Team processes, their antecedents and consequences:
Implications for dierent types of teamwork
Conny Antoni Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Trier, Trier, Germany Guido Hertel Organizational Psychology, University of Munster, Munster, Germany Although inputprocessoutput models of teamwork are quite popular, relatively few studies have tested empirically the mediation of team design and team context variables on team eectiveness by team process variables. This review briey describes mediation eects of team process variables. Moreover, moderating eects of dierent team tasks and types of teamwork are summarized. Based on this framework, we introduce and compare the four articles included in this special issue which provide examples of process-oriented studies in dierent types of teamwork. In doing so, these studies not only illustrate the variety of potential team process variables (e.g., communication between team members, team reexivity and self-regulation, self-leadership of team members) but also dierent methodological strategies to explore them. Keywords: Team eectiveness; Team processes; Team reexivity; Task structure; Self-regulation. Groups and teamwork are quite popular in and between work organizations today, and have attracted a lot of research from various disciplines (the terms team and group are used interchangeably in this article). In addition to many journal articles and book chapters, special issues on teamwork have been published in various journals, such as Human Relations (Vol. 53, No. 11, 2000), New Technology, Work and Employment (Vol. 16, No. 3, 2001), Personnel Review (Vol. 31, No. 3, 2002), International Journal of Operations and Production Management (Vol. 24, No. 8, 2004), and, International Journal of Human Resource Management (Vol. 16, No. 2, 2005). So, why just another special issue on teams? Correspondence should be addressed to Conny Herbert Antoni, Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Trier, 54286 Trier, Germany. E-mail: antoni@uni-trier.de EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 2009, 18 (3), 253 266 2008 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business http://www.psypress.com/ejwop DOI: 10.1080/13594320802095502 According to our perception, the predominant amount of existing group research has focused on the detection or verication of specic predictors of successful teamwork without demonstrating the mediating mechanism how and why these predictors have the eects they have. However, we need to know more about the psychological mechanisms of group work in order to explain and predict why certain groups are working successfully while others dont. Consequently, the objective of the present special issue is to contribute to a process orientation in group research that seems to have been somewhat forgotten since the early studies on group dynamics by Kurt Lewin and his colleagues. Even though processes are included in the prominent Input ProcessOutput (I-P-O) frameworks of group research (e.g., Hackman & Morris, 1975; Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; McGrath, 1964), concrete examples of research studies that demonstrate team processes as mediators empirically are rather rare (see, for examples, Curral, Forrester, Dawson, & West, 2001; Hertel, Konradt, & Orlikowski, 2004; Porter, 2005). In fact, typical team process variables such as communication and cooperation are often considered as predictor variables (e.g., Campion, Papper, & Medsker, 1996; Cohen, Ledford, & Spreitzer, 1996; Hyatt & Ruddy, 1997). Given the recent development of more sophisticated statistical tools such as mediation and multilevel analyses (e.g., Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Strout & Bolger, 2002), numerous new opportunities and research questions arise in this eld. The current issue provides four examples of process-oriented studies, illustrating not only the variety of dierent team processes (e.g., communication between team members, team reexivity and self-regulation, or self-leadership of team members) but also dierent methodological strategies to explore them. The rst article of this issue, written by Brav, Anderson, and Lantz, analyses the intervening role of group processes, particularly of team reexivity, between team task characteristics on the one hand and group initiative and self-organization on the other hand in production teams. The second article, authored by Kaueld and Meyers, reports the exploration of interaction patterns in team discussions of production teams and how they can be changed. The third contribution, authored by Gevers, van Eerde, and Rutte, analyses how project teams regulate themselves to meet project deadlines. Finally, the fourth article, authored by Konradt, Andreen, and Ellwart, analyses how self-leadership inuences individual performance in service teams and how team characteristics moderate these relationships. On the following pages, we give a brief review of recent ndings on team processes as a framework for this special issue, including determining factors and consequences for dierent types of team tasks and types of teamwork. Moreover, we briey introduce and compare the four articles included in this special issue, each providing answers to the questions raised earlier, and posing new ones. 254 ANTONI AND HERTEL TEAM EFFECTIVENESS FRAMEWORK Team eectiveness in organizations is perceived as having at least two dimensions: team performance and team viability (Hackman, 1987; Sundstom, DeMeuse, & Futrell, 1990). Team performance refers to the degree that team output meets or exceeds the performance standards given by supervisors or customers within or outside the organization. Measuring team performance according to the expectations of customers or stakeholders also implies the relation between team and organizational performance. Team viability refers to the degree whether team processes maintain or enhance the capability and willingness of team members to continue their collaboration, and whether team experiences satisfy members needs. There is no doubt that the eectiveness of organizational teams depends on much more variables than can be conceptually or empirically analysed at a time, thus, it is not surprising that existing models of team eectiveness focus on dierent variables as important input or process determinants of team eectiveness (see Guzzo & Shea, 1992, for a comparison). However, despite this variation and further controversies regarding whether constructs are to be considered as input or as process factor, there is considerable agreement on major input and process variables particularly if they can be addressed by team interventions in order to improve team eectiveness (cf. Figure 1). Figure 1. An heuristic framework of team eectiveness. TEAM PROCESSES, THEIR ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES 255 Among the most prominent input variables for team processes and team eectiveness are aspects of the team design, such as task structure, group norms, and group composition, and aspects of the organizational context of teams, such as rewards and incentives, training, information systems, as well as leadership or management control itself (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987; Tannenbaum, Beard, & Salas, 1992; West, Borril, & Unsworth, 1998). These aspects can be participatively designed or changed by management, for instance as a function of organizational strategy and culture, intergroup relations, the availability of resources, environmental demands, and of course as part of learning processes. Empirical research exploring these input factors usually relies on team members assessments (e.g., Gladstein, 1984; Stewart & Barrick, 2000), which can be infected by various method biases (e.g., Podsako, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsako, 2003). Measuring team input constructs independently from team members perceptions (and also independent from team processes; see Brav and her colleagues in this issue for an example) avoids such biases and increases the reliability of implications for practical interventions based on these factors. Among potential group processes, team communication, within-team cooperation, and intrateam conict are important elements of team interaction. Closely related to team interaction, and also mediating the eects of group design and group context on team performance, are the amount of eort and the coordination of eort that members apply to a task, together with the use and development of task performance strategies and of members knowledge and skills (e.g., Hackman, 1987). Similarly, team reexivity, team climate, group cohesion, group potency and ecacy, shared mental models, and group emotional tone have been proposed as both mediating and process variables (West et al., 1998). Some authors have described these latter concepts as closely related, but distinct from team processes. For example, Cohen and Bailey (1997) perceive these concepts as stable group psychological traits, Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001) as more dynamic and varying emergent cognitive and aective states. Both group psychological traits and emergent states are dened as shared understandings, attitudes or motivations, which are both inputs and proximal outcomes of team processes in a series of I-P-O cycles. Marks et al. (p. 358) stress that emergent states are not processes in and of themselves, because they do not describe the nature of member interaction. This argument can be questioned as team reexivity, for example, describes shared perceptions of specic behaviour patterns of team members. Similarly, scales measuring team climate for innovation, group cohesion, or group potency also address team interaction or task behaviour patterns. As these concepts reect at least in part perceived 256 ANTONI AND HERTEL interaction processes and are closely interrelated with them, we subsume both team interaction processes and emergent cognitive and aective states under team processes. Furthermore, we do not dierentiate between team processes and team taskwork as two aspects of team interaction, as suggested by Marks et al. (2001). The latter dene team processes as team members interdependent cognitive, verbal, and behavioural activities directed toward organizing task work within a team in order to achieve collective goals. Task work, on the other hand, is dened as a teams interaction with tasks, tools, machines and systems (Marks et al., 2001, p. 357). It might be conceptually useful to restrict the denition of team processes to team members regulatory activities of their task-related interaction. However, in applied settings it is dicult to distinguish between regulatory processes and task work as they are intertwined and regulatory processes are not restricted to verbal behaviour. Team processes might be analysed at the microlevel by coding specic individual behaviour in groups (see Kaueld & Meyer, this issue), or at the molar level by team members self-assessment of team interaction, team conict, team reexivity, or shared mental models (see the other articles of this special issue). TEAM PROCESSES AS MEDIATING VARIABLES Despite the fact that many team studies are based on inputprocessoutput models, relatively few studies test mediation assumptions explicitly (Stewart & Barrick, 2000). For instance, Hertel et al. (2004) could show that eects of task, goal, and outcome interdependence on the eectiveness of virtual teams were partly mediated by team members motivation. Stewart and Barrick demonstrated that both social processes (i.e., team openness-to- communication and conict) and task-related processes (i.e., shirking and exibility) mediated the curvilinear relation between task interdependence and team performance. Recently, team process aspects such as team mental models, team reexivity, or team climate have attracted a lot of research. However, most of the available studies focus only on parts of a complete test whether process variables mediate the eects of group design and context variables on group eectiveness. Some of the studies show only positive relationships between work design, work context, and team processes. For instance, Curral et al. (2001) reported a positive relationship between innovative task requirements and a team climate for innovation. Other studies reveal only positive relationships between team processes and team eectiveness. For example, Austin (2003) showed that transactive memory is positively related to the performance of organizational teams. Carter and West (1998) reported positive relations between team reexivity and team eectiveness, TEAM PROCESSES, THEIR ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES 257 as well as between team climate for innovation and team member mental health. Hackman and Morris (1975) have previously provided empirical data on positive eects of within team discussion of task strategies (i.e., team task reexivity) on creativity of group products. Other studies have demonstrated positive relations between team climate, team innovation, and team performance (Bain, Mann, & Pirola-Merlo, 2001; West & Anderson, 1996). Among the relatively few studies that tested the complete mediation process is the study of Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson (2003), who showed that group potency and cohesiveness can partially mediate eects of transactional and transformational leadership. In a similar way, Sy, Co te , and Saavedra (2005) reported that the relation between leader mood and group coordination is mediated by positive and negative group aective tone. Antoni (2005) reported that team climate for innovation mediates eects of team task structure on team innovation, i.e., self-regulating teams reported more process improvements than restrictive teams. De Dreu (2007) provided evidence that team learning can mediate eects of cooperative outcome interdependence and task reexivity on team eectiveness. However, the proposed mediation processes were not always successfully conrmed (e.g., Cannon & Edmondson, 2001; Porter, 2005). Together, more research is needed to explain the mechanism leading to group eectiveness and the conditions under which they operate. MODERATING EFFECTS OF TASK STRUCTURE AND TEAM TYPE There is widespread agreement that the structure and characteristics of team tasks are key factors for the development of a team and of team processes. However, team task structure not only should be perceived as input variable but also as a moderator of team processes on team eectiveness (see Hackman & Morris, 1975). In fact, the eects of certain group behaviour on team eectiveness depend to a substantial extent on the nature of the task, the availability of adequate material resources such as technical equipment or quality of supplies, and on other contextual variables (Goodman, Devadas, & Hughson, 1988). Early taxonomies of team tasks (e.g., Steiner, 1972) have enabled fruitful laboratory research, for instance, on team members motivation as a function of the combination of individual contributions. As teams in organizations usually perform dierent types of tasks as part of their work assignment, categorizing existing organizational teams according to their predominant collaboration pattern can be dicult. Nevertheless, theoretical implications from laboratory research with certain task structures can be successfully replicated in more complex settings. For instance, the 258 ANTONI AND HERTEL motivational implications of being indispensable for the team were investigated with conjunctive task structures in the laboratory (e.g., Hertel, Deter, & Konradt, 2003) and could be replicated within existing business teams using the degree of task interdependence instead of a conjunctive task structure (Hertel et al., 2004). Alternatively, teams might be characterized according to the amount of time they spend on dierent tasks in order to test for moderating eects. Only few studies have analysed moderating eects of team task structure yet (Gladstein, 1984; Stewart & Barrick, 2000). For instance, Stewart and Barrick (2000) found partial support that team task structure moderates the relationship between team processes and team performance. They dened task structure as the time team members spend on conceptual or behavioural tasks (Stewart & Barrick, 2000). As expected, conict and shirking relationships were more strongly related to performance for conceptual than for behavioural tasks. Furthermore, the reported mediation of team processes regarding the eect of task interdependence on team performance was stronger for conceptual than for behavioural tasks. Contrary to their hypotheses, no moderation eects of task structure were conrmed regarding the eects of team communication and exibility on team performance. This corresponds to the ndings of Gladstone (1984), who also found no moderation of task complexity on the eects of openness-to- communication, discussion of performance strategies, and boundary management on team task performance. A recent meta-analysis provides support that task interdependence moderates the relationship between team- ecacy and performance, but not between potency and team performance (Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, & Beaubien, 2002). In practice, it often is possible to determine which process variable is most important for a given task simply by inspection (Hackman & Morris, 1975). As teams are often labelled and classied according to the tasks they do, a rst step to reveal moderating eects is to compare inputprocess outcome relationships for dierent types of teamwork in the organizational context. If dierent team types, such as project teams, quality circles, or self regulating work teams, show dierent relationships between team processes and eectiveness, these ndings can guide further specications of theoretical modelling, as well as the design and implementation of organizational interventions. In a next step, more elaborate measurements of team task structure might be used, such as assessing the time team members spend on conceptual versus behavioural tasks. Nevertheless, team types can be used as a rst estimate of the type of tasks a team is primarily engaged in. For example, project teams or task forces are set up to solve novel, unique, and complex problems aecting several organizational functions. Similarly, quality circles are small groups of workers, who meet voluntarily to discuss and solve their quality and other TEAM PROCESSES, THEIR ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES 259 work-related problems. As both types of team are established for problem- solving and optimizing tasks, one can assume they perform primarily conceptual tasks. Work teams in productions, e.g., assembling products, perform more primarily behavioural tasks with more or less conceptual add- ons, depending on their degree of self-regulation and task-regulation requirements (Hacker, 2003). Yet little is known about dierential eects for dierent types of teamwork. One of the studies comparing the eects for dierent types of teamwork reports signicant dierences. Cohen and Bailey (1997) reviewed research from 1990 to 1997 on team eectiveness for four types of teams, which they identied in organizational practice: (1) project teams; (2) parallel teams, such as quality circles; (3) work teams; and (4) management teams. Their team types, exempt management teams, correspond to ones proposed by Sundstrom et al. (1990), who dierentiate teams according to the need for external integration and dierentiation inherent in the relation between a team and the surrounding organization, as well as by Antoni (1990), who dierentiates according to the degree of external integration as well as to the degree of participation or self-regulation in not-integrated, parallel, and temporary teams with high versus low participation (quality circles vs. project-teams) and integrated stable teams with high versus low participa- tion or self-regulation (semiautonomous work groups vs. classic manager- led teams; see Hackman, 2002, for a similar dierentiation). Cohen and Bailey (1997) report that type of team matters for performance. Performance and attitudinal benets from self-directed work teams were superior to parallel teams, suggesting that group autonomy and self- regulation have stronger eects than consultative participation. Autonomy was related to higher performance for work teams, but not for project teams. Functional diversity had no eect on team performance in work teams but showed eects in parallel teams, as well as mixed eects in project and management teams. Further evidence for dierences due to team task and team type is provided by, for example, Bain et al. (2001). They showed that the relationship between team climate for innovation and individual and team innovation was stronger for research teams than for development teams. These ndings underpin the proposition of Hackman and Morris (1975) that no single theory can simultaneously encompass the complexity of group task eectiveness, and their plea for more specic theories for specic aspects, phases, or circumstances of team eectiveness. THIS ISSUE This issue presents four articles that deal with dierent types of teamwork ranging from semiautonomous work teams in manufacturing and produc- tions support, service teams with trading and back oce tasks in the 260 ANTONI AND HERTEL nancial sector to project teams, which had to nd innovative solutions to business problems. They also focus on dierent aspects of inputprocess output models of group eectiveness, but share a common interest in self- regulating processes in or of teams. Agneta Brav, Kin Anderson, and Annika Lantz analyse in their study how job design, cooperation, and social support inuence group reexivity, initiative, and self-organizational activities. Based on action regulation theory they assessed the task requirements of semiautonomous work groups in manufacturing and production support. Task requirements with respect to task completeness, demand on cooperation, cognitive demand, and demand on learning were obtained by observations and complementary interviews of trained workers carrying out the various work tasks, whereas the other variables were obtained by self-assessment. The study shows in accordance with the hypothesized path model a positive path from task design to group reexivity, i.e., the extent to which team members collectively reect upon the teams objectives, strategies, and processes. Group reexivity, in turn, shows a positive path to self-organizational activities of the group, such as initiating and developing new work tasks and routines, improving working conditions, and widening group autonomy and responsibilities. Contrary to expectations, group reexivity shows no path to group initiative. Rather, group initiative, i.e., whether groups have an active and self-starting approach to work goals and tasks and are persistent in overcoming barriers and setbacks, can be explained by group cooperation and social support and seems to predict self-organizational activities. Team members have to communicate with one another if they want to reect collectively on their goals and strategies and want to develop common action plans. Simone Kaueld and Renee Meyers analyse such commu- nication patterns of work group discussions about optimizing tasks of blue- collar work teams in the automobile and chemical industry. In particular, they show how communication patterns develop: Complaining begets further complaining and inhibits solution-oriented statements. In a similar way, solution-oriented statements are often followed by more solution- oriented statements. The support of complaining or solution-oriented statements, in turn, can establish complaining or solution-oriented discus- sion patterns. However, the results reported also suggest that specic structuring statements can be used to inhibit negative communication circles in group discussions. Another important aspect of team self-regulation and performance is temporal planning. This is especially true for project teams, which have to nish their project task until dened deadlines. Josette Gevers, Wendelien van Eerde, and Christel Rutte show in their study that temporal planning in early project stages and temporal reminders in later project stages help to develop temporal consensus. Temporal consensus increases the ability of TEAM PROCESSES, THEIR ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES 261 project teams to establish coordinated action and to meet deadlines. Interestingly and contrary to the hypotheses, temporal reexivity did not contribute to temporal consensus but was indicative for time-related conicts within the teams. Whereas the articles mentioned so far focus on group self-regulation and group behaviour, Udo Konradt, Panja Andreen, and Thomas Ellwart analyse how individual self-leadership inuences performance in service teams in the nancial services with trading and back oce tasks. Furthermore, they explore whether this relationship is moderated by team characteristics. The results of their multilevel study show that self-leadership of team members is positively related to individual performance. Moreover and in line with their assumptions, this relationship is partially mediated by self-ecacy and instrumentality perceptions of the team members. Furthermore, the study shows that both intrateam task and relationship conicts as group-level variables were negatively related to team member performance. However, contrary to expectations, the relationship between self-leadership and performance did not vary between teams, providing no evidence for moderating eects of team characteristics (i.e., autonomy, task type, conict level). As explanation for the lack of moderating eects, the authors suggest that self-leadership might be more strongly inuenced by personality characteristics of the individuals. Although all four studies dier somewhat in their focus, they all describe self-regulation processes in or of teams, demonstrating that self-regulation is important for team eectiveness and team development at the individual and team level. In the study of Konradt and his colleagues, self-leadership predicts the performance of team members. One aspect of self-leadership is the ability to identify and change dysfunctional beliefs and thought patterns. Complaining circles identied by Kaueld and Meyers could be perceived as a collective dysfunctional thought and behaviour pattern. Attempts of team members to stop such complaining circles with structural statements might be both an indication of self-leadership and team self-regulation. Brav and her colleagues show that collective reection processes correlate positively with self-organizational team behaviour, such as initiating and developing new work tasks and routines, improving working conditions, and extending group autonomy and responsibilities. Similar to contextual performance (Motowidlo & van Scotter, 1994), self-organizational team behaviour can be perceived as an important aspect of team performance in modern organizations, supplementing traditional task performance. Gevers and her colleagues report no eect of team temporal reexivity on temporal consensus and the eectiveness of project teams to meet their deadlines. However, the reported correlations show that team reexivity at early project stages signicantly correlates with meeting deadlines at the end. This corresponds with other ndings showing that team reexivity can be positive 262 ANTONI AND HERTEL for team performance (Carter & West, 1998; Gurtner, Tschan, Semmer, & Na gele, 2007; Tjosvold, Tang, & West, 2004), especially when appropriate task strategies have to be developed. Task strategies have to be developed and collectively reected when a group starts working on a novel task, as in early phases of a project, when problems with the existing task strategy arise, or when team members disagree on strategies, deadlines, etc. The latter is at least not helpful for successfully nishing a project, which is indicated in the study of Gevers and her colleagues. As both studies by Brav et al. and Gevers et al. report no signicant correlations between team reexivity and team cooperation or coordination, the mechanisms how team reexivity aects performance have to be analysed in further research. The results of the studies by Brav et al. and Gevers et al. also indicate that the eects of team reexivity might dier depending on the type of teamwork, team task, the phase of team development, the type of performance criteria, and the focus of reection. For example, project teams are typically formed to solve novel tasks and problems within a given timeframe, and are dissolved after these goals are accomplished or the time scheduled is over. The development and test of adequate and shared task strategies, team roles, responsibilities, and realistic schedules that require collective task and social reection processes seems crucial in early phases of the project in order to get going and nish the project in time. In later phases of the project, discussions about schedules and deadlines seem to be less useful for meeting deadlines. Things might be dierent for collective reections about how unexpected problems could be solved, but Gevers and her colleagues did not measure these aspects. In contrast, established production teams, as analysed by Brav and her colleagues, are characterized by a broader mixture of routine and nonroutine, optimizing, and innovating tasks they work on as part of their daily work, with more or less changes over time. It appears plausible that regular collective reection processes, e.g., once a week, focusing on recent experiences, new information and knowledge, as well as the assumptions about issues under discussion inuence the development work tasks, responsibilities, and the change of working conditions. For these reasons, inconsistent ndings on team reexivity might be explained by the focus of reection and the type of teamwork analysed. Apart from dierent constructs of team self-regulation, the four articles of this special issue also illustrate various methodological approaches to study team processes. Gevers and her colleagues analyse team processes in a longitudinal design, which enables interesting analyses of causal relation- ships. Kaueld and Meyers demonstrate the strengths of detailed observa- tional analyses based on video documentation of team interaction process cycles that are later encoded based on existing coding schemes. In contrast to retrospective self-assessments of team processes, these data are less biased TEAM PROCESSES, THEIR ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES 263 by memory or motivation of participants and allow a more reliable view on the development and change of interaction processes. Future studies might use such observational codings to explore how interaction patterns might be related to team characteristics and team outcomes. Based on these results, causal eects of team development interventions, such as moderation and reection techniques (e.g., Gurtner et al., 2007), might be explored. The observation-based work analysis of task requirements used by Brav and colleagues oers another interesting and complementary approach to traditional self-assessments of task characteristics. Combining dierent approaches for assessing team task characteristics might also help to better understand individual and collective task redenition processes, which are a precondition for individual and collective self-regulation and self-leadership. It would be interesting to analyse how individual self-regulation and self- leadership of team members inuence collective self-regulation and self- leadership, and vice versa, particularly over time as this allows individual and team learning, and depending on dierent types of goal, task, and reward interdependencies. Of course, this special issue only addresses a small selection of team processes and related antecedents and consequences. However, we hope that this work might stimulate further research on this fascinating and promising topic. A sound understanding of team processes and their dierential impact in dierent types of teams, task structures, and organizational contexts is at the core of a psychological analysis of teamwork, and a precondition of eective and enduring interventions in teams and organizations. REFERENCES Antoni, C. H. (1990). Qualitatszirkel als Modell partizipativer GruppenarbeitAnalyse der Moglichkeiten und Grenzen aus der Sicht betroener Mitarbeiter [Quality circles as a model of participative teamwork: Analysis of opportunities and limits from employee perspective]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber. Antoni, C. H. (2005). Eects of team task structure on team climate for innovation and team outcomes. Enterprise and Work Innovation StudiesJournal of IET Research Centre, 1, 917. Austin, J. R. (2003). Transactive memory in organizational groups: The eects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 866878. Bain, P. G., Mann, L., & Pirola-Merlo, A. (2001). The innovation imperative: The relationships between team climate, innovation and performance in research and development teams. Small Group Research, 32, 5573. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207218. Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and eectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429 452. 264 ANTONI AND HERTEL Cannon, M. D., & Edmondson, A. C. (2001). Confronting failure: Antecedents and consequences of shared beliefs about failure in organizational work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 161177. Carter, S. M., & West, M. A. (1998). Reexivity, eectiveness, and mental health in BBC-TV production teams. Small Group Research, 29, 583601. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group eectiveness research from the shop oor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239290. Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing work team eectiveness. Human Relations, 49, 643676. Curral, L. A., Forrester, R. H., Dawson, J. F., & West, M. A. (2001). Its what you do and the way that you do it: Team task size and innovation-related group processes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 187204. DeDreu, C. K. W. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reexivity, and team eectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 628638. Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group eectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499517. Goodman, P. S., Devadas, R., & Hughson, T. L. G. (1988). Groups and productivity: Analyzing the eectiveness of self-managing teams. In J. P. Campbell, R. J. Campbell, & Associates (Eds.), Productivity in organizations (pp. 295327). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass. Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team- ecacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819832. Gurtner, A., Tschan, F., Semmer, N. K., & Na gele, Ch. (2007). Getting groups to develop good strategies: Eects of reexivity interventions on team process, team performance, and shared mental models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 127142. Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 609645). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hacker, W. (2003). Action regulation theory: A practical tool for the design of modern work processes? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 105130. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315342). Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process and group performance eectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 4599). New York: Academic Press. Hertel, G., Deter, C., & Konradt, U. (2003). Motivation gains in computer-mediated work groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 20802105. Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Orlikowski, B. (2004). Managing distance by interdependence: Goal setting, task interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 128. Hyatt, D. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (1997). An examination of the relationship between work group characteristics andperformance: One more into the breech. Personnel Psychology, 50, 553585. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: Frominput-process-output models toIMOI models. Annual Reviewof Psychology, 56, 517543. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333375). London: Wiley. TEAM PROCESSES, THEIR ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES 265 Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 390). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Marks, M. E., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356376. Marks, M. E., Mathieu J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356376. McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Motowidlo, S. J., & van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475480. Podsako, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, Y., & Podsako, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879903. Porter, C. O. L. (2005). Goal orientation: Eects on backing up behavior, performance, ecacy, and commitment in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 811818. Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic Press. Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the role of intra-team process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 135148. Strout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422445. Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Application and eectiveness. The American Psychologist, 45, 120133. Sy, T., Co te , S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leaders mood on the mood of group members, group aective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 295305. Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., & Salas, E. (1992). Team building and its inuence on team eectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory and research in industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 117153). North- Holland: Elsevier. Tjosvold, D., Tang, M. M. L., & West, M. (2004). Reexivity for team innovation in China: The contribution of goal interdependence. Group and Organization Management, 29, 540559. West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in top-management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 680693. West, M. A., Borrill, C., & Unsworth, K. L. (1998). Team eectiveness in organizations. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 148). Chichester, UK: Wiley. 266 ANTONI AND HERTEL
21 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
Study of leader member relationship and emotional intelligence in relation to change in preparedness among middle management personnel in the automobile sector