Relationship between Intra-team Feedback and Individual

(1)

Relationship between Intra-team Feedback

and Individual Task Related Behaviors:

The moderating effect of task interdependence

MSc HRM Program

August 2010

YAJIE GAO

Esdoornlaan 592, 9741 MG Groningen, The Netherlands

0616061589

e-mail: yaner0921@msn.com

student number 1939300

(2)

ABSTRACT

This empirical study examines the impact of intra-team feedback on individual task related behaviours, and the moderating effects of task interdependence on the relationship. I hypothesize that intra-team feedback is positively related to the individual task related behaviours, and the relationship will be strengthened by high level of task interdependence. However, in contrast to the prediction, the results show negative effect of intra-team feedback on individual task related behaviours, and no obvious moderating effect of task interdependence appears. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

(3)

Introduction

During the last few decades, team-based work has widely been considered as a superior way of working in dynamic and changing circumstances, and many researches have approved the effectiveness of team-based work empirically and theoretically (Molleman & Beukel, 2007). In organizations, teams have become the integral parts of their structures (Peter, Richard, McGourty & Jack, 1997). Therefore, how to make team members perform more effectively in teams should be paid more attention to.

Communication plays an essential role in the performance of teams. If used appropriately, the team members will be more effective (Orasanu & Salas 1993; Bowers et al. 1998). For effective communication in teams, it is required to exchange information, coordinate, monitor performance, provide feedback and so on (Rasker, W. M. Post & J. M. C. Schraagen, 2000). A lot of studies give a good insight in the functions of communication for performance in teams, however, their conclusions do not reveal that communication is the sufficient condition that could result in the better performance (Orasanu & Salas, 1993; McGrath, 1994). Moreover, little is known about to what extent the different functions of communication, such as information exchange, performance monitoring and team self-correction, contribute to the team members' task related behaviours (Rasker, W. M. Post & J. M. C. Schraagen, 2000).

(4)

related behaviours (Cianci, Klein& Seijts, 2010). And though some studies show feedback has a negative impact on individual task related behaviours (Mark D. Cannon & Robert Witherspoon, 2005), the usefulness of feedback in improving task related behaviours has been recognized by most of the researches (Falk & Ichino, 2006;Blanes i Vidal & Nossol, 2009). What’s more, less attention has been paid to how it affects individual task related behaviours. Thus, in this paper, I'll focus on intra-team feedback. Previous studies have examined many effects which are relevant to feedback. Such as how feedback strength can help or hurt performance and learning (Hogarth, Gibbs, McKenzie & Marquis, 1991), how delays between decisions and feedback hurt performance (Sterman, 1989), how people learn with and without feedback (Camerer & Ho, 1999; Weber, 2003), etc. But few studies have examined the relationship between the feedback and individual task related behaviours. Therefore, the paper will describe the relationship between intra-team feedback and individual task related behaviours.

(5)

Feedback

Feedback describes "the situation when information about the result of an event in the past will influence an occurrence or occurrences of the same event or the continuation of the original event in the present or future" (Wikipedia,2010). Feedback is often described in terms of the functions, which shows how it performs for the recipient (Daniel R. Ilgen, Cynthia D. Fisher, & M. Susan Taylor, 1979).

Feedback from other team members, which is described as intra-team feedback, is an important developmental tool to help fostering more positive task related behaviours of the members (Zigon, 1994). In fact, several organizations have reported successfully using intra-team feedback as the basis for development (e.g. Ramasay & Letho, 1994; Zigon, 1994).

Rasker (2000) viewed that there are two evident types of intra-team feedback: performance monitoring (process feedback) and team self-correction (outcome feedback). Performance monitoring is defined as during a task execution session, the individual team member to give, seek, and receive task related feedback (Cannon-Bowers et al. 1995). Team self-correction is considered as a process that takes place after a task execution session in which team members engage in reviewing events, correcting errors, discussing strategies, and planning for the next time (Rasker, P. C., 2000).

(6)

related behaviours and make the specific behaviours being performed during the task execution session (Daniel R. Ilgen, Cynthia D. Fisher & M. Susan Taylor, 1979). In short, it can provide information about the correctness, accuracy and adequacy of task related behaviours (Earley, Northcraft, Lee & Lituchy, 1990). Especially by providing process feedback, team members can modulate their behaviours immediately when they get the necessary information. Bandiera et al.(2008) find that by providing feedback regarding own performance has a positive effect on their final performance. By providing outcome feedback, team members correct their behaviours without outside interventions (Rasker, P. C., 2000). In terms of feedback's motivational functions, it will reinforce or decrease the same behaviours in future according to whether the intra-team feedback is positive or negative (Daniel R. Ilgen, Cynthia D. Fisher & M. Susan Taylor, 1979).

(7)

of each other’s tasks that gives them better insight in how to work with each other effectively and coordinate their behaviours efficiently (Rasker, P. C., 2000). Then they could predict what to do is more effective. Since employees adjust their effort to the co-worker's effort (Kandel & Lazear, 1992). Intra-team feedback is a useful tool to affect employees' task related behaviours. In these senses, the positive effect of intra-team feedback on task-related behaviours is expected.

Hypothesis 1: Intra-team feedback is positively related to individual task related behaviours.

T

Task

ask

ask interdependence

interdependence

There are several explanations about interdependence. Thompson (1967) stated interdependence as a characteristic of work, inherent in the technology of the task, whereas Shea and Guzzo (1989) viewed interdependence as an attribute of employee behavior. Van Der Vegt and Janssen (2003) defined task interdependence in this way: it is the extent to which employees depend on other team members to carry out their work effectively. Guzzo and Shea (1992) defined task interdependence is the extent to which the interaction and coordination of team members are required to complete tasks. At its core, task interdependence describes the “extent to which team members cooperate and work interactively to complete tasks” (Stewart & Barrick, 2000).

(8)

Thompson (1967) categorized types of pooled, reciprocal, and sequential interdependence; Wageman (1995) distinguished between task and outcome interdependence, and Kiggundu (1983) differentiated between initiated and received task interdependence (with subdimensions of scope, resource, and criticality). For my purpose, which is to examine the effects of feedback in teams. I limit the discussion to a relatively generalized notion of task interdependence by Guzzo and Shea (1992), who defined it according to the degree of dependence among team members to finish a task. It is therefore relevant to team members' task related behaviours.

(9)

The

The Importance

Importance

Importance of

of

of T

T

Task

ask

ask interdependence

ask

interdependence

interdependence as

as

as a

a

a Moderator

Moderator

By the definition of Guzzo and Shea (1992), highly task interdependence means that individual team members need to effectively coordinate their efforts for team tasks to be successfully accomplished. On the contrary, the lowest level of interdependence is when each team member makes a contribution to the team output without the need for direct interaction with other team members (Saavedra, Early, & Van Dyne, 1993) .

Task interdependence often has effects by moderating the effects of other variables on performance (Langfred & Shanley, 2005). It has been proved to lead to increased communication (Johnson, 1973), helping teammates and information sharing (Crawford & Haaland, 1972). Task interdependence may also influence unit members’ expectations of help (Spilerman, 1971) and norms of cooperation (Kiesler & Kiesler, 1970; Shaw, 1981). From these theories, it is clear that task interdependence may strengthen the effects of intra-team feedback to individual team members.

(10)

behaviours, such as behaving more effectively, finishing the tasks on time, doing it more perfectly and so on. Therefore, it is proposed that intra-team feedback would predict better individual task related behaviours when there are high levels of task interdependence.

Hypothesis 2: High level of task interdependence strengthens the relationship between intra-team feedback and task related behaviours.

Figure 1 Hypothesized Structural Model

Task related behaviours Intra-team Feedback

(11)

Methods

Sample

A questionnaire study was conducted in collaboration with 24 teams in the Netherlands. Each team consists of at least 4 members including the team leader, and they are from 14 organizations.

There were 122 people to be invited to fill the questionnaires, 81 of them completed and returned their questionnaires. The response rate is 66.4%. Since some of the respondents seldom get intra-team feedback, 70 questionnaires were took into the analysis, and 7 of them answered the English version. The participants are from different occupations, like secretary, project manager, process manager, intern and architect.Their age ranged from 18 to 59. On average, the participants had a mean age of 39.54 years (SD =10.91). And70.8% of them were males. The level of education is as follows: less than MBO (12%), MBO (28%), HBO (37.3%), WO (14.7%), and no response (8%).

Procedure

(12)

All answers for the survey items were given on a five-point response scale ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 5(strongly agree). In order to ensure confidentiality, the respondents were instructed to return the surveys directly to the researchers on website after they finished the questionnaire.

Measur

Measureeeessss

Feedback. Feedback.

Feedback.Feedback. Feedback was assessed with a six-item scale adapted from Campion &

McClelland (1991), Hackman & Oldham (1980) and Sims, Szilagyi & Keller (1976). Team members indicated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Members were asked if they receive a great deal of

imformation from their managers and coworkers about their job performance, if other people in the team, such as managers and coworkers, provide information about the effectiveness of their job performance, if the intra-team feedback is helpful to their behaviours, if the work activities themselves provide direct and clear information about the effectiveness of their job performance, if the job itself provides them with information about their performance, and if they satisfied with the feedback from other team members. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was .78.

Task Task

TaskTask interdependence.interdependence.interdependence.interdependence. Consistent with prior research (Van Der Vegt, Emans, &

Van de Vliert, 2001), this study measured task interdependence at the individual level.

(13)

cannot be completed unless his job gets done, if the job activities are greatly affected by the work of other people, if the job depends on the work of many different people for its completion, if their jobs cannot be done unless others do their work. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was .85.

Task Task

TaskTask relatedrelatedrelatedrelated behavioursbehavioursbehavioursbehaviours. Participants were asked to score their task related

behaviours on reaching deadlines, quality standards and efficiency with the scale anchored by strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Three item were asked. Members were asked if they always complete tasks on time, if they always finish tasks perfectly, if their behaviours are quite effective. The Cronbach’s alpha of this scale was

.65.

Control Control

ControlControl variablevariablevariablevariables.s.s.s. Because in some cases, gender and age could influence

employees' attitude to the feedback from others (Chen, Liu & Yu, 2008), maybe their omission could affect the result of the analysis. Therefore gender and age of the participants were included in the hypothesis tests.

Statistical

Statistical Analyses

Analyses

Factor Factor

FactorFactor AnalysAnalysAnalysAnalyseeeessss

For each variable, utilized factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha to measure the internal consistency reliabilities of the different items. Table in the Appendix presents rotated component matrix of intra-team feedback, task interdependence and individual task related behaviours. The results of the KMO and Bartlett's tests display that the KMO value is .71 and Bartlett's statistic is highly significant (χ2 _{= 428.14, df = 91,}

(14)

Hierarchical Hierarchical

HierarchicalHierarchical RegressionRegressionRegressionRegression AnalysAnalysAnalysAnalyseeeessss

(15)

Results

The correlation of the independent variable, moderator and dependent variable will be presented. Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among all the variables in the study. In it, r stands for the reported correlations, p is the significance level.

In bivariate correlation analyses, there is a significant relationship between intra-team feedback and task interdependence (r = .35, p < .01), but the correlation matrix

does not provide evidence to support for the main relationship hypothesized. Contrary to the prediction (H1), intra-team feedback showed negatively correlated with individual task related behaviours (r = -.21, p < .05). However, task interdependence

was found to be significantly correlated with individual task related behaviours (r = .28, p < .05).

Table Table Table

Table 1.1.1.1. Scale means, standard deviations and intercorrelations

N =70 , * p < .05; ** p < .01. Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 1.Age 39.54 10.91 2.gender 1.30 .46 -.22* 3.Intra-team Feedback 3.21 .69 -.17 .01 4.Task Interdependence 3.59 .89 .14 -.29** .35**

(16)

high level of task interdependence strengthens the relationship between intra-team feedback and task related behaviours (H2). Table 2 provides the results of this analysis. At first, the meaning of some characters will be explained.b represents unstandardized regression coefficients, p is the significance level ,n.s. stands for not significant, R2

provides information about how much variance of the dependent variable the whole model explains, and △R2 _{discuss how much variance the two steps of the regression} analysis explain.

Table Table Table

Table 2.2.2.2. Hierarchical Regression Analysis

N=70, * p < .05; ** p < .01.

The results showed that the control variables had no significant relationship with individual task related behaviours (∆R2_{= .02, ∆F = .52, ns). And it shows a negative} relationship between intra-team feedback and individual task related behaviours (b = -.15, t = -2.19, p < .05). Moreover, in spite of the expectation, that a high level of task

(17)

(18)

Discussion

Findings

The purpose of this study was to examine the direct effect of intra-team feedback on individual task related behaviours and the moderating effect of task interdependence on the relationship between intra-team feedback and individual task related behaviours. Many previous studies (e.g. Dan N. Stone, 1995; Alireza Ardalan, Vernon A. Quarstein and R.Bruce McAfee, 1994) show that feedback can lead to more effective individual task related behaviours. Consistent with these studies, the positive relationship between intra-team feedback and individual task related behaviours was expected. In addition, because task interdependence can provide more opportunity to exchange information among members in a team. High level of task interdependence strengthens the relationship between intra-team feedback and task related behaviours was also expected in the study.

However, as seen in the result part, the study showed an opposite direction. Intra-team feedback has a negative effect on individual task related behaviours. Moreover, we found a positive direct effect of task interdependence on individual task related behaviours. But task interdependence does not have the moderating effect on the relationship between intra-team feedback and individual task related behaviours.

(19)

(20)

this study, if participants receive more negative intra-team feedback, it could be another reason to explain the puzzling result.

The result also revealed that task interdependence has a positive relationship with individual task related behaviours. For this point, the following explanation might account for it. As mentioned previously, task interdependence can influence the situation of interaction and cooperation among team members. High task interdependence enables team members to utilize the various opinions and ideas from others, it can help to solve the problems in individual task related behaviours efficiently ( Gerben van Der Vegt & Onne Janssen, 2001).

As to the moderating effect of task interdependence, this study showed a quite unexpected result. The prediction, high level of task interdependence strengthens the relationship between intra-team feedback and task related behaviours, was not confirmed. It displayed task interdependence does not have the moderating effect. To explain this, the limitations of the study should be taken into account. Furthermore, high level of task interdependence may increase the opportunity to conflict (Pelled,1999), might be another reason. Schmidt and Kochan (1972) viewed that when team members have different goals, high task interdependence would intensify the intra-team conflict. Therefore, under this condition, task interdependence could not have the predict effect on the relationship between intra-team feedback and individual task related behaviours.

Limitations

(21)

As mentioned above, though the current study has some strengths, it also has some limitations. The first limitation is that I was not able to give a clear description of the effects of the two aspects, performance monitoring and team self-correction, of intra-team feedback on individual task related behaviours separately. Because the way of data collecting is sending questionnaires by emails, it is impossible to distinguish the actual effects of the two forms. The data were considered to belong to the general intra-team feedback. Future researches should examine the extent to which the performance monitoring and team self-correction influence the individual task related behaviours respectively. A second limitation is that the study did not consider the positive feedback and negative feedback which also influce individual task related behaviours differently. Especially the negative feedback, as mentioned above, it may cause different results for different individuals. In terms of this, individual difference variables, including personality characteristics, are likely to play an important role (Bono & Colbert,2005). So third, individual difference can be take into account in future studies. Lastly, the sample size of this research is small and the participants are from the different functional teams. Maybe in future studies, specialized the kind of team and enlarge the sample size can improve the applicability of it.

Practical

Practical Implication

Implication

Implicationssss

(22)

(23)

Reference

Alireza Ardalan, Vernon A. Quarstein and R.Bruce McAfee. (1994). Enhancing perf or ma nce through e mpl oyee dis cre t ion and f ee dbac k. Ind ust rial Management & Data Systems, 94 (10), 15-19.

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

Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1017–1028.

Bandiera, O., Larcinese, V., Rasul, I..(2008). Blissful Ignorance? Evidence from a natural experiment on the effect of individual feedback on performance. Mimeo. LSE.

Blanes i Vidal, J., Nossol, M.. (2009). Tournaments without prizes: evidence from personnel records. Mimeo. LSE.

Bono, J. E., & Colbert, A. E. (2005). Understanding responses to multisource feedback: the role of core self-evaluations.Personnel Psychology, 58, 171–203.

Bowers, C. A., Jentsch, F., Salas, E. & Braun, C. C. (1998). Analysing communication sequences for team training needs assessment,Human Factors, 40, 672 ±679.

Bruce McAfee, Vernon Quarstein & Alireza Ardalan. (1995). The effect of discretion, outcome, feedback, and process feedback on employee job satisfaction.

Industrial Management & Data Systems, 95 (5), 7.

(24)

games.Econometrica, 67, 827–874.

Campion, M.A., & McClelland, C.L. (1991). Interdisciplinary examination of the costs and benefits of enlarged jobs: a job design quasi-experiment.Journal of applied Psychology,76, 186-198.

Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups.Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, E. S., Salas, E. and Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training requirement s, in R. A. Guzzo and E.Salas (eds).Team Effectiveness and Decision-making in Organizations (San

Fransisco: Jossey-Bass), 333 -379.

Chen, Liu & Yu. (2008). The effect of gender on performance.Economy, 5, 32.

Chen, C. V., Tang, Y., & Wang, S. (2009). Interdependence and organizational citizenship behavior: exploring the mediating effect of group cohesion in multilevel analysis.The Journal of Psychology, 143(6), 625-640.

Cianci, Klein,& Seijts. (2010). The effect of negative feedback on tension and subsequent performance: the main and interactive effects of goal content and conscientiousness.Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 618-630.

Daniel R. Ilgen, Cynthia D. Fisher, & M. Susan Taylor. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behaviour in organizations.Applied Psychology:64

(4),349-371.

(25)

behavior and group performance.Applied Psychology. 91 (6),1396-1404.

Dan N. Stone. (1995). The joint effects of DSS feedback and users' expectations on decision processes and performance. Journal of Information System, 9 (1),

23-41.

Dominick, Peter G.; Reilly, Richard R.; McGourty, Jack. (1997). The effects of peer feedback on team member behavior. Group & Organization Management.

22 (4), 508-520.

Earley, Northcraft, Lee & Lituchy. (1990). Impact of process and outcome feedback on the relation of goal setting to task performance. Academy of Management Journal,33(1), 87-105.

Falk, A., Ichino, A. (2006). Clean evidence on peer pressure. Journal of Labor Economics, 24 (1), 39-57.

Gerben van Der Vegt & Onne Janssen, (2001). The joint effects of psychological diversity and interdependence on individual performance. Academy of Management Proceedings & Membership Directory, 1-5.

Hogarth, R. M., Gibbs, B. J., McKenzie, C. R., & Marquis, M. A. (1991). Learning from feedback: exactingness and incentives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 17, 734–752.

Ilgen, D. R., Mitchell, T. R., & Fredrickson, J. W. (1981). Poor performers: supervisors ’ and subordinates ’ responses. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27, 386–411.

(26)

and affect.Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 453–467.

Kandel, E., Lazear, E. P.. (1992). Peer pressure and partnerships.Journal of Political Economy, 100 (4), 801-817.

Kiggundu, M. N. (1983). Task interdependence and job design: test of a theory.

Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 31(2), 145-172.

Klein, H. J. (1989). An integrated control theory model of work motivation.Academy of Management Review, 14, 150–172.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Mark D. Cannon & Robert Witherspoon, (2005). Actionable feedback: unlocking the power of learning and performance improvement.Academy of Management Executive.19(2), 120-135.

Mas, A., Moretti, E.. (2009). Peers at work.American Economic Review, 99 (1),

112-145.

Mcgrath, J. E. and Hollingshead, A. B. (1994). Groups interacting with technology: ideas, evidence, issues, and an agenda (Thousand Oaks: Sage).

Molleman, E. & Beukel, A.L. Van den. . (2007). Worker flexibility and its perceived contribution to performance: the moderating role of task characteristics.Human Factors in Ergonomics and Manufacturing, 17 (2), 117-135.

(27)

Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: an analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance.Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1-28.

Peter Boxall & John Purcell.(2008). Strategy and human resource management. Second Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 154-158.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Farh, J. (1989). Effects of feedback sign and credibility on goal setting and task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 45–67.

Ramsay, M. L., & Letho, H. (1994). The power of peer review. Training and Development, 38-41.

Rasker, W. M. Post and J. M. C. Schraagen. (2000). Effects of two types of intra-team feedback on developing a shared mental model in Command & Control team.

Ergonomics, 46,1167-1189.

Saavedra,R., & Kwun, S.K. (1993). Peer evaluation in self-managing work groups.

Applied Psychology,78,450-462.

Saavedra, R., Early, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in taskperforming groups.Applied Psychology, 78(1), 61-72.

Schmidt, S. M., & Kochan, T. 1972. The concept of conflict: toward conceptual clarity.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 359-370.

Sterman, J. D. (1989). Modeling managerial behavior: Misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment.Management Science, 35, 321–339.

(28)

the mediating role of intra-team process and the moderating role of task type.

Academy of Management Journal, 43, 135-148.

Weber, R. A. (2003). Learning with no feedback in a competitive guessing game.

Games and Economic Behavior, 44, 134–144.

Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2001).Interpersonal Conflict (6th Ed). New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill.

Yeo, G. B., & Neal, A. (2004). A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance: effects of ability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation.Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 231–247.

Zigon,J. (1994). Making performance appraisal work for teams. Training and Development, 58-63.

(29)

Appendix

Table 1 Factor Analysis

Rotated Rotated Rotated

Rotated ComponentComponentComponentComponent MatrixMatrixMatrixMatrixaaaa

Component

1 2 3 4 5

I receive a great deal of information from my manager and coworkers

about my job performance. .820 .186 .179 .047 -.018

Other people in the team, such as managers and coworkers, provide

information about the effectiveness of my job performance. .790 .271 -.023 -.059 .128

Intra-team feedback is helpful to my task related behaviours. _.507 _.088 _.301 _-.205 _.325

The work activities themselves provide direct and clear information

about the effectiveness of my job performance. .526 .372 -.200 .148 .478

The job itself provides me with information about my performance. _.217 _-.101 _.168 _-.016 _.858

I am satisfied with the feedback. _.787 _-.035 _.091 _.037 _.220

The job depends on the work of many different people for its

completion. .078 .327 .850 .090 .110

My job cannot be done unless others do their work. _.126 _.295 _.894 _.066 _.053

Other jobs depend directly on my job. _.062 _.891 _.208 _.077 _.028

Unless my job gets done, other jobs cannot be completed. _.135 _.818 _.263 _.123 _-.047

The job activities are greatly affected by the work of other people. _.139 _.802 _.194 _.062 _.055

I always complete tasks on time. _-.581 _.327 _-.007 _.225 _.461

I always finish tasks perfectly. _.051 _.071 _-.094 _.875 _-.046