Search results

This paper aims to test if team reflexivity is a countermeasure to the detrimental effect of team virtuality on team performance improvement, in decision-making teams.

Study 1 regarded 210 individuals (N = 44 teams) executing five decision-making tasks. Study 2 regarded 60 individuals (N = 20 teams) executing four decision-making tasks. Study 1 was longitudinal, with no experimental manipulation. Study 2 had an experimental longitudinal design comprising two between-team manipulations: medium of communication and team reflexivity; the outcome was team performance improvement.

Study 1’s results show that team reflexivity positively moderates the effect of virtuality on team performance improvement over time. Study 2’s results shows that a reflexivity manipulation benefits face-to-face teams more so than virtual teams, probably because team reflexivity is more effective when media richness is high.

The implications of reflexivity’s lack of effect in low virtuality (Study 1) and high virtuality (Study 2) teams are discussed. This study contributes to the team learning and virtual teams’ literatures by expanding current knowledge on how team reflexivity can facilitate team learning under face-to-face versus virtual communication conditions.

The aim of this study is to describe work-engaged teams in terms of interpersonal interaction.

Six teams (N = 31 individuals) were videotaped during a decision-making task, for one hour. Based on a priori defined categories, the authors coded the videos in terms of the degree of interaction between team members, the physical distance between members, the degree of team’s activation and the valence of their interaction. The videos were also coded in terms of motivational and affective processes. Team work engagement was assessed using questionnaires.

Highly engaged team members work physically close and have an increment on their interactions up until the task’s temporal midpoint. They have an initial peak of activation and show more positive emotional valence in the first and the last moments of the task. The most interpersonal processes used are affective. The worst performing team had the highest initial interaction levels followed by an abrupt decrease both in their levels of interaction and in their levels of activation. Simultaneously, they present higher peaks of positive emotional valence.

Although engaged teams are essentially characterized by the presence of positive interactions, it is fundamental to alternate more “exited” and fun moments with more task focused ones and collective interaction moments with individual work.

This study answers to Kozlowski and Chao’s (2012) call for studying emergence in a more direct way, using qualitative analysis of video data.

The purpose of this paper is to compare leadership functions from different team contexts considering context characteristics that contribute to team effectiveness.

A qualitative study was conducted. Seven leaders of multidisciplinary child protection teams (MDTs) and nine managers of an information technology (IT) company took part in semi-structured interviews. The data were analyzed using content analysis with ATLAS.ti.

Results showed that the two types of teams used different performance criteria, with teams from non-profit contexts lacking defined performance criteria. The results also showed that transition leadership functions are more frequently mentioned by IT than by MDT leaders. Moreover, interpersonal leadership functions emerged as independent functions that may occur in both the transition and action phases.

Context is paramount for performance criteria definition and for the relevance of certain team leadership functions over others. It also presents some suggestions for improvement to the model of Morgeson et al. (2010a).

The results support the idea that there are differences in the leadership functions that are most valued by leaders, depending on the specific team’s context. Results also showed that some non-profit and less task-structured teams lack the specific performance criteria that could help them make more successful interventions.

This paper reviews context literature, it shows that the emphasis on team leadership functions can vary across contexts and to the knowledge it is the first that compares the model of Morgeson et al. (2010a) in different contexts.

The purpose of this paper is to provide more insight into team temporal constructs and team satisfaction, this study proposes and tests a multiple mediation model of shared temporal cognition (STC), temporal conflict (TC), action processes, and team satisfaction.

The authors test the theoretical model in a sample of 364 student teams (1,414 individuals) from universities in the USA, Switzerland, Germany, and Portugal. Participants completed questionnaires at three points in time.

Results indicated a direct, positive relationship between STC and team satisfaction and a direct, negative relationship between TC and team satisfaction. Action processes and TC partially and sequentially mediated the relationship between STC and team satisfaction over time.

This study was restricted to self-report, to a student population, and to Western cultures. The study was not of an experimental nature which prevents making causal claims regarding relationships among variables.

These results demonstrate the need for teams to be conscious of time and its relationship to team interaction and satisfaction. The authors advise both team leaders and members to acknowledge the importance of STC.

The need for temporal awareness and STC in collaborative endeavors, and the need to mindfully utilize action processes to minimize conflict and assist in the effective use of shared cognition is widely applicable from a societal perspective.

This study provides new theoretical and empirical insight into a multiple mediation model including STC, TC, action processes, and team satisfaction. The size and multi-cultural nature of the sample also enhance the generalizability of the findings.

While the topic of team adaptation is gaining in prominence within the broader team effectiveness literature, there remain numerous unanswered questions about the way it affects, and is affected by, team dynamics over time. In particular, within this chapter, we seek to more fully examine the relationship between team adaptation and team cohesion to set the stage for additional investigations of team adaptation – team emergent state relationships. However, beyond merely suggesting that a linear relationship exists between team adaptation and cohesion, we envision the relationship as likely being curvilinear as well as reciprocal in nature. Additionally, we consider how temporal factors may shape this relationship by considering how the team’s performance on prior disruptions may influence the link between team cohesion and different adaptive outcomes (i.e., meritorious, maintenance, or maladaptation) as well as flowing along a feedback loop to affect team adaptation processes and team adaptability. By theorizing about these underexamined relationships, our intent is to introduce a framework that can be utilized as a foundation upon which future team adaptation research can build. Finally, we discuss how practitioners can leverage our thoughts in order to more effectively manage adaptation and cohesion within their teams.

The purpose of this article was to examine how individual positive emotions and team work engagement (TWE) relate to the perceptions of team viability.

A total of 254 teams (N = 1,154 individuals) participated in this study, and a multilevel analysis was conducted of the effects of individual and team-level factors.

The multilevel analysis results suggest a partial compensatory effect. High levels of individual positive emotions and high TWE are associated with a positive effect on the perceptions of team viability. Simultaneously, being part of a highly engaged team has a protective effect on perceptions of team viability, when individuals experience low levels of positive emotions.

As the study was conducted with teams involved in a management simulation, generalizing the results to “real world” teams must be done with caution.

Nonetheless, these findings have important implications for managers of work groups. They highlight the need to consider collective states of work groups as relevant for their effectiveness, and suggest that promoting positive interactions between team members may result in gains in team viability perceptions, mostly when individual emotions are less positive.

We consider both individual and collective affective experiences at work, and focus on a less studied outcome, team viability. Additionally, we empirically demonstrate the relevance of collective states of teams for team members’ individual perceptions, as a top-down influence mechanism.

While scales were developed to measure individual adaptive performance (IAP), fewer contributions have been done to assess the construct at the team level of analysis. This issue is addressed through two related studies: Study 1 builds on Pulakos et al. (2000) to develop a measure of IAP. Study 2 follows from the results in Study 1 and tests a measure of team adaptive performance (Chan, 1998).

Scale development was done adopting a single level (Study 1) and multi-level (Study 2) structural equations modeling approach.

Results suggest that both measures of individual and team adaptive performance are reliable and show evidence supporting the adequacy of adopting referent-shift methodologies to the measurement and aggregation of team members’ rating of team adaptive performance.

The study offers a reliable, parsimonious and easy to apply measure of individual and team adaptive performance in organizational work environments.

The purpose of this paper is to test whether work engagement can be predicted by two core dimensions, energy and involvement, both at the individual and team levels.

Based on the circumplex model of affective well-being (Russell, 1980), the authors propose the work engagement grid and collect data on individual and team work engagement (TWE) from two different samples (n=1,192 individuals).

Results show a significant positive relationship between the individual engagement grid and individual work engagement. However, only the energy dimension significantly predicted TWE. The authors also provide evidences for the relationship between the engagement grid and related variables (e.g. adaptive performance, team cohesion, satisfaction), and show that the combination of energy and involvement present smaller correlations with those variables than the complete engagement scales.

Data were collected from simulation samples, therefore generalization of the findings must be done with caution. The findings allow for developing a brief measure of work engagement, particularly useful for longitudinal or diary study designs.

When teams are the work unit, the displays of energetic behaviors ought to be fostered in order to boost collective engagement.

The authors add to the existing literature on work engagement, concluding that individual and team-level work engagement have structural differences between them, with the collective construct being dependent on external manifestations of energy, and that individual work engagement needs a cognitive component of absorption in order to foster performance.

This study aims to evaluate the extent to which similar team mental models (TMMs) at the beginning of a team's lifecycle influence the level of relationship conflict within the team, TMM-similarity at the middle of the team lifecycle, and in turn team effectiveness. Thus far, no research has analysed the mediating role of a dysfunctional team process between TMM-similarity and effectiveness.

The study was conducted in a strategy and management competition involving 414 individuals who comprised 92 teams (3-5 members). Data were collected at four moments in time. The questionnaires were developed based on validated scales and adapted for the specific context.

The results provide support for the mediating role of conflict between the similarity of team-TMMs at the beginning of team lifecycle and effectiveness. The results also provide support for the mediating role of task-TMMs in the middle of team lifecycle between task-TMMs at the beginning of team lifecycle and effectiveness. Findings suggest that teams with more similar TMMs, experience less relationship conflict which in turn improves effectiveness.

In this study TMM-accuracy was not analysed. Future research should analyse the role of TMM similarity and accuracy. Further, future research should explore the optimal level of TMM-similarity and when the similarity of TMM is disruptive to teams.

This paper sheds light on the role of conflict as a dysfunctional team process between TMM-similarity and effectiveness. Moreover, this paper shows that more research on TMM evolution is needed.

The purpose of this paper is to test a model of the effects of intragroup conflict (relationship conflict, task conflict and process conflict), past performance feedback and perceptions of team decision‐making effectiveness on team performance and affective responses.

A sample of 183 individuals, working in 47 different teams, participated in this study. All the teams were involved in a national management challenge for a five‐week period. Three questionnaires were sent directly to team members by e‐mail at different times of the challenge period to collect data concerning demographic data (questionnaire 1), perceptions of team functioning (questionnaire 2) and perceptions of team decision‐making effectiveness as well as the affective responses (questionnaire 3). The level of analysis in this study was the group. Thus, all individual survey responses were aggregated to the team level for statistical analysis.

Results showed a full mediation effect of perceptions of team decision in the relationship between process conflict and team performance. Task and relationship conflict showed no significant relationships with team performance and satisfaction with the team. The result that effective past performance feedback directly influences team performance, in a positive way, suggests that past effective decisions may reinforce the decision‐making processes previously used by team members.

One possible limitation of this study is the fact that measurements were taken at different times of the management challenge. In fact, while intragroup conflict was measured two weeks after the beginning of the challenge, the other variables were measured at the end of the challenge. This time measurement difference could raise some questions concerning the stability of the intragroup conflict over time in work teams. Future research should address this hypothesis. Future research should also elucidate the influence of contextual variables, such as cultural values, on the relationship between intragroup conflict and performance outcomes.

This study helps managers to understand how to benefit from conflict. In a highly competitive environment, disagreement among team members about “how to do it” seems to decrease decision‐making effectiveness.

This study fills a gap in the conflict literature concerning the impact of intragroup conflict in the team members' perceptions of decision‐making effectiveness and how it affects the overall performance. Moreover, this study also clarifies the importance of past performance to the actual team outcomes.