Team Effectiveness 1

Running head: Team effectiveness

Towards a typology of team effectiveness: A meta-analytic review

Stephen E. HumphreyPennsylvania State University

Elizabeth P. KaramFrederick P. Morgeson

Michigan State University

Team Effectiveness 2

Abstract

Words words words …

Team Effectiveness 3

Towards a Typology of Team Effectiveness:A Meta-Analytic Review and Measurement Development

Teams are now ubiquitous in organizations, making it imperative that organizational

scholars study teamwork and team effectiveness (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). In this vein, there

has been a remarkable increase in empirical and theoretical research on teams over the last

several decades, with the published research on teams in the “top quartile” of management and

industrial/organizational psychology journals (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Bachrach, & Podsakoff,

2005) doubling from 1980-1985 to 2000-2005. However, although researchers have focused

extensively on testing the influence (e.g., Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005; Mathieu,

Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008) and structure (e.g., Harrison & Klein, 2007; Marks, Mathieu, &

Zaccaro, 2001) of team inputs and processes, there has been only limited research focusing on

team outputs.

This is problematic for team research, in part because a lack of clarity concerning the

nature of team effectiveness can lead to a lack of precision and potential theoretical

misspecification. For example, the lack of a consistent conceptualization of team effectiveness

has led scholars to use distinctly different operationalizations (e.g., satisfaction, learning, or

performance) of the team effectiveness construct. This lack of consensus can cause confusion in

the research literature, making it difficult to interpret conflicting empirical findings. For

example, if some studies find a significant relationship with team effectiveness but other studies

find no significant relationships, it is unclear whether such mixed findings implicate the

underlying theory or whether it reflects differences in construct measurement. As such, the

examination and clarification of the team effectiveness criterion space can result in scholars

building more precise theoretical models and testing these models using a more consistent

language.

Team Effectiveness 4

Other research streams have found that a focus on the criterion space propelled the

literature forward. For example, an examination of the dimensionality of Organizational

Citizenship Behavior (OCB) by LePine, Erez, and Johnson (2002) demonstrated that the five

dimensions of OCB proposed by Organ (1988) are essentially equivalent indicators of the latent

OCB construct. As another example, Borman and Motowidlo’s (1993) separation of performance

into task and contextual dimensions has demonstrated that whereas both dimensions contribute to

overall performance, they have different antecedents (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). By

turning our attention to clarifying the criterion space, we hope to aid scholars in building more

precise theoretical models that can be tested using a more consistent language, thus pushing the

team literature towards a greater consensus on what leads to effective teams.

One problem with clarifying the domain of team effectiveness is that there are many

definitions of team effectiveness. Early definitions shaped future discussions by focusing on

internal and external criteria. For example, Schein (1970) argued that the function of a team is to

meet organizational responsibilities (e.g., getting work out, generating ideas, or serving as

liaisons) while simultaneously meeting personal responsibilities (e.g., developing group identity,

backing up team members, or providing social support). Nieva, Fleishman, and Rieck (1978)

used a motivational approach by defining team effectiveness as “the goal directed

behaviors/activities/functions accomplished by the team in performing the task” (p. 52).

Hackman and Oldham (1980) expanded on this by defining team effectiveness in terms of the

team’s success in meeting (or exceeding) organizational standards of quality and quantity,

members’ needs are satisfied, and members want to continue to work together on future tasks.

Several researchers subsequently took a part of these definitions (e.g., Gladstein, 1984,

suggested that team effectiveness consisted of performance and satisfaction and Sundstrom,

Team Effectiveness 5

DeMeuse, & Futrell, 1990 defined team effectiveness as performance and viability), whereas

other researchers changed components of the definitions. For example, Cohen and Bailey (1997)

defined team effectiveness as performance outcomes, attitudinal outcomes, and behavioral

outcomes; Beal, Cohen, Burke, and McLendon (2003) suggested that team effectiveness as

performance behaviors and performance outcomes; and Kozlowski and Bell (2003) argued that

team effectiveness was a combination of internal (e.g., satisfaction and viability) and external

(e.g., quantity and quality) criteria.

As this selective review makes clear, although these broad conceptualizations of team

effectiveness differ, there is even less agreement as to what the specific dimensions of team

effectiveness are. For example, there have been inconsistencies on what “productivity” is. Some

defined it as the quality or quantity of work (Beersma, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, Moon, Conlon, &

Ilgen, 2003), whereas others have considered it the meeting of organizational expectations

(Hackman, 1987). Related to this, it is unclear if performance speed is the same as quantity of

work accomplished or team productivity; error rates, failure, accuracy, and quality may be

synonomous; and “backing up,” assistance, cooperative support, and cooperative behavior may

all be forms of helping. In terms of affective reactions, some have considered these as a

component of team effectiveness (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996), whereas others have placed them

outside the realm of team effectiveness (Beal et al., 2003). As another example, although Schein

(1970) discussed helping, most definitions of team effectiveness do not seem to explicitly

acknowledge it.

In this manuscript, we attempt to address this confusion in the literature by organizing

team effectiveness into three broad domains using self-regulation theory as an overarching

theoretical framework. This yields an integrative definition of team effectiveness that draws from

Team Effectiveness 6

traditional views on team effectiveness but also builds on insights gained from self-regulation

theory. We then identify the core dimensions of team effectiveness and provide construct

definitions. Drawing from self-regulation theory, the team effectiveness dimensions are

organized into behavioral, cognitive, and affective domains. Next, we complete several meta-

analyses of the dimensions of team effectiveness in an effort to provide an introductory

understanding of the relationships amongst dimensions. We couple this with an analysis of the

reliabilities of existing scales in an effort to identify strengths and weaknesses in the literature.

Finally, we test develop and test specific hypotheses that provide a more nuanced view of the

relationship between teamwork processes and team effectiveness, extending the recent work of

LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, and Saul (2008).

A Typology of Team Effectiveness

We developed our typology of team effectiveness in the following manner. First, we

reviewed the articles discussing team effectiveness in an effort to assemble a broad set of team

effectiveness constructs examined in past research. This included examining definitions of team

effectiveness to determine what researchers have considered relevant, as well as empirical

studies of team effectiveness. Second, we examined the resulting set of constructs in an effort to

determine if different variables represented unique or redundant constructs (e.g., although given

different labels, errors and accuracy reflect different ends of a continuum that captures the

quality of work). Third, after creating a list of constructs, we organized these constructs into a

structure derived from the literature on self-regulation in teams (Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath,

1997). This suggested potential gaps and areas needed refinement. Finally, we reflected upon the

resulting construct set and added constructs that theoretically made sense.

Teams are self-regulating entities (Hinsz et al., 1997), which means that they set goals,

Team Effectiveness 7

check their progress against the goals, and adjust their behavior in response to deviations from

the desired state (c.f., Karoly, 1993; Lord, Diefendorff, Schmidt, & Hall, 2010) Hinsz et al.

(1997) suggested that the extent to which information is shared (and what is shared) in a group

impacts how groups (as a collective) manage that information to produce group outcomes.

Although they present a theoretical model linking the goals of a team, the specific processing

undertaken by the team, and the output of this process, they point out how the model

retroactively fits existing models and empirical results. Hinsz et al. (1997) go on to suggest that

information processing is what teams do (i.e., how they behave), it is a function of what they feel

and how much members are attracted to a team (i.e., their affective reactions), and what they

think during the process (i.e., their cognitions). Essentially, there are three categories of

information processing: behavioral actions, affective reactions, and cognitions.

We utilize these three categories of information processing to organize team

effectiveness. It is no surprise that team activities can be grouped into these three domains, as

these are the three main research domains in the social sciences. Classic psychological research

focused on the behaviors of people, to the exclusion of all internal processes (Watson, 1913). As

noted by Ilgen, Major, and Tower (1994), cognition grew in interest (and applicability) in the

social sciences during the 1980’s and early 1990’s. This “cognitive revolution” explicitly

acknowledged the thought processes of individuals and teams in developing theory. The

“affective revolution” (Barsade, Brief, & Spataro, 2003) that followed has moved research into

the realm of moods, affect, and emotions, all in an effort to better understand the complexity of

individuals. Together, these three paradigms nearly encompass the totality of human behavior,

and thus serve as a useful organizational scheme for understanding team effectiveness.

With this as an overall theoretical framework, team effectiveness can be defined by

Team Effectiveness 8

expanding Mathieu et al.’s (2008, p. 412) recent definition as the behavioral, affective, and

cognitive products of team activity that are valued by one or more constituencies. Although

inclusive, this definition lacks the specificity needed to address the concerns outlined earlier. As

such, we seek to articulate the various specific manifestations of behavioral, cognitive, and

affective effectiveness indicators.

In order to organize the dimensions of team effectiveness, we placed constructs into one

of these domains. Although we recognize that these domains are not orthogonal (e.g., a

behavioral construct may have cognitive undertones), we do believe that each dimension has a

primary or predominant characteristic that enables placement within the typology. The final

structure and organization of the dimensions is presented in Table 1.

Behavioral Team Effectiveness

Behavioral team effectiveness can be defined as “the action tendencies one has to

approach or avoid an object or perform some response” (Bagozzi, 1978, p. 10). This is the

domain of effectiveness outcomes that is most commonly thought of as “performance” or

“effectiveness” because it refers to task related outcomes of specific activities conducted within

the team. We identified six behavioral dimensions of team effectiveness.

Performance quality is the accuracy or precision of team output (Jenkins, Mitra, Gupta,

& Shaw, 1998). It includes both behavioral task performance (e.g., correctly welded joints) and

decision-making performance (e.g., jury decisions). In addition to the over 100 years of research

on performance quality at the individual level (Elliot, Helsen, & Chua, 2001), team researchers

have also frequently focused on quality (Humphrey, Hollenbeck, Meyer, & Ilgen, 2002). For

example, in McGrath’s (1984) circumplex of team tasks, both intellective tasks and judgment

tasks are defined in terms of finding a correct or preferred answer. Inaccurate decisions would

Team Effectiveness 9

therefore indicate low quality performance and may have serious consequences. Note that

performance quality does not need to be bound solely in terms of decision-making. For example,

automotive assembly teams can be judged on the number of quality defects per car, and a

research team writing a manuscript can be judged on the number of grammatical errors.

Performance quantity reflects the amount of work produced (Jenkins et al., 1998). This

dimension is conceptually similar to performance “speed” (which reflects how quickly work is

performed). Quantity has long been considered a core component of performance, such that

quantity of performance is often a fundamental component of reward systems (e.g., piece-rate

work; Taylor, 1895). In teams, performance quantity can reflect the number of cars produced, the

speed of an Olympic relay team, or the number of mortgages approved per day.

Comparing performance quality and quantity, researchers have frequently noted the

different antecedents, and often the negative correlation between these two dimensions of

effectiveness (Elliot et al, 2001). Because of this, scholars and practitioners alike have often

considered both dimensions simultaneously when examining team performance (Beersma et al.,

2003).

In-role performance can be thought of as performance on the job-related aspects of work,

rather than an overall assessment of effectiveness. For example, this may reflect performance on

a simulation (e.g., Hollenbeck et al., 2002) or task performance (e.g., Tjosvold & Yu, 2004).

Whereas performance quantity and performance quality reflect facets of behavioral team

effectiveness, they do not reflect the totality of in-role behavior. Performance quantity and

performance quality do not inherently capture the relative importance of each of these

dimensions. That is, on one task, performance quality may be the only thing that matters (e.g.,

how quickly a jury makes a decision is essentially irrelevant compared to the quality of that

Team Effectiveness 10

decision), whereas on other tasks performance quantity may be significantly more important than

performance quality (e.g., the speed of a relay team is more important than the runners’ form). In

contrast, in-role performance reflects the performance of the team on a priori defined role

behaviors (thus capturing the aggregation of quantity and quality on these specific behaviors).

In contrast, extra-role performance reflects team extra-role (rather than in-role) behaviors

such as interpersonal facilitation (e.g., helping or backing up team members). As noted by

McIntyre and Salas (1995), “this skill is at the heart of teamwork, for it makes the team truly

operate as more than the sum of its parts” (p. 26). This echoes the individual level research,

which has often argued that interpersonal facilitation shapes the organizational context (and

therefore organizational performance) by supporting other’s in-role activities (Borman &

Motowidlo, 1993). Extra-role performance may manifest itself as backing up team members who

are overloaded or coaching a team member (e.g., providing verbal feedback). At the core of this

dimension is the notion that team members are going beyond their defined roles in ways that

contribute to the ability of the team to complete its task.

Goal attainment is the extent to which a team reaches or exceeds its goals, where the

goals may be set by other organizational actors or the members themselves. As suggested by

Hackman (1987), within organizations, the “absolute” level of performance may be less

important than the ability to hit goals. That is, organizational evaluations of teams (for

compensation, continuation of resource allocation, etc.) are often based upon whether a team has

achieved its goals. The focus of team goals may be those dimensions of behavioral performance

discussed already (e.g., production levels or error rates) or they may be unique from those

already discussed (e.g., customer satisfaction ratings or turnover rates).

Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) reflect voluntary behaviors that are

Team Effectiveness 11

detrimental to the team or organization (Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006). This includes behaviors

such as social loafing, tardiness, sabotage, theft, sexual harassment, and verbal (or physical)

abuse (Conlon, Meyer, & Nowakowski, 2005; Ones, 1992). The extent to which teams promote

or inhibit CWBs is a matter of debate. On the one hand, self-managed teams have been proposed

as a way to reduce the incidence of CWBs (Manz & Sims, 1987), as the team context is proposed

to connect individual inputs more tightly to outputs. Moreover, teams can be a strong context

where pro-organizational norms are reinforced through socialization (Barker, 1993). Yet, that

context may also produce CWBs. For example, a team climate that supports CWBs can

encourage otherwise compliant team members to damage property, break rules, or hurt

coworkers (Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998). As noted in the Hawthorne Studies

(Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939), workers may feel pressure from the team to avoid being a

“rate-buster” by producing too much quantity of output.

Affective Team Effectiveness

Affect is “the positive-negative emotional relationship or feelings one has towards an

object or activity” (Bagozzi, 1978, p. 10). In the teams literature, researchers have long focused

on the emotional connection members have with each other and have frequently included

affective responses as critical outcomes of teams (c.f., Hackman, 1987). Applying Bagozzi’s

definition to teams, team affective outcomes can be thought of as the aggregate of the positive-

negative emotional feelings individual team member have towards (or relationship with) the

remainder of the team.

Teams researchers have frequently focused on four affective dimensions of team

effectiveness. Satisfaction with the team represents how positively members feel about the rest of

the team. As noted by Hackman (1987), team members should like (rather than be frustrated by)

Team Effectiveness 12

other members or else the emotional cost to frustrated members likely outweighs the benefits of

being in a team. Not surprisingly, most models of team effectiveness have included satisfaction

with the team.

Viability is similar to satisfaction with the team, such that it represents whether team

members would like to continue to work together in the future. Thus, being satisfied with the

team is usually sufficient for a team to be considered viable. However, team members may

dislike each other and yet see the benefit in continuing to collaborate. For example, professional

sports teams frequently encounter this phenomenon, such that team members perceive that the

benefit of having a personally distasteful member on the team outweighs the costs associated

with having that member. Because the startup costs of a team are high (due to the time and effort

necessary to develop norms and determine how to coordinate with each other; Ilgen et al., 2005),

having a team that wants to continue working together can be very beneficial for organizations

and is thus a desirable component of team effectiveness.

Cohesion reflects the interpersonal attraction towards, or the bond within, a team (Beal et

al., 2003). Much like satisfaction with the team and viability, cohesion is primarily affective such

that it focuses on how positively team members feel about other members in the team (e.g., are

they friends?). Yet, it has a slightly distinctive aspect in that it represents a sense of

belongingness and morale associated with being part of the team (Bollen & Hoyle, 1990). As

such, cohesion is a dimension of effectiveness that can begin to rise almost immediately after

team formation (Turner, 1987).

Team identification is based on the organizational identification literature which is

grounded in social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Social identity theory says that

individuals’ identities are based in part on their social referent groups. Therefore, team

Team Effectiveness 13

identification involves a psychological attachment to a team, and the “emotional significance that

members of a group attach to that membership in that group” (Van der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005,

p. 33). Team identification can be stronger than organizational identification because individuals

feel more connected to their smaller group and because they tend to have more in common with

those on their team (Johnson, Morgeson, Ilgen, Meyer, & Lloyd, 2006).

Cognitive Team Effectiveness

Cognition is “the content of one’s thoughts as to beliefs of statement of fact” (Bagozzi,

1978, p. 10). At their core, cognitive team effectiveness outcomes reflect the results of specific

thought processes undertaken by team members. Whereas the two previous team effectiveness

outcome domains have been included (to some extent) in prior reviews and models of teamwork,

the cognitive dimension has frequently been ignored or, at best, relegated to meditational

mechanisms. However, it is clear that cognition has grown in importance for understanding OB

and psychological phenomena (Ilgen et al., 1994).

Three cognitive team effectiveness dimensions have been consistently discussed in the

team literature. Innovation reflects the extent to which a team has creative (i.e., inventive,

original, or unique) outputs (West, 1990). Innovative output is generally thought to have an

applied focus, meaning that in addition to it being unique, it was specifically designed to benefit

constituents (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). The potential for teams to

produce output that was more innovative than individuals was one of the core arguments for

supporting the development and implementation of teams in organizations. For example, the

brainstorming literature is premised upon the idea that teams could generate more ideas than

could be produced by the same number of people working independently (Taylor, Berry, &

Block, 1958). Because team innovation can help establish or maintain organization success

Team Effectiveness 14

(Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003), organizations have frequently prioritized the development of

structures (such as teams) that may promote innovation (Anderson & West, 1998; Drach-Zahavy

& Somech, 2001).

Potency reflects the collective belief that a team is effective (Guzzo, 1986). This

cognition thus reflects whether team members perceive that they can succeed at a broad set of

tasks across numerous situations. Potency is thought to be conceptually similar to (though not

redundant with) collective self efficacy, though empirical results suggest that they demonstrate

similar relationships with other variables (Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, Beaubien, 2002) and are

highly correlated (Stajkovic, Lee, & Nyberg, 2009). Having a sense of potency is important for

teams because potency influences how much effort will be put into tasks, and the extent to which

a team will persevere in the face of failure (Bandura, 1986).

Team learning is “a relatively permanent change in the team’s collective level of

knowledge and skill produced by the shared experience of the team members” (Ellis,

Hollenbeck, Ilgen, Porter, West, & Moon, 2003, p. 822). Team learning has two components:

learning about the task and learning about the team members. That is, one aspect of learning

involves a team finding out the processes involved in performing a task (Tjosvold, Yu, & Hui,

2004), whereas determining what team members know, or the skills they hold, is a separate

component of learning (Mohammed & Dumville, 2001). Learning more about the task and team

can promote behavioral effectiveness on the specific task (Hinsz et al., 1997), as well as

influence future task strategies and behavioral effectiveness both in the current team (Quiñones,

Ford, & Teachout, 1995) and in new teams (Ilgen et al., 2005).

Overall Team Effectiveness

Whereas the previous discussion of team effectiveness outcomes has focused on placing

Team Effectiveness 15

dimensions into broad domains, there exists an alternative conceptualization of team

effectiveness. Rather than assess team effectiveness by specific dimensions , a global assessment

of effectiveness provides an alternative, holistic view of how a team performed. More

specifically, overall team effeciveness reflects an inclusive combination of the behavioral,

affective, and cognitive components of team effectiveness.

For many years, researchers have compared global assessments of effectiveness to lower-

level dimensions (Meehl, 1986; Sawyer, 1966). Yet, research has also suggested that global

assessments capture unique aspects of effectiveness that are not provided through the dimensions

alone (Ganzach, Kluger, & Klayman, 2000). Thus, overall effectiveness measures provide

additional insight into how effective a team is. Research Questions

Although the teams literature suggests that there are these different dimensions of team

effectiveness, there has not been a systematic evaluation of construct validity of team

effectiveness. That is, researchers primarily examine only one or two dimensions of team

effectiveness in a given study. As such, there has not been an analysis of the interrelationship

between dimensions of team effectiveness, or within a category. Thus, one goal of this study is to

examine the interrelationships among these dimensions.

Another relevant question regarding the dimensionality of team effectiveness is the extent

to which the dimensions combine to form an overall effectiveness perception. That is, although

we consider overall effectiveness to be a generalized assessment of the components of

effectiveness, raters may weigh certain dimensions of effectiveness more heavily than others in

determining overall effectiveness. For example, people may default to considering behavioral

dimensions when assessing overall effectiveness, as behavioral dimensions are easier for external

raters to assess through observation, whereas a team’s affective reactions may be particularly

Team Effectiveness 16

challenging to gauge.

A fundamental component of any assessment tool is the reliability of the measure. As

noted by Viswesvaran, Ones, and Schmidt (1996), “for a measure to have any research or

administrative use, it must have some reliability” (p. 557). Yet, team effectiveness has been

measured from many different sources, using a multitude of measures, without a consistently-

applied construct validation process.

Wohlers and London (1989) suggested that certain dimensions of performance are more

difficult to evaluate than other dimensions. For example, behavioral dimensions of performance

such as performance quantity (e.g., counting the number of cars produced) are fundamentally

easier to evaluate (as there tends to be an objectively correct answer1) than an affective outcome

such as cohesion, which reflects how members feel about themselves and the team. In fact, some

have argued that the difference in rating accuracy of performance dimensions is stable across

studies, samples, and formats (Borman, 1979).

This difference in ease of evaluation is particularly relevant when one considers the

source of the ratings. For example, cohesion is likely measured more easily (and reliability)

when measured by the team itself than when measured by a supervisor or client. In contrast,

innovation may be more reliably evaluated by external evaluators than team members, as the

team members may be too involved in the output to see the big picture.

Nonetheless, the important issue is determining the extent to which certain dimensions of

effectiveness have been consistently and reliably measured to date. Identifying dimensions that

are consistently unreliable (or at least less reliable) should impact the interpretation of research

findings dealing with that dimension, as well as temper conclusions about relationships between

dimensions. However, being able to identify dimensions that consistently exhibit lower

Team Effectiveness 17

reliability should allow researchers to focus their attention on creating better measures of these

dimensions.

Research Question 1: To what extent are the dimensions of team effectiveness intercorrelated?

Research Question 2: To what extent do the dimensions of team effectiveness differentially relate to overall ratings of team effectiveness?

Research Question 3: To what extent have measures of team effectiveness exhibited different (or similar) levels of reliabilities?

Relationships with Team Processes

Much like the literature on team effectiveness, there has been a multitude of

conceptualizations and operationalizations of team processes, which can be thought of as those

variables that reflect “members’ interdependent acts that convert inputs to outcomes through

cognitive, verbal, and behavioral activities directed toward organizing taskwork to achieve

collective goals” (Marks et al., 2001, p. 357). Recent theoretical (Marks et al., 2001) and

empirical (LePine et al., 2008) approaches to resolving this problem have produced, and found

support for, a three-factor model of team processes.

Marks et al.’s (2001) model of team processes frames teamwork as a series of

performance episodes, where teams alternate between preparing for performance, and actually

performing. Transition phase processes are “evaluation and/or planning activities [that] guide

their accomplishment of a team goal or objective” (p. 360). As teams prepare for the next

performance episode, members reflect upon how they performed in the previous performance

episode, compare performance against goals, and plan what they will do in the next performance

episode. Action phase processes reflect “acts that contribute directly to goal accomplishment” (p.

360). As opposed to the preparation that occurs with the transition processes, teams engaging in

action processes perform task-related behaviors such as monitoring progress and coordination.

Team Effectiveness 18

Interpersonal processes reflect how teams manage interpersonal interactions within the team.

Whereas the other two processes were proposed to occur exclusively before or during

performance episodes, interpersonal processes were expected to occur throughout the entirety of

a team’s lifecycle. Interpersonal processes include activities such as conflict management and

confidence building.

In their recent meta-analytic test of this model, LePine et al. (2008) found support for the

multi-dimensional model of team processes, as well as empirical support for the relationship

between the processes and team performance and member satisfaction. Interestingly, whereas

they found differentiation on the strength of the relationships between the facets of the team

processes dimensions (e.g., team monitoring and systems monitoring are facets of the action

process dimension) on the outcomes, they did not find much differentiation at the dimension

level. For example, for the relationships with team performance, they found that all three

processes exhibited ρ values of .29. Although one might be tempted to conclude that the

processes have an equal influence on effectiveness, another view is that there was not enough

granularity in the team effectiveness outcomes to find meaningful differences. Thus, in an effort

to constructively extend their research, we examine the relationships between three process

dimensions and the dimensions of team effectiveness discussed herein. Although we would like

to pair their granularity in team processes with our granularity in team effectiveness, the limited

empirical research makes that impossible right now.

There is reason to suspect specific relationships between certain processes and team

effectiveness dimensions. We organize our discussion of hypotheses around the outcomes of

interest, and pose relationships linking specific team processes to these dimensions of team

effectiveness.

Team Effectiveness 19

First, there is reason to suspect that transition processes will be the most important

processes for overall performance. Transition processes reflect the planning that occurs before

action – in essence, they capture preparation for the next phase of the team. If a team acts

without sufficient planning, it likely does not matter how hard they work, or how well they are

coordinated. Instead, they will be acting without a clear, shared vision of what they want to

accomplish, and how they would go about accomplishing this. Therefore, we expect that

transition processes are the most predictive processes for overall team performance.

Turning to the behavioral dimensions of effectiveness, we would expect that different

processes affect performance quality. As performance quality reflects accuracy of performance,

a team focused solely on performing without taking time to figure out how to accurately perform

(and perhaps even what constitutes high quality performance) will be challenged to produce high

quality performance. Support for this can be derived from the literature on team goal orientation,

which has found that a focus solely on performing (as opposed to learning) can be a detriment to

reaching optimal solutions (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003; Vandewalle, 2001).

In contrast, we expect that performance quantity, which reflects the speed at which a

team works, is influenced most by action processes. Bunderson and Sutcliffe (2003) note that

teams that are too focused on learning and planning suffered in their ability to produce sufficient

outcomes. Given that performance quantity does not rely necessarily on good output, but rather a

greater amount of output, action processes should be more predictive of this outcome.

We expect that goal attainment is a function of both transition and action processes. To

successfully reach its goals, a team must first choose appropriate goals. Goals that are too

difficult or inappropriate for the team are ultimately de-motivating and unlikely to be reached

(Locke & Latham, 1990). Thus, specifying appropriate goals (a key element of transition

Team Effectiveness 20

processes) should be critical for goal accomplishment. Second, having a good goal is not enough

for reaching that goal; rather, the team must also progress towards that goal. In this way, action

processes are also important for goal accomplishment, as they capture team activity.

The category of affective team outcomes reflects how the team members feel about the

team. Given that interpersonal processes are theorized to encompass issues such as affect

management in teams (Marks et al., 2000), we predict that they will more strongly relate to the

affective outcomes than either transition or action processes.

Innovation reflects a unique output from a team. In this situation, two factors are

expected to matter. First, the transition processes are likely to help, as a team’s focus on planning

how to stimulate innovation (through the implementation of such activities as brainstorming and

devil’s advocacy) should influence whether they produce an innovative outcome. Second,

innovation is speculated to arise from disagreements in task or processes (Jehn & Mannix, 2001);

yet, that conflict can easily turn into relationship-focused conflict, producing low levels of

performance (De Dreu & Weingart, XXXX). Thus, the ability to manage conflict is critical for

successful team innovation (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000; Chen, Liu, & Tjosvold, 2005). We

therefore predict that transition and interpersonal processes are more strongly related to

innovation than action processes.

Hypothesis 1: Transition processes will be more predictive of (a) overall team effectiveness, (b) performance quality, and (c) goal accomplishment than action or interpersonal processes

Hypothesis 2: Action processes will be more predictive of performance quantity than transition or interpersonal processes

Hypothesis 3: (a) Transition and (b) action processes will be more predictive of goal attainment than interpersonal processes

Hypothesis 4: Interpersonal processes will be more predictive of affective outcomes than transition or action processes

Team Effectiveness 21

Hypothesis 5: (a) Transition and (b) interpersonal processes will be more predictive of innovation than action processes

Methods

Literature Search and Inclusion Criteria

We conducted a literature search to identify relevant research in the domain of team

effectiveness. The articles were identified through computer-based searches of the PsycINFO

(1887-2010) and Web of Science ISI (1970-2010) databases using the term team as the initial

key word. Because the focus of this study was to identify effectiveness criteria, we felt it was

important to confine our literature search to only those studies that used the “team” terminology.

Although the terms “group” and “team” have frequently been used interchangeably (Guzzo &

Dickson, 1996), these types of collectives have inherently different meanings. Teams are a subset

of the broader category of groups, such that although both types of collectives have multiple

members who define themselves as part of the collective and have some shared identity, norms,

and goals, teams have higher levels of interdependence than groups and are embedded in

organizations (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Sundstrom, De Meuse, &

Futrell, 1990). Teams are therefore different than social groups or nominal groups (Mathieu,

Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008) and their outputs are more relevant to the study of applied

psychology and organizational behavior. This search predictably resulted in fewer studies

measuring certain dimensions of effectiveness such as cohesion, which have often been

examined in the context of nominal groups. The abstracts of the resulting list were scanned to

eliminate obvious non-group or team research, as well as obvious theoretical or review articles.

This process winnowed the list to 1,649 articles for review and potential coding. In addition, the

reference sections of the following reviews or meta-analyses on teams were examined for

Team Effectiveness 22

potential articles: Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, and Jundt (2005); Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, and

Gilson (2008); LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, and Saul (2008); Hulsheger, Anderson, and

Salgado (2009); and Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch (2009).

This list of articles was split amongst the three authors for review. We then reviewed this

list of articles using more fine-grained criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Specifically, we again

excluded any theoretical or review articles that were not eliminated in the first pass. Second, a

study had to report results from which an effect size could be calculated. Third, the study had to

include a unique sample that had not been previously included in the current meta-analysis.

These inclusion criteria reduced our final study population to 379 articles.

All three authors participated in the coding of the studies. Although the authors

independently coded each manuscript, we met regularly (as a team) to discuss the manuscripts

coded. This allowed us to clarify ambiguous coding situations and achieve consensus on the

coded data.

After coding the articles, we found that several of the dimensions had been studied

infrequently, particularly in terms of the assessment of certain dimensions in the same study with

other dimensions. Because of this, we made the decision to exclude or collapse several

dimensions. More specifically, the lack of data relating CWBs to other dimensions of team

effectiveness resulted in its being dropped from our analyses. In addition, due to very limited

data examining the relationships between viability, team identification, and other dimensions, we

collapsed these two variables into a single variable labeled satisfaction with team.

Meta-Analytic Procedures

We used the Schmidt-Hunter psychometric meta-analysis method (Hunter & Schmidt,

2004). Following Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) recommendations, we created composite

Team Effectiveness 23

correlation values for studies with multiple measures of the same construct. This process applied

to correlation matrix, as we did not want to “double-count” a study in the meta-analytic

correlation estimates. However, we kept the measures separate for estimates of reliability.

Correlations in our study were corrected for measurement error in both the predictor and

the criterion scores using Cronbach’s alpha. Although these values were provided by the

majority of studies, when they were missing, we used the average value (for the specific

variable) from the other studies.

For the matrix of population correlation estimates, we present several pieces of

information. First, we include both the uncorrected (r) and corrected (ρ) estimates. Second, we

include the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each corrected population correlation. Finally, we

present the number of studies included in determining the correlation (k) and the total number of

participants in the studies (n).

RESULTS

Our first research question asked to what extent the dimensions of team effectiveness are

intercorrelated. To address this question, we meta-analyzed the relationships between the

dimensions, the results of which are presented in Table 2. In examining these results, the first

finding that was salient to us is the relatively low correlation between dimensions. With a few

notable exceptions (e.g., quantity and extra-role performance, satisfaction with the team and

potency, cohesion and learning), the majority of correlations between dimensions were in the

range of .10-.30. This suggests that although there may be conceptual overlap between

dimensions (as well as common source issues), the dimensions have enough differentiation so as

to be empirically separable. This finding bodes well for research interested in examining multiple

dimensions of team effectiveness, as they do not seem to halo into a single factor.

Team Effectiveness 24

Another interesting finding is that performance quality and performance quantity are

significantly positively correlated (ρ = .22). Given that individual level research has found a

consistent negative relationship between these two variables, it is interesting to speculate that

there may be something unique about teams that allow them to work both fast and accurately.

Related to this finding is the differential relationship for performance quality and performance

quantity with several other dimensions. For example, the results suggest that whereas quality is

more related to in-role performance than is quantity, quantity is more related to extra-role

performance than is quality. One reason for this finding may be that “doing more” (quantity) is a

characteristic of going outside role prescriptions.

Although we generally find universally positive relationships between dimensions, the

study-level correlations underlying these relationships are not universally positive, which has an

influence on whether the confidence interval crosses zero. In particularly, there seem to be more

uncertainty for relationships with satisfaction with the team or innovation, such that relationships

with these two variables have negative values in the lower end of the confidence interval. It may

be that certain affective reactions to behavioral performances are more nuanced, or that doing a

lot of work (performance quantity) does not necessarily result in more innovation.

Our second research question asks to what extent the dimensions of team effectiveness

differentially relate to overall ratings of team effectiveness. We examined this issue by running

an OLS regression, where overall team effectiveness was regressed on the dimensions for which

we had a full correlation matrix (i.e., overall effectiveness, performance quality, performance

quantity, in-role performance, extra-role performance, satisfaction with the team, cohesion,

innovation, and potency). The results of this regression are presented in Table 3. As shown in

Table 3, after partialing shared variance, overall team effectiveness is best predicted by in-role

Team Effectiveness 25

performance, performance quantity, performance quality, and satisfaction with team, with 43%

of the variance in overall team effectiveness explained by these eight dimensions. This result

suggests that holistic ratings of overall team effectiveness may be primarily a function of the

behavioral dimensions of team effectiveness, as well as the more salient affective dimension

(satisfaction with the team). More specifically, the ability of the team to successfully execute its

in-role responsibilities appears to be the best predictor of overall team effectiveness. Moreover,

these results suggest that extra-role performance, cohesion, innovation, and potency measure

something that is not reflected in a holistic measure of team effectiveness. The fact that the

cognitive domain is not at all reflected in overall team effectiveness is surprising, and suggests

that the field revises how we capture overall effectiveness (e.g., a greater queuing of that domain

in the scale).

Our third research question addressed the extent to which measure of team effectiveness

exhibited different (or similar) levels of reliabilities. To test this research question, we collected

the coefficient alpha reliability scores for every measure that reflected one of the dimensions of

team effectiveness. For this research question, we purposefully did not limit ourselves only to

studies where the there were two or more measures of team effectiveness, which resulted in the

production of table that provides some insight into the totality of research on team effectiveness.

For this question, we separated the information by three factors: team effectiveness dimension,

source of the team effectiveness rating, and whether the study provided a reliability estimate. The

result of this process is presented in Table 4.

The first conclusion one can make about the reliabilities is that they, in general, are above

the cutoff for “adequate reliability” (Nunnally, 1977). Yet, given the state of the teams literature,

one would expect that the measures of team effectiveness had progressed away from the early

Team Effectiveness 26

stages of research and instead reached a greater degree of internal validity. As Edwards (2008)

notes, the effect of two measures with reliabilities of .75 on a relationship is so great as to

potentially “change the results of statistical tests and alter substantive conclusions” (p. 478).

A second point of interest rests in the difference in reliabilities across sources. Across the

team effectiveness dimensions, measures rated by the teams generally have lower reliabilities

than measures rated by others. There are multiple ways to interpret this. First, it may be that team

members are less reliable raters in general. Second, the fact that there are (presumably) many

more raters involved in any given measurement when the rater is the team (i.e., all of the team

members rather than a single supervisor) may introduce more noise. A third option, and the

explanation that we believe is most likely, is that team members may actually see more nuance in

the scales when rating themselves than what other external raters perceive. Consider the measure

of helping from Podsakoff, Ahearne, and MacKenzie (1997). Two items from the scale include

whether team members “help each other out if someone falls behind in his/her work” and “take

steps to try to prevent problems with other crew members.” Notice that the first item is a reactive

item, whereas the second is a proactive item. External raters may only see that team members

help each other out (essentially haloing the items), whereas team members may actually

differentiate between proactive and reactive strategies.

A third point of interest can be derived from examining how specific dimensions are

assessed. In the case of behavioral outcomes such as performance quality, performance quantity,

and in-role performance, it appears that a vast majority of studies use objective measures. In

contrast, the dimensions within the affective domain are predominantly assessed from the team.

Immediate supervisors appear to be the primary rater of both overall team effectiveness and

innovation. Although it may make intuitive sense that these dimensions be rated by these

Team Effectiveness 27

sources, an interesting question arises as to whether “non-traditional” sources of these measures

(e.g., supervisor ratings of cohesion or team ratings of performance quantity) provide unique

information about the dimension of interest.

Turning to our specific hypotheses, we first predicted that transition processes would be

more strongly related to overall team effectiveness, performance quality, and goal

accomplishment than would either the action or interpersonal processes. As shown in Table 2,

there is some evidence supporting this hypothesis, though for all relationships, the confidence

intervals overlap to some extent. For overall team effectiveness, transition processes (ρ = .36)

demonstrates a somewhat higher relationship than does either the action (ρ = .21) or

interpersonal processes (ρ = .20). Transition processes (ρ = .45) are also somewhat more strongly

related performance quality than are the action processes (ρ = .33). Finally, transition (ρ = .22),

action (ρ = .27) and interpersonal processes (ρ =.16) all appear to be similarly related to goal

attainment. Thus, there is support for Hypotheses 1a and 1b, whereas 1c is not supported.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that action processes would be more related to performance

quantity than would the transition or interpersonal processes. There is some evidence that the

action processes (ρ = .25) are more related to performance quantity than transition processes (ρ =

.16); however, interpersonal processes (ρ = .23) are essentially equivalently related to

performance quantity. Thus, there is only limited support for part of Hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that transition and action processes would be more strongly

related to goal attainment than would interpersonal processes. There is some evidence for this

hypothesis, as transition (ρ = .22) and action processes (ρ = .27) are somewhat more strongly

related than interpersonal processes (ρ = .16). Thus, there is some support for Hypotheses 3a and

3b.

Team Effectiveness 28

Hypothesis 4 predicted that interpersonal processes would be more strongly related to

affective outcomes than would either the transition or action processes. Disappointingly, we can

only test this hypothesis for satisfaction with the team. For this outcome, the results do not

support the hypothesis, as both transition (ρ = .39) and action processes (ρ = .40) are more

strongly related to satisfaction with the team than the interpersonal processes (ρ = .13). Thus,

Hypothesis 4 is not supported.

Finally, Hypothesis 5 predicted that the transition and interpersonal processes would be

more strongly related to innovation than would the action processes. For this hypothesis, we find

evidence that action processes (ρ = .20) are more weakly related to innovation than either

transition (ρ = .34) or interpersonal processes (ρ =.76). Thus, there is support for Hypotheses 5a

and 5b.

Analyses of Control Variables

We conclude our analyses by examining the relationship between team effectiveness

dimensions and the control variables of team tenure and team size. Past research has suggested

that these structural characteristics may have a direct effect on team effectiveness. Examining

Table 2, the evidence appears to be mixed on the relationship between these structural

characteristics and team effectiveness. Examining team tenure first, the results suggest that team

tenure is positively related to overall team effectiveness (ρ = .06), in-role performance (ρ = .14),

and goal attainment (ρ = .17). For team size, there is evidence that performance quantity (ρ

= .09), goal attainment (ρ = -.06), and potency (ρ = .13) all relate to team size. In all cases, the

ρ’s are rather small, though significantly different than zero. Thus, we can conclude that team

tenure and size can affect several team effectiveness dimensions, though the absolute magnitude

of these effects is limited.

Team Effectiveness 29

DISCUSSION

In this study, we developed a taxonomy of team effectiveness, organizing the dimensions

into three broad domains derived from self-regulation theory. We then meta-analyzed the

relationships amongst the dimensions, tested the relationship between the dimensions and overall

team effectiveness, examined the reliabilities of the dimensions (by rater source), and finally

tested the link between the dimensions and Marks et al.’s (2001) tripartite model of team

processes. The results of this endeavor demonstrated that although the dimensions are correlated,

there is significant conceptual and empirical differentiation between the dimensions.

The most important contribution of this study rests with its ability to organize and define

what team effectiveness is. The lack of a common definition for and clear dimensionality of team

effectiveness is problematic for theoretical, empirical, and applied reasons. Without a clear

definition, theories built towards explaining effectiveness may not actually apply to all aspects of

effectiveness. For example, recent research has argued that the literature on team compensation

promotes quality of performance, but actually hurts the quantity of performance (Beersma et al.,

2003), contrasting traditional views on productivity in teams (Aime, Meyer, & Humphrey,

2010). Essentially, the lack of understanding of what team effectiveness is can lead to a lack of

theoretical precision and the potential for misspecification of theory. To develop a richer

understanding of how inputs and processes impact effectiveness, researchers therefore need to

clearly specify which domain of effectiveness their theory applies to and identify a (several)

specific dimension(s) of effectiveness that relate to the theoretical model. Undertaking this

approach will provide better specified theories of teamwork.

On the empirical side, the lack of a consistent definition has led to the use of different

measures, some of which represent fundamentally different variables, but all of which use the

Team Effectiveness 30

same construct name. Tests of theories may be called into question, as inconsistent findings

(which often lead to the conclusion that only a limited or even no relationship exists; Bell, 2007)

may be the result of (metaphorically) comparing apples to oranges. For example, consider the

ambitious work by DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus (2010), where the authors examined the

relationship between team cognition and team effectiveness. This study presents a clear model of

team cognition, it tests a large selection of moderators of the relationship between cognition and

team effectiveness, and presents several valuable findings about this relationship. Yet, similar to

other meta-analyses in the teams domain, this study examined only part of the team effectiveness

construct space (and in fact collapsed several dimensions together: “task performance,

completion, and proficiency” were all treated as team performance; p. 38). This is not a criticism

of that study, as it provided a great deal of insight into this issue (moreover, it is unlikely that the

authors would have had a sufficient sample to differentiate amongst all team effectiveness

dimensions); instead, we want to point out that given the differences between the team

effectiveness dimensions, as demonstrated herein, researchers lose potentially valuable

information by collapsing across the dimensions.

From an applied perspective, we know that different teams are evaluated in different

ways, using different criteria. Yet, the lack of a single viewpoint that is inclusive and integrative

may results in organizations finding that interventions developed by scholars do not work

because the dimension of effectiveness that they are interested in is different than what scholars

have tested the relationships with. Put a different way, the movement towards evidence-based

management (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006) entails a focus on what actually makes a difference,

distinguishing between “hard facts, dangerous half truths, and total nonsense.” Hard facts are

extremely challenging to find in organizational behavior / applied psychological research and

Team Effectiveness 31

total nonsense can easily be debunked by researchers; where we, as scholars must provide value

is in clarifying what are half-truths (and when do they apply). Differentiating amongst team

effectiveness dimensions is but one step in clarifying what relationships actually exist.

Limitations and Future Research

There are several limitations of this study. First, as with all meta-analyses, we were

constrained to only be able to analyze the population of research that exists. Because of this,

there were several dimensions of effectiveness (i.e., counterproductive work behaviors and team

identification) that have been severely under-researched and therefore were not included in our

analysis, whereas goal attainment, viability, innovation, and learning have only been examined in

a limited number of studies (and thus their coefficients are less stable). Although one could see

this as a problem, we instead see this as an opportunity. These are important dimensions of team

effectiveness (in fact, viability and goal attainment have been included in most classic definitions

of team effectiveness, whereas innovation and learning have become critical outcomes for

organizations). We therefore encourage researchers to focus upon these specific dimensions of

team effectiveness in future research. Understanding the antecedents of these outcomes would

likely be valuable contributions to the literature.

One particular problem with the results from this study is that the dimensions were

measured in many different ways. Table 4 highlights the different sources of ratings; our coding

process highlighted the deficiency in standardized measures of these dimensions. In reality, each

of the dimensions was assessed via very different scales, with each scale likely measuring

slightly different constructs. Although we can learn important information from meta-analyses

where the examined constructs are measured using disparate measures, additional information

may arise from the use of consistent measures given the less noise in the measurement (c.f.,

Team Effectiveness 32

Barrick & Mount, 1991 and Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). We recommend that the field begin to

narrow down a list of construct-valid measures of the team effectiveness dimensions.

Team Effectiveness 33

References

Aime, F., Meyer, C. J., & Humphrey, S. E. (2010). Legitimacy of group rewards: Analyzing

legitimacy as a condition for the effectiveness of group incentive designs. Journal of

Business Research, 63, 60-66.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work

environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154-1184.

Anderson, C., Lindsay, J. L., & Bushman, J. (1999). Research in the psychological laboratory:

Truth or triviality? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 3–9.

Anderson, N. R. & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation:

Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 19, 235-258.

Bagozzi, R. P. (1978). The construct validity of the affective, behavioral, and cognitive

components of attitude by analysis of covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral

Research,13, 9-31.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thoughts and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408-437.

Barsade, S. G., Brief, A. P., & Spataro, S. E. (2003). The affective revolution in organizational

behavior: The emergence of a paradigm. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior:

The state of the science (pp. 3-52). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance

in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied

Team Effectiveness 34

Psychology, 88, 989-1004.

Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Moon, H., Conlon, D. E., & Ilgen, D. R.

(2003). Cooperation, Competition, and Team Performance: Towards a Contingency

Approach. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 572-490.

Bollen, K. A. & Holye, R. H. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical

examination. Social Forces, 69, 479-504.

Borman, W. C. (1979). Format and training effects on rating accuracy and rater errors. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 64, 410-412.

Borman, W. C. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements

of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personality Selection

(pp. 71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.

Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and

organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of

industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 687-732). Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait–

multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.

Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1992). A theory of performance.

In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), New developments in selection and placement (pp.

35-70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, S. G. & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research

from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290.

Conlon, D. E., Meyer, C. J., & Nowakowski, J. M. (2005). How does organizational justice

Team Effectiveness 35

affect performance, withdrawal, and counterproductive behavior? In Greenberg, J. and

Colquitt, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice: Fundamental Questions about

Fairness in the Workplace (pp. 301-327). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cote, J. A. & Buckley, M. R. (1987). Estimating trait, method, and error variance: Generalizing

across 70 construct validation studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 315-318.

Drach-Zahavy, A. & Somech, A. (2001). Understanding team innovation: The role of team

processes and structures. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, & Practice, 5, 111-123.

Edwards, J. R. (2008). To prosper, organizational psychology should . . . overcome

methodological barriers to progress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 469-491.

Elliott, D., Helsen, W. F., & Chua, R. (2001). A century later: Woodworth’s (1899) two-

component model of goal directed aiming. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 342–357.

Ellis, A.P.J., Hollenbeck, J.R., Ilgen, D.R., Porter, C.O.L.H.,West, B.J., & Moon, H. (2003).

Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,

821–835.

Gallupe, R. B., Dennis, A. R., Cooper, W. H., Valacich, J. S., Bastianutti, L. M., & Nunamaker,

J. F. Jr. (1992). Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management

Journal, 35, 350-369.

Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.

Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-

efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators

of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819-832.

Guzzo, R. A. (1986). Group decision making and group effectiveness in organizations. In P. S.

Team Effectiveness 36

Goodman (Ed.), Designing Effective Work Groups (pp. 34-71). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on

performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-338.

Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of

Organizational Behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley.

Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation,

variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199-1229.

Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Volrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups

as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43-64.

Hollenbeck, J. R., Moon, H., Ellis, A. P. J., West, B. J., Ilgen, D. R., Sheppard, L., et al. (2002).

Structural contingency theory and individual differences: Examination of external and

internal person-team fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 599-606.

Hulsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at

work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 94, 1128-1145.

Humphrey, S. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., Meyer, C. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2002). Hierarchical team

decision making. In G. R. Ferris, & Martocchio, J. J. (Eds.), Research in Personnel and

Human Resource Management (Vol. 21, pp. 175-214). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Ilgen, D. R. (1985). Laboratory research: A question of when, not if. In Locke, E. A. (Ed.), The

generalizability of laboratory experiments: An inductive survey (pp. 257-267).

Lexington, MA: Heath.

Team Effectiveness 37

Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M. D., & Jundt, D. K. (2005). Teams in organizations:

From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56,

517–543.

Ilgen, D. R., Major, D. A., & Tower, S. L. (1994). The cognitive revolution in organizational

behavior. In. J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 1-

22). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jenkins, G. D., Mitra, A., Gupta, N., & Shaw, J. D. (1998). Are financial incentives related to

performance? A meta-analytic review of empirical research. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83, 777–787.

Johnson, M. D., Morgeson, F. P., Ilgen, D. R., Meyer, C. J., & Lloyd, J. W. (2006). Multiple

professional identities: Examining differences in identification across work-related

targets. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 498-506.

Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C.

Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and

organizational psychology (Vol. 12: 333-375). London: Wiley.

Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and

teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77-124.

LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of

organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 87, 52-65.

LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis

of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team

effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273-307.

Team Effectiveness 38

Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new

product teams' innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications

perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779-793.

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership

of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106-129.

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and

taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.

Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A

review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34,

410-476.

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

McIntyre, R. M., & Salas, E. (1995). Measuring and managing for team performance: Lessons

from complex environments. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and

decision-making in organizations (pp. 9–45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance:

A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 535-546.

Mohammed, S. & Dumville, B. C. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge

framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 22, 89-106.

Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external validity. American Psychologist, 38, 379-387.

Motowidlo, S. J. & Van Scotter, J. R. (1993). Evidence that task performance should be

distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475-480.

Team Effectiveness 39

Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits and

counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction. Personnel

Psychology, 59, 591-622.

Nieva, V. F., Fleishman, E. A., & Rieck, A. (1978). Team dimensions: Their identity, their

measurement and their relationships. Washington, DC: Response Analysis Corporation,

Advanced Research Resources Organization.

Ones, D. S. (2002). Introduction to the special issue on counterproductive behaviors at work.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 1-4.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Perry-Smith, J. E. & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic

social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28, 89-106.

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Bachrach, D. G., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2005). The influence

of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 473-

488.

Quiñones, M. A., Ford, J. K., & Teachout, M. S. (1995). The relationship between work

experience and performance: A conceptual and meta-analytic review. Personnel

Psychology, 48, 887–910.

Robinson, S. R., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of

work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal,

41, 658-672.

Roethlisberger, F. J. & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Team Effectiveness 40

Schein, E. G. (1970). Organizational Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group

performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 94, 814-828.

Sundstrom, E., de Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: applications and

effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120-133.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C., (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin

& S. Worchel (Eds.), Social Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey,

CA: Brooks-Cole Publishing.

Taylor, F. W. (1895). A piece-rate system: A step toward partial solution of the labor problem.

ASME Transactions, 16, 860-861.

Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. H. (1958). Does group participation when using

brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3,

23-47.

Tjosvold, D. & Yu, Z. Y. (2004). Goal interdependence and applying abilities for team in-role

and extra-role performance in China. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,

8, 98–111.

Tjosvold, D., Yu, Z. Y. & Hui, C. (2004). Team learning from mistakes: The contribution of

cooperative goals and problem-solving. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 1223-1245.

Turner, J. C. (1987). Self-categorization theory. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D.

Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group (pp. 42-67). Oxford :

Blackwell.

Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behavioralist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158-

Team Effectiveness 41

177.

Weick, K. E. (1990). The vulnerable system: An analysis of the Tenerife air disaster. Journal of

Management, 16, 571-593.

West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A.West & J. L. Farr

(Eds.), Innovation and creativity in work: Psychological and organizational strategies

(pp. 309-334). London: Wiley.

Wohlers, A. J. & London, M. (1989). Ratings of managerial characteristics: Evaluation

difficulty, co-worker agreement, and self-awareness. Personnel Psychology, 42, 235-261.

Van der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary

teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management

Journal, 48, 532-547.

Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of

job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 557-574.

Team Effectiveness 42

Footnotes

Team Effectiveness 43

Table 1Dimensions of Team Effectiveness

Dimension DefinitionBehavioral

Performance quality The accuracy or precision of team output

Performance quantity The amount of work produced

In-role performance Performance on the job-related aspects of work

Extra-role performance Interpersonal facilitation (e.g., helping or backing up team members)

Goal attainment The extent to which a team reaches or exceeds its goals

Counterproductive work behaviors

Voluntary behaviors that are detrimental to the team or organization

AffectiveSatisfaction with team How positively members feel about the rest of the team

Viability Extent to which team members would like to continue to work together in the future

Cohesion The interpersonal attraction towards, or the bond with a team

Team identification A psychological attachment to a team

CognitiveInnovation The extent to which a team has creative (i.e., inventive,

original, or unique) outputs

Potency The collective belief that a team is effective

Learning A relatively permanent change in the team’s collective level of knowledge and skill produced by the shared experience of the team members

Team Effectiveness 44

Table 2Correlations between Team Effectiveness Dimensions

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12r, rc r, rc r, rc r, rc r, rc r, rc r, rc r, rc r, rc r, rc r, rc r, rc

(95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI)

1 Overall Team Effectiveness

  k, N

Behavioral Measures

2 Performance Quality .34, .39(.26, .52)

  k, N 24, 1316

3 Performance Quantity .34, .36 .21, .22(.21, .51) (.10, .35)

  k, N 15, 901 25, 2165

4 In-role performance .49, .54 .31, .34 .17, .18(.42, .67) (.17, .52) (.01, .34)

  k, N 15, 1350 12, 626 5, 529

5 Extra-role performance .29, .32 .24, .27 .46, .50 .26, .32(.14, .50) (.01, .54) (.29, .71) (.11, .54)

  k, N 17, 1148 10, 592 5, 386 9, 523

6 Goal attainment .34, .40 .15, .18 .11, .11 .35, .42 .08, .09(.29, .51) (-.02, .39) (-.01, .24) (.23, .60)

  k, N 9, 1907 7, 862 3, 253 5, 332 1, 19Affective Measures

7 Satisfaction with team .35, .41 .14, .17 .15, .17 .35, .42 .16, .19 .49, .52(.31, .51) (-.03, .37) (-.02, .35) (.07, .77) (-.06, .44)

  k, N 24, 1463 6, 309 5, 326 8, 486 2, 137 1, 115

8 Viability .63, .75 -.01, .00 .19, .20 .68, .83(.60, .90) (-.41, .40) (.04, .37)

k, N 7, 310 5, 167 4, 132 1, 21

9 Cohesion .23, .27 .22, .26 .24, .27 .38, .43 .49, .55 .11, .14 .15, .17 .28, .32(.19, .34) (.20, .32) (.19, .36) (.31, .55) (.30, .80) (.01, .27) (-.20, .53) (.16, .48)

  k, N 39, 3065 12, 928 5, 478 9, 957 4, 260 3, 226 4, 194 2, 125Cognitive Measures10 Innovation .27, .32 .11, .14 .18, .21 .40, .47 .50, .60 .36, .42 .25, .28 .06, .07

(.14, .49) (-.15, .43) (-.02, .45) (.07, .87) (.19, .65) (.13, .44) (-.05, .19)  k, N 6, 590 4, 262 4, 309 3, 115 1, 97 5, 227 2, 169 3, 26411 Potency .37, .42 .22, .25 .40, .44 .36, .40 .21, .23 .64, .74 .44, .53 .44, .50 .14, .16

Team Effectiveness 45

(.37, .47) (.14, .36) (.33, .55) (.28, .51) (.55, .94) (.39, .62) (-.32, .64)  k, N 38, 2342 7, 640 10, 639 22, 1180 1, 80 8, 478 1, 28 13, 957 2, 114

12 Learning .31, .37 .21, .25 .16, .19 .51, .62 .57, .77 .58, .66 .21, .24 .58, .70(.25, .50) (.12, .39) (.08, .30) (.48, .75) (.55, .78) (.13, .34) (.58, .81)

  k, N 6, 469 3, 198 3, 330 2, 154 1, 79 3, 298 2, 302 2, 126Processes

13 Transition .31, .36 .39, .45 .15, .16 .22, .25 .41, .49 .20, .22 .33, .39 .23, .27 .30, .34 .50, .60 .38, .48(.25, .46) (.32, .57) (.06, .26) (.16, .33) (-.02, 1.00) (.08, .36) (.25, .54) (-.03, .56) (.20, .47) (.41, .80) (.27, .68)

  k, N 26, 1417 7, 358 8, 509 11, 712 2, 72 3, 178 2, 143 9, 535 4, 180 4, 322 2, 72

14 Action .17, .21 .30, .33 .22, .25 .26, .29 .05, .05 .23, .27 .35, .40 .19, .21 .26, .29 .15, .20 .32, .39 .40, .51(.11, .31) (.25, .41) (.18, .33) (.17, .41) (-.59, .68) (.16, .39) (-.02, .82) (.03, .55) (.08, .32) (.21, .58) (.26, .75)

  k, N 16, 1131 9, 549 8, 643 16, 956 2, 155 4, 268 4, 337 1, 74 5, 575 5, 249 11, 645 2, 171

15 Interpersonal .17, .20 .21, .23 .06, .05 -.24, -.28 .15, .16 .08, .13 .61, .76 .88, .99 -.26, -.36(.01, .38) (-.33, .42) (-.52, .78)

  k, N 7, 381 1, 121 4, 350 1, 27 1, 121 3, 199 1, 56 1, 60 1, 46

16 Overall .37, .41 .63, .73 .39, .41 .22, .24 .75, .85 .42, .47 .30, .33 .67, .77(.27, .54) (.53, .93) (.24, .59) (.16, .33) (.30, .64) (.25, .41)

  k, N 11, 915 2, 36 3, 91 4, 603 1, 27 4, 112 6, 482 1, 39Control Variables

17 Team tenure .05, .06 .05, .05 -.02, -.02 .13, .14 .16, .17 .11, .12 .05, .06 .13, .14 -.05, -.06 -.04, -.04(.01, .11) (-.02, .12) (-.15, .10) (.03, .24) (.04, .31) (.00, .24) (-.16, .29) (-.01, .30) (-.16, .05) (-.18, .10)

  k, N 20, 2053 4, 828 3, 751 3, 574 2, 208 4, 329 3, 265 9, 724 3, 336 4, 200

18 Team size .00, .00 -.03, -.04 .09, .09 -.07, -.07 -.02, -.03 -.06, -.06 .02, .02 -.08, -.09 -.06, -.06 .05, .06 .12, .13 -.05, -.05(-.03, .04) (-.10, .03) (.01, .17) (-.17, .03) (-.13, .08) (-.12, -.01) (-.05, .09) (-.53, .34) (-.12, .00) (-.04, .16) (.05, .20) (-.15, .05)

  k, N 66, 6377 18, 1787 11, 1639 14, 901 4, 370 7, 2231 10, 748 2, 86 22, 1638 19, 1528 14, 1007 5, 432

Team Effectiveness 46

Table 3Regression Results for Overall Effectiveness

β R2

Performance Quality .19 .43Performance Quantity .21In-Role Performance .36

Extra-Role Performance .03Satisfaction with Team .17

Cohesion -.05Innovation .01

Potency .03

Team Effectiveness 47

Table 4Reliability of Team Effectiveness Dimensions

Dimension Sourcek

(overall)n

(overall)k

(w/reliability)n

(w/reliability) reliabilityOverall Team Effectiveness

Immediate Supervisor 91 9043 48 3252 0.84Team 48 2936 36 2384 0.82Objective 41 5433External Evaluator 62 2805 19 938 0.88Higher level boss 11 898 8 552 0.87Customer 10 530 6 327 0.89

Performance QualityImmediate Supervisor 18 1087 6 289 0.79Team 18 917 11 660 0.85Supervisor & Team 1 71Objective 46 3940External Evaluator 18 524 4 115 0.77Customer 2 140

Performance QuantityImmediate Supervisor 10 1031 2 196 0.91Team 5 352 1 107 0.85Objective 47 4906External Evaluator 3 52 1 16 0.91

In-role PerformanceImmediate Supervisor 16 1037 6 646 0.84Team 12 624 8 449 0.83Objective 84 10978External Evaluator 12 488 2 82 0.87Customer 8 1161 1 121 1.00

Extra-role PerformanceImmediate Supervisor 10 652 8 528 0.83Team 20 21545 20 21545 0.84Objective 16 1111External Evaluator 3 132

Goal AttainmentImmediate Supervisor 10 600 3 209 0.93Team 6 251 5 230 0.76Supervisor & Team 6 113 5 86 0.78Objective 6 2603External Evaluator 3 198 3 198 0.76

Satisfaction with TeamImmediate Supervisor 1 88 1 88 0.88Team 36 2196 31 1883 0.85External Evaluator 2 139

CohesionImmediate Supervisor 2 162 1 74 0.96Team 58 4308 49 3606 0.85

ViabilityImmediate Supervisor 2 125 2 125 0.83Team 9 317 4 164 0.85

InnovationImmediate Supervisor 44 1738 16 991 0.81Team 17 1132 9 682 0.84Objective 11 617

Team Effectiveness 48

External Evaluator 14 842 4 137 0.87Customer 1 56

PotencyTeam 75 4289 41 2563 0.87

LearningImmediate Supervisor 2 133 2 133 0.80Team 18 1287 12 986 0.82

  External Evaluator 1 51 1 51 0.84

Team Effectiveness 49

1 Note that we do not presume that the performance quantity construct is always measured objectively. Rather, one can still evaluate performance quantity on a seven-point Likert scale. However, we suggest that this construct is derived from an objective outcome.