Search results

The purpose of this paper is to compare effects of different monetary team‐based reward strategies on performance, pay satisfaction, and communication behavior in computer‐mediated groups.

In a laboratory experiment, 32 groups of undergraduate students, each consisting of three individuals, interacted electronically and performed a consensus‐reaching task. Team‐based incentives were distributed either equally (each team member received an equal share) or equitably (each team member's share depended on her/his individual contribution). A control group received no team‐based (or other) incentives.

Hierarchical multilevel analyses revealed that both types of team‐based rewards increased team members' motivation and pay satisfaction compared to the control condition. Moreover, the effects of team‐based rewards on performance were moderated by group members' assertiveness. In addition, team‐based rewards lead to more cooperative and task‐oriented communication in the computer‐mediated groups. Finally, equally divided rewards led to higher pay satisfaction on average than equitably divided incentives.

On a research level, this study shows that team‐based rewards have positive effects not only on performance but also on communication behavior in computer‐mediated groups. As a practical implication, reward effects should be considered cautiously as they might be influenced by team members’ personality. Moreover, whereas no major differences were found between equity and equality principles in terms of performance, the latter seems to be preferable when satisfaction is a major issue in virtual teams.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of reward systems on team performance and analyze how satisfaction with rewards can result in better working performance and cohesiveness in the job environment.

Data was collected from 32 single members of different teams working in 10 selected banks from the Middle East and North Africa region.

The analysis from empirical findings reveals that there is a positive link between reward systems and team performance. More particularly, profit sharing has positive effects on team performance and collective bargaining reward systems affect significantly team cohesiveness. These links create an opportunity for employers to use reward systems as a motivating factor to direct team behavior toward more employee retention.

This study contributes to the teamwork performance research stream by empirically studying how rewards improve team performance and cohesiveness in Eastern contexts. Studies in such contexts are relatively rare.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of two key team‐based pay characteristics – namely reward allocation procedures (i.e. reward based on norms of equity, equality or some combination of the two) and incentive intensity – on both the amount and type of help given to one another among members of outcome‐interdependent teams.

A total of 180 undergraduate students participate in a laboratory simulation with a 2 × 3 experimental design. Servicing virtual “clients,” participants receive pre‐scripted requests for assistance from anonymous teammates. ANOVA and hierarchical regression analyses are used to test the hypotheses.

Relative to equity‐oriented group‐based pay structures, equality‐oriented pay structures are found to be associated with both significantly more help giving in general and more of the type of help likely to enhance group‐level competencies (i.e. autonomous help). Incentive intensity strengthens the effects of reward allocation on the amount (but not the type) of help giving.

While the short time frame of the simulation poses a significant threat to external validity, the findings suggest that team‐based compensation practices may provide organizational leaders with an important tool by which to shape critical, helping‐related team processes, with potentially important implications for both team learning and performance.

Managers interested in promoting capacity‐building and helping among team members should avoid allocating team rewards strictly on the basis of the individual contribution.

This paper provides the first empirical findings regarding how alternative modes of team‐based reward distribution may influence key group processes among members of outcome interdependent teams.

Discusses the value of team and individual reward strategies and how these can be used to contribute to organisational change and success. A review of team effectiveness and models of teamwork are first discussed so that team rewards are understood as important motivators to accomplishing organisational objectives. Four factors need to be considered in establishing team‐based rewards: the stages of a team life cycle, reward and recognition categories, the type of teams and the culture of the team and organisation. Forty‐four specific reward tools are described which can be used for individual or team incentives. Comprehensive matrices are put forward which can be used to determine which tool should be used at which stage in a team’s life cycle and with which type of team. Finally, the implementation cost, evaluation of team reward systems is considered.

Teams have become a popular way to organize business because they offer companies the flexibility needed to meet the demands of the changing business environment. While many companies have been quick to organize their workforce into teams, they have not been as eager to implement team‐based compensation systems. However, if team‐based organizations continue to utilize old, individually‐oriented pay systems, they will not fully realize the benefit of highly cooperative and motivated work teams. The purpose of this two‐part article is to examine the “ideal” team compensation system. Together, both parts will review the basics of both teams and compensation and then explore the ideal team compensation system from three levels ‐ framework, critical elements, and other, operational considerations. Part I provided information through the ideal team compensation system framework. This article, Part II, looks at the critical elements and other, operational considerations.

This paper aims to extend understanding of how team creative potential translates into team creativity. Drawing on social exchange theories, the authors propose that reward interdependence produce cooperative intra-team interactions, which in turn enables aggregate levels of individual member creativity to translate into team creativity. Further, the authors propose that reward interdependence enhances this link indirectly by motivating collective norms around knowledge sharing.

Multi-source and multi-wave data was collected from 94 R&D teams in two large medical firms. At Time 1, team members assessed the degree of reward interdependence and knowledge sharing characterizing their team; team leaders rated each member’s individual creativity. Unit leaders reported on the team’s overall creativity at Time 2 (three months after Time 1).

The results indicate that the effect of aggregate member creativity (AMC) on team creativity is moderated by reward interdependence in such a way that when reward interdependence is high, AMC has stronger positive effects on team creativity. Furthermore, knowledge sharing, as motivated by reward interdependence, mediates this moderating effect.

By integrating the team design and team creativity literatures, this paper advances an interactive model in which team creative composition combines with reward interdependence and knowledge sharing to help team creativity.

Mechanisms for increasing participation of employees in problem‐solving activities such as continuous improvement (CI) programmes often include the use of problem‐solving teams. Teams can support problem solving by emphasizing accountability for the production process within the work unit, thereby increasing the sense of responsibility for (local) problems. However, it is unclear how effort within these organisational forms should be rewarded. This article describes the use of problem‐solving teams within a UK automotive component company, and examines the implications for human resource policy, in particular for the reward and recognition systems. The article outlines the outcomes that ensued when two reward systems existed, one for team‐based activities and another for individual suggestions. The contradictions of the two systems are considered in the context of the organisation’s historical individualistic approach to reward systems.

Drawing on the motivated information processing in groups (MIP-G) model, the purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between team reward interdependence and team performance, treating shared leadership as a mediator and team average job-based psychological ownership as a moderator.

Data were collected from a field sample of 72 knowledge-based work teams comprised of 466 team members and their team leaders. Data were analysed using hierarchical regression analysis and moderated path analysis.

Team reward interdependence was positively related to team performance through shared leadership. Team average job-based psychological ownership moderated both the relationship between team reward interdependence and shared leadership, and the indirect relationship between team reward interdependence and team performance.

The shared leadership literature is extended by exploring the antecedents of shared leadership from the perspective of team incentives and by examining the moderating role of team average job-based psychological ownership.

Organizations and managers should pay attention to team pay system design and be aware of the importance of employees’ psychological ownership toward their jobs in promoting shared leadership in teams.

This study sheds light on the antecedents of shared leadership from motivated information processing perspective and examines antecedent boundary conditions through the moderating role of team average job-based psychological ownership.

The purpose of this paper, drawing as it does on earlier research, is to provide the context for a discussion on the use of rewards and recognition programmes in knowledge aware organisations.

The paper shows that knowledge sharing is the fundamental requirement of a knowledge‐based organisation. Some of the greatest challenges for organisations moving down the knowledge management path stem from well‐established practices of hoarding knowledge, practices which, in the past, have been well rewarded. Employees' motivation was to hoard knowledge because of the competitive advantage that this would give them. The challenge now is to develop an organisational culture where sharing knowledge is the norm. In seeking ways to foster this culture managers are implementing incentive programmes in the belief that employees will be motivated to share their knowledge across the organisation. Some organisations are investing large amounts of organisational resources towards this end. This paper uses the results of the earlier research to provide a context for an examination of the use of rewards and recognition programmes in the knowledge aware organisation.

The paper finds that reward and recognition programmes can positively affect motivation, performance and interest within an organisation. While a little more problematic, team‐based incentives, if designed appropriately, can also encourage and support a range of positive outcomes. But research has yet to reveal whether programmes of this type will influence employees to share their knowledge and learning. Neither is there any research‐based evidence to show that these activities do provide the expected or hoped for return on the, sometimes, large amounts of money that organisations invest in them.

While there is a strong history of research into the impact of rewards on aspects of employee behaviour including motivation and performance, no research to date has investigated the impact on knowledge sharing.

The paper suggests that managers who are relying on rewards and recognition programmes as part of their strategies for cultural change need to support research programmes so that they can be confident that the large amounts of resources they are investing for this purpose will bring the return they think.

This paper provides the context for a discussion. It shows that while organisations are investing in reward and recognition programmes, research on the value of such programmes as factors that motivate knowledge sharing has not been explored empirically.

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between team psychological capital (PsyCap) and team process improvement (TPI) by focusing on the mediating role of team self-managing behaviors (TSMBs) and the moderating effect of the team reward system.

Data were collected from 514 members and their immediate superiors nested in 135 action teams working for a Canadian public safety organization. Hypotheses were tested using a path analytic procedure.

Team PsyCap was positively related to TPI, and this relationship was mediated by TSMBs. In addition, the team reward system positively moderated the first stage of this relationship.

This study highlights the important role that motivational factors play in the effectiveness of action teams. Specifically, the present study reveals that the psychological resources of action teams interact with the level of recognition and reward they receive to predict members’ engagement in self-managing behaviors and in improvement processes.

Findings suggest that to promote the capacity for process improvement of actions teams, managers should focus on their positive psychological resources, their capacity to self-manage and on the level of recognition and reward they receive.

Considering the dynamic and complex environments within which action teams operate, the finding that team PsyCap promotes their optimal functioning is particularly noteworthy. Furthermore, this study clarifies why and when team PsyCap enhances TPI.