• No results found

Word count (all-inclusive): 10.631

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Word count (all-inclusive): 10.631"

Copied!
40
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Testing Theories of Team Processes

Team Processes

by

Hendrik Jonathan van de Worp S2023059

Aquamarijnstraat 795 9743 PV Groningen h.j.van.de.worp@student.rug.nl

University of Groningen

MSc Business Administration - Change Management Faculty of Economics and Business

June 20, 2017

Supervisors: Dr. H.C. Bruns

Dr. J.F.J. Vos

(2)

ABSTRACT

(3)

INTRODUCTION

In the past decades, much research has been conducted regarding team processes, team effectiveness and team performance (Leenders, Contractor, & DeChurch, 2016). In organizations, teams form for a certain time span in order to perform certain tasks. Teams exist to increase the productivity, quality and service of organizations (Guzzo & Salas, 1995). They are defined as a collection of individuals who depend on each other, seeing themselves as a group and performing a task in an organizational setting (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) or making decisions (Stasser, Vaughan, & Stewart, 2000). Such teams exist to perform organizational processes in an effective way (Antoni & Hertel, 2009; Hackman, 1987). In research, many have attempted to describe team processes using different instruments, for example those that measure reflexivity (Schippers, Den Hartog, Koopman, & Wienk, 2003; Schippers, Edmondson, & West, 2014; Nederveen Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, & Van Ginkel, 2011; DeDreu, 2002; West, 1996), communication (Mohammed & Angell, 2004; Cohen & Bailey, 1997), conflict (Schippers et al., 2003; Maltarich, Greenwald, & Reilly, 2016), cohesiveness (Jordan, Feild, & Armenakis, 2002; Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998), and other variables (Jordan et al., 2002;). Because processes have outcomes (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005), the most extensively measured outcomes of team processes are team performance and work satisfaction (e.g. Antoni & Hertel, 2009; Jehn, 1995; Gladstein, 1984).

(4)

2003), is used to measure team performance. Schippers, Edmondson, and West (2014) argue that reflexivity and communication are related to each other in team discussions. Reflexivity concerns the system of the discussion, while communication refers to the dicussion’s content (Schippers et al., 2014); the two are posively related (Hoegl & Parboteeah, 2006). Furthermore, Lee (2008) argues that the relationship between reflexivity and performance of the team, is moderated by the cohesiveness of the team. Barrick et al. (1998) claim that cohesive teams have positive interactions and communications. Lastly, conflict is also used as a process variable (Marks et al., 2001; Schippers et al., 2003), as it influences the functioning of a team (Marks et al., 2001). Conflict management and reflexivity have been found to be critical elements of team effectiveness (Tjosvold, Hui, & Yu, 2003), and conflict resolution in teams stimulates reflective communication (Wageman, 1995). As a whole, the theoretical interrelatedness between these variables suggest that they may reflect one process. However, despite that interrelatedness and the amount of research in the field of team processes, those variables have never been considered together. For that reason, this study compares these variables as an interconnected whole.

(5)

as such, do not give a comprehensive representation of the practice. For actual practice, it is relevant to have a better understanding of team processes, enabling managers to develop more efficient and effective teams (Marks et al., 2001).

In this study, I follow the definition of Marks et al., (2001, p. 357) who define team processes “as members' interdependent acts that convert inputs to outcomes through cognitive, verbal, and behavioral activities directed toward organizing task work to achieve collective goals.” This includes interaction among and between members and their environment and how the tasks are performed to accomplish a common goal (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). Teams and groups are dynamic and complex systems, have a position in a context and develop throughout time because of the interactions of the members (Kozlowksi & Ilgen, 2006). Knowledge of team processes is essential for those in managerial roles because it can improve a team’s effectiveness (e.g. Salas, Rozell, Mullen, & Driskell, 1999; LePine et al., 2008). Therefore, this empirical research focuses on the most studied proxies, further elaborated in the literature review.

This paper is structured as follows: First, the research question is explained. Then, the current status of team process theory is presented, and this study’s variables are explained. Subsequently, this study’s methodology, results and conclusions are described. It ends with a discussion of the results and limitations and provides future research options.

RESEARCH QUESTION

(6)

LITERATURE REVIEW

In this section, the literature concerning team processes is presented, and the variables are explained. First, the concept of team process is explored and elaborated. Once more insight is gained, the variables which have been used in previous studies are elaborated on to discover how comparable these variables are and how those variables relate to the outcomes of a team process.

Team processes

Generally, a process is described as two moments in time which can be related to each other (Hackman & Morris, 1975). More specifically, a process is the connection between input and output (Ilgen et al., 2005), resulting in an input-process-output model. Recently, this model has been criticized because it reflects a straight line from input to output without taking cycles into perspective (Moreland, 1996; Marks et al., 2001; Ilgen et al., 2005). Because of that, it also does not take temporality into account. Team processes are processes dealing with behavior and actions (Schippers et al., 2003) of a collection of individuals depending on each other (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). Team processes are concerned with interdependency, interaction and collective goals (Marks et al., 2001) and are important for the effectiveness of teams, because their processes are more effective when process gains are higher than the process losses and when the synergy is positive (Hackman, 1987; Steiner, 1972). Currently, many team processes address information handling, making the task more intellectual and cognitive in its nature (Schippers, Edmondson, & West, 2014).

(7)

They described these “emergent states” as “constructs that characterize properties of the team that are typically dynamic in nature and vary as a function of team context, inputs, processes, and outcomes” (Marks et al., 2001, p. 357). This simply means that traditional measures of team processes actually reflect team performance instead of team process. An emergent state is not a team process in itself. Rather, is the result of a team’s performance and provides input for future processes. These constructs are the descriptive characteristics of a team and are seen as variables. In the end, the model of Marks et al. (2001) reveals that a team process has has ten process dimensions and is unable to be captured by just one. This provides more insight into the complex and multi-faced concept of team processes, and it suggest that team processes change over time.

Another issue addressed by researchers is how to measure team processes. As argued before, many variables are related to team processes (e.g. Jordan et al., 2002; Marks et al., 2001) and are often believed to predict team outcomes, such as team performance or team effectiveness (Antoni & Hertel, 2009). Hackman (1987) argues that team processes are one of the criteria related to achieving team effectiveness, in addition to the generation of output and collaborative learning. As such, team performance is one of the indicators for team effectiveness (e.g. Hackman, 1987; Guzzo & Salas, 1995; Gladstein, 1984). However, Delgado Piña, Martinez, & Martinez (2008) conclude in their literature review that effectiveness is a multidimensional concept and that there are many different models of team effectiveness.

(8)

a team is more effective when the potential effectiveness of the team is less diminished by disturbing processes. Therefore, it is clear that team processes are composed of different parts which can enhance or reduce the performance and effectiveness of teams.

Variables of team processes

Because a team process contains different elements or variables, other researchers have investigated how they compare. Some of these variables have been studied in the context of variance theory in which time does not play any role. However, as argued before, time is essential for capturing a team process (Mohr, 1982). Based on the theory of team processes, it can be argued that reflexivity, communication, cohesiveness and conflict are related variables in team processes. In the following section, these variables, which are linked to team outcomes, are explained to discover to what extent time relates to these variables and to what extent these variables can be compared to each other.

(9)

search for unspecified feedback (Schippers et al., 2014). As proposed before, reflexivity is highly interrelated with communication in teams (Hoegl & Parboteeah, 2006). Reflexivity is often seen as the moderator (e.g. De Dreu, 2002) and as the mediator (Schippers et al., 2003) in theoretical models. Therefore, the results are scattered. Reflexivity is believed to improve team performance and decision-making by decreasing the chance of information errors (Schippers et al., 2014). Other studies have found that team reflexivity has a positive relationship with team effectiveness (e.g. De Dreu, 2007; Carter & West, 1998).

(10)

hand, too little communication can lead to an unacceptablely low level of information and negatively affect a proper performance. Following this line of reasoning, the study of Patrashkova-Volzdoska et al. (2003) suggests that “both low and high levels of communcation may lead to lower team performance, suggesting a curvilinear relationship” (p. 263).

Other researchers have found that managing conflict in social relationships also influences team processes (Marks et al., 2001; Schippers et al., 2003) as a process variable (Maltarich, Greenwald, & Reilly, 2016). Conflicts in teams may result in members withdrawing their cooperation (Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). In one study, De Dreu (2002) categorized conflict into two categories: task conflict (conflicts in some way related to the task and the outcome) and non-task conflict (social and emotional conflicts related to group functioning). Non-task conflict is often seen as relational conflict and has a negative influence on team performance (e.g. Cohen & Bailey, 1997). In addition, Barki & Hartwick (2004) argue that group members can have negative emotions as a reaction to both task- and non-task conflict. Such conflict has three properties: disagreement, the perception of conflict; negative emotion, affective reaction; and interference, the behavioral effort to resolve the conflict. To describe conflict as a process in time and to study the evolution of conflict over time, Mohammed and Angell (2004) suggest that researchers perform a survey at two separate moments. In other studies, conflict is seen as a process outcome (e.g. LeDoux, Gorman, & Woehr, 2012). However, Marks et al., (2001) argue that conflict influences the functioning of the team, which makes it reasonable to treat conflict as a process variable. Jehn & Mannix (2001) argue that conflict works out differently in high- and low-performing teams. High performing groups experience lower levels of task conflict and conflict increases over time than low performing groups. Their study explains that less conflict leads to higher performance.

(11)

argue that the cohesiveness of teams has three aspects: interpersonal attraction, the feelings of individuals about other members; task commitment, the urge to engage in the work at hand; and group pride, positive feelings about being a member of the team. The cohesiveness of a team is influenced by several factors: how comparable the members are to each other, their appearance or background, for example (Hogg, 1993); group size, with a larger group more easily leading to withdrawal of effort (Carron & Spink, 1995; George & Feltz, 1995); and other factors such as the success of the group (Zaccaro & McCoy, 1988) and competition and uncertainty in the environment of the team (Rempel & Fisher, 1997). Furthermore, in the study of Beal et al. (2003) the cohesiveness of teams is positively correlated to the effectiveness of the team. Cohesiveness is considered to be a process variable in many studies and is positively linked to team performance (e.g. Jordan et al., 2002; Barrick et al., 1998; Beal et al., 2003). Beal et al. (2003) also argue that team cohesiveness is the result of efficient use of resources because the team members better know each other and are more motivated. Therefore, these teams perform better.

Team processes refer to a collection of people and their behavior. It is clear that the knowledge concerning team processes is not unified and that there are contradictions in how team processes are understood. Variables that are team qualities are often incorrectly presented as team processes. Time is also sometimes ignored in variance studies. Furthermore, team processes consist of more than one variable and are related to team performance and effectiveness. In my study, the most relevant variables are found to somehow capture team processes in the literature and are found to be interrelated as well. These are reflexivity, communication, conflict and cohesiveness of the team. A conceptual framework is presented in Appendix 5. These variables can be measured and each variable can be compared across each participating team. Therefore, the hypothesis of this study is:

(12)

METHODOLOGY

As indicated in the previous sections, this study aims to contribute more knowledge about the concept of team processes in a business context. This aim can partly be achieved by testing the concept empirically because previous research has identified different constructs of team processes (Van Aken, Berends, & Van der Bij, 2012). By using the theory testing approach, the generated hypothesis was tested using primary data through the use of surveys. This research was conducted at a group level.

Data collection

I took the population description of this study from the literature as described in the introduction. Based on the literature, I define a team as a collection of individuals performing tasks or making decisions to reach a collective goal (Guzzo & Salas, 1995; Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Stasser, Vaughan, & Stewart, 2000) in an organizational setting. This includes temporary project teams and teams which are together for many years. Teams meeting these criteria were the population for this study. The sample consisted of randomly selected companies in the Netherlands and China operating in various industries, contexts, and departments because there was no interest in comparing specific kinds of teams (Van Aken, Berends, & Van der Bij, 2012). This study did not aim to compare Western and Asian cultures. Both contexts were selected for practical reasons; it made it easier to find a population to study. To measure the impact of cultural differences, I added culture as a control variable.

(13)

items to Dutch and Chinese, followed by another person translating the Dutch and Chinese versions back to English. This method assessed the meaning of the statements in the survey and ensured proper translation. The statements belonging to different variables were randomly ordered. I used items from previous studies. To create consistency, I adapted some of the original items (which were questions) to statements of team conflict. I adapted what was originally a 7-point Likert scale on team viability to a 5-point Likert scale.

Procedure

To collect data about the different variables in their relationship to team processes, a web-based survey was developed. It was distributed using social networks and filled in by representatives of each participating team. The survey was based on a collection of developed instruments in the field of team processes and therefore did not need to be pre-tested. Once the data was available for statistical testing, I first performed a factor analysis for each variable to find a useful pattern in the correct direction and to examine the variance of the different factors. This was followed by a reliability analysis to check whether the items used for one variable were a reliable representation of that variable. The Cronbach alpha’s should exceed 0.70. This was followed by a multiple regression analysis that checked the multicollinearity of the independent variables. The same was done for the control variables. This showed the extent to which the different variables were correlated to of different from the other variables. The outcomes of these preliminary tests are presented in the results section. In the end, I tested the hypothesis by performing a second-order exploratory factor analysis (EFA). With this analysis, I tested the construct validity of team processes (Jarvis, Mackenzie, & Podsakoff, 2003). This test indicated the extent to which covariation among the variables was caused by variation in the latent factor, thus reflecting the same factor.

Independent and dependent variables

(14)

Team reflexivity was measured by using the scale of Swift & West (1998) which includes nine items, such as “The team often reviews its objectives” and “Team strategies are rarely changed.”

The items for team communication were taken from the survey of Temkin-Greener, Gross, Kunitz, and Mukamel (2004) and contained five items. Examples of these items are “When team members talk, we understand each other” and “There is effective communication between team members about their objective.”

To measure team conflict, the eight items of Jehn (1995) were used. For these items, I converted the original questions to statements for the consistency of the survey. These items include statements like “Frequently there are conflicts about ideas in your team” and “There is effective communication between team members about their objective.” Lastly, team cohesiveness was measure by using the nine items of the Stokes’ survey (Stokes, 1983). The items are, for example, “I feel included in team activities” and “I like my current team”.

As explained above, the effectiveness of a team includes team performance and team satisfaction. Team viability is also often included. As a result, I used a self-rated performance measure including the five items of Campion, Papper, and Medsker (1996) with items like “The team provides a high level of customer service” and “The team completes its work on time.” The three items of Roe, Zinovieva, Dienes, and Ten Horn (2000) were added to measure team performance. The items included a statement like “Difficult assignments are usually given to me.” Team satisfaction was measured by the three items of Gladstein (1984) including three additional items. One was “I am pleased with the way my colleagues and I work together.” Team viability was measured by using the three items of Hackman (1988), for example “Working with members of the team is an energizing and uplifting experience.” This was completed with the four team viability items of Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount (1998). These included, for example, “This team should not continue to function as a team” and “If I had the chance, I would have switched teams.”

(15)

possible biases. Furthermore, because the size of a team can have an impact on the team’s performance (Haleblian & Finkelstein, 1993), it was also included. The period of being part of the team of the participant was measured by approaching it as team tenure (Schaubroeck, Lam, & Cha (2007). In the Schaubroeck et al. (2007) research was found that the longer an employee works with the team, the better the team effectiveness is. This correlation could have influenced the outcome of this study and therefore was included.

FINDINGS

In this study, I surveyed 135 teams represented by individual team members. All participants represented different kinds of teams in different contexts and industries, such as banking, engineering, education, tourism and information technology. The contexts were also divided, such as project teams, marketing, and human resources management.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics

Item Category Proportion

Number of participants 137

Average age Years 29.2

Nationality China 57.7% The Netherlands 42.3% Gender Male 46.7% Female 51.8% Education No education 1.5% High school 4.4%

Secondary Vocational Education 10.2%

Bachelor degree 40.9%

Master’s degree 41.6%

Team size

Average number of persons in a

team 24

Team tenure

Average years as member the

team 3.8

Job tenure Average years in the organization 4.9

(16)

years, working on average for 3.8 years on the same team. Other descriptive variables are presented in Table 1.

Preliminary analysis

I began the data analysis with an EFA to identify the items which could be grouped to form one construct. The first EFA was performed with a fixed number of factors set at “1.” This analysis demonstrates that all items do not reflect one construct (Appendix 1). The table in Appendix 1 shows that all items of the independent variables reflect more than one construct and therefore do not reflect only one construct. Next another EFA analysis was performed by analyzing the items of the independent variables based on Eigenvalues, as presented in Appendix 2. These analyses suggest that the items of the independent variables represent many different factors. When the EFA was performed with a fixed number of factors set at four, based on the four independent variables, many items were excluded because they did not reflect the construct. I used orthogonal rotation (varimax) with a prescribed number of 4 factors, based on my literature review. The four items together explain 58.8% of the total variance. Altogether, the EFA indicates that different constructs can explain team processes, which is in congruence with the hypothesis of this study.

Table 2 EFA

Construct and item wording SL

(17)

Team communication

Team communication (2) .312 Team communication (3) .649 Team communication (4) .674

The second test was the reliability analysis of the constructs to determine their Cronbach’s alpha. The results of the reliability analysis are presented in Table 3. George and Mallery (2003) argue that a Cronbach’s alpha of.7 is sufficiently high.

Table 3 Cronbach's alpha of the team constructs

Construct Cronbach's Alpha Conflict .86 Reflexivity .83 Cohesiveness .76 Communication .67 Viability .82 Satisfaction .91 Performance .62

The results of the reliability analysis in Table 3 show that the internal consistency of the items of team conflict, reflexivity and communication are sufficiently high. While team communication has a lower score of.67, it is not detrimental and therefore still useful.

Preliminary tests for the dependent variables and control variables were performed as well. The EFA (varimax) for the dependent variables indicates three factors, as displayed in Table 4.

Table 4 EFA dependent variables

Construct and item wording SL

Team satisfaction (1) .852 Team satisfaction (2) .832 Team satisfaction (3) .864 Team viability (3R) .914 Team viability (4R) .760 Team viability (5R) .636 Team performance (6) .894 Team performance (7) .863 Team performance (8) .405

(18)

The reliability tests of the internal validity of the constructs are presented in Table 3. Team viability has a Cronbach’s alpha of.82, satisfaction of.91 and performance of.62. Despite performance’s lower score, it is still within the margins of acceptance to be useful for further analysis. Team taks interdependence was measured on 5-point Likert scales and I also performed a EFA with Eigenvalue for this variable. The outcome of this test is presented in Table 5. All items together were one factor with a Cronbach’s Alpha of .603. The reliability of team interdependence is low, but that is not detrimental for my analysis.

Table 5 EFA of team task interdependence

Construct and item wording SL

Team task interdependence (2R) .969 Team task interdependence (3) .591 Team task interdependence (5) .644 Team task interdependence (1) .402

The last preliminary analysis was a multiple regression analysis and determining correlations between the independent variables. The result of the Pearson correlation test can be found in Table 5.

Table 6 Correlations between independent variables

Conflict Reflexivity Cohesiveness Communication

Conflict 1

Reflexivity .023 1

Cohesiveness .402* .240* 1

Communication .341* .436* .566* 1

(19)

team cohesiveness are reflecting the same construct. However, the other four independent variables do not strongly correlate, which indicates that they do not reflect one latent construct. The next step was to perform a multiple regression analysis to predict team effectiveness based on the independent and control variables. Therefore, I performed a factor analysis to group team satisfaction and team performance to form the variable of team effectiveness, based on the theory of Gladstein (1984). An EFA based on Eigenvalues scored two factors, but by erasing some items of team performance (items 6-8), one factor was formed with a Cronbach’s Alpha of .858. Furthermore, I reverted some of the control variables to nominal scale to include them in the analysis. The categories I used for the recoding can be found in Appendix 3. The result of this test is displayed in Table 7, where team effectiveness is the dependent variable. All variance inflation factors are clearly smaller than 10, which means that the results passed the multicollinearity test and thus can be interpreted.

Table 7 Multiple regression analysis with team effectiveness as dependent variable Model 1 Model 2

Steps and variables SE SE

Intercept 2,105* .531 .066 .375 Control Nationality .113 .127 -.034 .084 Gender .086 .119 .137 .077 Education -.02 .061 .014 .038 Interdependence .293* .084 .134* .055 Age .243 .093 .061 .061 Team size .065 .039 .023 .024 Team tenure -.085 .098 .013 .062 Job tenure -.106 .094 -.02 .059 Main effects Conflict .046 .05 Reflexivity .009 .048 Cohesiveness .453 .055 Communication .253 .067 .186 .702 Δ R² .186 .515

(20)

A multiple regression analysis was performed to test for regressions with team effectiveness. No significant relationships were found between the independent variables and team effectiveness, as displayed in Table 7. Team task interdependence was the only variable that had a positive relationship with team effectiveness ( =.30, p <.01), meaning that the higher the rating on the team task interdependence, the more effective the team. Additional analyses of other team outcomes are presented in Appendix 4. However, there were significant relationships between team satisfaction and team viability. Team cohesiveness ( =.792, p <.01) had a strong relationship with team satisfaction, and team communication had a positive relationship as well ( =.233, p <.01). This means that high cohesiveness and good communication are strong indicators of team members’ satisfaction. Lastly, I performed the multiple regression analysis with team viability as the dependent variable. A positive relationship was found between team cohesiveness and team viability ( =.417, p <.01). This indicates that when the cohesiveness of a team increases, so does its viability. Explanations for these relationships are discussed in the next section. The conclusion of the multiple regression analysis is that the independent variables have no significant relationships with team effectiveness. Some positive relationships with team outcomes were found as a result of additional analysis. This leads to the conclusion that, based on these analyses, the independent variables do not reflect one construct. Even more, with all preliminary tests considered together, I conclude that the independent variables do not reflect one unified construct of team process.

Hypothesis testing

(21)

of the independent variables together was 8.882E-16. This is a low score, indicating that the four constructs cannot be considered together. This means that team communication, team reflexivity, team cohesiveness and team conflict reflect different processes. Reflexivity, communication, cohesiveness and conflict do not reflect one construct; therefore, those variables do not capture team process.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Discussion

In this study, I investigated whether the concept of team processes can be reduced to several variables, namely team reflexivity, team communication, team conflict and team cohesiveness. The main outcome indicates that those variables clearly represent multiple aspects of team processes. The varied methods used for analysis suggest that the variables do not correlate strongly, have different (insignificant) relationships with team effectiveness and other team outcomes, and, finally, represent more than one factor in a second order factor analysis. This means that these variables do not accurately describe team process as a single concept. This is in line with process theories in the sense that team process is a complex and multi-faced concept, evolving over time (Marks et al., 2001). The suggested complexity of team processes is confirmed in my study. Even more, it indicates that a single description of team process does not exist. Rather it is a complex collection of many different inputs or variables, leading to different outputs such as team effectiveness, viability and perf ormance. When time is taken into account, it becomes even more complex and dynamic (Kozlowksi & Ilgen, 2006). Because the inputs may differ over time, the team processes may also differ, leading to variation in output (Ilgen et al., 2005).

(22)

2004), conflict and team performance (Cohen & Bailey, 1997) and between team cohesiveness and performance (Jordan, Feild, & Armenakis, 2002). In this study, other correlations and relationships were found not to be significant. This possibly was due to the exclusion of time in my variance study (Weingart, 1997; Mohr, 1982). Because time is critical in processes (Langley et al., 2013) it is also critical in studying those processes (Mohr, 1982). As in all other variance studies, my results were taken at one moment in time. Measuring at another moment in time may have led to other research results, and other significant relationships could have been found. This is in line with the theory of Marks et al. (2001) concerning different “episodes” in team processes. As teams pass through different episodes, different dimensions of team processes may be present. Measuring many teams only once may have resulted in measuring them at different episodes, with different inputs and team variables being present. This possibility may have resulted in a high variation in the survey responses. Again, including time could possibly have reduced this influence.

Furthermore, in this study I did not directly measure team effectiveness. Team effectiveness was measured by combining the results of team performance and team satisfaction in a factor analysis, based on the theory of Gladstein (1984). Using an instrument with items for team effectiveness could have led to other results. Furthermore, the team outcomes were self-rated. Respondents could have been biased and subjective regarding the team outcomes because they were directly involved in the performance of the teams.

Theoretical implications

(23)

have been suggested in previous research to represent team processes (e.g. Schippers et al., 2003; LePine et al., 2008; Jordan et al., 2002; Mohammed & Angell, 2004). However, my study of these variables in one sample suggests that different processes are occurring in teams. Although there are unexplained differences among the variables, the results of this study bring research one step closer to a reliable notion of team processes.

Managerial implications

As managers want teams to work effectively and to perform, increasing knowledge of team processes is an urgent need. For managers, insight of my study regarding team process might be valuable because managers are aware of the complexity and dynamics of team processes. Furthermore, managers might be more aware of the importance of time when team processes are measured, with those processes evolving over time. Lastly, with the knowledge that processes are influenced by inputs and that the process influences the output (Ilgen et al., 2005), a manager can influence the process and output by selecting the input for a team process.

Limitations and suggestions

In addition to the limitations previously mentioned, this study’s main limitation is the variance approach (Mohr, 1982) which ignores time to gain more insight in a team process. The indication that a team process cannot be captured by its variables offers insights for future research, namely that a future process study that includes time is needed. For example, observations of teams are one way to perform a process analysis. In addition, including time in variance approaches is another option. For example, measuring team processes in the same teams at multiple moments in time. This would enable researchers to gain more insight into the evolution of processes over time.

(24)

sample to ensure validity. However, different kinds of teams might have different team processes which makes it difficult to generalize the findings of this study. Another limitation regarding the sample is the completeness of the responses. Not all potential respondents filled in all the survey items, so the sample could have been larger than 137 respondents. This relatively small sample size also makes it difficult to generalize the findings. The last limitation is due to the self-rating of the team performance. In my study, the data was only taken from one source. Risks of common method bias and common source variance may be present (Schippers et al., 2007). A future study might be extended by including multiple sources of data collection and a more objective verification of team performance.

Conclusion

This close study of team processes adds insights to field. Often, researchers have attempted to capture team processes through reflexivity (Schippers et al., 2003) or communication (Mohammed & Angell, 2004). In this study, reflexivity, communication, conflict and cohesiveness in teams are compared. The analyses suggest that these variables do not represent one single process. Instead they represent different aspects of team processes (Marks et al., 2001). These findings indicate that one variable is not generalizable as a representation of a team process. Furthermore, the relationship of each variable to the outcomes of team processes are diverse. These findings indicate that there are no significant relationships between the variables and team effectiveness or team performance, which may be the result of the selection of the measurement instruments.

(25)

Acknowledgements

(26)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Antoni, C., & Hertel, G. (2009). Team processes, their antecedents and consequences: Implications for different types of teamwork. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 18(3), 253-266.

Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2004). Conceptualizing the construct of interpersonal conflict.

International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(3), 216-244.

Barrick, M., Stewart, G., Neubert, M., & Mount, M. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. The Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83, 377-391.

Barrick, M., Stewart, G., Neubert, M., & Mount, M. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83, 377-391.

Bell, S. T., & Marentette, B. J. (2011). Team viability for long-term and ongoing organizational teams. Organizational Psychology Review, 1(4), 275–292. Bullock, R., & Svyantek, D. (1985). Analyzing meta-analysis: Potential problems, an

unsuccessful replication, and evaluation criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology,

10(1), 108-115.

Campion, M., Papper, E., & Medsker, G. (1996). Relations between work team

characteristics and effectiveness: a replication and extension. Personell Psychology,

4, 429-452.

Carter, S. M., & West, M. A. (1998). Reflexivity, effectiveness, and mental health in BBC-TV production teams. Small Group Research, 29(5), 583-601.

Chapanis, A., Ochsman, R. B., Parrish, R. N., & Weeks, G. D. (1972). Studies in interactive communication: the effects of four communication modes on the behavior of teams during cooperative problem-solving. Human Factors, 14(6), 487-509.

(27)

De Dreu, C. (2002). Team innovation and team effectiveness: The importance of minority dissent and reflexivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,

11(3), 285-298.

De Dreu, C. K. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: a motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92(3), 628-638.

Delgado Piña, M. I., Martinez, A. M., & Martinez, L. G. (2008). Teams in organizations: a review on team effectiveness. Team Performance Management: An International

Journal, 14(1/2), 7-21.

Ellis, D. G. (1994). Small Group Decision Making: Communication and the group Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and

reference. 11.0 update (4th edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Gladstein, D. (1984). Groups in a context: A model of taks group effectiveness.

Admintstrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.

Guzzo, R., & Salas, E. (1995). Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hackman, J. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch, Handbook of organizational

behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Hackman, J. (1988). Flight Crew Questionnaire. Cambridge: MA.

Hackman, J., & Morris, C. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 45-99.

(28)

Haleblian, J., & Finkelstein, S. (1993). Top management team size, CEO dominance, and firm performance: The moderating roles of environmental turbulence and discretion.

Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 844-863.

Hoegl, M., & Parboteeah, K. P. (2006). Team reflexivity in innovative projects. R&D

Management, 36, 113-125.

Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2015). Making a difference in the teamwork: Linking prosocial motivation to team processes and effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal,

58(4), 1102-1127.

Ilgen, D., Hollenbeck, J., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517-543.

Ilgen, D., Major, D., Hollenbeck, J., & Sego, D. (1993). Team research in the 1990s. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Jarvis, C., Mackenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 199-218.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). The relationship of group process variables and team performance.

Small Group Research, 33(1), 121-150.

Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journa, 44(2), 238-251.

Jordan, M., Feild, H., & Armenakis, A. (2002). The relationship of group process variables and team performance. Small Group Research, 33(1), 121-150.

Kennedy, D., & McComb, S. (2014). When teams shift among processes: Insights from simulation and optimization. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 99(5), 784-815. Kozlowksi, S., & Ilgen, D. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams.

(29)

Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: unveiling temporality, activity, and flow.

Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1-13.

LeDoux, J., Gorman, C., & Woehr, D. (2012). The impact of interpersonal perceptions on team processes: a social relations analysis. Small Group Research, 43(3), 356-382. Lee, L. T. (2008). The effects of team reflexivity and innovativeness on new product

development performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108(3/4), 548-569.

Leenders, R., Contractor, N., & DeChurch, L. (2016). Once upon a time: Understanding team processes as relational event networks. Organizational Psychology Review,

6(1), 92-115.

LePine, J., Jackson, C., Mathieu, J., & Saul, J. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 273-307.

Maltarich, M., Greenwald, J., & Reilly, G. (2016). Team-level goal orientation: an emergent state and its relationships with team inputs, process, and outcomes. European

Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(1), 68-88.

Marks, M., Mathieu, J., & Zaccaro, S. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376.

Mathieu, J., & Button, S. (1992). An examination of the relative impact of normative

information and self-efficacy on personal goals and performance over time. Journal

of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1758-1775.

Mathieu, J., Heffner, T., Goodwin, G., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 85(2), 273-283.

(30)

Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. (2004). Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1015-1039.

Mohr, L. (1982). Explaining Organizational Behavior. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.

Moreland, R. (1996). Lewin's legacy for small group research. Systems Practice, 9(1), 7-26. Nederveen Pieterse, A., Van Knippenberg, D., & Van Ginkel, W. (2011). Diversity in goal

orientation, team reflexivity, and team performance. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 114, 153–164.

Patrashkova-Volzdoska, R. R., McComb, S. A., & Green, S. G. (2003). Examining a

curvilinear relationship between communication frequency and team performance in cross-functional project teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,

50(3), 262-269.

Roe, R., Dienes, E., Ten Horn, L., & Zinovieva, I. (1995). Expanded Delft measurement kit:

English version. Tilburg: WORC.

Roe, R., Zinovieva, I., Dienes, E., & Ten Horn, L. (2000). A comparison of work motivation in Bulgaria, Hungary, and the Netherlands: Test of a model. Applied Psychology, 49(4), 658-687.

Rogers, D. (1987). The Development of a Measure of Perceived Communication Openness.

Journal of Business Communication, 24(4), 53-61.

Salas, E., Rozell, D., Mullen, B., & Driskell, J. (1999). The effect of team building on performance. Small Group Research, 30, 309-329.

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1020.

Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2008). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing team reflexivity. Human Relations,

(31)

Schippers, M., Den Hartog, D., Koopman, P., & Wienk, J. (2003). Diversity and team outcomes: the moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity and the mediating effect of reflexivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 779-802.

Schippers, M., Edmondson, A., & West, M. (2014). Team reflexivity as antidote to team information-processing failures. Small Group Research, 45(6), 731-769.

Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 118-135. Sivasubramaniam, N., Liebowitz, S., & Lackman, C. (2012). Determinants of new product

development team performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Product

Innovation Management, 29(5), 803-820.

Stasser, G., Vaughan, S., & Stewart, D. (2000). Pooling unshared information: The benefits of knowing how access to information is distributed among group members.

Organizational Behavior and Human Design Processes, 82(1), 102-116.

Steiner, I. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York, New York: Academic Press. Stokes, J. (1983). Components of group cohesiveness: Inter-member attraction,

instrumental value, and risk taking. Small Group Research, 14(2), 163-173. Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: applications and

effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 45(2), 120-133.

Swift, T., & West, M. (1998). Reflexivity and group processes: Research and practice. Sheffield: The ESRC Centre for Organization and Innovation.

Temkin-Greener, H., Gross, D., Kunitz, S., & Mukamel, D. (2004). Measuring

interdisciplinary performance in long-term care setting. Medical Care, 42(5), 472-481. Tjosvold, D., Hui, C., & Yu, Z. (2003). Conflict management and task reflexivity for team

in-role and extra-in-role performance in China. International Journal of Conflict

(32)

Van Aken, J., Berends, H., & Van der Bij, H. (2012). Problem solving in organizations: a

methodological handbook for business and management students. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Van de Ven, A. (1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note.

Strategic Management Journal, 13, 169-188.

Verhoef, P. C. (2003). Understanding the effect of customer relationship management efforts on customer retention and customer scale development. Journal of Marketing, 67, 30-45.

Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 40, 145-180.

Weingart, L. (1997). How did you do that? The ways and means of studying group processes. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 189-239.

West, M. (1996). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: a conceptual integration. In M.A. West. In M. West, Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 555-579). Chichester: Wiley.

West, M. A. (2000). In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein, Product

(33)
(34)

APPENDIX 2 - EFA BASED ON MORE THAN 1 EIGENVALUE

Items SL and factor

(35)

APPENDIX 3 – Categorization of scale data

Category Age (in years)

Team size (in number of persons)

Team and job tenure (in years)

1 < 20 1-4 < 1

2 20-29 5-8 1-4

3 30-39 9-12 5-10

4 40-49 13-19 11-20

(36)

APPENDIX 4 – REGRESSION MODEL WITH TEAM OUTCOMES AS DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Team performance Team satisfaction Team viability

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Steps and variables B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE

Intercept 3,692* .594 3,676 .687 1,943* .775 -.838 .492 2,034* .727 -.461 .564 Control Nationality -.019 .142 -.038 .154 .103 .185 -.189 .11 .104 .174 -.069 .126 Gender -.357 .132 -.327 .141 .159 .172 .217 .101 .17 .162 .052 .116 Education -.023 .069 -.014 .07 -.037 .09 -.001 .05 .013 .084 .003 .058 Interdependence -.01 .094 -.033 .1 .308 .123 .096 .072 .265 .115 .159 .082 Age -.14 .104 -.129 .111 .273 .136 -.008 .08 .321* .128 .006 .091 Team size .051 .043 .047 .044 .106 .056 .025 .032 .061 .053 .002 .036 Team tenure -.096 .11 -.103 .114 -.04 .143 .104 .082 -.106 .134 .035 .094 Job tenure .333* .105 .333 .109 -.217 .137 -.054 .078 -.172 .128 -.003 .089 Main effects Conflict -.076 .092 .141 .066 .509 .075 Reflexivity .005 .089 -.077 .064 -.019 .073 Cohesiveness .082 .101 .792* .072 .417* .083 Communication .001 .123 .233* .088 .084 .101 .204 .212 .130 .741 .134 .615 Δ R² .204 .008 .130 .611 .134 .481

(37)

APPENDIX 5 – CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Reflexivity

Communication

Conflict

Cohesiveness

(38)

APPENDIX 6 – SURVEY Geachte werknemer,

U neemt deel aan een onderzoek dat bepaalde elementen van team processen in kaart tracht te brengen. Het doel van dit onderzoek is om meer inzicht te krijgen in deze factoren en hoe ze verhouden ten opzichte van teamprestatie. Het invullen van de vragenlijst kost ongeveer 5 minuten.

Uw antwoorden vallen onder het privacyreglement van de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Uw antwoorden blijven anoniem voor uw leidinggevende en zullen alleen door de onderzoeker van de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen worden gebruikt voor wetenschappelijk onderzoek. De onderzoeksresultaten worden gepresenteerd op een zodanige wijze dat de uitkomsten niet te herleiden zijn tot individuele organisaties, teams of teamleden.

We maken gebruik van gevalideerde stellingen. Sommige van deze lijken misschien op elkaar. Wij verzoeken u echter toch om alle vragen te beantwoorden, dit is zeer belangrijk voor ons. Denkt u bij het invullen aan het team waarin u momenteel het meeste werk verricht. U kunt het antwoord omcirkelen dat volgens u het meest van toepassing is op de situatie binnen uw team. In geval van twijfel kunt u het beste afgaan op het eerste antwoord dat bij u opkomt. Er zijn geen foute antwoorden.

Als u verder nog vragen of opmerkingen heeft, twijfel dan niet om contact op te nemen met de onderzoeker via het e-mailadres k.strikwerda.1@rug.nl. Bij voorbaat hartelijk dank voor uw bereidheid tot deelname aan dit onderzoek.

Algemene vragen Wat is uw geslacht?

• Man • Vrouw Wat is uw leeftijd?

Wat is uw hoogst genoten opleidingsniveau? • Geen onderwijs • Basis onderwijs • Middelbaar onderwijs • Middelbaar beroepsonderwijs • Hoger beroepsonderwijs • Universitair

Hoe lang bent u werknemer bij deze organisatie? Hoe lang bent u onderdeel van uw huidige team? Uit hoeveel leden bestaat uw team?

Wat is het doel van het team?

(39)

Team processen

(1=volledig mee oneens, 5=volledig mee eens)

1. Er is veel emotionele conflicten tussen leden in mijn team.

2. Al mijn teamleden komen overeen met mijn ideaalbeeld van goede teamleden 3. Ik moet samenwerken met mijn teamleden om goed te presenteren.

4. Ik heb informatie en advies nodig van mijn teamleden om mijn werk goed te doen. 5. Het team reflecteert vaak op de doelstellingen van het team.

6. Ik heb informatie en advies nodig van mijn teamleden om mijn werk goed te doen. 7. Ik heb een eenpersoons functie: het is niet nodig voor mij om met teamleden te

coördineren of samen te werken.

8. In dit team passen we onze doelen aan op basis van veranderende omstandigheden. 9. De manier waarop beslissingen worden genomen verandert zelden.

10. Team strategieën worden zelden veranderd.

11. We bespreken regelmatig of het team efficiënt werkt. 12. Ik heb het gevoel dat ik wordt betrokken in teamactiviteiten 13. Vaak zijn er conflicten over ideeën in mijn team.

14. Het delen van informatie tussen teamleden gebeurt nauwkeurig en precies.

15. Er is effectieve communicatie tussen teamleden wat betreft de doelen van het team. 16. Teamleden zijn niet goed geïnformeerd over dingen die gebeuren in andere shifts. 17. Ik vind mijn huidige team leuk.

18. In vergelijking met andere teams werkt mijn team goed samen. 19. Vaak zijn er meningsverschillen in mijn team.

20. We bespreken vaak hoe goed we informatie onderling communiceren. 21. Als teamleden met elkaar praten begrijpen ze elkaar.

22. Het team reflecteert regelmatig of het werk goed wordt uitgevoerd. 23. Er is veel spanning onder leden in mijn team.

24. De werkwijze die het team gebruikt om taken uit te voeren worden vaak besproken. 25. Vaak zijn mensen in mijn team het oneens over opvattingen van het werk wat wordt

uitgevoerd.

26. De strategieën en plannen van ons team zijn erg effectief.

27. Ik heb het gevoel dat door te werken met dit team ik in staat ben om mijn persoonlijke doelen voor de groep te bereiken.

28. Vaak is er conflict over het werk dat ik doet in mijn team.

29. Er zijn veel persoonlijkheids conflicten klaarblijkelijk aanwezig in mijn team.

30. Dit team is bereid om kritische vragen te stellen over organisatorische zaken en het beleid.

31. Ik moet regelmatig met teamleden communiceren over werkgerelateerde kwesties. 32. Er is veel wrijving onder leden in mijn team.

33. Ik vind de activiteiten waarin ik als teamlid deelneem aantrekkelijk.

34. Als mijn teamgenoten beslissen het team te verlaten, zal ik ze proberen te overtuigen om dit niet te doen.

35. Als ik gevraagd zou worden om deel te nemen aan een nieuw project, zou ik met dezelfde mensen willen werken als in mijn huidige team.

36. Mijn team zou vaker met elkaar moeten afspreken. Effectiviteit van het team

(1 = volledig mee oneens, 5 = volledig mee eens)

1. Het team verzorgt (klanten)service op een hoog niveau. 2. Ik ben tevreden met mijn huidige collega's.

3. Teamleden geven veel om het team, en werken samen om het te maken tot een van de beste.

4. Ik ben zeer tevreden met werken in dit team. 5. De productiviteit van ons team is hoog.

(40)

8. Dit team vertoont tekenen van uit elkaar vallen.

9. Het werk dat gedaan wordt door mijn team is van hoge kwaliteit. 10. Het team krijgt het werk op tijd af.

11. Het is bekend dat ik beter presteer dan andere teamleden.

12. Dit team moet waarschijnlijk nooit meer samenwerken in de toekomst. 13. Ik ben tevreden met de manier waarop mijn collega's en ik samenwerken. 14. Dit team is niet in staat om samen te werken als een eenheid.

15. Het team reageert snel op onvoorziene problemen.

16. Als ik de kans had, zou ik zijn overgestapt naar een ander teams.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Hemker, Error bounds for exponentially fitted Galerkin methods applied to stiff two-point boundary vaZue problems, to appear in the prooeedings of the oonferenoe

L14 44 Grijsbruin-geel, gevlekt, vrij los, zandig pakket, duidelijke aflijning, met weinig baksteen, mortel en kalkzandsteen 1 bodemfragment ongeglazuurd rood aardewerk,

In this paper, a new MPC scheme using a time-varying terminal cost and constraint is introduced for linear, time-invariant systems, further improving the com- putational advantage

As a consequence, we introduce and subsequently test a new team design strategy based on network data, called ‘team dating’, and explore the role of reciprocal relational

This quote implies that the higher the amount of time users work with the system, the better development within the IT is possible. Another possible explanation is that the increase

A to analyse why it is hard to stay loyal to friends in modern times B to criticise the influence of social media on today’s society C to explain why it is cruel to act as

[r]

And as more companies are focusing their online marketing activities on user generated content and thus user generated websites, it raises the question how type of website