earlier research (Walter & Van der Vegt, 2009) finds perceived team feedback to be a crucial boundary condition for the role of positive mood; the benefits of positive mood for team-directed learning behavior depend on individuals‟
learning behavior. In sum, when team-level feedback is high, team-directed learning behavior seems to be encouraged because of the focus on the team instead of the individual. A low level of team feedback on the other hand, will direct the action potentials of positive mood away from the team and, therefore, reduce the role of positive mood for team-directed learning behavior.
METHOD
Sample and procedure
Four Dutch organizations agreed to participate in this field study. This sample is comprised of different kinds of organizations; one of the largest HR Services providers in the world, the largest cable operator in the Netherlands, a temporary employment agency, and a reintegration company. These specific companies were approached because of previous personal contacts that had taken place. Therefore the willingness to co-operate was high.
One to nine teams from each of the organizations provided their co-operation. In total, 21 teams, consisting of 152 team leaders and team members, were approached to participate in the research. For different reasons, a number of questionnaires did not return and others were incomplete. This resulted in a final sample of 117 participants, which means that 77% of the approached team leaders and team members have responded. The teams ranged in size from 3 to 13 members (mean = 7); the division of men and women within the sample was 36% and 64%, respectively; the average age was 38 years; the average time with the organization was 6 years; and the average time with the current team was 2.3 years.
Measures
Positive Mood. Positive mood was computed using seven items from Van Katwyk,
Fox, Spector, and Kelloway‟s (2000) job-related affective well-being scale (i.e. at ease, calm, content, energetic, inspired, relaxed, satisfied). Team members were asked to rate these items on a five-point scale (1 = never, 5 = very frequently or always; α =.79).
Perceived Team Feedback. Three Likert-type items based on previous research (De
Jong, 2007) were used to measure team feedback (e.g., “To what extent do you, as a team, get feedback about the team‟s performance”). Team members were asked to rate these items on a five-point scale (1 = to a very small extent, 5 = to a very large extent; α =.78).
Perceived Individual Feedback. The three items from De Jong (2007) were also used
for measuring individual feedback. To make this measurement possible, the items were transferred to the individual level of analysis (α = .74). E.g., “To what extent do you, as an individual, get feedback about your personal performance”).
Team Learning Behavior. Individuals‟ team learning behavior was assessed by using
four items from Edmondson (1999). While the original measure determines the extent to which team members, as a whole, engage in the respective behaviors, I transferred these items to the individual level of analysis (e.g., “This team member regularly takes time to figure out ways to improve the team‟s work processes”), following Walter and Van der Vegt (2009). Team leaders were asked to rate these items for each of their individual subordinate (i.e. team members) on a five-point scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree; α =.69).
Control Variables. Age and gender were included as controls since prior work has
Data analysis
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations. As shown, both positive mood and perceived team feedback are significantly correlated with team-directed learning behavior. Positive mood is positively correlated (r =.22, p<.05); perceived team feedback shows a negative correlation (r = -.23, p<.05). Perceived individual feedback also shows a negative correlation, but this relationship is not significant (r = -.10, p = n.s.).
When looking at the control variables, it becomes clear that age as well as team tenure are significantly and positively correlated with team-directed learning behavior (respectively r =.22, p<.05, and r =.24, p<.05). Gender on the contrary, does not demonstrate a significant relationship (r = -.11, p = n.s.). I therefore only control for age and team tenure when testing the proposed hypotheses, and not for gender (Becker, 2005).
TABLE 1
Means, Standards Deviations, and Correlations
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Age 37.86 11.04 - -.08 .24* .13 -.35** -.19 .22*
2 Gender 0.65 0.48 - .05 .08 .06 .13 -.11
3 Team tenure 28.23 29.24 - .004 .04 -.01 .24*
4 Positive mood 3.78 0.47 - .05 .02 .22*
5 Perceived team feedback 3.32 0.45 - .30** -.23*
6 Perceived individual feedback 3.38 0.48 - -.10
7 Team directed learning behavior 3.29 0.47 -
* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
Hypotheses testing
Hypothesis 1: Team member positive mood is positively related to team-directed learning behavior.
As shown in Table 2, positive mood has a significant and positive main effect on team-directed learning behavior (B=.18, p<.05). This confirms my expectations, so hypothesis 1 is accepted.
Hypothesis 2: Perceived individual feedback moderates the relationship between an
individual‟s positive mood and team-directed learning behavior. This relationship is positive only when perceived individual feedback is low.
Table 2 shows that perceived individual feedback does not show a significant
interaction coefficient with positive mood on team-directed learning behavior (B=.05, p=n.s.). This means that perceived individual feedback does not influence the relationship between positive mood and team-directed learning behavior. Therefore hypothesis 2 cannot be accepted.
Hypothesis 3: Perceived team feedback moderates the relationship between an individual‟s positive mood and team-directed learning behavior. This relationship is positive only when perceived team feedback is high.
In conclusion, one of the three hypotheses can be accepted. Enough evidence was found for the positive relationship between team members‟ positive mood and team-directed learning behavior. According to this study, perceived individual feedback and perceived team feedback have no significant influence on the positive relation between positive mood and team-directed learning behavior.
TABLE 2
Multilevel Analysis of Team-Directed Learning Behavior
Variables B Std. Err.
1 Age .06 .11
2 Team tenure .21* .10
3 Positive mood .18* .09
4 Perceived individual feedback .04 .10
5 Perceived team feedback -.19 .10
6 Positive mood * Perceived individual
feedback
.05 .09
7 Positive mood * Perceived team
feedback
.06 .10
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this research is to investigate whether team members‟ positive mood as such, and team members‟ positive mood moderated by perceptions of individual and team feedback, have a positive influence on team-directed learning behavior. A research model is designed to test these expected relationships. Results only support the expectation that team members‟ positive mood is positively related to team-directed learning behavior. The results of this study lack support for the expected moderating role of perceived individual feedback and perceived team feedback.
The confirmation of the first hypothesis is in line with the existing literature. A positive relationship between team members‟ positive mood and team-directed learning behavior was found earlier; Walter and Van der Vegt (2009) empirically demonstrate that variations in members‟ positive mood can explain individual differences in team-directed learning behavior. That is, a team members‟ positive mood increases the likelihood of team-directed learning behavior to occur. This study takes team-team-directed learning behavior as such into consideration, whereas many other studies only focus on certain parts of team-directed learning behavior, like creativity (e.g. Amabile et al., 2005; Brief & Weiss, 2002). So, this finding provides a more complete picture of the positive influence that a positive mood has on learning among team members, and on that account it contributes to understanding the full context of team-directed learning behavior.
feedback (e.g. Sonnentag & Sparr, 2008) separately do influence team-directed learning behavior, they appear not to reinforce each other, based on the present data. Archer-Kath et al. (2001) demonstrate three research findings that may explain this unexpected result. First, the undirected action potentials of positive mood can also be directed toward the team instead of the individual when team members receive individual-level feedback; individual feedback has, accordingly, been shown to result in more positive relationships among group members since it increases the acceptance of other team members. This could be an encouragement for individuals to participate in team-directed learning behavior, as this is aimed at the team‟s interests. Second, they discovered that team members who receive individual-level feedback, in comparison to group-level feedback, engage more frequently in social activities like
informing and helping others through giving information, asking for information, giving help, and asking for help. This may be explained by the fact that individual-level feedback does not inform a team member on the performance of the other team members and the team as such, which could encourage the level of communication within the team. The third important finding in this particular research is that individual feedback resulted in greater liking for and satisfaction with cooperative learning. In sum, the level of perceived individual feedback unexpectedly may be high instead of low to influence the relationship between positive mood and team-directed learning behavior in an advantageous way.
team members learn that their team has been underperforming, they may respond rationally by just lowering expectations of future team performance, instead of changing their team-directed learning behavior to increase future team performance. Because of this relatively neutral response, team members‟ positive mood will not be much affected by this type of feedback. The action potentials that mood activates will then not be directed toward the team, nor toward the individual. So, the lack of an emotional response may explain the absence of a moderating influence of perceived team feedback on the relationship between team members‟ positive mood and team-directed learning behavior.
Practical implications
factors causing discontent, enabling practical and hard-hitting action to be directed toward dissatisfaction areas (Milbourn & Dunn, 1976). Organizations do not have an influence on the personal situation of their employees, but they do have the opportunity to influence the
working environment in a way that satisfies most employees. In this study, perceived
individual and team feedback are not found to be boundary conditions for the role of positive mood. However, it would not be right to ignore the general effects of feedback, since many studies confirm the positive effects of feedback on performance. So, these topics will need some extended research.
Limitations
There are several possible limitations to this study that should be kept in mind when interpreting the research findings. The first possible limitation is the cross-sectional survey design of this study, which made it impossible to conclusively establish causality. A longitudinal or experimental design could help researchers to learn more about causation. Furthermore, the questionnaires that were used do not provide an opportunity for the auditor to clarify questions, verify that answers are understood, seek clarification or elaboration of answers or ensure that the respondent answers all questions on the form. There may not be an opportunity to go back to respondents if all the information needed to support a conclusion was not asked for or provided, or if it becomes evident that questions were not clear. The last and maybe most important disadvantage is that questionnaires make it easy for respondents not tell the full truth. This could have negative consequences for the final outcomes of the research; the researcher never knows whether the gathered information is actually true.
in companies abroad. Even though the participating teams are active in different companies and settings, the results are only valid for the Dutch cultural context.
Another limitation that could be mentioned is the amount of control variables that was used in the present research. The number of control variables was limited; I only controlled for age, gender, and team tenure. By extending the number of control variables (for example with educational level or organizational tenure), one could discover new linkages that may provide broader insights on the relationship between team member positive mood and team-directed learning behavior.
Future research
Investing in further understanding of the mood – team-directed learning behavior relationship may be a worthwhile enterprise for several reasons. Since this study is the first to investigate the moderating role of perceived individual feedback, more studies need to be conducted to really be able to exclude perceived individual feedback from having influence on the relationship between team members‟ positive mood and team-directed learning behavior. More evidence is needed to make valid statements on this subject.
What also could be a contribution to the understanding of feedback as a moderating variable is to include two other dimensions of feedback in the research: positive and negative feedback. This will provide a more complete impression of the role of feedback. It is
reasonable to expect that receiving either positive or negative feedback will affect an individual‟s mood. It is also expected to touch on the amount of team-directed learning behavior that team members show; positive feedback has been shown to enhance individual members‟ intentions to persist at a new behavior, whereas negative feedback has been found
negative feedback events when filling in the questionnaire, and that feedback is seen as a negative force, which determines individuals‟ mood direction. This underlines the importance to control for the positive vs. negative valence of feedback in future research. In addition, it may also be valuable to pay attention to the perceptions of feedback as such. Feedback must be accurately perceived by the recipient if it is to affect responses as it is intended to; yet it is frequently misperceived (Ilgen et al., 1979). Misperceptions of feedback may lead to
undesirable and less team-directed behavior. So, taking this into account can be of great importance, to understand why individual team members show or do not show team-directed learning behavior.
A third option is to investigate whether team members‟ negative mood could also be positively related to team-directed learning behavior. Earlier research (George & Zhou, 2007) indicated that negative mood has the ability to positively influence creativity. Since creativity is an important aspect of team-directed learning behavior, there is a chance that a negative mood also has a positive influence on other aspects of team-directed learning behavior. People often have negative associations with negative moods, but it might lead to more positive outcomes than just creativity.
therefore expected to benefit from leaders‟ positive mood. So, leaders‟ mood seems to be a critical condition for the role of positive mood, and, therefore, could be interesting to further investigate.
What became clear in the present study is that team members‟ positive mood does positively affect the demonstration of team-directed learning behavior, which provides an important insight in the team learning literature as it confirms earlier research on this topic. So, this paper hopefully offers useful tools for future research that may advance the
REFERENCES
Amabile, T.M., Barsade, S.G., Mueller, J.S., Staw, B.M. 2005. Affect and creativity at work.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367-403.
Ancona, D.G., & Caldwell, D.F. 1992. Demography and design: predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3.
Anderson, R., Kulhavy, R., & Andre, T. 1971. Feedback procedures in programmed instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 148-156.
Archer-Kath, J., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.J. 1994. Individual versus group feedback in cooperative groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 681-694.
Ashford, S.J., & Cummings, L.L. 1985. Proactive feedback seeking: the instrumental use of the information environment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, 67-79. Baas, M., De Dreu, C.K.W., & Nijstad, B.A. 2008. A meta-analysis of 25 years of
mood-creativity research: hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological
Bulletin, 134, 779-806.
Barr, S.H., & Conlon, E.J. 1994. Effects of distribution of feedback in work groups. Academy
of Management Journal, 37, 641-655.
Bartel, C.A., & Saavedra, R. 2000. The collective construction of work group moods.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 197-231.
Becker, L.J. 1978. Joint effect of feedback and goal setting on performance: a field study of residential energy conservation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 428-433. Becker, T.E. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational
research: a qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research
Berkowitz, L., & Levy, B.I. 1956. Pride in group performance and group-task motivation.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 300-306.
Brief, A.P., & Weiss, H.M. 2002. Organizational behavior: affect in the workplace. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307.
Brown, D.S., & Porter, T. 2006. Enhance individual, team and firm performance by creating a feedback culture. CPA Practice Management Forum, 2, 14-24.
Conway, J.M., Rogelberg, S.G., & Pitts, V.E. 2009. Workplace helping: interactive effects of personality and momentary positive affect. Human Performance, 22, 321-339. DeShon, R.P., Kozlowski, S.W.J., Schmidt, A.M., Milner, K.R., & Wiechmann, D. 2004. A
multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1035-1056.
Edmondson, A.C. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-83.
Edmondson, A.C., Dillon, J.R., & Roloff, K.S. 2006. Three perspectives on team learning: outcome improvement, task mastery, and group process. The Academy of
Management Annals, 1.
Fisher, C.D. 1998. Moods and emotions while working – missing pieces of job satisfaction. Working paper no. 64, School of Business Bond University, Gold Coast, Qld.
George, J.M. 1990. Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 107-116.
George, J.M., & Zhou, J. 2007. Dual tuning in a supportive context: joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity.
Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., Zhou, J. 2009. A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity.
Academy of Management Journal, 52, 280-293.
Hirt, E.R., Melton, R.J., McDonald, H.E., & Harackiewicz, J.M. 1996. Processing goals, task interest, and mood-performance relationship: a mediational analysis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 245-261.
Hofstede, G. 1986. The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of
International Business Studies, 14, 75
Hughes, A., & Gilmour, N. 2010. Attitudes and perceptions of work safety among community mental health workers. North American Journal of Psychology, 12, 129-144.
Hwang, A., Francesco, A.M. 2010. The influence of individualism-collectivism and power distance on use of feedback channels and consequences for learning. Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 9, 243-257.
Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.D., & Taylor, M.S. 1979. Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349-371.
Jentsch, F., Navarro, G., Braun, C., & Bowers, C. 1994. Automated feedback in teams: trading individual for team performance. 2nd Mid-Atlantic Human Factors Conference, 69-73.
Kluger, A.N., & DeNisi, A. 1996. Effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 199, 254-284.
Küller, R., Ballal, S., Laike, T., Mikellides, B., & Tonello, G. 2006. The impact of light and color on psychological mood; a cross-cultural study of indoor work environments.
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. 1990. Work motivation and satisfaction: light at the end of the tunnel. Psychological Science, 1, 240-246.
Milbourn Jr., G., & Dunn, J.D. The job satisfaction audit: how to measure, interpret, and use employee satisfaction data. American Journal of Small Business, 1, 35-43.
Miner, A.G., & Glomb, T.M. 2010. State mood, task performance, and behavior at work: a within-persons approach. Organizational Behavior & Human Decisions Processes, 112, 43-57.
Nadler, D.A. 1979. The effects of feedback on task group behavior: a review of the
experimental research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 309-338.
Newman, J.E. 1977. Development of a measure of perceived work environment (PWE).
Academy of Management Journal, 25, 677-683.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J-Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 873-903.
Porac, J.F. 1987. The job satisfaction questionnaire as a cognitive event: First- and second-order processes in affective commentary. Research in Personnel and Human Resource
Management, 5, 51-102.
Salas, E., Brannick, M.T., & Roach, R.M. 1993. Understanding team performance: a multimethod study. Human Performance, 6, 287.
Staw, B.M., & Barsade, S.G. 1993. Affect and managerial performance: a test of the sadder-but-wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 304-331.
Stroessner, S.J., Mackie, D.M., & Michalsen, V. 2005. Positive mood and the perception of variability within and between groups. Group Processes Intergroup Relations, 8, 5-25.
Sy, T., Côté, S., & Saveedra, R. 2005. The contagious leader: impact of the leaders‟ mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 295-305.
Tindale, R.S., Kulik, C.T., & Scott, L.A. 1991. Individual and group feedback and
performance: an attributional perspective. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 12, 41-62.
Van der Vegt, G.S., De Jong, S.B., Bunderson, J.S., & Molleman, E. 2010. Power asymmetry and learning in teams: the moderating role of performance feedback. Organization
Science, 21, 347-361.
Walter, F., & Van der Vegt, G.S. 2009. Harnessing members‟ positive mood for
team-directed learning behavior: the moderating role of perceived team feedback. Academy
of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1-6.
Watson, D. 2000. Mood and temperament. New York: Guildford Press.
Yang, J., & Chen, C. 2005. Systematic design for improving team learning climate and capability: a case study. Total Quality Management, 16, 727-740.
Zacarro, S.J., Peterson, C., & Walker, S. 1987. Self-serving attributions for individual and group performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 257-263.
Zajonc, R.B. 1962. The effects of feedback and probability of group success on individual and group performance. Human Relations, 15, 149-161.
Zhang, X., Chen, Y.Y., & Kwan, H.K. 2010. Empowering leadership and creativity: the roles of team learning behavior, team creative efficacy, and team task complexity. Academy
