Team
performance (1 = consistently
performs way below expectations, 2 = consistently
performs below expectations, 3 = consistently
performs at expectations, 4 = consistently
performs above expectations, 5 = consistently
performs way beyond expectations) (Walumbwa et al., 2008)
All in all, how competently
does the team perform its work?
In your estimation, how
effectively does the team get its work done?
How would you judge the overall
quality of the work performed by the team?
How would you judge the overall
perceived competence of the team?
I. Team effectiveness (1 = highly
inaccurate, 5 = highly accurate) (Wageman, Hackman, & Lehman, 2005)
Compelling
Direction:
Clear
1. There is great uncertainty and
ambiguity about what this team is supposed to accomplish. (R)
2. This team’s purposes are specified so clearly
that all members should know exactly what the team exists to accomplish.
Challenging
3. This team’s purposes are so challenging that members have to stretch to
accomplish them.
4.This team’s purposes are not especially
challenging--achieving them is well within reach. (R)
Consequential
5. The purposes of this team don’t make much of a difference to anybody else.
(R)
6. This team’s purposes are of great consequence
for those we serve.
Process-criteria
of team effectiveness:
Effort-Related Process Criteria:
7. Members demonstrate their commitment
to our team by putting in extra time and effort to help it succeed.
8. Everyone on this team is motivated to have
the team succeed.
9. Some members of our team do not carry their
fair share of the overall workload. (R)
Team Interpersonal Processes:
Quality of Team Interaction
10. There is a lot of unpleasantness among
members of this team. (R)
11. The longer we work together as a team, the
less well we do. (R)
12. Working together energizes and uplifts
members of our team.
13. Every time someone attempts to correct a
team member whose behavior is not acceptable, things seem to get worse rather
than better. (R)
J. Procedural justice (1 = to a small extent, 5 = to a large
extent) (Colquitt, 2001)
The following items refer to
the procedures used to arrive at your group’s outcome. To what extent:
1. Have you been able to
express your views and feelings about the group procedures during this task?
2. Have you had influence over
the group’s decisions?
3. Have group procedures been
applied consistently?
4. Have the group’s procedures been
free of bias?
5. Have the group’s procedures been
based on accurate information?
6. Have you been able to appeal
the group’s procedures?
7. Have the group’s procedures
upheld ethical and moral standards?
G.
Team
promotion focus (1 = not
at all true of my team, 5 = very true
of my team); created from (Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002)
In general, my team is focused
on
attaining its ambitions
becoming the team we hoped to
become in the future
achieving our hopes and
aspirations
attaining the success we hoped
to achieve in the future
Team
prevention focus (1 = not
at all true of my team, 5 = very true
of my team); created from (Lockwood et al., 2002)
In general my team is focused
on
avoiding losses
avoiding setbacks
avoiding failure
preventing mistakes
H.
Team performance goal (approach) orientation (1 = strongly
disagree, 5 = strongly agree) (Vandewalle, 1997) [original: 6-point scale] (Gong, Kim,
Lee, and Zhu, 2013)
1. My team would rather
prove our ability on a task that we can do well at than to try a new task.
2. My team is concerned with showing that it can
perform better than other teams.
3. My team tries to figure out what it takes to
prove my team’s ability to others.
4. My team enjoys it when others are aware of
how well we are doing.
5. My team prefers to work on projects that can
prove our ability to others.
Team performance goal (avoidance) orientation
(1 = strongly
disagree, 5 = strongly agree) (Vandewalle, 1997)
6. My team would avoid
taking on a new task if there was a chance that we would appear rather
incompetent to others.
7. Avoiding a show of low ability is more
important to my team than learning a new skill.
8. My team is concerned about taking on a task
if my team’s performance would reveal that we had low ability.
9. My team prefers to avoid situations at work
where we might perform poorly.
10. When my team doesn’t understand something,
we prefer to avoid asking what might appear to others to be “dumb questions”
that my team should know the answer to already.
3 items for each goal orientation. Sample items are
“I want to learn as much as possible from studying at college” (learning approach),
“I am often concerned that I may not learn all that there is to learn in class” (learning avoidance),
“It is important for me to do better than other students” (performance approach),
“My
goal in my schoolwork is to avoid performing poorly” (performance avoidance);
all items were rated on a scale ranging from 1 (“totally disagree”) to 7
(“totally agree”).
.
F.
Deviance scale (Organizational Deviance) (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strong
agree) (Bennett & Robinson, 2000) [shortened,
original response scale: never to daily]
Did any of your group member:
1. Spend too much time
fantasizing or daydreaming instead of folding T-shirts
2. Take an additional or longer
break than is acceptable in the task
3. Neglected to follow the
leader's instructions
4. Intentionally worked slower
than he or she could have worked
5. Put little effort into the task
O.
Team Humility (group member rating; adapted from Owens,
Johnson & Mitchell, 2013)
Members of this team actively
seek feedback, even if it is critical.
Members of this team admit it
when they don’t know how to do something.
Members of this team
acknowledge when others have more knowledge and skills they do.
Members of this team take
notice of each other’s’ strengths.
Members of this team often
complement one another on their strengths.
Members of this team show
appreciation for the unique contributions of other group members.
Members of this team are
willing to learn from one another.
Members of this team are open
to the ideas of one another.
Members of this team are open
to the advice of one another.
P.
Team
Information exchange (Gong, Kim, Lee, and Zhu, 2013) (1 = “strongly disagree,” 7
= “strongly agree”; α = .90).
Team members exchange information with and
learn from each other
Team members exchange ideas with each other
to analyze and solve problems
Team information sharing (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002a)
Team learning behavior (Edmondson, 1999)
Team information elaboration (3 items)
“Team members discussed the rationales underlying their ideas and viewpoints.”
Group Atmosphere (Fiedler,
1987) The group's atmosphere
(G.A.) rating consisted of 10 to 20
bipolar semantic differential scales such as (on 8 item scale). The G.A score
was obtained by summing the scales. Fiedler (1987) cited split-half
reliabilities ranging from .92 to .95 reported by Meuwese (1964) and Posthuma
(1970).
This team felt… (1 = low
end, 5 = high end)
Cold-warm
enthusiatic – unenthusiastic
successful – unsuccessful
lots of fun – serious
interesting - boring
helpful – unhelpful
supportive – hostile
distant – close
productive – nonproductive
cooperative – uncooperative.
accepting – rejecting
satisfying – frustrating
supportive – hostile
Social Presence Indicators (Gunawardena, 1995; Social
Climate/ Social Presence (Rourke & Anderson, 2002)
stimulating – dull √
personal – impersonal √ √ √
sociable – unsociable √ √
sensitive – insensitive √ √
warm – cold √ √ √ √
colorful – colorless √
interesting – boring √ √
appealing – not appealing √
interactive – non-interactive √
active – passive √
reliable – unreliable √
humanizing – dehumanizing √
immediate – non-immediate √
easy – difficult √
efficient – inefficient √
unthreatening – threatening √
helpful – hindering √
trusting – untrusting √
disinhibiting – inhibiting √
close – distant √
friendly – unfriendly √ √
accepting – rejecting √
satisfying – frustrating √
enthusiastic – unenthusiastic √
productive – non-productive √
cooperative – uncooperative √
supportive – hostile √
successful – unsuccessful
Work Group Cohesion Index (Price & Mueller,
1986). They define work-group cohesion
as “the extent to which employees have close friends in
their immediate work units”
(p. 252). We consider a distributed learning group to
be similar to ‘employees in their
immediate work unit.’ (1 = strongly disagree, 5 =
strongly agree)
1 My teammates were friendly.
2 My teammates were helpful.
3 My teammates took a personal interest in me.
4 I trust my teammates.
5 I look forward to working with my same teammates
again.
Leader position power (Fiedler & Chemers,
1984) (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
The leader administers rewards and punishments to
subordinates.
The leader affects the promotion, demotion, hiring and
firing of subordinates.
The leader has the knowledge necessary to assign tasks
to subordinates and instruct them in task completion.
The leader's job is to evaluate subordinates’
performance.
The leader has been given some official title or
authority by subordinates.
Global Job Embeddedness (Crossley, Bennett, Jex,
and Burnfield, 2007)
I feel attached to this team.
I feel tied to this team.
I am tightly connected to this team.
It would be difficult for me to leave this team.
I’m too caught up in this team to leave. (weakest item)
I simply could not leave the team that I am in.
It would be easy for me to leave this team.
Information elaboration (van Dick, van Knippenberg,
Hägele, Guillaume, and Brodbeck 2008)
My syndicate group members exchange a lot of
information about the task.
My syndicate group members often say things about the
task that make me think.
In my syndicate group, we discuss the content of our
work a lot.
In my syndicate group, we often talk about our ideas
about the task.
My syndicate group members often say things that lead
me to learn something new about the job.
My syndicate group members often say things that lead
me to new ideas.
I often think deeply about what other group members say
about the job.
Four items were developed based on the extant
literature. These items, which had a response format ranging from 1, “strongly
disagree,” to 5, “strongly agree.” Cronbach's alpha for this scale was .86.
“The members of this team complement each
other by openly sharing their knowledge”;
“The members of this team carefully consider
all perspectives in an effort to generate optimal solutions”;
“The members of this team carefully consider
the unique information provided by each individual team member”;
“As a team, we generate ideas and solutions
that are much better than those we could develop as individuals.”
Task Interdependence (Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel,
S. C. (2009)
We used five items adapted
from (Van der Vegt
and Janssen (2003) to measure task
interdependence. Levels of this variable
must be high in order to be certain that one is actually studying teams rather
than groups (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). A sample item is, “The
members of this team need to collaborate with colleagues to perform their jobs
well” (1, “strongly disagree,” to 5, “strongly agree”; α =.77). We averaged
responses given a mean rwg of .84, an ICC(1) of .30,
and an ICC(2) of .74.
Task
complexity (Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel,
S. C. (2009)
(1, “strongly disagree,” to 5, “strongly
agree”). The correlation between these two items was .65 (p < .01). We created a
team-level variable on the basis of a mean rwg of .86, as well as an ICC(1)
of .32 and an ICC(2) of .76.
“The technology, required
skills, or information needed by the team are constantly changing” “During a
normal work week, exceptions frequently arise that require substantially
different methods or procedures for the team.”
Lee et al.,
measure of embeddedness
Measure of
team change (ideas??)
Measure of
team cohesion (ideas??)
Measure of
team flexibility (ideas??)
Measure of
team openness to new ideas (ideas??)
Measure of
team adaptability (ideas??)
Team cohesion (Menon and Phillips, 2011)
(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) (alpha=0.89)
1.
I feel good about my group.
2.
We feel comfortable working
together.
3.
I feel strong ties with this
group.
4.
I identify with this group.
5.
We are a cohesive group.
6.
I am satisfied with our
decision-making process.
Team Cohesion
(6-items, Podsakoff and Mackenzie, 1994), (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
1.
My team members know that
they can depend on each other.
2.
The members of my team are
cooperative with each other.
3.
The members of my team
regard each other as friends.
4.
Members of my group work
together as a team.
5.
The members of my team stand
up for each other.
6.
There is a great deal of
trust among members of my team.
Team Citizenship Behavior (7-items,
Bachrach, Bendoly, and Podsakoff, 2001), (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
1.
Team members help each other
out if/when someone falls behind in his/her part in team activities or tasks.
2.
Team members try to act like
peacemakers when other team members have disagreements.
3.
Team members take steps to
try to prevent problems with other team members from occurring.
4.
Team members ‘touch base’
with the other team members before initiating actions that may affect them.
5.
Team members provide
constructive suggestions about how the team can improve its effectiveness
during team tasks.
6.
Team members focus on what is
wrong with the present situation rather than the positive side.
7.
Team members find fault with
what other team members are doing during team tasks.
Team Learning Orientation (5-items,
Bunderson and Sutcliffe 2003), (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
1.
My team sees learning and
developing skills as very important.
2.
My team is willing to take
risks on new ideas in order to find out what works.
3.
My team looks for
opportunities to develop new skills and knowledge.
4.
My team likes challenging
and difficult assignments that teach new things.
5.
My team likes to work on
things that require a lot of skill and ability.
Team Psychological Safety (7-items,
Edmondson, 1999). (1 = strongly disagree, 7 =
strongly agree)
1.
It is difficult to ask other
members of this team for help.
2.
People on this team
sometimes reject others for being different.
3.
It is safe to take a risk on
this team.
4.
Working with members of this
team, my unique skills and talents are valued and utilized.
5.
If you make a mistake on
this team, it is often held against you.
6.
Members of this team are
able to bring up problems and tough issues.
7.
No one on this team would
deliberately act in a way that undermines my efforts.
Team Culture (Quinn & Spreitzer,
1991; Kalliath, Bluedorn, & Gillespie, 1999)
How much are the following characteristics valued on
your team? (1 = not valued at all; 7 = highly valued)
1.
Predictable outcomes
2.
Stability and continuity
3.
Order
4.
Dependability and
reliability
5.
Innovation and change
6.
Creative problem solving
7.
Decentralization
8.
New ideas
9.
Participation and open discussion
10. Team member concerns and
ideas
11. Human relations, teamwork,
and cohesion
12. Morale
13. Outcome excellence and
quality
14. Getting the job done
15. Goal achievement
16. Doing one’s best
Klein and Pierce (2000) make a distinction between
internal and external adaptability. Internal
adaptation is when a team uses meta-cognitive processes
to observe the situation and decide how
cue-response linkages are changing and
what this means in terms of the new action routines that must be performed.
External adaptation involves actually changing or adjusting the plan to fit the
novel situation. While process feedback
is necessary to enable internal adaptation, outcome feedback enables external
adaptation.
Team adaptability definitions
“Process by which a team is able to use information
gathered from the task environment to adjust strategies through the use of
compensatory behavior and reallocation of resources” (Cannon-Bowers,
Tannenbaum, Salas, & Volpe, 1995, p. 344)
“Altering a course of action in the face of changing
conditions, appropriate change of action and maintaining constructive behavior
under pressure” (Brannick, Prince, Prince, & Salas, 1995, p. 643).
“The capability of the team to maintain coordinated
interdependence and performance by selecting an appropriate network from the
repertoire or by inventing an new configuration” (Kozlowski, Gully, Nason,
& Smith, 1999, p. 29)
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. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.),
The changing nature of performance:
Implications for staffing, motivation, and development
(pp. 240–292). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Measuring Team Adaptation (Burke, Stagl, Salas, Pierce,
& Kendall, 2006)
“As noted by Chen and Ployhart (2004), the performance
trajectories of adaptive individuals typically follow a nonlinear pattern where
some level of acceptable performance is followed by a transition period denoted
by a decline in performance due to misalignment, which is in turn followed by a
subsequent realignment (i.e., adaptation) that serves to increase performance.
This unfolding pattern of an initial acceptable level of performance followed
by an unacceptable level of performance due to misalignment and subsequently
followed by an adaptation and return to an acceptable level of performance can
be illustrated by plotting team
performance levels as a function of time. Once plotted,
team performance should follow a negatively accelerated monotonic curve (Chen
& Ployhart, 2004). The inflection of the curve (i.e., rate of change) is
indicative of team adaptation, in that teams with steeper curves are more
adaptive in responding to a cue stream signaling the need for change. The later
portion of this performance trajectory is similar in form to a learning curve,
whereas the first portion indicates baseline acceptable performance with a sudden
negative deceleration.”
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L.,
& Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team adaptation: a conceptual analysis
and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1189.
Objective Measure of Team
Adaptation. (Resick, Murase, Bedwell,
Sanz, Jiménez, & DeChurch, 2010)
-How quickly the teams matched vehicle price to
customer needs
-How quickly the team matched vehicle marketing to
customer needs
-How quickly the team matched vehicle features to
customer needs
-How quickly the team upgraded vehicles in response to
competitors
Team Adaptability (based on Pulakos et al.,
2009; Klarner et al., 2013) (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
Our team offers a range of products that customers value.
Our team flexibly adjusts to changing market
conditions.
Our team customizes products to match customers’ preferences.
Our team adapts to competitors’ actions.
Our team changes when circumstances demand it.
Our team identifies root problems when we do poorly.
Our team is able to solve complex problems.
Our team solves problems creatively.
Our team excels at handling unpredictable situations.
Our team quickly learns new tasks, technologies and
procedures.
Our teammates understand each other very well.
Our team handles stress well.
Our team excels at handling crisis situations that
arise.
Our team improves continuously.
Our team makes necessary modifications to meet new
challenges.
Our team adjusts its plans in response to changing
situations.
Our team quickly adapts to shifting environments.
Our team is agile.
Our team is flexible.
Our team is ready to change.
Our team is constantly changing.
Our team views problems as challenges.
Our team can turn on a dime.
Our team is nimble.
Team Adaptability/Organizational
Agility (McCann, Selsky & Lee,
2009) (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
Our team is open to change.
Our team actively and widely scans for new information
about what is going on.
Our team is good at making sense of ambiguous,
uncertain situations.
Our team takes advantage of opportunities quickly.
Our team is good at quickly deploying and redeploying
resources to support execution.
Team Creativity (Shin and Zhou, 2007)
four-item scale. Teams assess the creativity of their teams, which is defined
in the instruction as the generation of novel and useful ideas by their teams
in relation to competing teams (1 = “poorly,” 7 = “very much”):
1.
How well does your team
produce new ideas?
2.
How useful are those ideas?
3.
How creative do you consider
your team to be?
4.
How significant are those
ideas to your team’s performance?
Team Creativity (adapted from Zhou and
George, 2001). People on this team (1 =
strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)…
Suggest new ways to achieve goals or objectives.
Come up with new and practical ideas to improve
performance.
Search out new technologies, processes, techniques,
and/or product ideas.
Suggest new ways to increase quality.
Are a good source of creative ideas.
Are not afraid to take risks.
Promote and champion ideas to others.
Exhibit creativity on the job when given the
opportunity to.
Develop adequate plans and schedules for the
implementation of new ideas.
Often have new and innovative ideas.
Come up with creative solutions to problems.
Often have a fresh approach to problems.
Suggest new ways of performing work tasks.
Supportive climate for
creativity. (Anderson and West, 1998; 1 =
“strongly disagree”; 7 = “strongly agree”). The coefficient alpha was .95 for
the scale.
1.
This team is always moving
toward the development of new answers
2.
Assistance in developing new
ideas is readily available on this team
3.
This team is open and
responsive to change
4.
People in this team are
always searching for fresh, new ways of looking at problems
5.
In this team we take the time
needed to develop new ideas
6.
People in the team
co-operate in order to help develop and apply new ideas
7.
Members of the team provide
and share resources to help in the application of new ideas
8.
Team members provide
practical support for new ideas and their application
J.E. McCann, J. Selsky, J. Lee
Building agility, resilience and performance in
turbulent environments
People & Strategy, 32 (3) (2009), pp. 44–51
Team Adaptability (original Klarner et al.,
2013) alpha = .84 (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree).
Our team is skilled at…
…Offering a range of services during project work.
…Flexibly adjusting the project focus
…Customizing solutions to problems
Klarner, P., Sarstedt, M., Hoeck, M., & Ringle, C.
M. (2013). Disentangling the Effects of Team Competences, Team Adaptability,
and Client Communication on the Performance of Management Consulting Teams.
Long Range Planning.
E.D. Pulakos, N. Schmitt, D.W. Dorsey, S. Arad, W.C.
Borman, J.W. Hedge
Predicting adaptive performance: further tests of a
model of adaptability
Human Performance, 15 (4) (2002), pp. 299–323
Resick, C. J., Murase, T., Bedwell, W. L., Sanz, E.,
Jiménez, M., & DeChurch, L. A. (2010). Mental model metrics and team
adaptability: A multi-facet multi-method examination. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 14(4), 332.
“. . .teams that are able to make the necessary
modifications in order to meet new challenges”
(Klein & Pierce, 2000, p. 3)
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. 2007. A
new model of work role performance:
Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent
contexts. Academy of Management
Journal, 50: 327 – 347
Kozlowski, S.W.J. (1998). Training and
Developing Adaptive Teams: Theory, Principles, and Research. in: Making Decisions Under Stress. J.A. Cannon-Bowers
and E. Salas (eds.). American Psychological Association: Washington, DC. pp.
115-153.
Klein, G. and Pierce, L. (2001). Adaptive
Teams: in Proceedings of the 6th
International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium.
Team mental models (Lorinkova, Pearsall, and
Sims, 2013)
Team mental models. To assess team mental
model development, we adapted Marks et
al.’s (2000) concept mapping technique that
was specifically designed for tasks such as this (e.g.,
Ellis, 2006). Following the experimental
task, team members were given a task scenario
accompanied by eight blank spaces (two per
team member) that needed to be filled with one of
eight concepts that represented different
aspects of team member roles and capabilities. Team
members completed the maps by placing
concepts that best represented the actions of each team
member on the diagram. These mental maps
reflect the models held by team members
throughout the performance session and were
constructed specifically for this study based on
team members’ roles during the experimental
task. For example, for the Operations Support role, team members would need to
accurately identify that they possessed refueling and information
assets and when they would deploy them. To
arrive at the team-level mental models score we used each team member’s
individual concept map and compared it to each of the other team members’
concept maps, dividing the number of matching responses by the total number of
possible dyadic matches for a total team mental model similarity score ranging
between 0 and 6.
Trust relationship with
the team leader.
All 19 companies had an appointed team leader on an
ongoing basis for each team. To measure the trust relationship with a team
leader, we used McAllister's (1995) five-item affect-based trust scale. Team members
responded to each item (sample item: “We have both made considerable emotional
investments in our working relationship”; 1 = “strongly disagree,” 7 =
“strongly agree”). The coefficient alpha was .89.
Supportive climate for
creativity.
We measured supportive team climate for creativity
using Anderson and West's
(1998) eight-item scale. The team members
responded to each item (sample item: “The team is always moving toward the
development of new answers”; 1 = “strongly disagree”; 7 = “strongly agree”).
The coefficient alpha was .95 for the scale.
Anderson and West (1998) originally developed the scale for supportive
climate for innovation. However, five items from the scale cover support for
the development of ideas (i.e., creativity) only. Supplementary analyses based
on the five items (α= .91) generated substantively identical results. The
correlation between the truncated scale and the full scale was .96. To stay
true to the original measure, we conducted analyses and reported results based
on the full scale.
Team creativity.
We measured team creativity using Shin and Zhou's (2007) four-item scale. Team leaders assessed the
creativity of their teams, which was defined in the instruction as the
generation of novel and useful ideas by their teams. Team leaders rated their
own teams (1 = “poorly,” 7 = “very much”) in relation to other similar R&D
teams by responding to four questions: (a) “How well does your team produce new
ideas?” (b) “How useful are those ideas?” (c) “How creative do you consider
your team to be?” and (d) “How significant are those ideas to your
organization?” The coefficient alpha was .82.
Individual creativity.
To alleviate potential common method bias, we measured
individual creativity using a different scale—Zhou
and George's (2001) scale of
creativity—with a different response format (1 = “not at all characteristic,” 5
= “very characteristic”) (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). This scale
is one of the most widely used scales in the creativity literature (Zhou & Shalley, 2003). The team leaders assessed each team member's
creativity, which was defined in the instruction as the generation of novel and
useful ideas by an individual team member. Sample items include “Suggests new
ways to increase quality” and “Comes up with creative solutions to problems.”
The coefficient alpha was .97.
Subjective diversity (van Dick, van Knippenberg, Hägele, Guillaume, and
Brodbeck (2008))
1 (not diverse) to 7 (very diverse)
How diverse do you think your syndicate group is in
general?
How diverse do you think your syndicate group is in terms
of its ethnic composition?’
Control variables.
We
included several control variables at both the individual and team levels.
Following previous research, we controlled for gender, organizational tenure,
and educational level at the individual level (Amabile, 1988; George
& Zhou, 2007; Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, 2002), and for team size and
average team tenure at the team level (Harrison,
Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002).
Secondly, we controlled for team task interdependence (rated by team members),
as this might influence the creative process (Van
der Vegt & Janssen, 2003).
We measured this variable using a single item from Shin and Zhou (2007): “The work I usually do is a group project rather than
an individual project” (1 = “strongly disagree,” 7 = “strongly agree”).
Team
familiarity (Pieterse, van Knippenberg, and van
Dierendonck, 2013)
Respondents judged how well they knew each team member
on a scale from 1 (“not at all”) to 5 (“very well”). These scores were added
together and aggregated to the team level to create a team familiarity score.
Familiarity with the simulation
Have you played stratsim previously?
If so what team were you on (i.e. A, B, C, D, or E) and
what was your final stock price?
gender issues play such a
different role in student populations that researchers have argued against
studying gender diversity in these populations (Kooij-De Bode et al., 2008).
Group climates can be
service-oriented (Liao & Chuang, 2004), abusive (Tepper, 2007; Liu, Liao
& Loi,
2012; Mawritz, Mayer, Hoobler,
Wayne & Marinova, 2012), justice-oriented (Liao & Rupp, 2005),
diverse (McKay, Avery, Liao
& Morris, 2011; van Knippenberg, Homan, van Ginkel, 2013),
individualist or collectivist
(Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002), honorable (e.g., Nisbett &
Cohen, 1996), high power
distant (e.g., Hofstede, 1980, Triandis & Gelfand, 1998), ethical
(Dickson, Smith, Grojean, &
Ehrhart, 2001; Schminke, Ambrose, & Neubaum, 2005), innovative
(O'Reilly, Chatman, &
Caldwell, 1991), flexible (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983; Denison &
Spreitzer,
1991), and safety-oriented
(Wallace & Chen, 2006)
Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Campbell-Bush, E. M., Wu, Z., &
Wu, X. (2013). Teams as Innovative Systems: Multilevel Motivational Antecedents
of Innovation in R&D Teams.
Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). The
psychometrics of the competing values culture instrument and an analysis of the
impact of organizational culture on quality of life.Research
in Organizational Change and Development, 5, 115-142.
Kalliath,
T. J., Bluedorn, A. C., & Gillespie, D. F. (1999). A confirmatory factor
analysis of the competing values instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 143-158.
The Double-Edged Sword of
Decentralized Planning in Multiteam Systems
Klodiana Lanaj, John R.
Hollenbeck, Daniel R. Ilgen, Christopher M. Barnes, and Stephen J. Harmon
Acad Manage J 2013;56 735-757
http://amj.aom.org/cgi/content/abstract/56/3/735
Cultural Diversity and Team
Performance: The Role of Team Member Goal Orientation
Anne Nederveen Pieterse, Daan
van Knippenberg, and Dirk van Dierendonck
Acad Manage J 2013;56 782-804
http://amj.aom.org/cgi/content/abstract/56/3/782
Gong, Y., Kim, T. Y., Zhu, J., & Lee, D. R. (2013). A
Multilevel Model of Team Goal Orientation, Information Exchange, and
Creativity. Academy of
Management Journal. Vol. 56, No. 3,
827–851.
Homan A. C., van Knippenberg
D., van Kleef G. A., De Dreu C. K. W. 2007b. Interacting dimensions of
diversity: Cross-categorization and the functioning of diverse work groups.
Group Dynamics, 11: 79–94.
van Dick R., van Knippenberg
D., Hägele S., Guillaume Y. R. F., Brodbeck F. C. 2008. Group diversity and
group identification: The moderating role of diversity beliefs. Human
Relations, 61: 1463–1492
Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2009). When
and how diversity benefits teams: the importance of team members' need for
cognition. Academy of
Management Journal, 52(3),
581-598.
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C.
W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing.
Fiedler, F. E. (1962). Leader
attitudes, group climate, and group creativity. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology,
65, 308–318.
References