HRM Master thesis
Task interdependence and team performance –
the moderation role of performance approach
orientation
6/25/2014
Sofiya Sofiyanska (s2403536) Supervisor: D.B. Veltrop Co-supervisor: Yeliz Cantimur
2
Abstract
3
Introduction
Task interdependence is a topic of many research studies (Van der Vegt & Van der Vliert 2005, Van der Vegt, Emans, Van der Vliert 1998, Van der Vegt & Janssen 2003, Somech, Desivilya &Lidogoster, 2008).The effectiveness and performance of almost any kind of organizational teams including product development teams, multidisciplinary work teams, and cross-functional teams highly depend on whether members will be cooperating and helping each other to fulfill their tasks (Holland, Gaston, & Gomez, 2000). Today’s world of increasing complexity requires that individuals collaborate with each other to successfully complete their task. Task interdependence is the basis of many processes and phenomena arising in the life cycle of an organization such as occurrence of helping behavior, need of coordination, or flexibility (Van der Vegt & Van der Vliert 2005; Olson, Walker, Ruekert, & Bonner, 2001). Team work incоrporates interaction amоng the mеmbers of a tеam, leading the individual team member to experience a cеrtain level of intеrdependence. This requirement introduces the necessity of task interdependence and its possible effects on overall performance.
4
might determine whether it will have positive or negative impact on organizational outcomes such as team performance. This introduces the need of a moderator that will more clearly outline these impacts.
It is important to realize that workgroups consist of individuals and individuals respond differently to interdependent tasks in a group. One of the most important determinants of how individuals respond to achieving a task within a team is an individual’s goal orientation (Neverveen Pieterse, van Knippenberg &van Dierendonck 2013). It steers the actions of the individuals within a team, which are aligned with the achievement of the set of goals. Individual goal orientation influences the goal preferences of an individual which also impacts individuals’ actions and interactions (Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988;Van de Walle, Cron, & Slocum, 2001). Goal orientation contributes to the choice of goals that an individual makes and predicts individual’s behavior and work within a team (Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2002).
How the task interdependence will reflect on the entire team performance further depends on the different goals, which results from the different person’s goal orientation (Janssen & Prins 2007).
5
Theoretical Background
General findings from the task interdependence literature
Due to its importance, tаsk interdepеndence is a subjеct of a lоt of rеsearch and оbservation in academic research (Kozlowski, Gully, Nason & Smith 1999;Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Katz-Navon & Erez, 2005). Interdepеndence of tasks is defined as the еxtent to which mеmbers of the tеam intеract and hinge on each other in оrder to achiеve their gоals as a tеam (Campion, Medsker & Higgs 1993). Johnson and Johnson (1989) argued that task interdependence exists when “each individual’s outcome is affected by the actions of others” (Johnson & Johnson, 1989). In this study the tеrm task intеrdependence will be used as rеferring to the intеrdependence of work-related actions and outcоmes. Research on task interdependence found evidence in favor of working interdependently compared to the option of working individually. Van der Vegt & Janssen (2002) argued that when people work together they stimulate innovative behavior among each other, which would be not possible when working independently. The existence of task interdependence requires the social element, social interaction. Team work incоrporates interaction amоng the mеmbers of a tеam, leading the individual team member to experience a cеrtain level of intеrdependence. Therеfore, work in tеams hаs to be intеractive in order to accomplish given tasks (Steward & Barrick, 2000).
6
Indeed, Hackman and Morris (1975) claimed that the design of task within a team is one of the most significant determinants for the effective performance process. More recently, Van der Vegt and Janssen (2002) argued that task interdependence results in greater team performance and effectiveness by “awaking” individual innovativeness, which team members rarely develop when working independently. As already explained, when interdependent, team members communicate more often, exchange more information, which lead to the better team outcomes. It is important to realize that team interdependence can vary from high until low (Saavedra, Early & Van Dyne, 1993). When the interdependence is low, there is no need for the team members to interact and the outcome is just a sum of individual contributions. When the level of the task interdependence is high team members have to interact in order to accomplish the team task. Overall, task interdependence is an important factor for team performance and is found to positively affect many aspects of team performance. When tasks are interdependent, however, the work of each individual is linked to another’s, and the individuals form a team. In this case, the team performance is not merely the sum of each individual’s work, but an individual’s performance hinges on and affects another’s, making the team a performing unit.
Therefore, the first Hypothesis is defined as following:
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between task interdependence and team performance.
The moderating effect of individual goal orientation
When investigating team performance it often happens that researches focus on factors at a team level such as communication (Rico and Cohen (2005), roles or positions within the team (Halevy, Chou and Galinsky 2011), or other structural characteristics of the team (e.g. virtuality; Reco, Bachrach, Sanchez-Manzanares & Collins 2011). Characteristics on the individual level are mostly neglected, which is noteworthy when bearing in mind the importance and influence of individuals within teams (Massey & Dawes 2007). Individual level characteristics may very well determine whether teams thrive or suffer from task interdependence.
7
There are many individual level differences that may orient individuals within teams constructively or less constructively towards task interdependence within teams. Among the many kinds of individual characteristics goal orientation could arguably be one of the most important. It influences the individual in the choice of goals he/she wants to pursue: to outperform, to cheat (Crouzevialle & Butera 2013). Goal orientation influences the goal preferences of an individual which also impacts individuals’ actions and interactions within teams (Dweck,1986;Dweck & Leggett, 1988;Van de Walle, Cron, & Slocum, 2001). Goal orientation reflects on the person’s behavior and performance when interacting with others (e.g. to outperform the other; collecting information) and also determine their behavior when assigned to a group (Elliot &Sheldon 1997; Ashford & Cummings 1983).
Furthermore, research demonstrates that goal orientation influences many aspects in the work environment not only form individual perspective, but also from collective point of view. Janssen and Prins (2007) for example examined how personal goal orientation influences the feedback-seeking behavior processes. They argued that goal orientation determines the type of information individuals ask others for in the surrounding work environment. Others focused on employees’ satisfaction and individuals’ job performance arguing that they are primary determined by the employees’ goal orientation (Farr, Hofmann & Ringenbach, 1993; Phillips & Gully, 1997; Van Yperen & Janssen, 2002). They explained this phenomenon with perceptual- cognitive frameworks, identifying how individuals perceive, interpret and respond to achievement events. Janssen and Van Yperen (2004), for instance, focused on how goal orientations influence individuals in the manner they perceive and react to interpersonal context of achievement events. They studied how goal orientations of individuals affect the establishment of exchange relationships with their supervisors and further examined how the quality of this leader-member exchange affects employee’s satisfaction and effectiveness. They found that performance orientation showed a contradictory mediation relationship to leader-rated overall job performance and satisfaction. They explained this with the different types of goal orientations that determine the quality exchanges with the supervisor.
8
the learning orientation implies that people focus now on personal improvement, while the performance is postponed to the future (Elliot & McGregor 2001). Furthermore, some authors (Pint rich & Garcia, 1991) associated people with performance orientation with external orientation and motivation, while mastery orientation individuals focus on internally important matters. This paper will focus not so much on internal personal improvement, but more on external interactions with fellow team members because within the context of task interdependence individuals are dependent on other individuals within their team. Performance orientation is expressed in focusing more on competence, demonstrated by outperforming others (Neverveen Pieterse, van Knippenberg &van Dierendonck 2013). This may very well conflict with the positive effects of task interdependence within teams.
As previously explained, teamwork requires interaction and, as posed in hypothesis 1, dependence of team members on each other in order to accomplish the team work. The individual performance approach orientation, however, puts the priority on the individual’s performance, which might not always appear to be the best approach for team outcome. Individuals who strive to outperform their colleagues might influence or even sabotage the efforts of the co-workers, since they directly interact and depend on each other, so they can stand out with their work. Logically, this will weaken the optimal performance approach in the context of interdependent teamwork.
Furthermore, in the context of teamwork, coordination is a significantly relevant component of the overall organizational success (Barnard 1938) and optimizing organizational performance (Gratton 2005). Bearing in mind that cooperation suggests that individuals have to cooperate with each other, this indicates that performance orientation would again hinder the cooperation process, since performance goal oriented individuals strive to outperform others (Elliot & McGregor, 2001), they focus on their individual performance and a possible cooperation would blur their efforts and competencies, because only the group outcome will be seen. Moreover, the more interdependent team members are the more opportunities they have to hide each other’s performance (Stanne, Johnson & Johnson 1999), considering the previous conclusion that the more task interdependent the members are, the more often they communicate with each other and the more information they exchange.
9
task interdependence (labeled by them as task structure) fostered team performance through a positive influence on cooperative conflict management. By the logic explained above, in teams with high performance orientation this is not expected to be the case due to the increased competition fostered by individuals with a performance orientation. Therefore, it is expected that performance orientation will weaken the positive relationship between task interdependence and team performance.
As such, the second hypothesis is formulated as following:
Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between task interdependence and team performance will be weakened by performance approach goal orientation.
Figure 1 depicts the relаtionships as hypothesized in hypоtheses 1 and 2.
H2 -
H1 + Figure 1: Conceptual model
Methodology
Procedures – research design and respondents
The overall level of this research is at a team level. However, personal characteristics such as goal orientations have been initially gained on individual level that required aggregation to team level. The dаta has been cоllected frоm 72 teams of Dutch companies, resulting from 519 participants with an 88% response rate. The size of a team varies from 5 to 18 employees plus a leader, where most of the teams consist of 9 people (M=9.33, SD=3.554). The collection of the data has been conducted on a random basis and resulted in a reprеsentation from many branches and sectors, governmental institutions and non-profit organizations. Companies represent medical and educational sector, municipalities and ministries, restaurant chains and service industries, from logistics to online sales. A prerequisite prior to the election
Task interdependence Team performance
10
of the teams was the existence of minimum task interdependence. The selection of the team was on a random basis, using personal contacts and relations to facilitate the approach process or merely contacting random companies. The research was introduced to the contact persons via e-mails or phone calls, explaining the reasons for the research. The information was further forwarded to the rest of the team. In case of an agreement, an appointment for a meeting was arranged. The research consisted of three types of questionnaires – one for the team leader and two for the team members. The leader’s questionnaires served the purpose to collect data regarding the team performance, while the other two aimed to collect data about task interdependence, goal orientation and tenure. The questionnaires have been given to all the team members at the same time. After completion, questionnaires have collected by the researcher and the team members were given the second questionnaire. This second questionnaire was picked up one week later, put in a closed envelop, in order to eliminate any response bias. The leaders approached were 69 with a response rate of 94.44%. The team members in total amount to 516 employees, from which 455 replied to the questionnaires, 210 of them (46.2%) were male. The average age is 42.11 years (SD=12.41). From all the team members 42.3 % has at least higher vocational education.
Finally, all the responses have been kept in anonymity and complete confidentiality has been guaranteed to all the participants, in order to encourage and increase the participation. Moreover, final results have been promised to the companies as a requirement from their party for participation.
Measurement instruments Task interdependence
11
to the tеam-lеvel. The five itеms fоrmed a rеliable represеntation of tаsk interdependence with internal consistency reliability of 0.75.
Performance approach goal orientation
Performance goal orientation has been tested according to the framework of Elliot and McGregor (2001), consisting of 12 items, three of them are focused on performance approach orientation and therefore used for the analysis. The items include questions such as “My aim is to perform well relative to the other colleagues.”, “I am striving to do well compared to the other colleagues”, and “My goal is to perform better than the other colleagues”. Respondents responded to a scale from 1=completely disagree to 7=completely agree. The measurement has an internal consistency reliability of 0.90. Since these data refer to individual level and the analysis was conducted on team level, aggregation of the data to team level was required.
Team performance
Teаm pеrformance is mеasured accоrding the scаle of Ancona and Caldwell (1992). Thеre are six itеms usеd such аs “How does the team score on quality of the work?”, “How does the team score regarding meeting of deadlines?”, or “How does the team score regarding speed of the work?” The questions have 7 possible аnswers (1= far below average; 4= average; 7=far above average). The itеms concеrn team levеl variаble. Thе six itеms enjoy an internal consistency reliability of 0.87.
Control variables
Hirst (2009) showed that the longer a team member belongs to a team, the better the performance of the team is. Thus, he proved that the average team tenure is positively related to the team performance. Therefore, in this research team tenure is included as a control variable. Team tenure is defined as the average of how long team members work in the team.
12
The last control variable is age.Wegge and colleagues (2012) suggested in their work that age influences the team performance, and that appropriate composition of age diversity can control this effect. Therefore, age is also included in the analysis as a control variable.
Analysis
The data collected is at the individual (task interdependence and goal orientation) and team level (team performance). Therefore, to achieve a comparable dataset, the individual level variables were aggregated to team level. Furthermore, linear dependence is intended to measure the relation between the independent and the dependent variable. Also, regression analysis is included in order to estimate the magnitude of the moderator on the dependent – independent variable relation. The control variables are included in the regression analysis in order to detect if any deviation of the results will occur because of their existence. Finally, the useful data was decreased from 72 to 69 teams due to missing data.
Results
Descriptive statistics and correlations
13
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics and Correlation
Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5
1. Team tenure 67.19 53.29
2. Age 41.67 9.35 0.42**
3. Team size 7.17 2.90 -0.07 -0.03
4. Task interdep. 4.52 0.60 -0.01 -0.29* -0.08
5. Perf. app. orient. 4.71 0.70 0.05 -0.12 -0.21 0.19
6. Team perf. 5.26 0.80 -0.15 -0.09 -0.33** 0.00 -0.01 Note N=69; Tenure in months
*p < .05, **p < .01
Hypothesis testing
This research mainly focused on two hypotheses. Firstly, based on relevant literature review, it was claimed that task interdependence is positively related to team performance. Secondly, it was argued that these two variables are usually not isolated in the work environment. Therefore, the idea of adding a moderator appeared to be logical. Performance goal orientation was taken into account, and was expected to disrupt the already hypothesized relationship between task interdependence and team performance. Hence, the second hypothesis stated that the relationship between task interdependence and team performance will be weakened by an individual’s performance goal orientation.
14
Table2: Results of regression analysis for Team performance
Team performance
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Controls Team tenure -0.16 -0.15 -0.15 Team size -0.34 -0.36 -0.36 Age -0.03 -0.05 -0.06 Main effects Task interd. -0.04 -0.04
Perf. app. goal orient. -0.08 -0.08
Interaction Task int. x
Perf. app. goal orient. -0.09
R² 0.137 0.144 0.144
∆ R² 0.007 0.00
Model F 3.43 2.20 1.74
Note: N=69; standardized regression coefficients reported *p < .05, **p < .01 (two-tailed significance)
Discussion
Overview of the findings and future research suggestions
Aligned with the numerous research conducted regarding task interdependence (Van der Vegt & Van der Vliert 2005, Van der Vegt, Emans, & Van der Vliert 1998, Van der Vegt & Janssen 2003, Somech, Desivilya &Lidogoster, 2008), it has been proposed in this study that task interdependence will positively affect team performance. As an important condition for this was pointed out to be the individual goal orientations of team members, this was assumed to have a negative impact on the direct relation between task interdependence and team performance.
15
Janssen 2003, Somech, Desivilya &Lidogoster, 2008). Furthermore individuals ‘goal orientation was not found to be significantly moderating the relation between task interdependence and team performance. This is also surprising bearing in mind the collective nature of team work (Lam & Chin 2004; Gundlach, Zivunska & Stoner 2002; Kiggundu 1983; Peaece & Gregersen 1991), and the negative outcomes performance approach orientation can have as a consequences (Neverveen Pieterse, van Knippenberg &van Dierendonck 2013). Overall, both hypotheses in this research have been rejected.
However, the findings of this research are of theoretical interest for several reasons. First of all, for the task interdependence researchers it contributes to academic insight by adding an important remark on the theory that task interdependence is not an explicit predictor of improved performance and may very well be contingent on moderating factors. In fact, many researchers argued that the existence of task interdependence is the precondition for increased team performance (Hackman & Morris1975; Van der Vegt & Janssen 2002). However, this phenomenon cannot be universalized for all the situations possible. Thus, it adds to the existing literature by pointing out an exception of the assumed relations. It will be interesting to distinguish what moderators or factors influence performance. For example one of the control variable of this research, team size, showed negative correlation to team performance, meaning that the smaller the teams are the better they perform. Team size can be taken as a moderator in future research to investigate further its impacts on team performance. Another suggestion for moderator might be another individual characteristic such as conscientiousness or agreeableness. Both are proved to have significant impact on individual performance (Witt, Burke, Barrick, & Mount, 2002), therefore it will be of interest to prove this on team level as well.
16
increased and observed. Currently, the existing literature claims that individuals with performance orientation, on one hand, reduce the variety of opinions by rejecting others and outlining themselves (Darnon, Muller, Schrager, Pannuzzo, & Butera, 2006) within a group, which, on the other hand, reduces the effectiveness of the group. While this study does not in any way universally reject these notions, it has shown that the effects of goal orientation does not have direct effect at the team level and it perhaps more complex than originally anticipated.
17
Strengths and limitations
In order to point out the weaknesses and the limitations of this study, first the strengths have to be identified. The most significant “plus” of the study is that it has been conducted as a field study in real work environments. Another advantage is that the data set has been collected from many sectors that contribute to the diversity of data set, allowing generalization of the findings (Van der Vegt, Emans, Van de Vliert, 1998). Finally the research has been conducted in the Netherlands, which makes the dataset homogeneous on national- cultural level, which eliminates or at least minimizes the effect of cultural biases. Also, there is no common source used for the data collection. The team performance is rated by the team leader, while the rest of the variables by the team members. This means that the observed variables’ scores are measured by different methods or different sources. If the variables are measured by the same method then the observed scores correlations are different than the actual correlations should be. Therefore, multiple methods are used in this study in order to eliminate the inflation problem on the variables relations and to increase the accuracy of the observed scores.
However, the research suffers on a number of limitations that might explain the gained results. First of all, the research has been conducted among different work units in different sectors and businesses that might indicate that those different teams might have different interdependence level, nature of task or differences in short or long term goals (Somech et al. 2009). It would have affected the results of this research it was conducted in one specific sector or type of teams, because the nature of the task and business environmental requirements might determine the also the relations between the variables. For example Katz-Navon & Erez (2005) found that high task interdependence is required for the improved performance of virtual teams, while this might not be the case for team of sales representatives. Therefore, it would be an interesting suggestion for future research to find out whether or not generalizations can be made for types of work units or sectors.
18
Practical implications
19
References
Ancona, D. G., Caldwell, D. F., (1992). Bridging the Boundary: External Activity and Performance in Organizational Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37:4, 634 – 665
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 370–398.
Becker, E. T., (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of Management Journal 35:1, 232-244
Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 595–615.
Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., (1997). Employee commitment and work team productivity. Best papers Proceedings of the 1996 Academy of Management Meeting. Cincinati
Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (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 team work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite? Journal of Management, 23: 3, 239-290
Crouzevialle, M., Butera, F., (2013). Performance-approach goals deplete working memory and impair cognitive performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 142:3, 666-678.
Darnon, C., Muller, D., Schrager, S. M., Pannuzzo, N., & Butera, F.(2006). Mastery and perfor mance goals predict epistemic and relational conflict regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 766– 776.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven: Yale University Press
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Ann Arbor, MI: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goal. Educational Psychologist, 34: 169-189.
Elliot, A.J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 x 2 Achievement Goal Framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80: 3, 501 – 519
20
Elliot, A. J., Shell, M. V., Henry, K. B., & Maier, M. A. (2005). Achievement goals, performance contingencies, and performance attainment: An experimental test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97,630–640
Gundlach, M., Zivnuska, S., & Stoner, J. (2006). Understanding the relationship between individualism collectivism and team performance through an integration of social identity theory and the social relations model. Human Relations, 59, 1603–1632.
Farr, J. L., Hofmann, D. A., & Ringenbach, K. L. (1993). Goal orientation and action control theory: Implications for industrial and organizational psychology. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology: 193– 232. Wiley
Gundlach, M., Zivnuska, S., & Stoner, J. (2006). Understanding the relationship between
individualismcollectivism and team performance through an integration of social identity theory and the social relations model. Human Relations, 59, 1603–1632.
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction processes, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 45–99). New York: Academic Press.
Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., Galinsky, A.D. (2011). A functional model of hierarchy: Why, how, and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance. Organizational Psychology Review, vol.:1:32 Harris, T. E., (1992). Toward effective employee involvement: An analysis of parallel and self-managing teams. Journal of Allied Business Research, 9: 1; 25-33.
Hirst, G., (2009). Effects of membership change on open discussion and team performance: The moderating role of team tenure. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 18:2, 231-249.
Holland, S., Gaston, K., Gomez, J. (2000). Critical success factors for cross-functional teamwork in new product development. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2: 231-259.
Jehn, K. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
Katz-Navon, T. L., Erez, M., (2005). When collective and self-efficacy affect team performance: The role of task interdependence. Small group research, 36:4, 437-465
21
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., & Smith, E. M. (1999). Developing adaptive
teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development pp. 240-292
Lam, P. K., & Chin, K. S. (2004). Projects factors influencing conflict intensity and handling styles in collaborative NPD. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13, 52–62.
Massey, G. R., Dawes, P.L., (2007). Personal characteristics, trust, conflict, and effectiveness in marketing/sales working relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 41:9/10, 1117-1145
Neverveen Pieterse, A., Van Knippenberg, D., van Dierendonck, D., (2013). Cultural Diversity and Team Performance: The Role of the Team Member Goal Orientation. Academy of Management Journal, 56:3, 782-804.
Nederveen Pieterse, A., van Knippenberg, D., & van Ginkel, W. P. (2011). Diversity in goal orientation, team reflexivity, and team performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114:153–164.
Olson, E. M., Walker, O. C., Ruekert, R. W., & Bonner, J. M. (2001). Patterns of cooperation during new product development among marketing, operations and R&D: Implications for project performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18: 258-271.
Pearce, J. L., & Gregersen, H. B. (1991). Task interdependence and extrarole behavior: A test of the mediating effects of felt responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 838-844
Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 792–802. Pintrich. P. R. (2000). The role of goai orientation in seliregulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich. & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: 451-502.
Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the classroom. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achtievement, 7, 371-402.
Poortvliet, P. M., Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N. W., & Van de Vliert, E.(2007). Achievement goals and interpersonal behavior: How mastery and performance goals shape information exchange. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1435–1447.
22
Reco, R., Bachrach, D., Sanchez-Manzanares, M., Collins, B., (2011). The interactive effects of person-focused citizenship behavior, task interdependence, and virtuality on team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20: 5, 700-726
Rico, R., & Cohen, S. G., (2005). Effects of task interdependence and type of communication on performance in virtual teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20: 3-4; pp. 261-274
Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). Should I ask for help? The role of motivation and attitudes in adolescents’ help seeking in math class. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 329–341
Saavedra, R., Early, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 61-72.
Schippers, M. C. (2014). Social Loafing Tendencies and Team Performance: The Compensating Effect of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Academy Of Management Learning & Education, 13(1), 62-81. Schopler, J. H. (1986). Interorganizational groups: Origins, structure and outcomes. Academy of
Management Review, 12, 702–713.
Sharma, M., & Ghosh, A. (2007). Does Team Size Matter? A Study of the Impact of Team Size on the Transactive Memory System and Performance of IT Sector Teams. South Asian Journal Of
Management, 14(4), 96-115.
Shi, X., Liao, Z., (2013). The mediating effects of interfirm business process integration and joint teamwork on firm performance in supply chains. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30:4, 1243-1264 Somech, A., Desivilya, H. S., & Lidogoster, H. (2008). Team conflict management and team effectiveness: the effects of task interdependence and team identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 35-378
Stanne, M. B., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Does competition enhance or inhibit motor performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125: 133–154.
Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intra team process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 135-148 Training Magazine, (1995). Teams in practice. Lakewood Publications, Minneapolis, October.
Van Yperen, N. W., & Janssen, O. (2002). Feeling fatigued and dissatisfied or feeling fatigued but satisfied? Employees’ goal orientations and their responses to high job demands. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 1161–1171.
23
Van de Walle, D., Brown, S. P., Cron,W. L., & Slocum, J.W. (1999). The influence of goal orientation and self-regulation tactics on sales performance: A longitudinal field test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 249–259.
Van der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J. M., 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, 54:1, 51-69.
Van der Vegt, G. S., Van der Vliert, E., (2005). Effects of Perceived Skill Dissimilarity and Task Interdependence on Helping in Work Teams. Journal of Management, 31:1, 73-89
Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145-180.
Waters, N. M., Beruvudes, M. G., (2012). An Empirical Study of Large-Sized Companies with Knowledge Work Teams and Their Impacts on Project Team Performance. Engineering management Journal, vol.:24-2
Wegge J, Jungmann F, Schmidt K, Reis, B. C. Diestel, S., Schmidt, K.H., (2012). What makes age diverse teams effective? Results from a six-year research program. Work [serial online]. February 2, 2012;41:5145-5151. Available from: Business Source Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed June 13, 2014. Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2001). Interpersonal conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Witt, L. A., Burke, L. A., Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2002). The Interactive Effects of Conscientiousness and Agreeableness on Job Performance. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 164-169.
Wurst, K. M., Hoegl, M. M., Gemuenden, H. G., (2001). Collaboration Within and Between Teams in Multi-Team R&D Projects,” in Technology Management in the Knowledge Era (Dundar F. Kocaoglu and Timothy R. Anderson, Eds.), Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology
