University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Collective efficacy, anxiety, creativity/innovation and work performance at the team level

(USC Thesis Other)

Collective efficacy, anxiety, creativity/innovation and work performance at the team level

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
COLLECTIVE EFFICACY, ANXIETY,
CREATIVITY/INNOVATION AND WORK PERFORMANCE
AT THE TEAM LEVEL
by
TzuShan Tseng
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION-COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY)
December 2001
Copyright 2001 TzuShan Tseng
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
U M I Number 3065859
__ ___ fl
UMI
U M I Microform 3065859
Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
Ail rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, M l 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
T he Graduate School
U niversity Park
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089- 1695
T h i s dissertation, written by
( z-o i ^ t y v \ >
Unde r the direction o f h Dissertation
Commi t t ee, and approved by ail its members,
has be e n presented to and accepted by T h e
G r a d u a t e School , in partial fulfillment o f
requi rement s for the degree o f
D O C T O R O F PH ILO SO PH Y
Dent o f Gr a d u a t e St udi es
Date December 17 , 2001
D I S S E R T ^JTON CO M M I TTEE
--------
r c Ow A
C h a i r p e r s o n
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES..............................................................................................vi
ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................vii
CHAPTER Page
1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................I
Essence of Teams.......................................................................................I
Importance o f This Study.........................................................................2
Conceptual Path Diagram of Team Performance Model....................... 4
Problem Statement and Hypotheses........................................................7
Research Questions................................................................................... 7
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE________________ 9
Definition of a Team................................................................................. 9
Characteristics o f a T eam .......................................................................11
Team Training..........................................................................................22
Team Training and Individual Training....................................23
Measurement o f Team Training Performance......................... 23
Team Performance.................................................................................. 25
Definitions o f Team Performance............................................. 25
Factors Related to Team Performance......................................30
How to Enhance Team Performance........................................3 1
Situations Which May Reduce Team Performance................. 35
Measurement o f Team Performance......................................... 37
Tearn Creativity/Innovation ................................................................. 4 1
Definition o f Team Creativity................................................... 41
Definition o f Team Innovation................................................. 43
Factors Influencing Team Creativity/Innovation..................... 45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I ll
Social Comparison May Reduce Team
Creativity/Innovation......................................................... 47
Measurement of Team Creativity/Innovation.......................... 48
Enhancing Team Creativity/Innovation....................................49
Collective Efficacy.................................................................................52
Definition of Collective Efficacy...............................................53
Definition of Individual Self-Efficacy......................................54
Factors Influencing Collective Efficacy...................................57
Outcomes of Collective Efficacy .......................................... 59
Measurement o f Collective Efficacy........................................ 59
Enhancing Collective Efficacy..................................................6 1
Team Anxiety......................................................................................... 61
Basic Concepts of Anxiety........................................................ 62
Definitions o f Team Anxiety..................................................................64
Team Effective Tone..................................................................64
Competitive Team Anxiety........................................................ 65
Social Team Anxiety..............................................................................66
Environment Team Anxiety....................................................................67
Individual Self-anxiety in Teams...............................................68
Factors Influencing Team Anxiety........................................................ 68
How to Reduce Team Anxiety...................................................69
Measurement o f Team Anxiety..............................................................70
Relationships Among Study Variables..................................................70
Relationship Between Team Anxiety and
Team Performance............................................................ 70
Relationship Between Team Anxiety and
Collective Efficacy............................................................ 73
Relationship Between Team Anxiety and
Team Performance............................................................ 75
Relationship Between Collective Efficacy
and Team Performance.....................................................76
Relationship Between Team Creativity/Innovation
and Team Anxiety........................................................... 77
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.......................................................... 79
Research Design..................................................................................... 79
Data .....................................................................................................79
Participants.............................................................................................. 80
Research and Development Teams (R&D Teams) ------------81
Data Collection Procedures.....................................................................83
Instruments_________________________________________ 83
Treating The Data................................................................................... 9 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Statistic Procedures................................................................................. 92
4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS................................................................ 93
Data Analysis.......................................................................................... 93
Descriptive Statistics.................................................................. 93
Internal Consistency Reliability Analysis.................................94
Interrater Reliability Analysis................................................... 97
Validity Analysis........................................................................99
Intercorrelations Among All Study Variables....................................101
Path Analysis (Linear Regression Analysis)..........................102
5. DISCUSSION........................................................................................106
Other Issues............................................................................................110
Selection Bias........................................................................... 112
Common Method Bias............................................................. 113
Aggregation B ias......................................................................114
Small Sample Size....................................................................116
Problems of Team Performance Appraisal.............................117
Practical Implications and Future Research........................................ 121
REFERENCES................................................................................................... 125
APPENDICES....................................................................................................154
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables................................ 94
2. Internal Consistency Reliability....................................................................95
3. Interrater Reliability.......................................................................................97
4. Correlations Matrix....................................................................................101
5. Path Analysis (Linear Regression Analysis) ........................................103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
VI
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1. Conceptual Path Diagram o f The Team Performance Model..................... 6
2. Results of Path Analysis for The Team Performance Model..................103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
VII
ABSTRACT
[n spite o f the reliance of using work teams in the real world, there is scarcity
of research about the relations of cognitive and motivational mechanisms and team
performance. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships among
collective efficacy, team anxiety, team creativity/innovation, and team performance.
The results should provide team managers information to help advance team
performance.
The conceptual basis for this study was social cognitive and collective
efficacy theories. A non-experimental survey design was used to obtain the data.
The unit o f analysis was the team. A total o f 434 subjects, who comprised 62 teams,
participated. The teams were randomly selected from the R&D teams in Taiwan’s
Hsin-Chu Science-Based Industrial Park. The form of data collection was the survey
(questionnaires). A 5-potnt Likert-tvpe scale was used for each measure. Compared
to the aggregation o f individuals’ ratings of personal perceptions, this study used an
aggregation o f individuals’ ratings of their perceptions o f the whole team.
The mean scores of individuals were the team scores. The manager’s rating
of the whole team’s performance was used to score team performance. All
measures’ internal consistency reliabilities were above 0.60. The inter-rater
reliability scores, in order to demonstrate agreement among team members, are
above the accepted level 0.60. From the results o f a path analysis, only one
significant relationship was found. Team performance was related to collective
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
efficacy. In theory, collective efficacy affects team performance. The limitations
and implications of this finding are discussed and suggestions for future research are
provided.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Essence of Teams
The use o f work teams in organizations is gaining substantial popularity
(Pescosolido, 2001). Work teams have been viewed as one important way to meet
the needs o f employees for a meaningful work environment while, at the same time,
helping to facilitate the attainment of organizational goals (Neuman & Wright,
2001). There is clearly a consensus among those who study industrial and
organizational psychology that work teams are the cornerstone of modem global
industry (Sunstrom & Futrell, 1990). For example, leadership, personality,
intelligence testing and communication network designing have been incorporated as
psychological techniques into work team environments (Havens & Flinn, 1992). Not
only psychologists note that teamwork is a natural way of doing business (Jahansen,
1988), but also many organizations are beginning to report substantial gains in
productivity and quality as a result of using work teams (Dumaine, 1990).
What are the benefits that teams bring to industries? From the point of view
of many psychologists, there are three reasons why work teams are such a popular
form o f organization in industry. First, some tasks simply cannot be accomplished
by a single individual. For example, tasks which require simultaneous processing,
particularly high workload, or a variety of expertise demand the pooled effort of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
several individuals for completion, such as Research and Development (R&D)
teams. Hackman (1987) also indicated that some genuinely important tasks are
typically assigned to work teams for solution. In research involving learning and
concept-attainment tasks, team performance was usually superior to individual
performance because of the team’s ability to pool their resources, to correct errors,
and to use qualitatively different learning strategies. Second, teams perform better
than individuals working independently (Hackman, 1987), for example, when
dealing with particularly dangerous or critical tasks. Third, team members may be
involved in managing, and share responsibility for the organization’s functioning.
Along these same lines, the current trend toward downsizing and flattening
organizational structures minimize or eliminate the role of middle managers while
increasing teams’ responsibility to manage themselves.
Importance of This Study
Because of the increasing importance of teams to global organizations, an
improved understanding of how to advance team performance is the necessity o f all
team managers. The importance of the present study was to help team managers
promote team performance. This study discusses in some detail whether collective
efficacy, team creativity/innovation, and team anxiety have an impact on team
performance. Additionally, the interrelationships among these study variables are
investigated.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
In spite o f the reliance of many organizations on the ability of work teams to
accomplish important goals, very few researchers have conducted studies on the
psychology of work teams. It is very important to find more information to
understand team performance because of the pressure of competing in a changing
global economy. There is a need to investigate and understand the interactions
among team performance and variables like collective efficacy, team
creativity/innovation, and team anxiety, and to use this knowledge to form and train
effective teams. There is a scarcity of information about the relation of motivational
mechanisms and team performance. Empirical evidence for the effectiveness of
work teams have been accumulated (Mueller, 1992). Research evaluating the
effectiveness of selection strategies used to form these work teams has been lacking
(Baker & Salas, 1993). Collective efficacy is an emerging construct that has great
potential for teams as it has been repeatedly linked to team performance
(Pescosolido, 2001). Recent findings in the area of collective efficacy have
established links between collective efficacy and team performance (Gibson, 1999).
However, little work has been done to rebate collective efficacy and other
motivational variables like team creativity and team anxiety, together with team
performance. Teams can be hotbeds o f creativity and innovation (Baumen &
Leavitt. 1999). By drawing on the combined knowledge and expertise of individuals
with different functional knowledge, skills, and backgrounds, teams provide ideal
conditions for generating new and useful products and processes (Baumen & Leavitt,
1999). Most of the research in the field of team creativity/innovation discussed the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
climate for innovation and leadership (Mann, 2001). Bandura (1997) said that
physiological and emotional arousal can affect self-efficacy. This depends primarily
on whether the individual finds arousal to be a positive or negative condition and
also on the level of success that the individual has achieved at the specific task.
Even yet, there is very little in the literature about the relationship of team anxiety
and team performance (Pescosolido, 2001). Almost nothing could be found in the
literature about the relationships of collective efficacy, team anxiety, and team
creativity/innovation. One of the goals of this study was to fill in some of the voids
in the literature.
Conceptual Path Diagram of Team Performance Model
In the present study, the dependent variable was team performance. The
independent variables were team creativity/innovation, collective efficacy and team
anxiety. The conceptual model of this study was based on social cognitive theory
(Bandura, 1986) and his collective efficacy theory (Bandura, 2001). Social cognition
research is seen as a good choice to examine suggestions o f how to enhance team
performance. Social cognition addresses how social information is stored, organized
and retrieved from memory; how does that social information affect subsequent
information processing and decision-making; and how is such stored social
information altered by new information and reflection or reappraisal of existing
information (Sherman & Corty, 1984). Collective efficacy is the team’s collective
estimate o f its ability to perform a task (Gibson, 1999). Collective efficacy differs
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
from general confidence in that whereas confidence is a general affective state,
efficacy is extremely task-specific (Mann, 2001).
The basic concepts o f the conceptual model are discussed in this present
study. Most o f the related research on efficacy and anxiety are conducted at the
individual level, not at the team level. The present study was conducted at the team
level. First, according to the social cognition theory, Bandura (1986) reported that
anxiety is one source of efficacy information. Second, social cognitive theory
suggests efficacy may be caused by anxiety (Bandura & Wood, 1989) or efficacy
may cause anxiety (Krane, 1992). Third, Bandura (1997) indicated that the
performance of the team is the most powerful source of information for collective
efficacy beliefs. Confidence also is an important precursor of successful
performance. Just as in sports psychology where the mental aspects o f physical
performance have been studied, organizations and businesses have begun to focus
attention on predicted effects of collective efficacy on team performance.
Because collective efficacy and team anxiety are related logically, it is
expected team anxiety also will impact team performance. Team performance and
team creativity/innovation should be discussed together in the 21st century. In order
to be effective, or even survive, organizations have to adapt to the rapidly changing
economy within which they operate. This adaptation requires innovation. Also,
Larson and La Fasto (1989) indicated the need to renew American industry by
organizing for both efficiency (better team performance) and innovation. They
advised that although organizations can get by for a time by focusing on better team
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
performance or better team innovation, over the long term there must be a
simultaneous achievement o f both better team performance and team innovation.
The unit of analysis of this study was the team. The subjects of this study were
research and development teams (R&D teams). Often, scientists working alone in a
laboratory have been joined and, in most cases, replaced by R&D teams whose
purpose is to reduce the time it takes for new products to reach the marketplace. The
purpose of this study was to investigate whether collective efficacy, team anxiety,
and team creativity/innovation have an impact on team performance. Determ ining
whether collective efficacy, team anxiety and team creativity/innovation contribute
to team performance was the main purpose o f this study. The conceptual model in
this study is showed on Figure 1.
Figure I: Conceptual Diagram of Collective Efficacy, Team Anxiety and Team
creativity/innovation on Team Performance
team
creativity
team
performance
collective
efficacy
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
Problem Statement and Hypotheses
The problem researched for this study was: what are the relationships among
collective efficacy, team anxiety, team creativity/innovation, and team performance?
There are five hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that collective efficacy
will have a positive effect on team performance. The second hypothesis is that team
anxiety will have a negative effect on collective efficacy. The third hypothesis is
that collective efficacy will have positive effect on team creativity/innovation. The
fourth hypothesis is that is the relationship between team anxiety and team
performance will be negative. The fifth hypothesis is that the relationship between
team creativity/innovation and team anxiety will be negative. Based on the social
cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), a conceptual model of work team is presented.
Figure I identifies three independent variables (collective efficacy, team anxiety, and
team creativity/innovation) and one dependent variable (team performance). This
study examined whether collective efficacy, team anxiety, and team
creativity/innovation have effects on team performance. The assumption underlying
this study is that the team is the appropriate unit of analysis.
Research Questions
There are five research questions in this study:
1. If collective efficacy increases, does that then mean that team
performance increases? Does collective efficacy have a positive effect on
team performance?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
2. Is there a negative relationship between team anxiety and collective
efficacy? Does collective efficacy increase when team anxiety decreases?
3. If collective efficacy increases, then does team creativity/innovation
increase? Is the relationship between collective efficacy and team
creativity/innovation positive?
4. Is the relationship between team performance and team anxiety negative?
If team anxiety increases, then does team performance decrease?
5. Is the relationship between team creativity/innovation and team anxiety
negative? If team anxiety increase, then does team creativity/innovation
decrease?
6. Do managers give higher performance ratings to innovative teams? Do
managers give higher performance ratings to innovative teams?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a review of selected literature about
the four concepts (team performance, team creativity/innovation, collective efficacy,
and team anxiety).
Definition of a Team
A team is a collection of individuals who have a relationship to one
another that makes them interdependent to a significant degree. The following
operational definition o f a team was taken from Larson and Christensen (1993): a
team has two or more people, it has a specific performance objective or recognizable
goal to be attained, and coordination of activity among the team is required for the
attainment of the team goal. Dyer (1984) defined that a team be considered to
include two or more people, a common goal, specific role assignment, and
independence. Salas and Cannon-Bower ( 1995) expanded this early definition to
include three additional characteristics. First, teams can make decisions in the
context of a larger task. Second, team members have specialized knowledge and
skills relevant to the tasks and decisions, and they come together to share their
expertise with one another for a common purpose. And third, task conditions under
which teams operate often include a high workload and time pressure. As we can
see, theoreticians and researchers in this area o f team dynamics have frequently
pointed out that the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
behavior of a team cannot be directly predicted from the simple summation
of the behavior of its individual members (Hackman, 1997).
In this study, teams and groups are interchangeable. Hackman (1987)
defined a work group as made up of individuals who see themselves and who are
seen by others as a social entity, who are interdependent because of the tasks they
perform as members o f a group, who are embedded in one or more larger social
systems, and who perform tasks that affect others. Some researchers think that ail
teams are groups, but not all groups are teams (Hackman, 1997). The word team,
therefore, has largely replaced group in organizational psychology. For many, a
team connotes more than a group.
Katzenbath and Smith (1993). for example, assert that groups become teams
when they develop a sense of shared commitment and strive for synergy among
members. They also indicate that the distinction between teams and groups rests on
performance results. Group performance is a function o f what its members do as
individuals. Team performance includes both individual results and collective work-
products. A collective work-product reflects the joint and real contributions of team
members. Work teams differ fundamentally from working groups because they
require both individual and mutual accountability. Katzenbath and Smith (1993) go
on to say that a group’s performance is a function of what members do as
individuals, whereas a team’s performance includes individual and collective or joint
work-products. In this study, we think o f groups and teams as interchangeable
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
II
because, although there are differences between teams and groups, group research
can provide some insight into understanding teams.
Characteristics o f a Team
The characteristics o f a team can differentiate high and low successful teams.
There are several important characteristics o f a team.
First, interdependence is important to a team’s function. Optimal team
performance is often considered to relate to the degree o f interdependence that exists.
Team members may exchange information or resources, coordinate specialized work
roles, and/or perform their work such that the outcomes of one team member are
influenced by actions of another (Earley, 1989). Bandura (1989) noted that the
greater the interdependence o f athletes on a team, the greater collective efficacy, or
perceived team ability.
To differentiate between a high-success and low-success team,
interdependence in teams can be classified into the following ways. Task
interdependence refers to the interconnections among the tasks of team members.
Task interdependence is the degree to which team members must rely on each other
to perform their tasks effectively given the design o f their jobs (Georgopoulous,
1986). Task interdependence influences the level o f cooperation within a team as
well as a team’s ability to prevent a loss in productivity (Shea & Guzzo, 1992) and
the nature o f interpersonal interaction among team members (Gersick, 1989). They
suggested that task interdependence increases, and the requirements for coordination,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
communication, and cooperation also increase in order for work units to perform
well. Team member interdependence may involve an exchange of materials,
information, ideas, and other resources. As a result, team member interdependence
requires mutual interaction with team discretion to decide the particular course of
inputs and outputs among team members.
Goal interdependence refers to the interconnections among team members
implied by the type of goal which guides their performance (Bandura, 1989). Goals
that are matched to the nature of task interdependence improve coordination and
performance. As we know, the influence of goals on performance can be understood
in terms o f motivation. Also, for goals to be functional, they must be accompanied
by feedback. Setting a team goal and providing feedback consistent with the goal
yields greater motivation. Team performance will be high under those circumstances
in which task, goal, and feedback interdependence are consistent with team
performance.
Second, goals have an impact on teams in several ways. They can build
identity, guide behavior, increase motivation and influence the development of long
term strategies (Bandura, 1989). Team goals should be concrete and challenging but
attainable (Bandura, 1989). Team goal setting seems to have long-term
consequences for the later behavior o f a team. Research by Weldom, Jex and Bliese
(1992) suggested that teams with challenging and attainable goals are more likely to
develop effective working strategies, which, however, may not pay off immediately
but can be regarded as an investment, because they enhance team performance in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
later sessions. Team goal-setting can also be a mediator. Lee (1988) showed that
team goal-setting mediated the relationship between team member self-efficacy and
winning percentage among several female field hockey teams. Individual team
members are supposed to accept pre-ordinate team goals over individual goals.
Consequently, the team should focus on achieving organizational goals rather than
focus only on individual goals.
Third, a key factor differentiating high and low successful teams is the
structure of the team (Hackman, 1987). A feature of the successful team is that they
are organized in some fashion and often have more structure than many other teams.
Such structure may be differentiated by task. If by task, for example, one team
member collects, and one member analyzes the data, all team members may perform
the same tasks. Teams can be structured differently, depending on the heterogeneity
of their members, their autonomy, embedded staff hierarchy and task demands. For
example, a military unit has pyramid structures and a baseball team has a flat,
differentiated, but mutually, dependent structure.
Fourth, team size has an impact on team function. Most literature suggests a
consistent guideline: the smallest possible number of people who can do the team
task (Hackman, 1987). Team performance declines with the addition of extra
members which reflects added difficulty of coordinating more members or social
loafing in larger teams (Latane, Williams & Harkins, 1979). Because as a team size
increases, there are more people to interrupt the individuals, productivity is lost in
the large team size. Also, this production blocking can reduce team creativity and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
team cohesion. However, Wallmark (1973) found a positive correlation between
team size and team performance. This was explained as a result of the greater
number of possible contacts and consequent intellectual synergy. From
Stankiewicz’s (1979) study, team cohesion can mediate between team size and team
performance. He found that there was a positive relationship between team size and
team performance in the high-cohesive team.
Fifth, more experienced team members conceptualized teamwork more
concisely and in more abstract terms than did less experienced team members
(Stankiewicz, 1979). Team members’ definition o f teamwork differs depending on
their level of experience. Compared to less experienced team members, more
experienced team members used fewer abstract defining dimensions, and represented
knowledge of their teamwork more consistently. Consistency of schema articulation
is an important characteristic of more experienced teamwork knowledge. Team
members who have more experience as team members will develop abstract, multi
level, well-articulated, expert-like knowledge structures for teamwork. Therefore,
more experienced team members are supposed to possess a well-developed
teamwork knowledge structure. They are likely to be at higher stages o f learning.
With knowledge of compilation and procedures, they understand teamwork in
general terms and are likely to use a small number of general concepts when thinking
about teamwork. They can monitor and comment frequently on their progress as
they work. These team members are likely to be more effective and efficient than
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
members with less-experienced. Therefore, team performance can be advanced if
team members possess expert-like teamwork knowledge about structure.
On the other hand, team members with Iess-experience are likely to have
some knowledge o f teamwork, but they will not be flexible in their use o f the
knowledge. Moreover, Dyer (1995) found that team performance decreased under
anxious conditions to a greater extent for less experienced teams than for more
experienced teams. The implication is that team training should be designed based
on team members’ prior experiences. Team trainers should guide less experienced
team members in linking their concrete teamwork knowledge to general and
consistent teamwork knowledge. Team trainers also should know that the more
experienced team members tend to have more self-monitoring skills than novices
(Lord, 1985).
Team competency is separated and different from individual competency.
Team competency can be classify as the following: First, knowledge competency
includes shared mental models, understanding the nature of taskwork and teamwork
knowledge, knowledge of boundary spanning, knowledge about fellow team
members’ roles and responsibilities, and cue/strategy associations. According to
Salas, Dickinson, Converse and Tannenbaum (1992), team knowledge consists of
several types o f knowledge: declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and
explanations that can move from specific and concrete to general and abstract.
Declarative team knowledge includes knowledge of roles o f team members,
relationship among team members, and temporal patterns o f team performance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
Procedural team knowledge includes knowledge about how team members perform
together, and the overall mechanisms of team performance. Explanatory team
knowledge includes knowledge about why and how various team members are
needed, and about why the team performs its functions as it does in support of task
accomplishment (Rouse, Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1993).
Second, skill competency in teams includes adaptability, shared situation
awareness, performance feedback, leadership, interaction, interpersonal skills,
coordination, communication, and decision-making (Prince & Salas, 1993).
Coordination can be the ability of team members to work together, anticipate each
other’s needs, to inspire confidence and to communicate in an efficient manner
(Siskel, 1992).
The content of interaction (goal setting, information sharing, and consulting
with others), the pattern of interaction (for example, number o f communications,
length of time spent talking, time to make a decision) and outcome of interaction (for
example, task versus interpersonal focus, turnover, flexibility o f the team) modify
how team members communicate and achieve team performance (Siskel, 1992).
Teams must dynamically form shared models of the situation and appropriate
strategies for coping with task demand. This is an example o f shared-problem
models. Shared-problem model refers to a skill that team members develop that
enables them to apply task and team knowledge to the formation of comparable
responses in a task situation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
Third, attitude competency is related with team performance (Hallan &
Campbell, 1997). Attitude is an internal state that influences an individual’s choices
or decisions to act in a certain way under particular circumstances (Dickson &
Guzzo, 1990). Team attitudes include attitudes toward teamwork, team concept,
collective orientation, collective efficacy, cohesion, mutual trust, and shared vision.
Collective orientation was defined by Gupta and Gregorich (1991) as the belief about
the importance of teamwork skills may significantly affect team processes and team
performance. Accordingly, collective orientation can be defined as an attraction to
the team as a means of task accomplishment (Swezey & Salas, 1992). Collective
efficacy refers to an attitude that team members hold regarding the ability o f their
team to perform effectively as a unit given some set of specific task demands
(Bandura, 1986).
Team cohesion is defined as the total field of forces which act on members to
remain in the team (Festinger, Rieder & Schachter, 1956). Festinger, Rieder and
Schachter (1956) concluded that where the team is well trained, with higher
collective efficacy, and the team goal is oriented, then the effects of team cohesion
will advance team performance. In addition, variables such as mutual trust and
shared vision can be expected to affect team performance. Mutual trust can be
defined as an attitude held by team members regarding the mood of the team’s
internal environment It connotes an atmosphere where opinions of team members
are allowed to emerge, where members are respected by their co-workers, and where
innovative actions are rewarded (Kreeger, 1992). Shared vision refers to a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
commonly held attitude regarding the direction, goals, and team mission of a team.
A shared vision among team members regarding team goals will impact team
performance.
Team motivation refers to those team processes in which team goals are
defined and the team is energized to achieve those goals through normal
development, conflict resolution, and reinforcement (Nemeth & Owens, 1996). To
foster team motivation, a team’s task should have two properties: it should be a
whole, meaningful piece of work and it should provide direct, verifiable knowledge
of the results of that work (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). There are three types of
motivation patterns or frameworks in teams (Bandura, 1986). They are rule
enforcement, external rewards, and internalized motivation. From empirical
research, team members who find a task intrinsically interesting will exert a great
effort to perform the task well (Bandura, 1986). Internal incentive for achieving a
good team performance exists when team members identify with, or feel a sense of
pride in, or duty toward, their team. However, these incentives often develop slowly
over time and thus, are unlikely to occur among aggregates of strangers who meet
once or only briefly for a psychological experiment. Also, team competition is an
external context thought to drive team motivation.
Team decision-making is based on the theories of social influence and
conformity. It indicates the value of having a team of at least two people who agree
on a correct answer. The reasons for the entire team to make decisions are the
greater acceptance of solutions, ownership of solutions, commitment to successful
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
implementation, greater cohesion, interdependence, and alignment of goals (Leary,
1993). Team decision-making is influenced by the kind of task the team is working
on. These tasks include generating plans and ideas, solving problems with a correct
answer, and resolving conflicts of differing viewpoint (McGrath, 1984).
As indicated in Stone, Sivitanides and Magro’s study (1994), teams, rather
than individuals, tend to choose riskier solutions when confronting uncertain
problems. In their study, team decisions tended to be above the average performance
of individual members, but not as good as the decision of the best member of the
team. Also, teams have been found to produce higher-quality solutions than
individuals (McGrath, 1984). Heterogeneous or mixed teams tend to outperform
homogeneous teams regardless of the trait being studied. Status differences inhibit
team decision-making and appear to contribute to process loss because the expertise
of lower-status members is not fully used (Silver, Cohen and Crutchifield, 1994).
Therefore, it is suggested that better decision-making and problem-solving should
occur when team members have over-lapping domain o f expertise, instead of a sole
expert for each relevant knowledge domain (Leary, 1993). It is noted that decision
making grows increasingly unreliable with higher degrees of time pressure (Naylor,
Pritchard & Ilgen, 1980).
Characteristics of R&D Teams. This type of R&D team process goes beyond
simple coordination. Mutual situation awareness, where team members are able to
predict, adapt, and coordinate with one another successfully, even under anxious or
novel conditions, are required training. This type of training can enhance the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
development o f shared mental models or the formation o f expectations and
explanations that reflect an accurate understanding of the entire team’s task
requirements (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1994). Training strategies that require team
members to verbalize expectation and explanations for the team’s function are one
possible means to develop shared mental models.
Enhancing Performance in R&D Teams. High performing R&D teams not
only produce technical results on time but on budget. They demonstrate specific task
and people-related qualities. Task-related skills include the skills for orientation to
technical success, result orientation, team creativity, concern for quality, willing to
change plans, and ability to predict trends. People-related skills include the skills for
high involvement, work interest and energy, capability to solve conflict, good
communication, good team spirit, mutual trust, and self- development of team
members.
Managing R&D Teams. Differences among work teams pose immediate,
particular challenges for management. They may need special help in applying team
processes to their resources. R&D team managers need to be sensitive to such
differences when making decisions on issues as team training and consultation,
physical environments, performance measurement and feedback systems, reward
systems, and other contextual features.
Measurement o f R&D Team Performance. There are three ways to measure
R&D team performance. First, R&D team performance may be measured by rated
technical contributions and usefulness, number of patents and number of technical
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
papers produced by each team. Second, R&D team performance may be measured
by rated budget and cost, meeting deadliness, rated value to the company and rated
team performance. Third, R&D team performance may be measured by published
written outputs, patents and prototypes and reports (internal to organization) and
algorithms.
Cultural Differences in R&D Teams. The great majority of studies on work
teams have been conducted in North America. However, in real life, the current
steadily increasing internationalization of business has confronted many
organizations with the problem of how to manage effectively foreign direct
investments and joint ventures that are located in settings which differ markedly
from those found in North America. Thus there is a lack of external validity in many
recent team studies. This has led to an assumption that what goes on in teams in
North America is also representative o f what goes on in teams elsewhere.
First, multinational teams must initially overcome language problems,
difficulties of access and a differing understanding of how to get to know one
another. The type and amount of contribution to teams is, to some extent, related to
the ethic background of the team members. In a study of work teams in Mainland
China, Putai (1993) found a high level o f motivation in voluntarily formed teams.
Impressions of the task competence o f second-language speakers may erroneously be
based on their linguistic fluency rather than their motivation (Wible & Hui, 1985).
Second, since the USA is rated very highly on individualistic values, differences are
likely to be greatest in a collectivist culture.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
For team training, Earley (1993) provided empirical evidence on the role of
individualism-collectivism (a culture based on individual difference) in shaping the
impact of motivational (for example, collective efficacy) training for teams. In the
studies, team-focused training was found to have a stronger impact on collectivist
individuals, and self-focused training was found to have a greater impact on
individualists. According to Hofstede (1991), the USA is the most individualist
nation of the 53 nations which were sampled.
Team Training
According to Salas and Cannon-Bowers (1995), team training can be
composed of tools, methods, and contents that combine to form particular team-
training strategy. The tools of team training include performance appraisal, team
task analysis, task simulations, feedback, and principles of learning. The methods of
team training include information-based methods, demonstration-based methods and
practice-based methods. These tools and methods combine with content to produce
strategies such as to guide practice, cross-training, team coordination training, team
leader training, and team building.
According to Tannenbaum, Beard and Salas (1992), there are four
approaches for team training: goal setting, interpersonal, role and problem solving.
Team training focuses on the acquisition or refinement o f skills and knowledge that
are specific to the collective or team environment that characterize a team. Some
conflict is inevitable and may reduce team performance (Tannenbaum, Beard &
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
Salas, 1992). Teams can be taught conflict resolution tactics as part of team training.
Effective team performance can occur when team members have a shared
understanding of the task, their team mates’ roles and expertise, and the context in
which they operate. The useful strategy to train this shared understanding in team
members is to cross-train members on team-mates’ tasks that are related to their own
task. This is a team-training design to provide information regarding the structure of
the team and task, the interrelationships among team members’ positions, and the
roles and responsibilities of each team member.
Team Training and Individual Training
Although individual and team training may differ, the fundamental learning
processes, for example, pattern recognition, short and long term memory and
response selection, are the same for individual and team skills (Dyer. 1995). What is
the difference between team training and individual training? The essence o f team-
ness is that skilled performance is interdependence; each individual’s behavior is
interdependent in that it occurs in response to other team members’ behaviors or cues
(Dyer, 1995).
Measurement o f Team Training Performance
The first step to measure team performance is the selection o f an
instructional strategy or approach that is appropriate to the team trainees’ current
level of mastery. Following that, team training should be measured from a number
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
o f perspectives: reactions to team training, attitudes toward teamwork, knowledge of
key teamwork concepts, and actual team performance (Rouse, Cannon-Bowers &
Salas, 1993). It is important to address process measures and outcome measures in
team-training measurement. Outcome measures are usually not diagnostic because
they do not indicate what might be the underlying causes of team performance.
Process measures describe the correct performance of interest. The use of event-
based measurement techniques that evaluate team processes are more objective and
provide diagnostic capability for identifying specific problem areas. Measures of
team performance training can be seen in the way the team is able to provide
knowledge of results, process feedback, and guide instructional strategy selection
(Rouse, Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1993). There is difficulty in evaluating team
performance dynamically (providing immediate solutions), in part due, to the
complexity o f team performance. Advanced technologies are beginning to be
developed, for example, automated systems that can automatically evaluate a
trainee’s progress. There are two types o f feedback in team training: knowledge of
results and process-oriented feedback. Knowledge of results is equal to outcome
feedback. Knowledge of results is not informative, that is, it lets trainers know that
their team performance must change, but not necessarily how to change it. Process
feedback can be defined as feedback that indicates to trainees what to change and
how to improve their team performance in subsequent trials (Early, 1993). Team
researchers indicated that feedback must be present soon after the team performance
situation (Early, 1993). In other words, any measurement system implemented in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
team training must provide team performance information quickly so that it can be
used as a basis for feedback. Team researchers also indicated that feedback must be
specific (Goldstein, 1985), particularly when it is associated with a particular
instructional goal. A measurement scheme must both identify and capture team
performance data required to provide specific feedback.
Team Performance
Many complicated human tasks have been accomplished by teams recently.
An essential characteristic of these tasks is that they often require synchronized
actions rather than summed or aggregated responses. Hackman (1987) indicated that
team performance should be conceptualized along at least three dimensions. The
first dimension of team performance is motivation to work, for example effort. The
second dimension is individual knowledge and skill brought to bear on the task. The
third dimension is the collective performance strategies used by the team for internal
for external activities, for example, coordinated techniques. Fully understanding
team performance requires behavioral, cognitive, and attitudinal-based measures.
Definition of Team Performance
From a human performance view, Fleishman. Nieva and Rieck (1978)
defined human performance in terms o f classificatory systems focused on behavior
descriptions (what people actually do), task requirements (what they are supposed to
do), and situation and ability constraints (what they can do). Such analyses focus
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
largely on job performance and are useful to determine the range o f human
performance which might be measured. According to Salas, Dickinson, Converse
and Tannenbaum (1992), team performance is defined as the outcome of dynamic
processes reflected which teams develop over time. Fleishman, Nieva and Rieck
(1978) defined team performance as the goal-directed behaviors, activities, and
functions accomplished by the team in performing the task. From the old view, team
performance has two components: individual task behavior and coordinated task-
related behaviors. Recently, team performance environments can be viewed as being
similar to that of dual-task activities, wherein two tasks must be accomplished
concurrently. These dual-task activities are taskwork and teamwork activities.
Taskwork. Taskwork is critical to team performance. Taskwork influences
the kind of interaction necessary for best team performance. Taskwork has been
shown to affect team interaction significantly the majority of the time. The specific
taskwork can be presented as planning, idea generation, problem solving, decision
making, conflict resolution and psychomotor performance (Hackman, 1990).
Taskwork refers to a team’s interaction with tasks, tools, machines, and systems. It
includes those efforts traditionally efforts traditionally associated with individual
task performance. The various kinds of taskwork include learning, concept mastery,
brainstorming and problem-solving. A production taskwork requiring presentation
of ideas, a discussion taskwork requiring an evaluation of issues or a problem
solving taskwork requiring a selection o f a course of action, usually result in
interactions quite different from each other (Hackman, 1990).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
Teamwork. Teamwork is critical to team performance. Teamwork refers to
the interpersonal interactions among individuals that are necessary for exchanging
information, developing and maintaining communication patterns, coordinating
activities, and maintaining social order. Oser, McCallum, Salas and Morgan (1989)
indicated that teamwork includes complex behavioral characteristics. Teamwork is
defined as consisting of complex behaviors including coordination, mutual
adjustment, compensatory behavior, communication, flexibility/adaptability, and
cohesion (McIntyre & Salas, 1995). Teamwork is also the behavior that contributes
to the identification and resolution o f errors, coordinated information exchange, team
motivation, and team reinforcement. The effectiveness of teamwork depends on the
specific requirements of teamwork that can be measured by team members on the
basis of teamwork design (Hackman, 1990).
Domin (1994) outlined a conceptual framework for developing teamwork
measures. These components include team orientation, team leadership,
communication, monitoring, feedback, backup behavior, and coordination. In order
for teams to achieve optimum team performance, the teamwork development must
be separately enhanced, progressively forced, and ultimately cover all aspects so that
all activities contribute to improve team performance. The accurate completion of
teamwork requires a dynamic exchange of information and resources among team
members, coordination of task activities, constant adjustment to task demands, and
organizational structuring of members.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
Shared Mental Model. Efforts to understand and improve team performance
have been ongoing for over 50 years, yet relatively little is known about how to
manage team performance (Salas, Dickinson, Converse & Tannenbaum, 1992).
Rouse, Cannon-Bowers and Salas (1990) suggested that team performance can be
understood in terms of shared mental models of the team. Effective team
performance requires that team members hold common or overlapping cognitive
representations of task requirements, procedures, and role responsibilities. In
cognitive psychology and cognitive sciences, researchers have suggested that mental
models are important to the more general understanding o f how hum ans interact and
cope with the world (Rouse & Rouse, 1984). Shared mental models are thought to
improve team performance because they enable team members to form accurate
explanations and expectations for a task (Rouse, Cannon-Bower & Salas, 1993).
Providing expectations about team performance is the most important
function o f shared mental models. Teams need to establish a common concept of the
team’s task. It implies that the team’s task is interpreted in equal terms, for example,
there is an agreement about the general way of proceeding. Team members must
maintain multiple mental models, for example, a model o f the team’s roles and a
model of equipment. Team-level constructs include team consciousness,
preconscious, and team memory. The advantage of shared mental models is when
communication channels are limited, shared mental models enable team members to
anticipate other team members’ behaviors and information requirements (Converse,
Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1993). The disadvantage is that the team members’
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
knowledge and expectations overlap too much and the uniqueness of their individual
contributions is lost. Groupthink could occur as a result of too much overlap in team
members’ mental models or when team members refuse to abandon incorrect models
because they are shared by the team. Effort is needed to specify exactly what needs
to be shared among team members for effective team performance. That is, it must
be established how much overlap needs to exist in the knowledge base of teammates
and how this overlap affects team performance. Cannon-Bowers and Salas (1990)
indicated that the existence of compatible mental models among the members is
related to effective team performance because it allows team members to anticipate
each others’ information needs. The role of mental models in explaining team
performance, then, stems from their ability to provide a set of organized expectations
for team performance.
Homogeneity among team members can reduce creativity. The implication is
that there may be an optimal degree of shared mental models that must be achieved
to maximize efficiency. Shared mental models must be used to measure team
member knowledge structures and then to compare the similarity of these knowledge
structures across team members. Kraiger and Wenzel (1997) indicated that measures
for shared mental models should be able to measure how team members perceive,
process or react to external stimuli; how team members organize or structure task
relevant knowledge, common attitudes or affects for task relevant behavior, and
shared expectations for that behavior. They provided several methods for measuring
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
shared mental models in teams. They include card sorting tasks, probed protocol
analysis, and structural measurement.
Factors Related to Team Performance
To study the factors that may affect team performance, it is important to
create tasks that can adequately tap the coordination and task resources that are
required in team operations. Team performance is facilitated by the capability of
team members to work together over time, the satisfaction of team members’ needs,
and the acceptability o f task outcomes by those team members who demand or
receive them. Moreover, team performance is dependent on the level of effort
exerted by team members, the amount of knowledge and skill they can apply to the
task, and the appropriateness o f task performance strategies. Team performance is
also influenced by the resources allocated to the team. Appropriate tools, equipment,
space, raw materials, and human resources are resources that enhance a team’s
performance (Hackman, 1990). Team performance is through a variety of alternative
paths rather than a single sequence of developmental phases.
In addition, researchers recently have suggested that team performance can
be understood in terms o f shared mental models (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1990).
Accordingly, effective team performance requires that team members hold common
or overlapping cognitive representations of task requirements, procedures, and role
responsibilities. There may be an optimal degree of shared mental structures that
must be achieved in order to maximize creativity/innovation within the team.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
The following factors are considerations of team performance: collective
efficacy, leadership style, communication, team size, diversity of team membership,
and motivation (Hackman, 1990). Team performance tasks should promote
coordination among individual members and subtasks. The weight of each factor in
terms o f contributions to overall team performance will vary according to the nature
of the particular task characteristics.
Usually, team performance is considered a result o f four antecedent classes of
variables: external conditions imposed on the team, member resources, task
characteristics and demands, and team characteristics. On the other hand, team
performance can be impaired not because the team lacks capability, but because the
team, as a whole, fails to coordinate member capabilities and contributions. Steiner
(1986) defined such coordination deficiency in teams as process loss. According to
Steiner (1986), team performance was determined by a team’s potential productivity,
less decrements due to process losses.
How to Enhance Team Performance
The following factors determine optimal team performance: a common
mission, overall goal, sense of direction: clearly understanding roles; a good
communication: mutual support: cooperation: and team members’ competencies.
Also, team orientation can influence team performance (Hackman, 1990). A strong
team orientation involves team members’ perceptions that their interaction,
communication pattern, and levels of trust and participation all determine the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
successful team performance. Team performance depends heavily on the ability of
the team members to successfully manage interpersonal relations with one another.
Varney (1989) refers to this ability as interpersonal competence and describes it as
the ability to maintain healthy working relationships and to react to others with
respect for ideas, emotions and differing viewpoints.
Effective team interpersonal skills are: conflict resolution, collaboration
problem solving, and good communication. Conflict may adversely affect
cohesiveness and may reduce team performance (O’Connor, Gruenfeld & McGrath,
1993). However, an optimal team performance may require moderate levels of
conflicts. Some conflicts are inevitable and some tensions are actually desirable
(Pascale, 1990). Without conflicts, there may be no way to sense the need for
change or draw attention to problem areas. Teams can be taught conflict resolution
tactics as part o f a team training intervention.
Also from empirical research, there are three interventions to enhance team
performance. The first intervention is the design of the team (Pascale, 1990). Team
design includes such things as specification of membership, members’ roles, and
methods of their coordination and goals. Several studies indicated team design as a
point of leverage for advancing team performance (Brewer, 1991). The second
intervention which can be made to enhance team performance is through team
process. For example, enhancing team cohesiveness can contribute to team
performance. A third intervention to enhance team performance is through team
context. For example, the team leader can make a difference in team performance
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
(Brewer, 1991). Team leader’s discussions and behaviors can influence almost every
variable in the team performance. Also, a team composed of highly skilled and
motivated personnel will have better team performance.
From the empirical research, Tziner (1988) found that team members’
abilities and motivation levels were predictors o f team performance. Other evidence
indicates that teams composed of members who are familiar with one another carry
out their work with greater team performance than teams composed o f strangers
(Brewer, 1991). A number of studies have shown that heterogeneity can influence
team performance (Marks, 1997). Also from Gladstein’s (1984) research, it was
indicated that increased heterogeneity is often recommended because it increases the
range of competence in the team.
Team performance relies on individuals who are not only capable of
performing their own tasks but who possess skills and attitudes that support their
team. Greene (1989) indicated that cohesion was related to team performance if the
team had accepted the team goals. Moreover, a successful team performance can
occur when team members have a shared understanding o f the task, their team
members’ roles and expertise, as well as the context in which they operate. Finally,
there is some evidence that greater participation and autonomy in work discussion
can increase team performance (Coton, Vollrath, Froggett, Lengnick-Hall &
Jennings, 1988). Greater flexibility means that role changing and role overlap may
be acceptable. Therefore, a number of researchers have encouraged greater
flexibility in team structure (Nahavandi & Aranda, 1994). Greater flexibility means
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
that role changing and even role overlap may be acceptable. Also, Campion,
Medsker and Higgs (1993) found that teams with greater flexibility were rated as
more effective by managers.
Team Effectiveness. Reciprocal relationships between team performance and
team effectiveness are empirically demonstrable. Effectiveness is defined as the
degree to which the performance outcomes approach the goals specified. Shea and
Guzzo (1992) defined team effectiveness as production of designated products or
services per specification. From Sundstrom and Futress (1990), team effectiveness is
indicated by team-produced outputs, for example, quantity or quality, the
consequence a team has for its members, or enhancement of a team’s capability to
perform effectively in the future. So there are four team effectiveness dimensions.
They are productive output (sales revenues), social criteria (willingness), personal
criteria (personal development), and innovation (Shea & Guzzo, 1992). The factors
influencing team effectiveness are organizational culture, technology and task
design, goal clarity, autonomy, rewards, performance feedback, training and
consultation, and physical environment. Also team training can be targeted to
improve those factors in need of change.
Measurement o f Team Effectiveness. An efficiency measure is a ratio of
inputs to outputs. Effectiveness measures are ratios of output relative to goals or
expectations. Team effectiveness can be equal to team performance plus
measurement error, only if a work team has complete control over all resources
needed to accomplish the goals used (Hackman, 1990).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
Team Productivity. The concept of team productivity more explicitly
acknowledges that the functioning of a team typically requires interdependence
between individuals to achieve its goals. Because o f this interdependence, the team
productivity is not the simple sum of the performance of a person’s coping response
(Hackman, 1990).
Situations Which Mav Reduce Team Performance
Understanding the process loss that prevents a team from achieving optimum
team performance is necessary. Team performance is very small positive related to
the average skill- level of team members. Steiner (1986) indicated that the relatively
small relationship between the average skill level o f team members and overall team
performance is due to process loss. Process loss occurs whenever team members’
efforts are wasted or duplicated because o f coordination and communication
requirements for team performance. Process loss can be minimized by training team
members to coordinate their activities and to communicate effectively. An
unstructured and chaotic team would suffer great process loss (Steiner, 1986).
Teams should structure the team processes to follow a regular or organized patterns
of behavior. The lack of interaction process most often results in process loss which
reduces team performance (Janis, 1982). For example, the groupthink phenomenon
develops as teams become close knit which hinders their ability to detect errors.
With groupthink phenomenon, team interaction may result in team performance
being less than the sum of the parts (Janis, 1982).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
Social Loafing and Team Performance. Team performance is also
susceptible to social loafing. Ringelmann (1913) indicated that social loafing was a
function of coordination loss. Social loafing is defined as individuals exerting less
effort while performing a task in a team as opposed to performing the same task
alone. Social loafing is believed to be the result of diffusion of responsibility.
Because team membership fosters a feeling o f anonymity, it is related to losses of
individual responsibility.
How to Reduce Social Loafing. Social loafing can be reduced or eliminated
by increasing the identifiability of the uniqueness of members’ contributions to a
task (Hartley, 1996). Another element is members’ involvement in the task and
accountability for their work and task attractiveness (Zaccars and Dobbins, 1989).
Also, team members’ performance must be monitored and feedback provided in
order to avoid social loafing. Regardless of whether individuals are contributing
alone or together with others, they exert greater effort when contributions are
believed to be identified. When individuals can personally evaluate their
performance, they exert greater effort (Latane, Williams & Harkins, 1979). Internal
incentives for achieving good team performance exist when individuals identify with
their team, or feel a sense of pride in or duty toward their teams. Unfortunately,
these incentives often develop slowly over time.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
Measurement of Team Performance
Brannick, Salas and Prince (1997) outlined three reasons why team
performance measurement is important. First, team theory cannot move beyond the
conceptual stage without the development of psychometrically sound measurement
tools. Measurement contributes to the building and validating of accurate models of
team performance. Second, without quantifiable indications of team performance, it
is hard to determine what constitutes good and poor team performance. Such
information is particularly important from the standpoint o f providing performance
feedback during team training. Third, measurement is vital in evaluating
instructional approaches to training teams. Psychometrically sound and construct
valid measures provide an indication of the extent to which training is effective.
Team performance measurement information can serve several purposes, for
example, team members’ selection, team performance appraisal, and team training.
At times, the evaluation methods relies on instructors or other subject matter
experts to provide numerical ratings of team performance. For example, in
Modrick’s (1986) study, team performance was evaluated on three levels
(communications frequency, team process, and objective criteria) by three sources
(on site judges, off-site judges and self-ratings). In Barker & Salas’s (1993) review
of team performance measurement, although moderate level of interrater reliability
can be attained, they are generally acceptably low.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
How to Measure Team Performance. There are still numerous questions as to
how to measure team performance. Traditionally, team performance measurement
has relied on specific criteria such as tons of coal extracted by mining teams, or sales
revenues produced by sales teams and managers’ rating of R&D teams, just to name
a couple of examples. Cannon-Bowers and Salas (1995) contend that the team
performance construct can be measured in many ways depending on the task
performed and the definition o f team performance. To meet the psychometric
requirement for valid team performance measurement, Brannick, Prince and Salas
(1997) suggest that team process measures should be reliable in the sense that
different raters should be interchangeable for one another, sensitive to differences in
teams existing prior to task performance, and useful in predicting important team
performance. It said that the measurement of team performance can be measured by
quantity, quality, and time.
It can be inferred from Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum and Salas’s (1995)
studies. Team performance can be measured in many ways depending on the task
performed and the definition o f the team performance. Dyer (1995) indicated that
the measurement questions can be organized under three global headings: what to
measure, when to measure, and how to measure. With respect to what to measure,
questions revolve around the appropriate unit of analysis, the critical skill
dimensions and behaviors, and the critical team knowledge structures. In this view,
for example, several studies have used differences between team members’
performance ratings and managerial performance ratings (Ancona, 1988). It may be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
that each team member and team managers have different interests and different
data. For example, team members may be more interested in the creativity of a
productive environment, while managers may be more interested in output.
Moreover, researchers in team performance measurement attempted to establish
underlying team processes and behaviors which impact team performance (Morgan,
1986). These team processes and behaviors then can be the bases for team
measurement tools.
Cannon-Bowers and Salas (1995) defined teamwork to consist of a series of
team competencies. They suggested that team competencies can be thought of as the
requisite knowledge (principles and concepts underlying a team’s task performance),
skills (psychomotor and cognitive behaviors necessary to perform the team task
correctly) and attitudes which result in effective team performance. These
competencies can be the bases of team performance measurement.
With respect of when to measure, questions revolve around the time at which
a team matures, the appropriate time to capture team performance, and which
multiple measurements need to be employed to ensure stability in the measurement
processes (Dyer, 1995). With respect o f how to measure, questions revolve around a
format o f the measurement tool, the extent to which team performance can be
objectively quantified, and the extent to which judges can accurately measure team
performance (Dyer, 1995).
After discussing what, how and when to measure the team performance, we
also can conclude the following. First, team performance can be measured by
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
looking at outputs. Second, team performance can be measured by looking at
records of the behavior o f the team, such as goals achieved. Third, team
performance can also be measured as it occurs, in exercises or simulations.
How Measurement Influences Subsequent Team Performance. Accurate
team performance measurement has an impact on subsequent team performance.
Hackman (1987) indicated that teams are measured by their performance as they
work, and the assessments affect their team processes which influence subsequent
team performance. For example, the initial high rating of a team’s performance will
yield positive self-reinforcing spirals. However, negative self-reinforcing spirals can
also create the later process loss. This is a kind o f reciprocal interdependence.
Hackman (1987) indicated that teams should evaluate their team performance
as they work and the evaluations may affect team processes which influence
subsequent team performance.
Measurement of Research and Development Team Performance. R&D teams
were the unit of analysis in this study. From Hackman’s (1987) points, R&D team
performance can be measured by the following methods. First, team performance
can be measured by rated technical contributions and usefulness, number of patents,
and number of technical papers produced by each team. Second, R&D team
performance can be measured by rated budgets/costs, meeting deadlines, rated value
to the company, and rated team performance. Third, R&D team performance can be
measured by published written outputs, patents and prototypes, reports (internal to
organization) and algorithms.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
Team Creativity/Innovation
Smeekes (1986) reported in a 1985 survey of almost 1,000 senior executives
from the United states, Japan and Europe, that 90% indicated an increased need for
innovation in their companies. Team creativity is essential in the business
environment. Dynamic environments require organizations to make rapid
adjustment under conditions of high complexity and information-processing
demands. Driven by the globalization of competition, and the increased pace of
change in the situation around them, organizations are questioning whether their
products or services are sufficiently creative to meet the needs o f the changing
environment. The need is to increase creativity/innovation. For example, R&D
teams have been established with the primary responsibility of undertaking research
and developing new technological innovations for the marketplace.
Definition of Team Creativity
The creativity process begins with a problem perceived or experienced.
Whenever humans have a problem and do not know how to solve it by action, they
resort to creativity, thinking, and problem-solving. Creativity involves uniqueness or
originality, but also providing solutions that are appropriate to the problem.
Creativity is considered to be mainly a cognitive process within the individual.
Amabile (1996) defined team creativity as the production of novel and appropriate
ideas by a team working together. According to Amabile (1996), a product or
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
response will be judged as creative to the extent that it is a novel, appropriate, useful,
correct and valuable response to the task at hand and the task is heuristic rather than
algorithmic. Regarding the effectiveness o f team creativity or individual creativity,
there are two findings. First, although team creativity is clearly a function of
individuals on the team, it would be wrong to think that team creativity is simply the
aggregate o f all team members’ creativity (Woodman & Sherwood, 1980). Also,
McGrath (1984) indicated that it was reasonable to believe that teams can be better
than the sum o f individuals. Hackman and Morris (1975) indicated that specific
instructions can be effective in team creativity (telling team members to develop a
strategy). Second, some researchers showed that individuals sometimes generate
more creative ideas than do teams (McGrath, 1984). Other than the creative
potential of each team member, team creativity is influenced by time, other team
members, places, settings, domain-specific knowledge, and strategies.
Taylor (1994) described several components that must be included in the
theory of team creativity: person, problem, process, product, and climate. Similarly,
Getzels (1975) noted that team creativity is a function of five interactive elements:
organismic constitution, personality, social institution, team influence, and culture
values. As such, team creativity can be viewed as the result o f interactions among
several important components or dimensions of creativity (Jackson, 1993).
Creative Teams. People studying creative people or creative teams often use
the terms scientists, engineers, high-tech professionals, technical people, and creative
people interchangeably. Different types of teams require certain characteristics that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
are highly desirable for team members to possess. A creative team does best with
members who are intelligent. Not only are they conceptual and analytical, but they
are capable o f abandoning normative thinking, exploring possibilities that extend
beyond historical approaches to problems and traditionally accepted solutions.
Finally, members of creative teams possess a high degree o f collective efficacy and
tenacity.
Creative Products. Jackson (1993) proposed that the following conditions
must be satisfied for a product to be considered creative. First, the products must be
unusual and appropriate in the content of norms, producing surprise and satisfaction.
Second, it should be above the conventional constraints, producing new forms, rather
than improving an old one, and be stimulating. Third, it should have the proportion
o f creative condensation, where the apparent simplicity and complexity of the
solution are unified.
Definition of Team Innovation
To maintain or enhance effectiveness within a rapidly changing and
challenging global environment, organizations have to adapt appropriately, and
innovation is the process through which this is often achieved. For example, rapid
advances in semiconductors and technological innovation have become key concepts
in inter-corporate competition and survival.
Innovation has been defined as the introduction and application, within a
team, organization, or wider society, of process, products, or procedures new to the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
relevant unit of adoption and intended to be beneficial to all entities (West & Farr,
1990). Innovation is the generation, acceptance and implication of new ideas,
processes, products or services. Team innovation has been defined as the
introduction and application, within a team, of processes, products, or procedures
new to the relevant unit of adoption and intended to benefit the team (West & Farr,
1996). The innovative team is committed to deliver a high quality product and have
pride in its ability to address complex and troublesome problems. The development
of an innovative team requires interdisciplinary functioning among team members.
Interdisciplinary innovative teams can exceed the sum total of their individual
members resulting in a higher level of coordinated, consistent, and cost-effective
care, program development, and equally important personal development (West &
Farr, 1996).
As noted by Berwick (1989), flexible innovative teams must be creative,
trained, and competently led to tackle complex processes that cross customary
departmental boundaries. Effective communication and confrontation about
unilateral statements and actions are of significant importance. West (1990)
indicated four phases for innovative teams: recognition by a team, an initiation,
implementation of an innovation, and stabilization. Moreover, West and Farr (1990)
indicated that innovative teams should be cohesive, and they should have
participative leadership, strong norms for innovation in the team climate, a focus on
both rational and intuitive thinking, and a concern with quality of task performance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
Team creativity is a necessary step in the innovation process. Peters and
Waterman ( 1982) indicated that creativity is thinking up new things and innovation
is doing new things. Grossman, Worchel and Coutant-Sassic (1992) indicated that
innovation is a unique idea implemented profitably. The team approach often
provides the impetus to move from ideas to products that is from creativity to
innovation. Creativity is the generation of novel associations (new ideas) that are
useful; and innovation is the implementation of a creative idea. Creativity refers to
the generation of novel ideas, and innovation is to the way to make money with
them. So creativity is the starting point for any innovation. Innovation is the hard
work that follows idea conceptions and usually involves the labor of many people
with varied, yet complementary, skills. The challenge is to transform creative ideas
into tangible products or processes that will improve customer service, cut costs, and
generate new earnings for an organization (Russo & Schoemaker, 1980).
Factors Influencing Team Creativity/Innovation
Researchers have reported that factors such as team size, heterogeneity of
team members, team vision, leadership style, team cohesiveness and participation
have an effect on team creativity/innovation (Jackson, 1996). Team process
(participation), task orientation, commitment to team goals, and support for
innovation, personality characteristics of team members (propensity to innovate), and
team structural factors (time size, resources available and team tenure) all have
effects on team creativity/innovation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
First, from empirical research, greater heterogeneity of team composition is
related to greater team creativity/innovation (Jackson, 1992). Second, Peters and
Waterman (1982) indicated that team innovation/creativity is most likely to occur
where the leadership style is collaborative and participative. Cummings and Worley
(1993) indicated that executive manager’s value for innovation plays a crucial role in
determining team creativity/innovation. Third, team size can influence team
creativity/innovation. In Poulton and West’s (1994) research, there was a curvilinear
relationship between team size and team creativity/innovation. Poultin indicated that
a very small team (two or three members) lack the diversity of viewpoints and
perspectives necessary for team creativity/innovation whereas a large team (more
than 12 or 13 members) becomes too unwieldy to enable effective interaction,
exchange and participation. Fourth, team tenure can reduce team
creativity/innovation.
In Jackson’s (1992) research, project newcomers represent a novelty-
enhancing condition which challenges and improves the scope of existing methods
and accumulated knowledge. He indicated that team tenure is associated with a
tendency to ignore and become increasingly isolated from resources that provide the
most critical kinds o f feedback, evaluation, and information. Without changes in
membership, teams may become less innovative over time. Longer team tenure
might be associated with increasing homogeneity and consequent deleterious effects
on team creativity/innovation. Fifth, the extent and quality of team
creativity/innovation will be determined by the personality or dispositional
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
characteristics of innovative team members (Mumford, 1983). The generation o f a
new ideas is a cognitive process which is located within individuals. Individual
propensity to innovate is a superior predictor of team innovation. In Bumingham
and W est’s (1995) research, a significant proportion of the variance in team
innovation is explained by the proportion of individuals with high propensity to
innovate.
Sixth, the supporting climate of the organization is important to team
creativity/innovation. Support for innovation is defined as the expectation, approval,
and practical support of attempts to introduce new and improved ways of doing
things in the work environment (West, 1994). West’s (1994) research found out that
innovative organizations had a climate characterized by an emphasis on quality,
good communication, teamwork, interdepartmental cooperation, and reflexivity.
Large and dominant firms tend to innovate more because they have the ability to
raise finances for team creativity/innovation. Finally, the clarity of team goals has
been shown to predict team creativity/innovation (West, 1994). Clarity of team
goals is likely to facilitate innovation by enabling focused development of new ideas.
Social Comparison May Reduce Team
Creativity/Innovation
Social comparison processes might lead team members to discover that their
performance is quite similar to that of others. The social comparison processes in
creative teams appear to produce some tendency toward uniformity in numbers of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
ideas generated (West, 1994). Team members may judge their performance more
favorably than the actual level of performance. This satisfaction with performance
generated in teams might lower the level of motivation of the team members. This
could account for the fact that teams often stop generating ideas before the expiration
of their allocated time.
Measurement o f Team Creativity/Innovation
Team creativity/innovation can be measured in terms of both the quantity and
the quality of creativity/innovation (West, 1994). Quantity refers to the number of
new ideas introduced and implemented. Quality can be assesses in three ways—in
relation to the newness of the idea, to the rated significance of the ideas, and to the
ultimate effectiveness o f the ideas. Additionally, quality can be viewed as the
magnitude, radicalness, effectiveness, and novelty of the creativity/innovation.
Some researchers have measured team creativity/innovation by means of judging
creativity of the decisions made (Maier, 1970). Some organizations used managerial
reports to judge team creativity/innovation (Bumingham & West, 1995) or the
ratings of within-organization experts (Agree & Gustafson, 1994).
Creativity/innovation can also be judged by domain-relevant experts (Amabile,
1983) or a number of dimensions such as magnitude, radicalness, novelty, and
influence on team performance.
Puccio and Talbot (1987) study stated that team innovation can be divided
into two successive components: ideas generation and implementation. The number
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
and quality of innovative ideas (idea generation) as a result of team interaction,
motivation, knowledge, and skill fit into the concept o f work-team performance. The
transformation o f innovative ideas into some new product, method or service
(implementation) is part of the effectiveness criterion. Usually, raters were asked to
rate each o f the creativity/innovation on a 1-5 scale on one o f four dimensions:
magnitude, radicalness, novelty and benefit to administrative effects.
Hocevar and Bachelor (1989) found from the eight categories of creativity
assessments, that inventories of past creative achievement and activities are probably
the best measures available to measure creativity. Measures of creative products and
a person’s past creative achievement and activities, are probably some o f the best
measures available to measure creativity. The implication is to select an effective
creative/innovative team.
Enhancing Team Creativity/Innovation
Team creativity/innovation is supported by a high degree of leadership
support, goal emphasis, team building, and work facilitation. There are several
factors that are involved in creativity/innovation at the team level:
1. Cohesiveness facilitates team creativity/innovation because it
increases feelings of self-actualization and psychological safety.
2. A team’s longevity is negatively related to team creativity/innovation.
In Lovelace’s (1986) research scientists were more creative if not
assigned to permanent teams.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
3. Creativity is a function of both ability and motivation and that it is
therefore the responsibility of the R&D manager to manipulate the
environment in such a way as to motivate teams. Good inter-team
communications and a sense of identity with the organization may
serve to maximize shared perceptions of team creativity/innovation
(Jackson, 1996). For a creative team to function, it is necessary to
have autonomy from systems and procedures and to create an
atmosphere in which ideas do not become prematurely quashed. The
climate for creativity among R&D teams should be warm, supportive
but intellectually demanding.
4. Heterogeneous teams tend to perform better when the task is
relatively complex and requires a creative solution (Morgan & Hunt.
1994). Heterogeneity is defined to the mix o f personalities, gender,
attitudes and background or experienced factors. Also, heterogeneity
would seem most advantageous with disjunctive tasks and least with
conjunctive tasks.
5. Demographic diversity in teams increase conflict, make it difficult to
develop a shared goal, reduce cohesion, and complicate internal
communication (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Therefore, it may inhibit
team creativity/innovation. Tenure homogeneity has been positively
related to frequency o f communication and social integration with
team creativity/innovation (Morgan & Hunt, 1994).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
6. A team vision is an idea of a valued outcome, a higher order goal,
which is a motivating force for a work team (West, 1990). The
clearer the vision, the more the vision is negotiated and shared within
a team. When the vision is attainable, the more probable it is likely to
be a facilitation of team creativity/innovation. The more team
members shared information and involved each other in decision
making, the higher the likelihood of team creativity/innovation.
7. Team members need encouragement to build collective efficacy
which can enhance team creativity/innovation. Paulus, Dzindolet,
Poletes and Camacho’s (1993) study indicated that team members
believe they can generate more ideas in teams than alone (collective
efficacy).
8. In the recent technological development, one of the most effective
methods o f increasing team creativity/innovation is through the use of
a team decision support system, via a computer system (Piroia-Morlo,
2000). This computer system includes software for generating and
organizing ideas, editing shared text and voting on team alternatives
among other tasks.
9. Appropriate feedback is an important facilitator of team
creativity/innovation among R&D team managers (Piroia-Morlo,
2000).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
10. Developing teams might need to rely largely on expectations to allow
for team creativity/innovation (Piroia-Morlo, 2000). Expectations
arise from sustained contact among team members. They are tacit
agreements among team members with no explicit sanctions. Norms
are often used to describe expectation.
Collective Efficacy
A number of psychological theories indicate that humans are motivated by
their expectations about their abilities to accomplish a task (Bandura, 1997), as well
as by their expectations about the outcomes of their actions (Sanna, 1992). One such
theory based on individual outcome expectation is social cognitive theory (Bandura,
1986). When team members believe in each other, when they believe that each team
member will bring superior skills to a task, that disagreements will be worked out
reasonably, that each member’s view will be treated seriously and with respect, that
all team members will give their best effort, and that everyone will have the team’s
overall best interest, then excellence can become a sustainable reality.
Collective efficacy is a term coined by Bandura (1997) to reflect the fact that
teams often have collective expectations for success. In individuals’ sense o f
collective efficacy, they believe they can solve the problems they face and improve
their lives through a unified effort. Collective efficacy influences what people
choose to do as a team, how much effort they put into it, and their staying power
when team efforts fail to produce results. According to Bandura (1997), many of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
social problems that individuals face reflect team changes that require collective
effort to produce the necessary change. Bandura (1997) also indicated that teams
that posse a strong sense of collective efficacy will exert a greater effort, and
perseverance of effort, to master challenges presented to them. Consequently,
Bandura (1997) suggested that whether a team performs up to its potential depends
largely on whether the team members execute their functions in a large efficacious
frame of mind. Higher levels o f perceived collective efficacy lead teams to set
higher goals and thus create further motivation inducements for teams.
Definition of Collective Efficacy
Shamir (1991) defined collective efficacy as the perceived likelihood that
collective effort will emanate in a collective accomplishment. Riggs (1989) defined
collective efficacy as an individual team members’ assessment o f a team’s collective
ability to perform the task at hand. He also included attitudinal components such as
the individual’s perception o f collective success of the team, judgments regarding
team leadership, the team’s power base, its cohesiveness, and its structure.
Collective efficacy in the task-specific ability is a contributing factor in the team
performance (Bandura, 2001). That is, for team members to be motivated to perform
necessary teamwork behaviors, they must have collective efficacy that their team can
master the task goals.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
Relationship Between Collective Efficacy and Individual Self-Ffficacv.
According to Bandura (1986), collective efficacy is rooted in self-efficacy.
Although collective efficacy and self-efficacy are related, they are not identical with
respect to their nature, antecedents, and consequences. For example, in many team
sport researchers’ findings, there is a weak positive relationship between self-
efficacy and team performance in sports (Shamir, 1991). It is explained that it was
more difficult for the athletes to judge their own self-efficacy, since team
performances are dependent on the performance of collaborating with others. It is
also explained that high team member ability is more critical in individual tasks since
the individual member can not depend on other team members to compensate for
mistakes or incapabilities as in teamwork (Bass & Yammarino, 1991).
A study of a strategy used in sports between self-efficacy and collective
efficacy is that individuals should be trained differently than teams (Hodges &
Carron, 1992). It was found that team coaches more often developed collective
efficacy through instruction, drilling, and modeling efficacy as compared to coaches
in individual sports.
Definition of Individual Self-Efficacv
Bandura (1986) defines self-efficacy as individuals’ judgments of their
capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated
types of performance. Self-efficacy is a cognitive mechanism which regulates
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
people’ s choice of behavior, effort, motivation, affect, attribution, selection
processes, and persistence. Bandura (1986) indicated that efficacy has a powerful
impact on human behavior, especially behavior related to change. Self-efScacy
denotes the self-referent mediation o f relationship between an individual’s
knowledge, skills, outcome experiences, actions, and goals (Pintrich & Schrauben,
1992). Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara and Pastorelli’s (1997) social cognition
theory defines self-efficacy as a cognitive mechanism that regulates people’s choice
of behavior, effort, and persistence (Bandura, 1986). The strength of a person’s
efficacy suggests how long and to what degree a person might be willing to initiate
and sustain effort in the face o f difficulties. High self-efficacy people are likely to
approach tasks as potential challenges to be mastered rather than as threats to be
avoided. They are likely to set higher and more challenging goals. When faced with
obstacles, they are more likely to increase and sustain their efforts. They are able to
recover more quickly from failures, and apt to attribute failure to deficient
knowledge and skills or to insufficient effort rather than to lack of one’s ability
(Bandura, 1986).
How Individual Self-efficacv Influences Anxiety. Bandura (1986) found that
the perception o f self-efficacy may affect the amount o f anxiety an individual
experiences. In his view of self-efficacy, lower self-efficacy tend to be easily
stressed or depressed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
How Individual Self-efficacv Influences Creativity. West and Farr (1990)
indicated that self-efficacy regarding creativity is affected by past relevant
experiences and formal training. It is their belief that cognitive abilities might
influence creative production, such as the ability to make random association
between ideas.
How Individual Self-efficacv Influences Performance. Higher self-efficacy is
associated with increased motivation to perform a task. Weinberg and Jackson
(1990) assert there is a casual relationship between self-efficacy and performance in
tasks. However, Krane (1990) indicated that self-efficacy did not directly influence
immediately following performance. Taylor and Popma( 1990) suggested that two
types of performance(personal performance and competitive performance) which can
generate two different types o f self-efficacy. They are personal self-efficacy and
competitive self-efficacy. Personal self-efficacy is seen as an expectation about a
performance that is derived from an internally based standard. Competitive self-
efficacy, on the other hand, is seen as being found on an externally directed standard
of performance.
Research in the attribution domain revealed that individuals report different
attributions following performance in individual versus competitive situations
(Taylor & Popma, 1990). In personal performance, focus on internally directed
standards, thereby enhancing self-image and a sense of control, whereas under
competitive performance, outcome becomes more salient, thus directing attention
away from perceptions o f the self. Thus a competitive performance produces a shift
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
in focus that may eventuate in a change in cognition such as competitive self-
efficacy (Vealey, 1990).
Team-Belief.
Team-belief is related to collective efficacy. A belief is defined as a unit of
knowledge which is often labeled as an idea, cognition, thought, or opinion. Beliefs
are units of cognition. A team-belief is shared among the members of the team and
is a collective belief in, for example, the effectiveness o f the team (Guzzo, 1988).
Individuals who have similar experiences or collect the same information may
develop partially common knowledge. The more intensive the participation of the
team members, the more beliefs they share.
Potency shares a certain similarity with the individual motivational construct
of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986). Potency is important to understand team creativity.
Theoretically, a work team with a strong belief in its potency would be more
innovative than a team with a weak belief in its potency.
Factors Influencing Collective Efficacy
Cohesion is an important determinant of collective efficacy. Team
cohesiveness largely reflects teammates’ sense of collective efficacy and goal
imperatives (Mullen & Copper, 1994). This factor is known to facilitate athletic
performance by motivating and regulating effort and strategic thinking. The greater
the perception of team cohesion is, the greater the collective efficacy is. Cohesion
and collective efficacy appear to share some commonality. Team cohesion includes
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
both an interpersonal element, such as mutual linking and affiliation, and an
aspiration element encompassing a collective efficacy and shared goal. Evidence
reveals that collective efficacy impact team cohesion on team performance (Mullen
& Copper, 1994).
Spink (1990) documents that perceived collective efficacy is related to team
processes as well as to team performance. Teams with a strong sense of collective
efficacy have high cohesiveness, whereas those of low collective efficacy experience
more factionalism. Both cohesion and collective efficacy have a positive impact on
team performance and a positive impact on persistence. From researchers’ findings,
teams scoring high on cohesion measures tend to show increased persistence in
pursuing team performance. The researchers demonstrated that teams who have high
collective efficacy and cohesion tend to persist despite experiencing failure (Hodges
& Carron, 1992).
There are individual differences in perceived collective efficacy. Individuals
occupying different positions or serving different functions within the same social
system may differ somewhat in how they view their team’s collective efficacy
(Bandura, 1993). The level of collective efficacy for any team may vary across
different domains o f activities. In social cognitive theory, the optimal strength of
efficacy beliefs differ while acquiring skills or using already developed skills
(Bandura, 1986).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
Outcomes of Collective Efficacy
Collective efficacy influences the type of future being sought, how to manage
resources, the plans and strategies constructed, the degree of effort put into team
endeavor, staying power when collective efforts fail to produce quick results or
encounter forcible opposition, and vulnerability to discouragement (Bandura, 1986).
These processes, which shared collective efficacy activate, affect how well team
members work together and how much they accomplish collectively.
Measurement of Collective Efficacy
There are several methods to measure collective efficacy in Bandura’s study
(Bandura, 1997). The first method is to define the aggregate of individuals’ self-
efficacy perceptions. An individual perception of self-efficacy will be closely
related to the identity of meaningful teams. The individuals are components of the
teams as well as influenced by the team. Thus, individuals’ perceptions recorded on
questionnaires may be aggregated and the mean applied as the score of collective
efficacy. However, there are disadvantages in this procedure. As stated earlier, a
task assigned to a team may indicate a need for a coordinated effort consisting of
more than a single combination o f members’ abilities. Aggregating the individuals’
self-efficacy perceptions may or may not sufficiently capture the belief in
capabilities related to team functioning that goes beyond individual performance.
The second method is an aggregation of individuals’ rating of the team’s
collective efficacy. This method was applied in the present study. Although the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
above two measures o f perceived collective efficacy differ in the relative weight
given to individual factors and social interactive factors, they are moderately
correlated empirically. Moreover, the relative predictiveness o f these two measures
of collective efficacy may vary depending on the degree of interdependence in the
production o f team attainments.
The third method is a team’s consensus response. This method involves team
decision-making. This is the most team-oriented way to obtain the collective
efficacy information. The advantage is that a team would discuss and reach
consensus on either a series of items or one general conclusion on collective
efficacy. Choice shift refers to the difference between the mean of individual choice
before discussion, and subsequent team discussion (Cohen & Zuber. 1991).
As with the first two method, however, there are disadvantages. It may
require additional team meeting time and cost. An individual’s questionnaire
response may be more efficient than coordinating a team meeting. Team members
are rarely of one mind in their appraisals. Team preconceptions have shown that
information exchange and social influence will often cause the team attitudes to
reflect the same direction. A team belief is best characterized by a representative
value for the beliefs o f its members and the degree of variability or consensus around
that central belief. Forming a consensual judgment of a team’s efficacy by team
discussion is subject to social persuasion and pressures for conformity. A few
influential individuals, especially the ones with more prestige or those in positions of
authority, can sway the team to a judgment that does not accurately represent the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
views o f many of its members. Therefore, a forced consensus can be highly
misleading. Moreover, measurement of collective efficacy by team deliberation can
raise or lower the very belief being measured, depending on the direction the
discussion takes to achieve the consensual judgment.
Enhancing Collective Efficacy
Collective efficacy may develop from direct knowledge or observation of
each other, but it is also enhanced by each member’ communicated confidence or
individual self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Individuals who feel efficacious and
express this belief in their own capabilities, are likely to perceive that together they
compared with a team high collective efficacy. Therefore, collective efficacy would
be expected to benefit from stronger individual self-efficacy. Bandura’s (1988)
research, disclosed collective efficacy needs time to develop. As time passed,
collective efficacy was more closely tied to team performance than self-efficacy.
Team Anxiety
Just as it is important to understand how teams think, it is also important to
understand how they feel (team anxiety). Such feeling is likely to have wide-ranging
affects on the functioning of teams, their members, and the organization as a whole.
Perceptions and abilities o f the team members affect how the anxiety is evaluated
and what its initial effect will be. The effect of anxiety depends upon how the
anxiety is evaluated and the effectiveness o f the coping responses. It is not true that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
all anxiety is destructive. Some researchers have indicated that environments where
there is too little anxiety have negative psychological consequences (Paulus, Larey &
Ortega, 1997). The anxiety o f individuals in teams is always present in different
shapes and degrees within organizations. The type o f team anxiety (competitive
anxiety or social anxiety) experienced in a workplace is likely to be related to the
nature o f the work undertaken and environment in which it is undertaken. One of the
outcomes of team anxiety is that team anxiety may inhibit team members’
participation in team’s activities (Allen & Stephenson, 1983).
Basic Concepts of Anxiety as a Individual Difference
Stress is a perceived threat, to which the subsequent response may be anxiety.
A stressful situation is one containing stimuli or circumstances calculated to arouse
anxiety in the individual (Spielberge, Chi, Gorsuch & Lushene, 1979). They
indicated two views o f anxiety—as trait anxiety and as state anxiety.
Trait Anxiety. Trait anxiety is defined as a disposition that predisposes an
individual to perceive a wide range of objectively non-dangerous circumstances as
threatening and to respond to them with state anxiety reactions disproportionate in
intensity to the magnitude of the objective danger. Trait anxiety is conceptualized as
a relatively stable difference in anxiety proneness. This anxiety is an individual
difference in anxiety proneness. Trait anxiety is a relatively stable pre-disposition to
perceive a wide range of situations as threatening and to respond to such threats with
state anxiety (Spielberger, Chi, Gorsuch & Lushene, 1979).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
State Anxiety. State anxiety is defined as subjective, a consciously perceived
feeling of apprehension and tension, accompanied by, or associated with, activation
or arousal of the autonomic nervous system. State anxiety varies in intensity and
fluctuates over time. It is characterized by tension and apprehension and activation
of the autonomous nervous system. State anxiety includes feelings of apprehension
and tension that fluctuate proportional to the perceived threat in the immediate
situation.
Further, Libby, Trotman and Zimmer (1987) proposed that anxiety breaks
into two components: worry and emotionality. They defined worry as the cognitive
elements of the anxiety experience, such as negative expectations and cognitive
concerns about oneself. They defined emotionality as one’s perception of the
physiological-affective elements o f autonomic arousal and unpleasant feeling states
such as nervousness and tension (Hackman & Morris, 1985).
Test Anxiety. Hembree and Cohen (1993) found that test anxiety (particular
worry) causes poor performance and relates inversely to students’ self-esteem and
directly to their forms of anxiety. The conditions that give rise to differential test
anxiety levels include ability, gender, and school grade level. Test anxiety
individuals divide their attention between task-relevant activities and pre
occupations with worry, self-criticism, and somatic concerns (O’ Neil & Franker,
1992). With less attention available for task-directed effort, individuals’
performance is decreased.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
Optimal Level of Arousal Theory. Yerkes and Dodson (1908) proposed an
optimal level of arousal theory. They asserted that the relationship between anxiety
and performance is curvilinear and not linear. That is, performance will increase
with greater anxiety only to a certain point after which performance will decrease
due to the debilitating physical and psychological effects of excessive anxiety.
Definitions of Team Anxiety
Team Affective Tone
There are two dimensions of affective tone: positive affective tone and
negative affective tone. The dimensions are caused by different factors, have
different relationships with behaviors, and have different consequences for teams.
Positive affective tone is described by terms such as interested, excited, strong,
enthusiastic, proud, alert, inspired, determined, attentive and active (Clark & Fiske,
1982). Negative affective tone is described by terms such as anxiety, distressed,
upset, guilty, scared, hostile, irritable, ashamed, nervous, jittery, and afraid (Clark &
Fiske, 1982). Team anxiety is a kind of negative affective tone. George (1990)
defined team affective tone as a consistent or homogeneous affective reaction within
a team.
If team members experience similar kinds of affective tone at work, then that
affective tone is meaningful at the team level. If members of a team experience
different kinds o f affective tone at work, then the team does not have an affective
tone and affective tone is only meaningful at the individual level. However,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
sometimes team affective tone might not exist at all. For example, relatively
homogeneous affective tone in a team may not be that common when team members
perform different kinds of tasks and receive different kinds o f outcomes.
There are three kinds of team anxiety: competitive team anxiety, social team
anxiety, and environment team anxiety.
Competitive Team Anxiety
One kind of team anxiety is competitive team anxiety. From [Crane, William
and Feltz’s (1992) multidimensional team anxiety theory, competitive team anxiety
is conceptualized in two components: cognitive anxiety and somatic anxiety.
Somatic anxiety is characterized in terms of physical symptoms of arousal, such as
increased heart rate (Martens, 1977). Somatic anxiety has been proposed to be a
conducted response to the competitive environment (Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump
& Smith, 1990). Previous team performance has also been found to be related to
somatic anxiety (Krane & Williams, 1986). For example, athletes who performed
better in the past had lower somatic anxiety than athletes who were less successful.
Cognitive anxiety involves a team member’ thoughts and feelings about competition,
that is, team members’ worry or concern about team performance in competition
(Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump & Smith, 1982). Cognitive anxiety is characterized
by negative thoughts, inability to concentrate, and disrupted attention. This anxiety
is thought to emanate from evaluative cues, negative performance expectations
(Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump & Smith, 1990).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
Competitive experience has been found to predict cognitive anxiety (Could,
Petlichkoff & Weinberg, 1984). For example, collegiate wrestlers with many years
of competitive experience had lower cognitive anxiety than their less-experienced
peers. Krane and Finch (1991) also indicated that trait cognitive anxiety has been
found to predict state cognitive anxiety and trait somatic anxiety can predict state
somatic anxiety.
Social Team Anxiety
Social team anxiety includes embarrassability and social physique anxiety
(Krane & Finch, 1991). With high social team anxiety, team members felt more
nervous, they were more distracted, and perceived that time passed more slowly, and
they felt more pressure to come up with as many ideas as other teams (Krane &
Finch, 1991). When team members imagined how another team member would
evaluate them, socially team anxious members thought they would be evaluated
more negatively than less-anxious team members in every situation.
In contrast, team members with low social team anxiety thought they
personally would be evaluated more positively than other people. Social team
anxiety may reduce team creativity/innovation. Social team anxiety is an important
factor in the productivity loss in brainstorming teams. For example, team members
who are naturally very anxious about social interaction during brainstorming
experienced difficulty in generating ideas in teams (Bond & Smith, 1996). The
implication here is that teams with high social team anxiety prefer to create ideas
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
alone. Also, social anxiety has negative effects on team performance. Team
performance with team members having high social-team anxiety is usually lower
than team performance with team members having low social-team anxiety.
Environment Team Anxiety
Payne and Cooper (1981) proposed that the degree of environment o f team
anxiety can be conceptualized as resulting from the relative balance of three factors—
demands, constraints, and supports. In their study’s results, demands in teams will
reflect quantity and quality of the product or service the team is working toward.
Constraints include time schedule, resources, and organizational structures/rules.
Support largely comes from other people such as bosses, colleagues or families and
norms that the general culture sustains about trust. Warmth and altruism are clearly
direct and indirect influences on the support dimension. Support can also be derived
from less people-centered sources such as money.
An optimal environment is when demands and support are high, while
constraints are low (Payne & Cooper, 1981). Low demands, low support, and a
high-constraint environment lead to a low psychological activation, apathy, and
depression. Low demands, high support, and low constraint environment encourage
relaxation and recuperation (holiday and friendship teams). High demands. low
support and high constraints may produce exhaustion, breakdown and other
destructive processes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
Individual Self-anxietv in Teams
Self-anxiety in teams arises from each individual’s attempt to construct a
psycho-dynamic equilibrium between one’s demands for adequate self-identity and
team membership. This is a basic anxiety, a fear of self-disintegration, called
annihilation anxiety (Frosch, 1983). For example, the homogeneous team is the most
primitive form of basic anxiety. Its characteristic is the lack of self-object
differentiation. Team members experience difficulty in distinguishing between self
and other and have great difficulty in achieving meaningful interaction with each
other.
Factors Influencing Team Anxiety
Constraint is a factor influencing team anxiety. Constraint is defined as any
anything which places exterior demands or prohibitions on the team while the team
is trying to accomplish the project they have committed to do (Krane & Finch,
1991). For example, team anxiety can arise from uncertainty about how long the
task will take. The constraints of the team can be divided into two sets o f forces
externally—material or physical constraints and social constraints. Social
constraints can be divided into cognitive, emotional, and behavioral constraints
(Krane & Finch, 1991). Social constraints include belief systems or ideologies
which prevent or discourage team members from thinking in certain ways (Payne &
Cooper, 1981). For example, a lack o f belief in the value of the mathematical
techniques for solving mathematical problems is an example of cognitive constraints.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
One of the major intra-team constraints is the interpersonal skill of the team
members and this can increase environmental anxiety by making it more difficult to
meet team demands (Krane & Finch, 1991).
Internal Causes o f Team Anxiety. Much anxiety among teams is brought by
the teams themselves (Argyris, 1993). For example, team anxiety can be increased if
the team itself makes the achievement of the task an urgent goal or sets a high
standard of quality or quantity. Team anxiety can be energizing and positive if it is
in moderate proportions. But if high performance standards become the goals, rather
than the means, o f task achievement, this can create destructive levels of team
anxiety. Team performance may be constrained by the quality and experience of its.
team members and this continual failure itself becomes a source of team anxiety.
Team anxiety can also arise from the team’s self-imposed goals, for example, the
search for political power (Argyris, 1993). Much of the team anxiety is produced
because the team strives to obtain or maintain political power. Furthermore, Argyris
(1993) indicates that much of the ineffectiveness o f teams arises from the
interpersonal incompetency o f team members. It induces team anxiety and it
prevents the use o f social support for buffering the effects o f anxiety (Payne &
Cooper, 1981).
How to Reduce Team Anxiety
Cohesive teams with collaborative problem-solving processes can provide a
stable base to reduce team anxiety (Dailey, 1979). Cohesive teams can buffer team
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
members from perceived team anxiety and enable team members to deal with
uncertainty in a more creative and innovative way.
Measurement of Team Anxiety
In a team level analysis, individual self-reports of anxiety can be aggregated
to the team level analysis and the mean scores can be used as the measures o f team
anxiety (Argyris, 1993). However, if the measurement o f team members’ agreement
is low, then the aggregated scores should not be used, as they are essentially
meaningless for teams that do not have an affective tone. In the present study, team
state anxiety rather than team trait anxiety was measured. Time frames for these
self-report scales were short-time, for example, the past week, so as to avoid
inadvertently measuring a trait anxiety rather than a state anxiety. Furthermore,
there are routine alternatives to this measurement such as using a third party to
observe the team anxiety. Further, research is needed to determine the
appropriateness of such measures.
Relationships Among Study Variables
Relationship Between Team Anxiety
and Team Performance
It is the way in which team members perceive and cope with the team anxiety
that determines its effect on team performance (Oxendine, 1990). Perceptions and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
abilities of the team affect how team anxiety is evaluated and what its initial
influence on the team performance might be. The effect of the team anxiety on team
performance depends on how the team anxiety is evaluated and the effectiveness of
the coping response (Oxendine, 1990). Too little or too much anxiety is thought to
be detrimental and it is possible this relationships might be curvelinear (Sonstroem &
Bernardo, 1982).
Athletes with insufficient anxiety are thought to lack motivation and are not
physiologically prepared for optimal performance. Athletes suffering from excessive
arousal also are unable to function optimally. Different degrees o f anxiety are
needed to maximize performance in different activities. For example, Oxendine
( 1990) found that strength-oriented sports such as weightlifting and football require
high anxiety, whereas, skill-oriented sports such as golf, require low anxiety for
optimal performance. A moderate level o f team anxiety promotes team performance
(Oxendine, 1990). At this time, foe team is able to move between relaxed and
energetic states where learning and team growth can take place without serious
damage or cost. For example, a certain amount of physiological anxiety is essential
for peak athletic performance. Teams operating in environments that have too little
anxiety, often produce little challenging consequences.
Some studies suggested that anxiety can reduce performance in many
situations (Bandura, 1987). Bandura (1987) noted that collective efficacy are based
on past performance, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion and emotional arousal.
Team anxiety may influence collective efficacy which in turn may influence team
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
performance. A social cognitive theory suggests that team anxiety may influence
collective efficacy (Bandura, 1989) or collective efficacy may influence team anxiety
(Could & Krane, 1992). Martin’s (1984) research proposed that cognitive team
anxiety and somatic team anxiety relate differently to athletic performance and have
different antecedents. He concluded that cognitive team anxiety negatively affects
athletic performance while somatic team anxiety will have a curvilinear relationship
with team performance.
Under high team anxiety, cohesive teams can have poor team performance
through groupthink (Could & Krane, 1992). Groupthink is a complex process in
which teams have a variety o f dysfunctional decision-making problem such as
disregarding new information to protect an apparent consensus. For example, this
may occur in high-ranking teams who make decisions with little outside help.
According to social psychology, working collectively should decrease anxiety which
results in enhancing team performance on difficult tasks. In Paulus and Dzindolet’s’
(1993) research, for a complex task, larger teams performed worse than smaller
teams when given competitive tasks and better when given cooperative instructions.
Usually, social loafing is considered to highlight a negative aspect of team
performance. To the contrary, however, social loafing has been shown to enhance
team performance and reduce team anxiety when team members work collectively
on difficult tasks.
From Wickens, Barnett, Stokes, Davis and Hyman’s (1989) research on the
impact of anxiety on performance, it was found that anxiety degraded performance
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
on those problems imposing high demand on working memory, but left unaffected
performance on those problems imposing high demand on the retrieval of facts from
long-term memory. Wickens, Barnett, Stokes, Davis and Hyman’s (1989) indicated
that anxiety was related to decrements in working memory but not in declarative
memory. So anxiety can interfere with short-term memory, that is, one effect of
anxiety may be a retrieval problem. On the other hand, Oxendine (1990) indicated
that higher levels of anxiety would be related to more successful performance in
sports requiring more generalized motor control.
Relationship Between Team Anxiety
and Collective Efficacy
According to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), anxiety is a source of
efficacy information. One’s level of anxiety is interpreted by the individual and that
information is used in developing self-efficacy. The self-efficacy then will directly
impact actual performance. Collective efficacy will have a direct impact on team
anxiety. Cognitive team anxiety may have resulted in distracted and erratic thinking
(Bandura, 1989). This causes lower collective efficacy. Teams who have higher
collective efficacy can reduce cognitive team anxiety. Low collective efficacy also
will influence cognitive team anxiety (Feltz, 1992). For example, golfers who had
lower collective efficacy would have higher cognitive team anxiety than golfers who
had higher collective efficacy who would have lower cognitive team anxiety. It can
be seen that a specific balance of moderate levels o f collective efficacy and cognitive
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
team anxiety, as well as somatic team anxiety, are necessary for optimal team
performance. These factors do not affect performance independently. For example,
athletes who receive high team ranking in the gross motor skills possessed high
levels of both collective efficacy and somatic team anxiety (Feltz, 1992).
Psychological regression interaction in teams diminish collective efficacy.
Regression in teams stems from team anxiety that is defined as a reaction against an
environmental circumstance that is perceived as threatening to the self (Taylor,
1994). Taylor (1994) indicated that two psychological variables exert considerable
influence on team performance: collective efficacy and anxiety. Teams with high
collective efficacy are more likely to initiate and persist at highly anxious activities.
This perseverance will increase their feelings of collective efficacy and reduce the
activity’s threat potential. High collective efficacy produces team’s success, reduces
team anxiety, and lowers one’s susceptibility to depression (Bandura, Barbaranelli,
Caprara & Pastorelli, 1997).
Collective efficacy may be influenced by team cognitive anxiety. Team
cognitive anxiety was found to increase after a competitive situation when negative
feedback was provided, while positive evaluation feedback was related to a decrease
in team cognitive anxiety (McElroy, 1990). For example, in sports psychology,
where volleyball players performed poorly, their subsequent team cognitive anxiety
was increased. This team cognitive anxiety then may have resulted in distracted and
erratic thinking (Bandura, 1989). Thus, it caused lower collective efficacy.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
Relationship Between Team Anxiety and
Team Performance
The relationship between anxiety and performance is curvilinear, and not
linear. This is from Yerkes and Dodson’s (1908) optimal level of arousal theory.
That is, performance will increase with greater anxiety only to a certain point, after
which performance will decrease due to the debilitating physical and psychological
effects of excessive anxiety. According to social psychology, working collectively
should decrease anxiety, which results in enhancing team performance on difficult
tasks(Paulus & Dzindolet, 1993). In Paulus and Dzindolet (1993) research, fora
complex task, larger teams performed worse than smaller teams when given
competitive instructions, and better when given cooperative instructions. Usually,
social loafing decreases team performance in larger teams. However, social loafing
may not always be a bad thing. In fact, social loafing has now been shown to
enhance team performance and possibly reduce team anxiety when individuals work
collectively on difficult tasks (Paulus & Dzindolet, 1993). Furthermore, cohesive
teams under team anxiety can have poor team performance through groupthink.
Groupthink is a complex process in which teams exhibit a variety o f dysfunctional
decision-making symptoms. This may occur in high-ranking teams who make
discussions with little outside help.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
Relationship Between Collective Efficacy
and Team Performance
Beliefs of collective efficacy predict level of team performance (Little &
Madigan, 1994). The stronger the beliefs people hold about their collective
capabilities, the more they achieve. This is true regardless of whether the team’s
sense of efficacy develops naturally or is created experimentally (Little & Madigan,
1994). Also, according to Bandura (1987), performance accomplishments are the
most dependable and thus the most weighted sources of efficacy information. A low
collective efficacy begins with a belief that the team is not as strong as the
opposition. The team then fails in competition which influences team performance.
Consequently, the team may come to expect failure in subsequent competitions
against the same opponent. This expectation would, in turn, influence their
persistence on the task.
The contribution o f perceived collective efficacy to team performance is
replicated across diverse social systems, including schools, organizations, and
athletic teams (Bandura, 1987). Collective efficacy affects motivation in team
performance. Team members with high collective efficacy will be more motivated
to perform well. Collective efficacy in the task-specific ability is a contributing
factor in the team performance. That is, for team members to be motivated to
perform necessary teamwork behaviors, they must be confident that their team can
master the task and achieve their goal (Bandura, 1987).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
Mastery modeling enhances the efficacy beliefs of others, which, in turn,
increase their team performance (McAuley, 1985). For example, among elite
volleyball teams, team players’ beliefs in their teams’ competitive efficacy,
measured before the tournament, predicted their performance success in the contests.
Collective efficacy appeared to have an impact on team performance more clearly
than does the aggregation of self-efficacy (McAuley, 1985). The power of collective
efficacy is sometimes more than the sum of self-efficacy. For example, in an ice
hockey team, power play and scoring percentage correlated more strongly with
collective efficacy than with self-efficacy (McAuley, 1985).
Overconfidence Reduces Team Performance. Overconfidence from various
cognitive decision biases has been linked to an increased probability of poor
performance (Russo & Schoemaker, 1992). He indicated that continued success can
breed complacency and overconfidence, decreasing vigilance and increasing the
probability of failures.
Relationship Between Team Creativity/Innovation
and Team Anxiety
A moderate level of team anxiety is associated with creativity/innovation
achievement (Wallach, 1965). Pelz (1988), in a study of 1,300 scientists and
engineers, found that team members were more effective when they experienced a
creative anxiety between sources of stability or security on the one hand, and sources
of disruption or challenge on the other. However, a high level o f team anxiety can
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
team creativity/innovation. For example, a high level of anxiety was reported by an
R&D team: the creation of a anxious environment— one in which people feel that
they have too many responsibilities to too many people and too many leaders (Pelz,
1989). So team members who feel unsafe in a team are less likely to be contributors
to a creative team process. The anxiety promoted by a team leader also has an effect
on team creativity/innovation.
Convergent and divergent thinking are characteristic of all teams (Pelz,
1989). Convergent thinking takes existing input information and derives an answer
based on that information. Divergent thinking is more concerned with the fluency
and flexibility of thinking, that is, with the flow of ideas and readiness to change
direction or modify information. Team anxiety often leads to a narrow focus of
thought which is characterized by convergent thought (Easterbrook, 1959). In
creative teams, team members may experience social anxiety. For example,
evaluation apprehension makes creative teams prone to social anxiety (Leary, 1993).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design
A non-experimental survey design was used to obtain the data necessary to
complete the present study. The dependent variable in this study was team
performance. The independent variables in this study were team
creativity/innovation, team anxiety, and collective efficacy. A correlational
approach served to verify the existence and strengths of the relationships among
collective efficacy, team anxiety, team creativity/innovation, and team performance.
A path analysis (linear regression analysis) design facilitates the analysis of the
relationships among all study variables. This analysis was conducted to determine
the strength o f specific relationships and to evaluate the variance and significance of
the relationships between each of the independent variables and the dependent
variable.
Data
The present study employed primary data and a non-experimental design.
Data for this study were collected from 62 R&D teams in a high-technological
industry in Taiwan (semiconductor companies and related technological companies).
The form of data collection in this study is the survey (questionnaires). A 5-point
Likert type measure was used for each item. Although data were collected from each
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
individual team member, conclusions from the data were generalized to the team as a
whole by average the individual data.
Participants
The present study included a total o f 12 semiconductor and related
technological companies in Taiwan. The total number of respondents was 434. The
434 participants comprised 62 teams. The team size ranges from 3 members/each
team to 9 members/each team. Most o f the teams were located in the Hsin-Chu
Science-Based Industrial Park in what is referred to as Taiwan’s Silicon Valley.
Others were located in the biggest city in Taiwan which is Taipei. These companies
have consistently invested heavily in research and development in the evolution of
advanced Integrated Circuit (1C) technology over the past ten years. Their products,
for example, are 1C wafers foundry, logic chipsets, x86 processors, and
communication and networking chips for PCs and internet appliances. Some of
these companies are the world’s leading designers o f core logic chipsets. One
company, VTA, is the largest IC design firm in Taiwan. Their products enhance the
power and usefulness of PCs and internet appliances. Most o f the companies have
joint ventures with foreign companies. The companies’ highly skilled and
experienced engineers are complemented by the strong multinational management
teams with extensive technical backgrounds. This mixture of engineering and
managerial talent is supported by the company’s strong research and development
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8 1
teams. Depending on the global sales and marketing teams, the most advanced
technologies and performance can be delivered at the most economical price.
Participants were randomly selected from 62 teams o f several large R&D
teams. Most participants were highly educated. More than 80% held a masters
degree or a Ph.D. degree, with the area of highest degree about equally split between
science and engineering. About 92% were male and the average age was 31.2 years
old.
Research and Development Teams (R&D Teams)
The unit of analysis in this study is the team. The type of team is the research and
development team in a high technology industry. Global companies are heeding the
competition and accelerating the research and development process. The scientist
working alone in a laboratory has been replaced by R&D teams whose purpose is to
reduce the time it takes for new ideas and products to reach the marketplace. R&D
teams are teams o f professionals whose mission is to conduct research, design and
planning (Sundstrom, 1990). Those work structures are often permanent
components o f the organization, although team membership may vary from project
to project. In some R&D teams, team performance may depend on a heterogeneity
of task-related abilities or specialties (Goodman, 1986). But such teams often have
short life spans and limited time to work, so members interpersonal skills help team
performance (Hackman, 1987). The types of R&D teams in this study were new
product teams, applied research teams, project teams, and multidisciplinary teams. A
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
new product team is a cross-functional team that has the potential to improve
inter-unit coordination and to allow the projects to be done in parallel, not just
sequentially, and to reduce delays that result from the failure to include necessary
information from throughout the organization. Cross-functional teams offer two
potential advantages. First, the team has direct access to expertise that would not be
available if all team members were from the same area. Second, since the team
includes manufacturing and marketing representations, product transfer is facilitated.
Multidisciplinary R&D teams provide a structure for bring together team members
with diverse technical backgrounds needed for innovations.
The R&D teams in this present study brought together experts with a variety
of knowledge and backgrounds, with the expectation that such teams would be more
likely to generate innovative ideas for new products and services. These R&D teams
had team processes that are reciprocal in nature. In this interdependent team setting,
interactions were more dynamic in nature, and work flowed back and forth, between
team members. As a result, team members’ roles became less distinguishable and
highly interdependent, and team performance was a function of more complex forms
of coordination. Also, these R&D teams were intensively interdependent. Team
members worked together closely to diagnose and solve problems in performing the
innovations.
In this present study, in Taiwan, where collectivist values prevail, an equal
distribution of rewards are favored, whereas the Americans are in favor of
differentiating on the basis of individual contribution.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
The subjects o f this study, Taiwanese, is a collectivist culture. They favor
cooperation or competition that depends on their relationship with the other parties
(Smith & Bond, 1993). They are more concerned with long-term commitment, more
deferent toward authority, and more concerned with in-team harmony, but are just as
competitive with out-teams. Hofstede (1983) indicated that the Taiwanese value
harmony in learning situations, whereas in the West, learning in a more participative
or confronting nature is preferred. Earley’s (1993) study showed that team members
worked harder than did individuals working on their own in Taiwan, whereas USA
team members showed a social loafing effect. Typical attributes o f Taiwanese work
teams are said to be high work involvement, long-term time perspective, high
organizational commitment, low difference of special roles, acceptance of hierarchy,
and collective decision-making. Within collectivist (for example, Taiwanese)
cultures, participation may restrict individual’s freedom to be creative but enhance
social motivation to perform well. It can be seen that participation and obligations of
team membership vary by cultural differences.
Data Collection Procedures
Instruments
The method of team measurement specifies how data on teams can be
collected. Team measurement strategies refer to instruments used to measure
various team attributes and include questionnaires, observations, interviews, or
archival data. In this study, survey or questionnaires were used. The questionnaire
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
and team performance appraisal measurement were developed for this study. The
questionnaires were handed out to team managers or to a contact person for each
team. Each team member was given instructions for filling out the questionnaire that
was used to measure team anxiety, collective efficacy, and team
creativity/innovation. Each team member then completed the questionnaire alone
and returned it to the managers or contact person, who sent them back to the
investigator. All questionnaires were completed anonymously, and participants were
assured o f strict confidentiality. Also, the team manager or team leader was given a
performance appraisal questionnaire to evaluate each team’s performance as the
team performance score.
Questionnaire Measures. Questionnaires were distributed to 62 teams in this
study. The questionnaire in this study is showed on Appendices. The questionnaires
had two sections. Section I of the questionnaire dealt with general biographical
details of the team members, including age, gender, educational level, position,
length of time working in the team, team size, and whether a temporary team or a
permanent team.
Section II gathered information about each team member’s perceptions o f the
whole team’s collective efficacy, team anxiety, and team creativity/innovation on a
rating scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). A team performance score
was assessed by each team manager or team leader and was the dependent variable
in this study. Although data were collected from each individual team member,
conclusions from the data were generalized to the team as a whole.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
Measure for Collective Efficacy. Collective efficacy items were constructed
specifically for the research and development tasks performed and assessed their
judgments o f how well each member thought they could meet certain performance.
A key element in the assessment of collective efficacy is the perception of
competence in coordination of activities (Zaccaro, 1994). Compared to the
aggregation of individuals’ ratings of their perceptions of self-efficacy, this study
used an aggregation of individuals’ ratings of whole team’s collective efficacy.
According to Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara and Pastorelli (1997), on highly
interactive tasks or in situations in which there is a high degree of interdependence
required to achieve success, the measurement should be an aggregation individuals’
rating of the team’s collective efficacy. Collective efficacy strength is defined as the
mean confidence rating for all confidence items. This measurement involved
assessment of the team member’s perception of the team’s confidence in its skills
and abilities to coordinate member resources. The ranging is a one to five scale ( I =
Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). The six-item questionnaire for collective
efficacy is follows. The items are from Buchholz (1993), Bums and Watson (1991),
Mirvis and Cammann (1992), and James, Demare and Wolf (1993), but they are
revised to be task-specific for this study.
1. For better evolution of advanced IC technology, I believe that better
decisions are always made in a team rather than by an individual.
2. My team is a very important entity in the world’s semiconductor
industry.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
3. Our team is insecure about its ability to advance PC hardware and
software design.
4. The semiconductor industry is highly skilled and experienced, we are
confident that our team’s collective wisdom is greater than the stun of
its individual members.
5. Demands for faster design cycles have increased. We are confident
that the team can meet every product development schedule
successfully.
6. My team does not seem capable of dealing with most problems that
arise.
Measure for Team Creativity/Innovation. This scale contains six items
concerned with an individual team member’s perceptions of the production of new
ideas or procedures by a team working together, and the supporting climate for the
stimulation of new ideas. Compared to the aggregation o f individuals’ rating o f their
perceptions o f their own creativity, this study uses an aggregation o f individuals’
rating of the whole team’s creativity. The ranging is from one to five (1 = Strongly
Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). A six-item questionnaire for team
creativity/innovation follows. The items are from Abbey (1983), De Bono (1992),
Paulus and Camacho (1993) and West (1990), but the items were revised to be task-
specific.
I. My team is always searching for new technologies to meet the new
demands o f the PC industry.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
2. When we work as a member of the team, every team member strives
to design our own brand of IC products.
3. My team members’ creativity is stimulated most when working on a
team.
4. I find it hard to generate novel ideas in a team situation.
5. My team is provided practical support for new ideas and product
development.
6. My team is willing to do new things and to experiment with change.
Measure for Team Anxiety. This scale comprises six items that explore an
individual team member’s perceptions of social team anxiety, environmental team
anxiety, and competitive team anxiety. Item 1 and Item 6 are social team anxiety
questions. Item 3 is a cognitive team anxiety question. Item 2, Item 4, and Item 5
are environmental team anxiety questions. Compared to aggregation o f individuals’
rating of their perceptions o f their own anxiety, this study uses an aggregation of
individuals’ rating of the entire team anxiety. The range is from one to five (1 =
Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). A six-item questionnaire for team anxiety is
as follows. The items are from Paulus, Larey and Ortega (1997) and Payne (1991).
1. I think my team members are prone to feel nervous in the team’s
social situation.
2. Lack of managers and colleagues’ support make my team members
feel nervous.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
3. I think my team members feel less anxious because they have more
competitive experience with other teams before.
4. My team members feel tense while having too many responsibilities.
5. Project development time schedules usually make my team members
feel nervous.
6. Previous good performance makes team members feel less anxious
now.
Measure for Team Performance. The nature of the team’s task and aspects of
team performance that are being measured should play an important role in
determining which particular method of measurement is most helpful to measure
team performance. The formats for measuring team performance include behavioral
checklists for measuring team skills and behaviors and surveys for measuring team
member attitudes. Compared to aggregation of the team manager’s or team leader’s
rating o f individual performance, this study uses the team manager’s or team leader’s
rating of the entire teams performance. This is based on Johansen’s (1988) research.
He indicated that it is better for a team member to assess the team performance as a
whole, than it is to assess one’s own contributions to the team performance. The
scale is designed to measure the level of each team performance on six dimensions.
The method for measuring team performance involves determining precisely what
should be done during a team task and then developing a checklist on the basis of
that information.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
Several studies of team performance have shown differences between team-
member performance ratings and managerial-performance ratings (Ancona, 1988).
In this study, the team performance measurement is the managerial-performance
rating. When more than one manager made these evaluations, their ratings were
averaged. For each team performance dimension, managers were providing
guidelines for the types of behaviors to use to guide their ratings. Each R&D team’s
manager in each company was asked to rate the team using 5-point Likert scales
ranging from 1 = Poor to 5 = Excellent. The source of this scale is from VIA
Technologies, Inc. Performance Appraisal Program (August, 1999 to July, 2000).
VIA Technologies, Inc. is the world’s leading computer chip suppliers o f core logic
chipsets. Also, VIA is the largest IC (Integrated Circuit) design firm in Taiwan. The
six-dimension team performance appraisal is as follows.
1. Performance both Quality and Quantity: performance versus standard
and volume.
2. Cooperation and Teamwork: their ability to work with peers.
3. Communication Skills: communicates team knowledge and ideas
verbally and in writing.
4. Problem-Solving Skills: demonstrates the ability to evaluate data,
approach, and solve challenges in a methodical organized manner.
5. Job Skills: team possesses and demonstrates the relevant skills.
6. Responsibility: the team can be depended on to be diligently and
reliably working.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
Mean Score as a Team Score. Independent variables in this study were
collective efficacy, team anxiety, and team creativity/innovation. The response of
each measure is the individual team member’s self-report on the team. Team scores
for each independent variable in this study were the mean scores of all individual
team members’ scores. The questionnaire was filled out by all team members
individually and was scored separately for each team member by aggregating the
numbers and dividing by the number of team size. Consequently, each team score
for each independent variable in this study was aggregated using each individual
score, then an average devised to compute their mean score for each team score.
Each mean score became the team score. It assumed that the same statistical
conclusions were reached when analyzed by teams as by individuals. For measuring
the dependent variable— team performance, the instrument required instructions to
each team manager or team leader to provide an overall evaluation of each team’s
performance for the last project. This score became the team performance score.
Each team had an overall team performance score.
Language Translation of Questionnaires. Questionnaires needed to be
translated into Chinese because the samples in this study are Chinese in Taiwan. The
questionnaires were translated into Chinese by two translators. Both o f them had
higher education degree in both Taiwan and the USA. A back-translation procedure
was used. Back-translations were reviewed to ensure that they possessed the same
meaning as the original. A re-translation from the Chinese version back into English
was then done by a natural English speaker who also knew Chinese very well, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
the two different English versions were then compared with each other for
differences in meaning. No major differences were salient. It was therefore
concluded that the Chinese items convey the same meanings as the corresponding
English items.
Treating The Data
The present study assumed that the unit of analysis was the team. Although
teams consist of multiple team members, in team research, science is interested in
making inferences back to the population of a team, not to the population of team
members. In this sense, the unit of analysis in team research is the team, not the
individual team members. James (1982) noted that when the theory and hypotheses
of a study require a certain level of analysis, as in the present study, aggregation may
be appropriate even without statistical justification. Hence, all variables were
aggregated to team means because the team was the unit of analysis. The present
study also assumed that team members were initially randomly assigned to teams. It
is further assumed that team research should be undertaken in nonlaboratory
situations with intact teams. On the basis of previous research on team dynamics, it
is assumed that in the present study, the teams possess most of the characteristics
used to differentiate teams from collections of independent individuals.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
Statistical Procedures
The scores collected by each team member were aggregated (i.e., averaged)
to form a mean score that describes the team’s level of collective efficacy, anxiety,
and creativity. First, descriptive statistics, means and standard deviations for all
variables were reported. Second, Cronbach’s alpha was computed to report internal
consistency reliability. A correlation matrix was computed to report the
interrelationship among all study variables. Then, the study used the path analysis
(linear regression analysis) to examine the effects of team anxiety, collective
efficacy, and team creativity/innovation on team performance and their
interrelationships. In order to justify that individual-level scores indeed reflect team-
level attributes, team measurement needed to empirically demonstrate adequate
within-team agreement. It was predicted that team members who work together on
a team over a period of time become more homogeneous with respect to one another
on perceptions of team attributes. An index o f interrater reliability providing an
indication of team agreement on the target measures should also be reported.
Interrater reliability can be used to measure the homogeneity o f members’
perceptions when they are considered to be random.
While cause and effect cannot be inferred with the descriptive design,
possible causal relationships can be suggested and serve as a basis for subsequent
experimental research. For example, one could experimentally manipulate collective
efficacy using this information and examine the effect o f such a manipulation on
team performance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
CHAPTER 4
RESULT AND ANALYSIS
Data Analysis
Descriptive Statistics
A total o f434 participants who comprised 62 teams were contacted and
offered to participate in this study. They came from 12 different companies. The
sample size ranged from 3 to 9 people in a team, with an average size 7.2
respondents (SD = 2.7). The mean age was 31.2 years old. The mean years as a
team (the longevity of a team) was 4.2 years.
Semiconductor and related technologies are expanding fast in Taiwan in the
past decade, and this explains the fairly short longevity. Descriptive statistics are
reported using team means and standard deviations. Means and standard deviations
for the major variables are described in Table 1. The mean team performance
measure was 4.0535 (SD = 0.4543). The mean collective efficacy was 3.8919 (SD =
0.4189). The mean of team creativity/innovation measure was 3.7066 (SD = 0.3908)
and the mean team anxiety was 2.4869 (SD = 0.5076).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
Table I
Means and Standard Deviations for Study Variables
Mean
Standard
Deviation N
Performance 4.0535 .4543 62
Efficacy 3.8919 .4189 62
Creativity 3.7066 .3908 62
Anxiety 2.4869 .5076 62
Internal Consistency Reliability Analysis
The internal consistency entails an analysis of the covariance among all items
of a measure simultaneously. Internal consistency was assessed by calculating
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (1951) for each variable. In this study, the reliability
for the team performance measure was 0.6908. The reliability for the team
creativity/innovation measure was 0.6042. The reliability for the team anxiety
measure was 0.6575, and the reliability for the collective efficacy measure was
0.6077. Internal consistency of the study variables are well above the level of
acceptance 0.60 (for internal consistency reliability, see
Table 2).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
Table 2
Internal Consistency Reliability
Dependent Variable: team performance
Item-total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Performance I
20.2581 5.802 .5069 .6191
Performance 2
20.0645 6.2909 .5406 .6138
Performance 3
20.4355 6.7417 .2849 .6992
Performance 4
20.5000 6.3197 .4783 .6315
Performance 5
20.0645 6.6843 .4943 .6328
Performance 6
20.0484 7.0632 .2724 .6966
Reliability Coefficients:
N of cases = 62
N of items = 6
Alpha = .6908
Independent Variable: team anxiety
Item-total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Anxiety 1 12.7419 6.4897 .4774 .5835
Anxiety 2 12.8387 6.3998 .5875 .5523
Anxiety 3 11.5968 6.3757 .3932 .6137
Anxiety 4 12.4677 6.9416 .2572 .6665
Anxiety 5 11.9677 6.5563 .3367 .6369
Anxiety 6 12.8226 7.3942 .3407 .6320
Reliability Coefficients:
N of cases = 62
N o f items = 6
Alpha = .6575
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
Table 2 Internal Consistency Reliability (Continued)
Independent Variable: collective efficacy
Item-total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Efficacy I 19.4194 3.9524 .4952 .4875
Efficacy 2 19.4677 4.3842 .4888 .5012
Efficacy 3 19.6129 5.2247 .1401 .6484
Efficacy 4 19.7742 5.1513 .2995 .5795
Efficacy 5 19.4839 5.0735 .3406 .5661
Efficacy 6 19.3387 4.7195 .3237 .5706
Reliability Coefficients:
N o f cases = 62
N of items = 6
Alpha = .6977
Independent Variable: team creativity
Item-total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Creativity I 18.7419 4.1618 .3742 .5446
Creativity 2 18.5806 4.1496 .2560 .6021
Creativity 3 18.5806 4.7721 .1971 .6093
Creativity 4 18.8226 4.2467 .3968 .5383
Creativity 5 18.2903 3.9799 .3700 .5456
Creativity 6 18.2742 4.0383 .4624 .5104
Reliability Coefficients:
N o f cases = 62
N o f items = 6
Alpha = .6942
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
Interrater Reliability A nalysis
To aggregate the questionnaire responses o f individual team members to the
team level, agreement among team members in their ratings had to be demonstrated.
The analysis of homogeneity in terms o f interrater reliability supports the view that
team members respond in similar ways. Because team size varied from team to
team, a value o f 0.60 or above is considered by most researchers to be an acceptable
level of rater homogeneity. The present study calculated interrater reliability for
each measure. The interrater reliability for the measure of team creativity/innovation
is 0.6087. The interrater reliability for the measure of team anxiety is 0.6124 and the
interrater reliability for the measure of collective efficacy is 0.6333. All of the
interrater reliabilities are above 0.60. The finding suggests that it is appropriate to
aggregate individual responses to the team level on these measures. Interrater
reliabilities ranged from 0.60 to 0.69, which indicated a moderate degree of
consensus (for interrater reliabilities, see Table 3).
Table 3
Interrater Reliability
N of Cases = 62 N o f least raters = 3
Reliability coefficient (alpha) for team creativity = 0.6087
Reliability coefficient (alpha) for team anxiety = 0.6142
Reliability coefficient (alpha) for collective efficacy = 0.6333
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
Reliability Issues. A reliable measure orders objectively with respect to a
common attribute in a consistent manner from one instance of measurement to
another. Another useful way of thinking about reliability is a measure’s freedom
from measurement error. There are multiple ways that a measure can be unreliable
because there are several sources of measurement error, for example, time period of
measurement, raters, measure content. Reliability includes internal consistency and
temporal stability of the measurement tool as well as interrater reliability. Interrater
reliability examines whether team members who work together on a team over a
period of time are homogeneous with respect to one another on perceptions of team
attributes.
In this study, when perceptions at the level of individual can be aggregated to
a higher level construct (team score), interrater reliability is the index used to
represent this collective interpretation. Interrater reliability is used to demonstrate
this perceptual consensus. When team members perceive the team to function within
the team in the same way, then a perceptual consensus exists. Failure to consider the
individual level to represent a team level of analysis may result in aggregation bias
(James, 1982). When researchers use aggregated data to represent a team level
construct, the assumption is that the aggregated variable is isomorphic in function
with the construct at the team level (Mossholder & Bedeian, 1983).
James (1982) indicated that only when an acceptable degree of consensus
exists can individual level data be aggregated to a team level construct. In support of
our procedures, however, the measures used to derive individual perceptions
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
pertained to team-level activity, and methodological analysis (interrater reliability)
may provide support for a team-level interpretation. James, Demarce and Wolf
(1993) provide an index of interrater reliability that can be used to measure the
homogeneity of team members’ perceptions when they are considered to be random.
If team members fail to demonstrate adequate interrater reliability, Kumar, Watson
and Michaelsen (1993) suggest that they can be brought together to reach some form
of consensus about the appropriate levels o f team attributes.
In summary, reliability was analyzed at two levels in this study. First, when
team skills and behaviors were being observed by the team managers and these team
managers made judgments regarding team performance, the reliability of these team
managers had to be established. Second, with respect to the measurement tools
themselves, the internal consistency o f these measures was determined. A common
standard for internal consistency is a coefficient alpha of 0.60. Komaki (1997)
suggests that any measure that requires judgment by an individual team member
should demonstrate that interdependent raters agree on their recordings and obtain
interrater reliability scores of 0.60 or better. Both the standard for internal
consistency and interater reliabilities were met for ail variables in this present study.
Validity Analysis
In this study, the collective efficacy measure had face validity (Bandura,
2001). The construct of collective efficacy also is embedded in a theory that
explains a network of relationships among various factors. Construct validity is a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 0 0
process o f hypothesis testing. For example, people who score high on perceived
collective efficacy should differ in distinct ways from those who score low in ways
specified by the theory. There is no single validity coefficient, nor is only measure
valid for all purposes. Construct validation is an ongoing process.
The present study required content validity and construct validity. Validity
refers to the inference that can be made about an attribution from its measures. First,
content validity involves an inference about the adequacy of the procedures used to
develop a measure. From Kerlinger’s (1973) point o f view, content validity refers to
the representative of sampling adequacy of the content o f a measuring instrument.
For example, for collective efficacy, to what extent does the measure o f collective
efficacy represent the theoretically and operationally identified aspects of collective
efficacy? Content validation strategies ensure that appropriate information is being
sampled regarding a specific team construct. In this study, content was analyzed
from several existing measures of collective efficacy to enhance content validity.
Second, construct validity requires the testing and development of theory with
empirical research that uses one or more measures of an attribute. Construct
validation strategies will provide empirical evidence to support the existence o f these
constructs. The important issue for construct validity is that hypotheses must be
tested with empirical research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
Intercorrelations Among All Study Variables
Table 4
Correlations Matrix
Performance Efficacy Creativity Anxiety
Performance Pearson Correlation 1.000 .397” .154 .086
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .231 .507
Sum of Squares &
Cross-products
12.592 4.614 1.671 1.207
Covariance .206 7.565 E-02 2.740 E-02 1.978 E-02
N 62 62 62 62
Efficacy Pearson Correlation .397” 1.000 .181 -.074
Siq . (2-tailed) .001 .159 .568
Sum of Squares &
Cross-products
4.614 10.705 1.808 -.958
Covariance 7.565 E-02 .175 2.963 E-02 -1.571 E-02
N 62 62 62 62
Creativity Pearson Correlation .154 .181 1.000 -.105
Siq. (2-tailed) .231 .159 .416
Sum of Squares &
Cross-products
1.671 1.808 9.318 -1274
Covariance 2.740 E-02 2.963 E-02 .153 -2.088 E-02
N 62 62 62 62
Anxiety Pearson Correlation .086 -.074 -.105 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .507 .568 .416
Sum of Squares &
Cross-products
1.207 -.958 -1.274 15.720
Covariance 1.978 E-02 -1.571 E-02 -2.088 E-02
258
N 62 62 62 62
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Intercorrelations were computed by intercorrelating each measure. Pearson
product moment correlations were computed as estimates of the relationships among
collective efficacy, team anxiety, team creativity/innovation, and team performance
measures. Only the positive relationship (r = 0.3997, p<0.05) between collective
efficacy and team performance was significant (Table 4).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
Path Analysis (Linear Regression Analysis)
To test the hypotheses, regression was used (Table 5). The results indicate
that increasing collective efficacy increases team performance. The first hypothesis
that collective efficacy would have a positive effect on team performance is
supported. In reference to the other relationships in this study, the relationship
between collective efficacy and team creativity/innovation was positive but not
significant. There was no a significant relationship between team
creativity/innovation and team performance. The relationships between team anxiety
and team creativity/innovation and team anxiety and team performance were
negative but not significant. Path analysis can be used to assess the plausibility of a
particular causal model. However, it cannot be used to establish a particular causal
model as a true one. The results can be suggestive and serve as a basis for
subsequent experimental research. There are three equations in the path analysis
(linear regression analysis) in this study. In the first equation, the dependent variable
is team performance. The independent variables are team creativity/innovation,
team anxiety and collective efficacy. From this result, there is a significant positive
relationship between collective efficacy and team performance (Figure 2).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
Figure 2: The Results of Collective Efficacy, Team Anxiety and Team
Creativity/Innovation on Team Performance
Table 5 Path Analysis (Linear Regression Analysis)
First equation:
Dependent variable * team performance
Independent variable * team creativity, team anxiety, collective efficacy
Model Variables Entered Variables Removed 1 Method
1 Anxiety
Efficacy
Creativity
| Enter
Note: All requested variables were entered.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
Table 5 - Path Analysis (Linear Regression Analysis) (continued)
Coefficients
Non-standardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
I (Constant) 1.716 .746 2.299 .025
Efficacy .422 .131 .389 3.214 .002
Creativity .113 .141 .097 .799 .428
Anxiety .112 .07 .125 1.042 .302
Second equation:
Dependent variable = team Creativity/Innovation
Independent variable = team anxiety and collective efficacy
Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method
I Anxiety
Creativity
Enter
Note: All requested variables were entered.
Coefficients
Non-standardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
I (Constant) 3.310 .601 5.504 .000
Creativity .188 .138 .175 1.363 .178
Anxiety -4.573 E-02 .106 -.055 -.431 .668
Third equation:
Dependent variable = team creativity
Independent variable = team anxiety
Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method
I Anxiety Enter
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
Table 5 - Path Analysis (Linear Regression Analysis) (continued)
Coefficients
Non-standardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
L (Constant) 3.908 .251 15.582 .000
Anxiety -8.103 E-02 .099 -.105 -.820 .416
The correlation between collective efficacy and team anxiety was negative
and non-significant. These findings suggest that collective efficacy may be
important to team performance but that anxiety and creativity/innovation are not.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
It is certainly true that it is in an organization’s best interest to advance team
performance. The purpose of the present study was to provide some research
findings to team managers for improving team performance. From the results o f the
path Analysis (linear regression analysis), the results showed that collective efficacy
had a significant and positive relationship with team performance. Although, path
analysis can be used to assess the plausibility of a particular causal model, it cannot
be used to establish a particular causal model as the true one. However, the results
of path analysis can be suggested and serve as a basis for subsequent experimental
research.
The finding o f this study means that collective efficacy may be an important
predictor to consider for increasing team performance. This finding supports
hypothesis I in this study that collective efficacy has a positive effect on team
performance. It means that if collective efficacy increases, then team performance
should increase. Team performance was significantly influenced by collective
efficacy. Team performance is causally dependent on collective efficacy. Collective
efficacy causally affects team performance. This result is consistent with several
previous studies. First, in Bandura’s (1997) and Okoumabua’s (1985) findings, they
both found that increased collective efficacy was significantly related to better team
performance. Second, in Zaccaro’s (1994) research, there was an association
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
between perception of collective efficacy and subsequent team performance. Third,
the result from this study was also consistent with Bandura’s theory (1977) that
performance accomplishments are the most dependable on efficacy. Fourth,
Bandura (1988) found that collective efficacy is one of the most frequently
psychological factors thought to affect team performance.
In contrast, there were no significantly intercorrelations among other study
variables in this study (Feltz, Bandura, Albrecht & Corcoran, 1988). However, some
previous researchers did have significant findings of these relationships in their
studies. The inconsistency of this study and previous studies should be addressed
here. In this study, the relationship between team anxiety and team performance was
positive (not negative) but not significant (r = 0.125, p>0.05). The hypothesis 4 was
that would be a negative relationship between team anxiety and team performance.
According to social cognitive theory of Bandura (1986), anxiety is a source of
efficacy information. Efficacy may be predicted by anxiety (Bandura, 1989) and
efficacy may predict anxiety (Krane, 1992). Both cognitive team anxiety and
efficacy are based on direct cognitive interpretations of situations. The reason of
positive (not negative) relationship because moderate levels of anxiety may promote
team performance (Wicken, Barnett, Stokes, Davis & Hyman, 1989). At this time,
the team is able to move between relaxation and energetic states where learning and
team growth can take place without serious damage or cost. For example, a certain
amount o f psychological arousal is essential for peak athletic performance.
However, in different activities, a different degree of team anxiety is needed to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
IOS
maximize team performance. For example, from Wicken, Bamett, Stokes, Davis and
Hyman’s (1989) findings, anxiety degraded performance on those problems
imposing high demanding on working memory, but left unaffected performance on
those problems imposing high demand on the retrieval o f facts from long-term
memory. Also, from Oxendine’s findings (1990), moderate anxiety promoted
performance for strength-oriented sports, but moderate team anxiety decreased
performance for skill-oriented sports. Wicken, Bamett, Stokes, Davis and Hyman
(1989) indicated that in an environment where there is too little anxiety (environment
team anxiety) will result negative psychological consequence on team performance.
Moreover, different types of team anxiety have different effects on team
performance. For example, in Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump and Smith’s (1990)
research, cognitive team anxiety is expected to negatively affect team performance
while somatic anxiety will have a curvilinear relationship with performance in
sports. Also, cohesive teams under team anxiety can have poor team performance.
For example, high-ranking teams make decisions with little outside help.
In this study, there was a nonsignificant relationship between team anxiety
and team creativity/innovation is negative and weak (r = -0.105, p>0.05). From
Pelz’s (1988) research, a high level of team anxiety decreased team performance in
R&D teams. The team anxiety in Pelz’s (1988) study resulted from too many
responsibilities. Pelz (1988) and Benm's (1956) both indicated the importance of a
team having a safe climate for team creativity/innovation. Moreover, Wallach and
Kogan (1965) suggested that a moderate level of team anxiety is positively
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
associated with team creativity/innovation. From they studies of 1,300 scientists and
engineers, they found that the team was more creative when they experienced a
certain anxiety between sources of stability on the one hand, and source of challenge
on the other.
The relationship between team anxiety and collective efficacy in this present
study was negative and nonsignificant (r = -0.055, p>0.05). It was expected that
one’s confidence in their team would have a direct impact on team anxiety. It has
been found that psychological regression within a work team diminishes collective
efficacy. In Krane, William and Feltz’s (1992) research, athletes with lower
collective efficacy had higher cognitive team anxiety than athletes with higher
collective efficacy. So in his study, increased collective efficacy can decrease
cognitive team anxiety.
In the present study, the relationship between collective efficacy and team
performance was significantly positive and moderate (r = 0.389, p<0.05). Even
though hypothesis I has been supported, there are still some questions that need to be
addressed here. Although there is a direct effect between collective efficacy and
team performance in the structure of the path model in this study, there also may be
an indirect effect between a variable and team performance which is mediated by
collective efficacy (Feltz, 1992).
Mediation effects (indirect effects) occur when a criterion variable occurs
through a third or mediator variable. Many researchers (Bandura, 1986: George
Feltz & Chase, 1992) have suggested that collective efficacy serves an indirect effect
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
no
role. Also, from the research findings o f Jex and Bliese (1999), the influence of
collective efficacy and team performance is not directly related. Collective efficacy
may indirectly impact on team performance. For example, collective efficacy
mediated the relationship between team performance feedback and team
performance (Jex & Bliese, 1999). High quality feedback o f team performance may
enhance collective efficacy and then increase team performance. So, in many cases,
collective efficacy is a mediator between some variable and team performance.
Thus, it would be useful to search out the mediators or moderators of collective
efficacy in teams. For example, collective efficacy influences the selectivity,
persistence, and intensity of team performance.
Although the result supports hypothesis I in this study, there are some
concerns that need to be addressed here. First, all variables examined in this study
have an internal consistency reliability of less than 0.70. The lower internal
consistency reliability suggests further refinement and improvement o f the
measurements are needed. Specially, the instruments for team measures should be
improved. In empirical research, there are two obvious ways to aggregate team work
information to obtain a global measure. In the first method, the data collected by
individual team members’ ratings o f the whole team or the individual can be
aggregated and averaged to reflect the component of teamwork. The present study
used individual team members’ ratings o f the whole team’s collective efficacy, team
anxiety, and team creativity/innovation. The differential weighting may be
appropriate if it can be justified theoretically by the nature of the team and the work
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ill
required o f the team. In the second method, the raters can be brought together for a
team meeting to pool information and decide on ratings to describe the team as a
whole. Team decision-making meetings have been shown to produce ratings with
reliability and accuracy greater than that obtained simply by aggregating and
averaging individual ratings (James, Demaree & Wolf, 1993).
Second, a path analysis can be used to assess the plausibility of a particular
causal model but it cannot be used to establish a particular causal model as the true
one. However, the results can be suggestive and serve as a basis for subsequent
experimental research. In addition, it is possible that the relationship between
collective efficacy and team performance might have had a reverse causality, with
high team performance resulting in increased collective efficacy. Although the data
in this study suggests collective efficacy affected team performance, the reversed
relationship, or perhaps more likely, a reciprocal relationship, cannot be ruled out
with the data available.
Bandura (1997) indicated that performance o f the team is the most powerful
source of information for collective efficacy beliefs. Teams having outstanding
performance cultivate strong collective efficacy. Brody, Hatfield and Spalding
(1988), in their study also suggested that a team that fails to perform a task
successfully subsequently shows a decrease in collective efficacy. It appears that
lack of performance success has an impact on collective efficacy. In short, the team
began the experiment with a belief that the team was not as strong as the other team.
The team then failed in competition. Consequently, they would expect failure in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
subsequent competitions. This expectation would, in turn, influence their persistence
on the task.
Collective efficacy also can be influenced through a collective social
comparison process with other teams. Future research should attempt to address this
issue with an experimental design in a field setting. Future studies should study how
the process o f collective efficacy relates to team performance in a more controlled
and longitudinal design. Third, R&D teams have different types of teams, for
example, applied research teams, new product teams, and project teams. Different
types of R&D teams may have different characteristics. For example, different types
of teams require different degree of cohesiveness. The amount of cohesiveness is
related to a number of important team processes, including attributions to success
and failure (Brawley. Carron & Widmeyer, 1988), resistance to disruptive events
(Widmeyer, 1988), and leadership (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1990). Fourth, even
though the interrater reliabilities for the measure o f collective efficacy, team anxiety,
and team creativity were acceptable, if they were not higher than 0.70, it means that
each team member did not completely agree on the rating on team components.
Other Issues
Selection Bias
This study assumed that R&D team members were initially randomly
assigned to teams. But sometimes, for example, R&D team members are selected
from the most talented persons from different departments. If membership is not
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
formed randomly, then selection biases can create artificial within-team
homogeneity. At this time, when team members interact, teams acquire unique
qualities and decision-makings become more similar to one another. Higher within-
team homogeneity in team members’ perceptions of team attributes may not always
mean the presence of a team attribute. Thus, James, Demaree and Wolf (1984)
argued that using interrater reliability to infer team decision-making can be
problematic when teams are selected from common organizational climates. For
example, members of different teams may have common perceptions of their team’s
decision-makings not because of team level influence, but instead because all of the
teams share a common environment. Zaccaro (1994) in his research also supported
the above conclusions. The inference of a team attribute follows not only from high
within-team homogeneity, but also from some evidence that this homogeneity results
from a history of shared team experiences (Zaccaro, 1994). Thus, team measurement
requires consideration not only of pattern of work arrangements within the team, but
also o f the patterns of team interactions that signal the existence of meaningful team
properties.
Common Method Variance
One limitation is the fact that all data in this study were collected by
individual team member’s self-report ratings. However, for example, if social
comparison exists in teams, team members may under report their team anxiety and
over report their collective efficacy. This raises the possibility that the findings may
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
have been impacted by common method variance (Spink, 1990). In future
investigations of collective efficacy and team anxiety, it would be useful to
supplement self-report measures with other measures (for example, archival data) o f
both team anxiety and other outcomes.
Aggregation Bias
There are two approaches to the measurement of perceived collective
efficacy in team functioning. The first involves aggregating team members’ ratting
o f their personal perceptions o f individuals. This is measurement at the individual
level. The second involves aggregating team members’ rating o f their personal
perceptions of the whole team. This is a measurement the team level. This study
used an aggregation o f individual self-report perceptions o f the whole team.
Jackson (1992) supported the second method. Jackson ( 1992) indicated that
it is better for a team member to assess the team performance as a whole than it is to
assess one’s own contributions to the team performance, because team performance
is more apparent and less ambiguous than an individual’s performance in the team
context. Although data are often collected from each individual team member,
conclusions from the data are generalized to the team as a whole. The aggregations
are regardless of the variance among units. However, not all research supports
aggregation. From Bandura’s (1997) perspective, an aggregation of individual
efficacy beliefs o f participants is an insufficient representation o f collective efficacy
as a predictor of team performance. This type of error is called aggregation bias. An
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
aggregation bias may result in an observed relationship which is an artifact of the
data combination method (James, 1982).
In this present study, collective efficacy, team creativity/innovation, and team
performance were not based on a post-discussion response, nor was team anxiety
assessed by observing the anxiety of the team. These aggregates represent a
surrogate o f team-level measures, not real team-level measures. These measures
capture individual member’s perception of team collective efficacy, team
creativity/innovation, and team anxiety but may not have captured the team-level
phenomena. The other point not to support aggregation is that team measures, for
example collective efficacy, may be comprised of both individual-level and team-
level components.
In Zaccaro’s (1995) research, perceptions of collective efficacy were not only
influenced by actual conditions within the team, but also by how other team
members perceive and convey their interpretations of these conditions. A team-level
component would exist if there is very little variability among team members’
perceptions o f their collective competence and this homogeneity cannot be attributed
to external factors. If there is considerable heterogeneity or variability in individual
perceptions of the team, then it is possible that individual-level component should be
expressed. According to Ostorff (1993), relationships at team-level analysis are
often stronger than that of individual-level analysis. This may be due in part, to
statistical artifacts, biased estimates, elimination of error variances, or actual
differences between individual-level and team-level constructs. Moreover, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
measure of perceived, collective efficacy, based on aggregated individual or whole
team’s belief will depend, in large part, on the degree o f interdependence required to
produce team performance (Bandura, 2001). In activities involving low
interdependence, team members do not have to rely on each other to perform,
although they have to share goals and provide mutual social support.
Team performance can be the sum o f the performance produced individually.
Under Iow-interdependence, an aggregate o f individuals’, for example collective
efficacy, would have high predictive value. In high interdependence, team members
must work well together to achieve high team performance. Such team performance
requires close coordination of roles and strategies, effective communication,
cooperative goals and mutual adjustments to team performance. A ratting of the
whole team would have better predictive value than the sum of individual
performance.
Small Sample Size
Small sample size reduces statistical power. In this study, correlations were
based on team mean scores and small Ns (62 teams) for the statistical tests. Only
one significant relationship between collective efficacy and team performance was
found. The relationships among team anxiety, team creativity/innovation, and team
performance are not significant. The sample size in the present study was small (62
teams), thus, it cannot allow for adequate statistical power to detect more
relationships. The numbers o f R&D teams in Taiwan’s semiconductors and related-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
technology companies are finite and usually relatively few in numbers. The small
sample size may limit the generalize ability of these results. Sample size may have
limited the ability to uncover significant variables’ relationships. Specifically, the
current sample size of 62 teams may have allowed for insufficient power to reveal
more significant relationships between factors and team performance. A larger
sample size might show support for more relationships hypothesized in this study.
Despite this limitation of sample size, the present study suggests the results are
intriguing enough to warrant additional and careful future studies. The future study
should be replicated with a larger sample size.
Problems of Team Performance Appraisal
Many articles have been written about the difficulty of measuring team
performance (Steiner, 1972). Even when measurement scales are carefully
constructed, they have several deficiencies that limit them as evaluation tools. The
first limitation of team performance appraisal is that team performance is a social
constructed phenomenon and people performing in dissimilar work contexts have to
establish their own measures of team performance. Because the measurements in
this study tended to be global, they lacked diagnostic specificity. The team
performance of different R&D teams in different companies often has multiple
dimensions, and ratings should reflect varied constituents (Tsui, 1989). But some
researchers still agree with the global team performance measurement. For example,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 1 8
Harkins, Petty and Williams (1980) indicated that in order to evaluate team
performance, the team should have a standard for high team performance.
The second limitation of team performance appraisal is that sometimes team
managers are not highly trained in evaluations, only in managing. And, there is
considerable opportunity for preselecting the measurement system, the content of the
rating construct, but their relevance is essentially unknown. At this time, the
standard of team performance appraisal should be global. Without accurate, reliable
measurement tools o f team performance, it is difficult to select or train team
members or to manage team performance.
The third limitation of team performance appraisal is that measurements may
be influenced by managers’ emotions. The judgment of team performance is
influenced by cognitive distortions found in performance appraisals (for example,
halo effect, personal liking effect, or memory effect) (Murphy, 1991). At this time,
the most common source for measuring team performance is the team members
themselves, because they are often the best positioned to provide certain kinds of
information such as team members’ affective reactions and feelings about one
another. However, team members have an emotional stake in foe team’s outcomes
and might provide biased measurement for team performance.
Mitchell (1986) examined foe effects of social context on performance
appraisal. They reported that foe rating of foe team on a number of social
characteristics (social status or leadership skills) often influences foe performance
appraisals o f that team. Poor performance teams who were rated high on social skills
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
were consequently given more favorable ratings. In a related study, Bassett and
Vance (1990) revealed that high-performing employees working in the context of
low-performing coworkers received more favorable evaluations when working
independently than when they were working interdependently with those coworkers.
For high-performing employees working within the context of high-performing
coworkers, ratings for independent and interdependent conditions did not differ
significantly. Various types of raters who differ according to their functional
relationship to the team can serve as a source of measurement information. Such
people would include subordinates, peers, supervisors, managers or external experts
(team instructors and researchers). There is still argument that supervisor appraisals
or peer appraisals are more useful for measuring team performance. Team members
themselves may be used to collect information on team performance but they are not
better than outside observers.
Variability of Team Performance. The assessment of the team performance
in this study dictated that each team manager or team leader evaluate whole team
performance. The score is a team performance score. This method is also supported
by the research findings of Johansen (1988). He indicated it is better for a team
member to assess the team performance as a whole than it is to assess one’s own
contributions to the team performance. However, the problem is team performance
variability. The type of team performance variability is within-team performance
variability.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
Three major factors relevant to within-team performance variability include
task characteristics, team member characteristics and team characteristics, and
process. The first factor of team performance variability is that task characteristics
can influence team performance. The relationship is made more complex by
suggesting that task characteristics influence team processes, which in turn influence
team performance. For example, Wood, Mento and Locke (1987) found that the
relationship between task complexity and team performance is curvilinear. A task
complexity increases, team performance first increases as interest and motivation
increase, then decreases as capacity is exceeded.
The second factor of the performance variability is team member
characteristics. Schein (1988) found that the attributes and characteristics of
individual members determine team performance. Team member characteristics
include general intelligence, specific cognitive abilities (spatial ability, numerical
ability, and mechanical comprehension), personality characteristics (potency,
adjustment, and dependability), experienced stress (anxiety and recent life change)
and background factors.
The third factor of team performance variability is that team characteristics
and processes can influence team performance. Team characteristics and processes
include team member homogeneity, team cohesion and team communications. For
example, in tasks requiring creativity or novel solutions to problems, heterogeneous
personality and attitudes have been found to perform better than teams composed of
homogeneous personality and attitudes (Stein, 1996). In the research of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 2 1
homogeneous, Schneider (1987), they found that surprising stability of team
performance across person variables and suggested that team performance variability
is most likely caused by situation factors. Therefore, team performance variability
should be included in the design of the team performance appraisal.
Practical Implications and Future Research
From the results of this study, collective efficacy is an important predictor of
team performance. If collective efficacy is increased, then team performance may be
increased. It is certainly in the best interest of an organizations to advance team
performance. Collective efficacy is an important predictor o f team performance but
a casual relationship cannot be summed. It is also possible that the relationship is
reciprocal (bidirectional). Enhancing collective efficacy of team members should be
a major concern of most team managers in organizations. Collective efficacy may be
boosted through goal setting, rewards, and provision o f adequate resources (Guzzo &
Dickson, 1996). Future research should be aimed at further examination o f how to
increase collective efficacy. Team managers are needed to develop the techniques
for facilitating or maintaining collective efficacy. Because the reciprocal causal
linkage may exist between collective efficacy and team performance, the resiliency
of collective efficacy may be important link between collective efficacy and team
performance. It means that collective efficacy should not change due to only one
change in team performance, for example a failure or success o f team performance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Collective efficacy must be resilient in order for one to persist and sustain effort.
Experience with failures is needed to develop this sense o f robust collective efficacy.
In addition, research needs to examine whether collective efficacy bias causal
attributions. For example, will a team with high collective efficacy attribute failure
to a lack of team effort or a lack of team ability? Future research is required to
address the collective efficacy attribution relationship and to examine the reciprocal
causal linkage. In addition, Bandura (1990) noted that when self-doubt sets in after
failure, some individuals recover from their perceived low efficacy more quickly
than others. Some teams may be able to regain more quickly than other teams.
Knowing how and why some teams are able to regain or recover collective efficacy
more quickly than other teams would be a valuable source of information.
The outcome o f this exploratory investigation proposes recommendations for
future expansion and delineation. Future research can be developed to predict
different patterns o f success and failure. Moreover, Bandura (1986) indicated that
advancement in collective efficacy research will be greatly influenced by the
development of appropriate measures. This is expectedly important at the team
level.
Collective efficacy and team anxiety were independent variables in this
study. The constructs o f collective efficacy and team anxiety are still in a
rudimentary stage in terms of understanding and explaining team motivation. One
way in which to examine these processes is to assess the sources for a team
member’s belief in the team to be successful. Little research has examined the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
source of collective efficacy and team anxiety as they relate to team performance.
The techniques to measure collective efficacy and team anxiety and the way to
investigate sources of collective efficacy are also a concern for future research.
Specifically, measures of collective efficacy need to be tied closely to explicit
indices of team performance. The reliable measurement of collective efficacy and
team anxiety is necessary for the advancement of the theory. In addition, a greater
understanding of the process involved in the development, decline, and restoration of
collective efficacy and team anxiety, as well as its effects on team functioning, is
needed. Future research endeavors need to address these issues.
Although measurement data can tell us which teams are successful and which
are not, they do not tell us why, or how to train unsuccessful team performers to be
more successful team performers. The challenge of developing a team performance
measurement system includes the development of team process measures which
allow for identification of specific behaviors that can be linked empirically to
important team performance outcomes. Team theories will no longer be simple
attitude-based, knowledge-based or skill-based, but will account for all of these
variables in a single model.
The future of team measurement will see continued growth in the area of
developing team measurement tools. It is hoped that reliability studies will seek to
partial out the variance that can be attributed to different components o f the
measurement process and that validity studies will seek to establish the construct and
criterion-related validity o f team measurement. In the future, the challenge of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124
developing a team performance measurement system should include measurements
that allow for identification o f specific behaviors that can be linked empirical to
important team performance.
Closely related to this concern is to determine some reliability issues that lead
to the accurate measurement. Murphy’s (1991) indicated that judgment of team
performance is more influenced by cognitive distortions found in performance
appraisals (for example, halo effect, personal liking effect, or memory effect). It is
still argued that manager appraisals or peer appraisals are more useful for measuring
team performance. The future views of team performance measurement will see
continued growth in the area of developing team performance tools.
In the future, computers can serve as decision support functions for work
teams. Technology exists for individuals to work as teams via the exchange of
electronic communications and documents without ever meeting in real time.
Compared to face-to face teams, computer-assisted teams tend to have more equal
rates of communication while having less overall communication, less
argumentation, but have more positive socioemotional communication (Hollenbeck
& Phillip, 1997). More computer programmers and instructional trainers should
become involved in the enhancement of successful team performance results.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
REFERENCES
Agree, A. & Gustafson, R. (1996). Innovation and creativity in work groups. In
West, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook o f Work Group Psychology. England,
London: John Wiley and Sons Ltd. (pp.317-345)
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The Social Psychology o f Creativity. New York: Springer
Verlag.
Abbey, A. (1986). R&D work climate and innovation in semiconductors. Academy
of Management Journal. 26 (2), 362-368.
Abbey, A. (1983). R & D work climate and innovation in semiconductors.
Academy of Management Journal. 26. 362-368.
Anderson, N. & Thomas, H.D.C. (1996). Work group socialization. In West, M. A.
fEd.1. Handbook o f Work Group Psychology. England, London: John
Wiley & Sons Ltd. (pp. 423-451)
Alexander, V. & BCrane, V. (1992). Relationships among performance expectation
anxiety, and performance in collegiate volleyball players. Journal of Sport
Behavior. 19(31 246-269.
Aiken, M. & Riggs, M. (1993). Using a group decision support system for
creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior. 29(31. 201-217.
Allen, N. J. (1996). Affective reactions to the group and the organization. In West,
M.A. (Ed.), Handbook o f Work Group Psychology. England: John Wiley
& Sons Ltd. (pp.37l-397)
Allen, P. T. & Stephenson, G. M. (1983). Intergroup understanding and size of
organization. British Journal o f Industrial Relations. 21.312-329.
Allen, T. I., Lee, D. M. & Tushman, M. L. (1980). R & D performance as a
function o f internal communication, project management, and the nature of
work. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 27.2-12.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). The Social Psychology o f Creativity. New York: Westview
Press.
Ancona, D. G. (1988). Beyond task and maintenance: defining external functions in
groups. Group and Organization Studies. 13.468-494.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126
Argyris, C. (1993). On the nature o f actionable knowledge. The Psychologist. 6.
29-32.
Anderson, R. H. & Snyder, K. J. (1989). Team training: who makes a good team
trainer and what should a training team do? Training & Development
Journal. February. 58-61.
Bain, P. G., Mann, L. & Pirola-Merlo, A. (2001). The innovation imperative: the
relationships between team climate, innovation, and performance in
research and development, Small Group Research. 32fD- 55-73.
Bandura, A. (2001). The Construct o f Collective Efficacy, Small Group Research.
32(1), 111-121.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacv: the Exercise of Control. New York: W.H.
Freeman and Company.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V. & Pastorelli, C.(1997). Efficacy
Beliefs as Shapers of Aspirations and Occupational Trajectories.
Hillsadale, NJ: Ertbaum.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educational Psychologist. 28. 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1990). Reflections on low ability determinants of competence. In
Sternberg, R. J. Sc Koiligian, J. Jr. (Eds.), Competence considered. New
Haven. Conn.: Yale University Press. 1990. (pp. 315-362)
Bandura, A. (1989). Self-regulation o f motivation and action throught internal
standards and goal systems. In Pervin, L. A. (Ed.), Goal Concents in
Personality and Social Psychology. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum. (pp. 19-85)
Bandura, A. Sc Wood, R. E. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational
management Academy o f Management Review. 14. 361-384.
Bandura, A. (1988). Self-efficacy conception o f anxiety. Anxiety Research. 1.
117-148.
Bandura, A. (1987). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory.
Journal of Clinical and Social Psychology. 4. 359-373.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
Bandura, A. & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive
influences in cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes. 38.92-113.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: a Social Cognitive
Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review. 84. 191-215.
Banks, W. C. (1997). Psychological resistance in task motivation and performance.
Journal of Applied Social psychology. 271191. 191-198.
Barker, J. R. & Salas, E. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: self-control in self-
managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly. 38.408-437.
Baker, D. P. & Salas, E. (1992). Principles for measuring teamwork skills. Human
Factors. 34.469,475.
Baker, D. P. & Salas, E. (1997). Principles for measuring teamwork: a summary
and look toward the future. In Brannick, M. T., Salas, E. & Prince, S.
(Eds.), Team Performance Assessment and Measurement. Mahuwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. (pp. 121-134)
Bass, B. M. & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Congruence o f self and others’ leadership
ratings of naval officers for understanding successful performance. Applied
Psychology: an International Review. 40.437-454.
Bassett, P. & Vance, M. A. (1990). Improving group performance by training in
individual problem solving. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 72. 651-657.
Bassin, M. (1988). Teamwork at General Foods. Personnel Journal. Mav. 62-70.
Baumen, L. Jr. & Leavitt, H. J. (1999). Hot Groups: Seeding Them. Feeding Them,
and Using Them to Ignite vour Organization. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Bennis, W. G. (1956). A theory o f group development. Human Relations. 9.
415-437.
Berwick, D. M. (1989). Continuous Improvement as an Ideal in Health Care. The
New England Journal o f Medicine. 5 .53.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 2 8
Bond, R. & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: a meta-analysis o f studies
using the line judgment task. Psvchlogical Bulletin. 119. Jan.
Bouwen, R. & Fry, R. (1996). Facilitating group development: interventions for a
relational and contextual construction. In West, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook of
Work Group Psychology. England, London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
(pp.531-555)
Bower, C. A. & Morgan, B. B., Jr. (1997). Team workload: its meaning and
measurement. Team Performance Assessment and Measurement. Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. (pp.123-141)
Brannick, M. T. & Prince, C. (1997). An overview o f team performance
measurement. In Brannic, M. T., Salas, E. & Prince, S. (Eds.), Team
Performance Assessment and Measurement. Mahuwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum. (pp. 189-226)
Brawley, L. R., Carron, A. V. & Widmeyer, W. N. (1988). Exploring the
relationship between cohesion and group resistance to disruption. Journal
of Sport & Exercise Psychology. 10. 199-213.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: on being the same and different at the same
time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 17.475-482.
Brodbeck, F. C. (1996). Criteria for the study of work group functioning. In West,
M. A. (Ed.), Handbook o f Work Group Psychology. England, London:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd. (pp.285-317)
Brody, E. B., Hatfield, B. D. & Spalding, T. W. (1988). Generalization of self-
efficacy to a continuum o f stressors upon mastery of a high-risk sport skill.
Journal o f Sport & Exercise Psychology. 10.32-44.
Buchholz, H. (1993). Clinical team building: a neglected ingredient in the
therapeutic milieu. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth. 8(11.
5-21.
Bumingham, C. & West, M. A. (1995). Individual, climate and group interaction
processes as predictors of work team innovation. Small Group Research. 26.
106-117.
Bums, C. (1994). Innovative team building: synergistic human resource
development. Administration and Policy in Mental Health. 22 (1), 39-48.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
Bums, C. & Watson, M. (199TL Innovative Tearn Building. A paper presented at
the annual Albert E. Trieschman Conference, Boston.
Campion, M. A, Medsker, G. J. & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work
group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing work
groups. Personal Psychology. 46. 823-8S0.
Caldwell, D. (1990). Improving the performance o f new product teams.
International Journal o f Sport Psychology. 2 0 .187-195.
Camacho, L. M. & Paulus, P. B. (1995). The role o f social anxiousness in group
brainstorming. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology. 68(g).
1071-1080.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A. & Salas, E. (1998). Making Decisions under Stress:
Implications for Individual and Team Training. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A. & Salas, E. (1997). A framework for developing team
performance measures in training. In Brannic, M. T., Salas, E. & Prince, S.
(Eds.), Team Performance Assessment and Measurement. Mahuwah, New
Iersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. (pp.312-345)
Cannon-Bower, J. A. & Salas, E. (1995). Cross-training and Team Effectiveness.
A paper presented in Naval A ir Warfare Center Training Systems Division,
Orlando, FL.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I. & Salas, E. (1995). Defining team
competencies and establishing team training requirements. In Guzzo, R. &
Salas, E. (Eds), Team Effectiveness and Decision-making in Organizations.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (pp. 333-380)
Cannon-Bower, J. A. (1994). Shared mental models in expert team decision
making. Small Group Research. 24(21210-216.
Cannon-Bower, J. A. & Salas, E. (1994). Defining Team Competencies:
Implications for Training Requirements and Strategies. A paper presented
in Naval Air Warfare Center Training System Division, Orlando, FL.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A. & Salas, E. (1990). Cognitive psychology and team training:
shared mental models in complex systems. Human Factors Bulletin. 33. 1-4.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130
Carlson, N. (1983). Creativity and anxiety: an experimental study. Scandinavian
Journal o f Psychology. 24. 107-115.
Carson, P. P. (1993). Managing creativity enhancement through goal-setting and
feedback. Journal o f Creative Behavior. 21 ( W 36-45.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain
at different level o f analysis: a typology o f composition model. Journal o f
Applied Psychology. 83. 234-246.
Clark, M. S. & Fiske, J.T. (Eds.) (1982). Affect and Cognition. H illsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Cohen, B. P. & Zuber, X. (1991) Status processes in enduring work groups.
American Sociological Review. 56. 179-188.
Converse, S. A., Cannon-Bowers, J. A. & Salas, E. (1993). Shared mental models
in expert team decision making. In Castellan, N.J. (Ed.), Current Issues in
Individual and Group Decision-making. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
(pp. 221-246)
Cook, J. D. & Warr, P. B. (1980). The experience o f work: a compendium and
review o f 249 measures and their use. Organizational and Occupational
Psychology. 8. 256-260.
Cordery, J. L. (1996). Autinomous work groups and quality circles. Handbook o f
Work Group Psychology. England, London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
(pp. 225-247)
Coton, J. L., Vollrath, P. P., Froggett, K. L., Lengnick-Hall, M. C. & Jennings, K.
R. (1988). Employee participation: diverse forms and different outcomes.
Academy o f Management Review. 13. 8-22.
Could, D. & Krane, V. (1992). The arousal athletic performance relationship:
current status and future directions. In Horn, T. S. (EcL), Advances in
Sport Psychology. Champaign III: Human Kinetico Publishing.
(pp. 119-141)
Could, D., Petlichkoff, L. & Weinberg, R. S. (1984). Antecedents o f temporal
changes in and relationships between the CSAI-2 subcomponents. Journal
o f Sport Psychology. 6. 289-304.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure o f tests.
Psvchometrika. 16.297-334.
Cummings, T. G. & Worley, C. G. (1993). Organization Development and Change.
St. Paul, MN: W est
Dailey, R. C. (1979). Group, task and personality correlates o f boundary-spanning
activities. Human Relations. 32. 273-285.
De Bono, E. (1992). Serious Creativity: Using the Power o f Lateral Thinking to
Create New Ideas. Toronto: HarperColIinis.
Diamond, M. A. (1987). The psychodynamics o f regression in work groups.
Human Relations. 40(81. 525-543.
Dunnphy, D. & Bryant, B. (1996). Teams: panaceas on prescriptions for improved
performance. Human Relations. 49(51. 677-699.
Dougherty, D. (1987). A PhD . dissertation: New Products in Old Organizations:
the Mvth o f the Better Mousetrap in Search o f the Beaten Path.
Massachusetts: Sloan school o f management o f MIT.
Domin, G. (1994). Assessment o f creativity with the ACL: an empirical
comparison o f four scales, Creativity Research Journal. 7(1 1 . 21-33.
Dumaine, B. (1990). Who needs a boss? Fortune. 45.52-60.
Druskat, V. & Pescosotido, A. (1999). The antecedents o f team competence:
toward a fine-gained model o f self-managing team effectiveness. In Neale,
M. A. & Mannix, L. (Eds). Research on Managing Groups and Teams.
Greenwich, CT: JAI. (Vol. 2, pp. 201-231)
Dyer, J. L. (1984). Team research and training: a state-of-the-art review. In
Muckier, F. A. (Ed.). Human Factor review: 1984. Santa Monica, CA:
Human Factor Society, (pp. 121 - 134)
Dyer, W.G. (1995). Team Building: Current Issues and New Alternatives Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Dwyer, D. J. & Lane, N. L. (1997). Team performance measurement distributed
environment: the TARGETS methodology. In Brannick, M. T., Salas, E. &
Prince, S. (Eds.), Team Performance Assessment and Measurement.
Mahuwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. (pp. 134-147)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets West meets Mid-east: further explorations o f
collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Academy o f Management
Journal. 36. 319-348.
Earley, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism; a comparison o f the United
States and the people’s Republic o f China. Administrative Sciences
Quarterly. 34. 565-581.
Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect o f emotion on the utilization and the
organization o f behavior. Psychological Review. 66. 183-201.
Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation and creativity at work: psychological and
organizational strategies. In West, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook o f Work Group
Psychology. England, London: John W iley & Sons Ltd. (pp.317-345)
Feldhusen, J. T. & Goh, B. E. (1995). Assessing and accessing creativity: an
integrative review o f theory, research, and development. Creativity
Research Journal. 8 C 3L 231-247.
Feltz, D. L. (1992). Understanding motivation in sport: a self-efficacy perspective.
In Roberts, G. (Ed.), Motivation in Exercise and Sport. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics, (pp. 93-106)
Festinger, I., Rieder, H. W. & Schachter, S. (1956). When Prophecy Fails: a Social
and Psychological Study o f a Modem Group that Predicted the Destruction
o f the World. New York: Harper & Row.
Fisher, R. C. & Thomas, B. B. (1987). The application o f a task oriented team
building model to a “newly large” organization. Human Sciences. 6(31.
175-186.
Fleishman, E. A., Nieva, V. F. & Rieck, A. (1978). Team Dimensions: their
Identity, their Measurement, and their Relationships. A paper presented at
Advanced Research Resources Organizations, New York.
Frosch, J. (1983). The Psychotic Process. New York: International Universities
Press.
Galegher, J., Karaut, R. E. & Egido, G. (1990). Intellectual Teamwork: Social and
Technological Foundations o f Cooperative Work. Mahuwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133
Getzels, J. W. (1975). Creativity: prospects and issues. In Taylor, I. A. & Getzels,
J. W. (Eds.), Perspective in Creativity. Chicago: Alidine. (pp. 327-344)
George, J. M. (1996). Group affective tone. In West, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook o f
work Group Psychology England, London: John W iley & Sons Ltd.
(pp. 77-95)
George, T. R. & Feltz, D. L. (1995). Motivation in sport from a collective efficacy
perspective. International Journal o f Sport Psychology. 2 6 .98-116.
George, T. R., Feltz, D. L. & Chase, M. A. (1992). Effects o f model similarity on
self-efficacy and muscular endurance: a second look. Journal o f Sport and
Exercise Psychology. 14. 237-248.
Georgopoulos, B. S. (1986). Organizational Structure. Problem Solving and
Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey Boss.
Gersick, C. J. (1989). Marking time: predictable transitions in task groups.
Academy o f Management Journal. 3 2 .274-309.
Gibson, C. B. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and
group performance across tasks and culture. Academy o f Management
Journal. 42. 138-152.
Gladstein, D. (1992). Demography and design predictors o f new product team
performance. Organization Sciences. 3(31.321-341.
Greene, C. N. (1989). Cohesion and productivity in work groups. Small Group
Behavior. 2 0 .70-86.
Goerge, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal o f
Applied Psychology. 75. 107-166.
Goldstein, S. G. (1985). Organizational dualism and quality circles. Academy of
Management Review. 1 0 .504-517.
Goldstein, I. L. (1993). Training in Organizations: Needs Assessment
Development, and Evaluation. LA, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing
Company.
Goodman, P. S.(Ed.)(I986). Designing Effective Work Groups. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134
Grossman, M., W orchel, S. & Countant-Sassic, D. (1992). A developmental
approach to group dynamics: a model and illustrative research. In Worchel,
S., Wood, W . & Simpson, J. (Eds), Group Processes and Productivity.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage, (pp.53-67)
Gupta, A. K. & Gregorich, V. (1991). Knowledge flows and the structure o f control
within multinational organizations. Academy o f Management Review. 16.
768-J92.
Guzzo, R. A. & Dickson, M. D. (1996). Teams in organizations: recent research on
performance and effectiveness. Annual Review o f Psychology. 46. 307-338.
Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Fundamental considerations about work groups. In West,
M.A. (Ed.), Handbook o f Work Group Psychology. England, London: John
Wiley & Sons Ltd. (pp. 3-25)
Guzzo, R. A. & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organisations: recent research on
performance and effectiveness. Annual Review o f Psychology. 47.
307-338.
Guzzo, R. A. (1988). Productivity research: reviewing psychological and economic
perspectives. In Campbell, J. P. & Campbell, R. J. (Eds), Productivity in
Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. ( pp. 63-81)
Hackman, J. R. (Ed.) (1990). Groups that Work (and those that don’tl: Creating
Conditions for Effective Teamwork. San Fransco: Jossey Bass.
Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that Work and those that don’t San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design o f work teams. In Lorsch, J.W. (Ed.),
Handbook o f Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall. ( pp. 315-342)
Hackman, J. R. & Morris, C. G. (1985). Group tasks, group interaction process, and
group performance effectiveness: a revised and proposed integration. In
Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advanceds in Experimental Social psychology. New
York: Academic Press. (Vol. 8, pp. 47-97)
Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work Redesign: Reading. New York:
Addison-Wesley.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135
Hallan, G. & Campbell, D. (1997). The measurement o f team performance with a
standardized survey. In Brannick, M.T., Salas, E. & Prince, S. (Eds.),
Team Performance Assessment and M easurement. Mahuwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum. (pp. 212-243)
Harris, T. C. & Barrer-Farrell, H. L. (1997). Components o f teamwork: impact on
evaluations o f contributions to work team effectiveness. Journal o f Applied
Social Psychology. 27(191. 1694-1715.
Hartley, J. F. (1996). Intergroup relations in organizations. In West, M.A. (Ed.),
Handbook o f Work Group Psychology. England, London: John W iley &
Sons Ltd. (pp.397-423)
Harkins, S. G., Petty, R. E. & W illiams, K. (1980). The effects o f group diffusion
o f cognitive effort on attitudes: an information-processing view. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 38. 81-92.
Havens, A. E. & Flinn, W. (1992). Green revolution technology and community
development: the limits o f action programs. Economic Development and
Cultural Change. 2 3 .469-481.
Hembree, T. B. & Cohen, S. (1993). Stress and immunity in humans: a meta-
analytic review. Psychosomatic Medicine. 5 5 .364-379.
Hickman, L. J. (1997). A Ph.D. dissertation: the Impact o f Executive Team
Excellence and the Work Environment on Organisational Creativity.
Maryland: University o f Maryland.
Hill, G. W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: are N-H heads better
than one ? Psychological Bulletin. 9K 3V 517-539.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software o f the Mind. London:
McGraw Hill.
Hofsteds, G. (1983). The cultural relativity o f organizational practices and theories.
Journal o f International Business Studies. 14. 31-46.
Hollenbeck, J. R. & Phillip, J. (1997). Team decision-making accuracy under
difficult conditions: construct validation o f potential manipulations. In
Brannick, M.T., Salas, E. & Prince, S. (Eds.), Team Performance
Assessment and Measurement. Mahuwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbum.
(pp.531-580)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
136
Hocevar, D. (1979). Ideational fluency as a confounding factor in the measurement
o f originality. Journal o f Educational Psychology. 71. 191-196.
Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement o f creativity: review and criticize. Journal o f
Personality Assessment. 4 5 .450-464.
Hocevar, D. & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and criticize o f measurements
used in the study o f creativity. In Glover, J. A., Ronning, R. R. & Reynolds,
C. R. (Eds.), Handbook o f Creativity. New York: Plenum, (pp. 53-75)
Hodges, L. & Carron, A. V. (1992). Collective efficacy and group performance.
International Journal o f Sport Psychology. 2 3 .48-59.
Hollingshead, A. B. & McGrath, J. E. (1995). Computer-assisted groups: a critical
review o f the empirical research. In Guzzo, R.A. & Salas, E. (Eds.),
Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Qrpani?atfons San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass. (pp. 46-78)
Isabella, L. A. & Wadock, S. A. (1994). Top management team creativity:
environmental assessments, teamwork, and performance implications.
Journal o f Management. 20(41. 835-858.
Islam, M. R. & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions o f contact as predictors o f
intragroup anxiety, perceived out-group attitude: an integration model.
Society for Personality and Social Psychology. 19(61. 700-710.
Jackson, J. M. & W illiams, K. D. (1985). Social loafing on difficult tasks: work
collectively can improve performance. Journal o f Personality and Social
Psychology. 49(41.937-942.
Jackson, J. W. (1993). Realistic group conflict theory: a review and evaluation o f
the theoretical and empirical literature. Psychological Record. 43. 395-414.
Jackson, S. E. (1996). The consequences o f diversity in multidisciplinary work
teams. In W est, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook o f Work Group Psychology.
England, London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. (pp.53-77)
Jackson, S. E. (1992). Consequences o f group composition for the interpersonal
dynamics o f strategic issue processing. Advances in Strategic Management.
8,345-382.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
137
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G. & W olf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group
reliability with and without response bias. Journal o f Applied Psychology.
69, 85-98.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G. & W olf, G. (1993). An assessment o f within-group
interrater agreement. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 78(21.306-309.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates o f perceptual agreement.
Journal o f Applied Psychology. 67(21. 219-229.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies o f Policy Decisions and
Fiascos. Boston: Houghton M iffien.
Jex, S. M. & Bliese, P. D. (1999). Efficacy beliefs as a moderator o f impact o f
work-related stressors: a multilevel study. Journal o f Applied Psychology.
84(3), 349-361.
Johansen, R. (1988). Groupware: Computer Support for Business Teams. New
York: Free Press.
Johnston, J. H. & Cannon-Bower, J. A. (1997). Performance measurement tools for
enhancing team decision-making training. In Brannick, M.T., Salas^E. &
Prince,JS. (Eds.), Team Performance Assessment and Measurement.
Mahuwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. (pp.334-367)
Joquam, J. L. & Murphy, S. E. (1997). Assessment o f nuclear power plant crew
performance variability. In Brannick, M.T., Salas, E. & Prince, S. (Eds.),
Team Performance Assessment and Measurement. Muhuwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbum. (pp.23-56)
Joseland, R. W. & Chapman, D. (1986). Teamwork in psychiatric setting. Social
Works. 29. 46-52.
Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A. & Jick, T. D. (1992). The Challenge o f Organisational
Change. New York: Free Press.
Katz, R. (1988). Managing Professional in Innovative Organizations. NY: Ballinger
Publishing Co.
Katz, R. (1982). The effects o f group longevity on project communication and
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly. 27. 81-104.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138
Katzenbach, J. R. & Smith, D. K. (1997). The Wisdom o f Teams; Creatine the
High-Performance Organization Massachusetts: Harvard Business School
Press.
Katzenbach, J. R. & Smith, D. K. (1993). The discipline o f teams. Harvard
Business Review. March-April. 111-120.
Keller, R. T. (1986). Prediction o f the performance o f project groups in R&D
organization. Academy o f Management Journal. 29(4). 715-726.
Kelly J., Janice R. & Karau, S. J. (1993). Entrainment o f creativity in small groups.
Small Group Research. 24(2). 179-198.
Kerlinger, L. (1973). How we should measure “change” — or should not?
Psychological Bullentin. 7 4 .68-80.
Kolb, J. A. (1992). Leadership o f creative teams. The Journal o f Creative Behavior.
26(1), 1-9.
Komaki, J. L. (1997). Behind the scenes: field testing a measure o f effectiveness
for theater teams, In Brannick, M.T., Salas, E. & Prince, S. (Eds.), Team
Performance Assessment and M easurem ent. Mahuwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum. (pp.77-95)
komaki, J. L. (1989). Defining not a breeze: extending an operant model of
effective supervision to teams. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 74.
522-529.
Krai gen, K. & Wenzel, L. H. (1997). Conceptual development and empirical
evaluation o f measures o f shared mental models as indicators o f team
effectiveness. In Brannick, M.T., Salas, E. & Prince, S. (Eds.), Team
Performance Assessment and Measurement. Mahuwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum. (pp.3-27)
Krane, J. (1992). Group processes under conditions o f organizational decline.
Journal o f Applied Behavior Science. 21. 1-17.
Krane, V., Williams, J. M. & Feltz, D. L. (1992). Path analysis examining
relationships among cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, state confidence,
performance expectations and go lf performance. Journal o f Sport Behavior.
15,279-296.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
Krane, V. & Finch, L. (1991). Multidimensional Trait Anxiety as a Predictor o f
Multidimensional State Anxiety. Paper presented at the American Alliance
for the Health, Pshysical Education, Recreation and Dance National
Conference, San Francisco, California.
Krane, V. (1990). Conceptual and methodological consideration in sport anxiety
research: from the inverted-U hypothesis to catastrophe theory, Quest. 44.
72-87.
Krane, V. & Williams, J. M. (1986). The Relationship among CSAI-2
Subcomponents and Performance during Collegiate G olf Competition.
Paper presented at the annual meeting o f the American Alliance for Health,
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance National Conference, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
Krathwohl, D. R. (1993). Methods o f educational and social science research: an
integrated approach. New York: Longman.
Kreeger, L. (1992). Envy pre-emption in small and large groups. Small Group
Research. 24(21.211-223.
Kumar, K., Watson, W. E. & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact
on interaction process and performance: comparing homogeneous and
diverse task groups. Academy o f Management Journal. 36. 590-602.
Laguardia, R. & Labbe, E. E. (1993). Self-efficacy and anxiety and their
relationship to training and race performance. Perceptual & Motor Skills.
77,27-34.
Larey, T. S. & Paulus, P. B. (1999). Group preference and convergent tendencies
in small groups: a content analysis o f group brainstorming performance.
Creativity Research Journal. 12(31. 175-184.
Larson, J. R. & Christensen, C. (1993). Groups as problem-solving units: toward a
new meaning o f social cognition. British Journal o f Social Psychology. 32.
5-30.
Larson, C. E. & LaFasto, F. M. (1989). Teamwork: What Must Go Right and What
Can Go Wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishing, Inc.
Latane, B., Williams, K. & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work:
causes and consequences o f social loafing. Journal o f Personality and Social
Psychology, 3 7 .822-832.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140
Leary, M. R. (1993). Attributions o f responsibility for collective endeavors. In
Hendrick, C. (Ed.), Review o f Personality and Social Psychology.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage. ( Vol. 8, pp. 167-188)
Levine, J. M. & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual
Review o f Psychology. 4. 585-634.
Lee, C. (1988). The relationship between goal setting, self-efficacy, and female
field hockey team performance. International Journal o f Sport Psychology.
20,147-161.
Leedy, P. D. (1989). Practical Research. New York: Macmillan Publishing.
Libby, R., Trotman, K. T. & Zimmer, I. (1987). Member variation, recognition o f
expertise and group performance. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 72.
81-87.
Lichacz, F. M. & Partington, J. T. (1996). Collective efficacy and true group
performance. International Journal o f Sport Psychology. 27. 146-158.
Little, B. L. & Madigan, R. M. (1994). Motivation in Work Teams: a Test o f the
construct o f Collective Efficacy. Paper presented at the meeting o f the
Academy o f Management, Houston, Texas.
Lord, R. G. (1985). Accuracy in Behavioral measurement: an alternative definition
based on raters’ cognition schema and signal detection theory. Journal o f
Applied Psychology. 70. 66-71.
Lovelace, R. F. (1986). Stim ulating creativity through managerial interventions.
R&D Management. 1 6 .161-174.
Maier, N. R. (1970). Problem Solving and Creativity in Individuals and Groups.
Montery, CA: Brookd Cole.
Manners, G. E., Jr. (1983). M otivating your R&D staff. Research Management.
Sep.-Oct.. 19-36.
Marks, M. A. (1997). A Ph.D. dissertation: Creating Adaptive Teams: Investigating
Antecedents o f Effective Team Performance in Dynamic Environment.
Virginia: George M ason University.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141
Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R., Bump, L. & Smith, D.(1990). The
development o f the competitive state anxiety inventory-2 (CS AI-2). In
Martens, R., Vealey, R.S. & Burton, D. (Eds.), Competitive Anxiety in
Sport. Champaign, £L: Human Kinetics, (pp. 117-190)
Martens, R. (1977). Sport Competition Anxiety Test. Chicago: Human Kinetics
Publishings.
Martin, T. N. (1984). Role stress and inability to leave as predictors o f mental
health. Human Relations. 3 7 .969-983.
Mathieu, J. E. & Day, D. V. (1997). Assessment processes within and between
organizational teams: a nuclear power plant example. In Brannick, M.T.,
Salas, E. & Prince, S. (Eds.), Team Performance Assessment and
Measurement. Mahuwah, New Jersey: Lawerence Eribaum. (pp. 11-23)
McAuley, E. (1985). Modeling and self-efficacy: a test o f Bandura’s model.
Journal o f Sport Psychology. 7 .2 83-295.
McElroy, B. M. (1990). Responses o f the socially anxious to the prospect of
interpersonal evaluation. Journal o f Personality. 5 8 .6 23-640.
McGrath, J. E. & O ’Connor, K. M. (1996). Temporal issues in work groups. In
West, M.A. (Ed.), Handbook o f Work Group Psychology. England,
London: John W iley & Sons Ltd. (pp.25-53)
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
McGrath, M. (1993). W hatever happen to teamwork? Reflections on CMHTs.
Behavior Journal Social Work. 2 3 .15-29.
McIntyre, R. M. & Salas, E. (1995). Measuring and managing for team
performance: lessons from complex environments. In Guzzo, R. & Salas, E.
(Eds.), Team Effectiveness and Decision-making in Organizations. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. ( pp. 9-45)
McIntyre, R. M. & Salas, E. (1995). Team performance in complex environments:
what we have learned so far. In Guzzo, R_A. & Salas, E. (Eds.), Team
Effectiveness and Decision Making in Or^ant'yanons. San Franscisco:
JosseyB ass. (pp. 99-123)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
Miranda, S. M. (1994). Avoiding o f groupthink: meeting management using group
support system. Small Group Research. 25( IV 105-136.
Mirvis, M. A. & Camman, T. (1992). Comparative validity o f two measures o f
seif-efficacy in predicting academic goals and performance. Educational
and Psychological Measurement. 54. 516-529.
Mitchell, R. (1986). Team building by disclosure o f internal frames o f references.
Journal o f Applied Behavioral Science. 22. 15-28.
Modrick, I. A. (1986). Team performance and training. In Zeidner, J. (Ed.),
Human Productivity Enhancement: Training and Human Factors in Systems
Design. New York: Praeger. (Vol. 1, pp. 130-166)
Morgan, R. M. & Hunt, S. D. (1994). Organizational commitment: one o f many
commitments or key mediating construct? Academy o f Management
Journal. 37. 1568-1587.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images o f Organization. London: Sage.
Mossholder, K. W. & Bedeian, A. G. (1983). Group interactional processes:
individual and group level effects. Group & Organization Stiudies. 8.
187-202.
Mueller, G. F. (1992). Psychological and communicadonal influences on
coordination effectiveness. Basic and Applied social Psychology. 13(31.
337-350.
Mullen, B. & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and
performance: an integration. Psychological Bulletin. 115. 210-227.
Mullen, B. & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstroming groups: a meta-
analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. I2fD. 3-23.
Mumford, E. (1983). Designing Human Systems for New Technology: the ETHICS
Method. Manchester: Manchester Business School.
Murphy, K. R. (1991). Performance Appraisal: an Organizational Perspective.
Boston:.Allyn & Bacon.
Nachmias, C. F. & Nachmias, D. (1992). Research Methods in the Social Sciences.
New York: St. M artin’s Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
143
Nahavandi, A. & Aranda, E. (1994). Restructuring teams for the re-engineered
organization. Academy o f Management Executive. 8. 58-68.
Naylor, J. C., Pritchard, R. D. & Ilgen, D. R. (1980). A Theory o f Behavior in
Organizations. New York: Academic Press.
Nemeth, C. & Owens, P. (1996). Making work groups more effective: the value o f
minority dissent. In W est, M . A. (Ed.), Handbook o f Work Group
Psychology. England, London: John W iley & Sons Ltd. (pp. 125-143)
Neuman, C. & Wright, R. D. (2001). Collective efficacy and group performance.
Small Group Psychology. 31f P . 51-62.
Nicholls, J. G. (1972). Creating in the person who will never produce anything
original and useful: the concept o f creativity as a normally distributed trait.
American Psychologist. 27. 717-727.
O’Connor, K. M., Gruenfeld, D. H. & McGrath, J. (1993). The experience and
effects o f conflict in continuing work groups. Small Group Research. 24.
362-382.
Offenbeek, M. V. & Koopman, P. (1996). Interaction and decision-making in
project teams. In West, M. A. (EtL), Handbook o f Work Group
Psychology. England, London: John W iley & Sons Ltd. (pp. 159-189)
Okwoumabua, T. M. (1985). Psychological and physical contributions to marathon
performance: an exploratory investigation. Journal o f Sport Behavior. 8.
163-171.
O’ N eil, H. F.,Jr. & Franker, J. (1992). Stress induced anxiety o f individuals and
teams in a simulator environment, Psychological Bulletin. 201-218.
O’ N eil, H. F .Jr., Baker, E. L. & Kazlauskas, E. J. (1992). Assessment o f team
performance, In Swezey, R. W. & Salas, E. (Eds.), Teams: their Training
and Performance. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX Publishing Co. (pp. 153-177)
Oser, R. L., McCallum, G. A., Salas, E., & Morgan, B. B., Jr. (1989). Toward a
Definition o f Teawork: an Analysis o f Critical Team Behaviors . A paper
presented at Naval Training Systems Center, Orlando, FL.
Ostorff, C. (1993). Comparing correlations based on individual-level and
aggregated data. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 7 8 .569-582.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
144
Oxendine, M. R. (1990). The interaction anxiousness scale: construct and
criterion-related validity. Journal o f Personality Assessment. 61.
136-146.
Pascale, R. T. (1990). Managing on the Edge. New York: Touchstone, Simon &
Schuster.
Parker, L. E. (1994). Working together perceived self- and collective efficacy at
the work place. Journal o f Applied Social Psychology. 2 4 .43-59.
Paul, T. & Eaccaro, S. J. (1997). Task and aggregation issues in the analysis and
assessment o f team performance. In Brannick, M. T., Salas, E. & Prince, S.
(Eds.), Team Performance Assessment and Measurement. Mahwah
Mahuwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. (pp. 447-513)
Paulus, P. B., Larey, T.S. & Ortega, ATI. (1997). Performance and perceptions o f
brainstormers in an organizational setting. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology. 27(31.18-31.
Paulus, P. B. & Camacho, M. (1993). Perception o f performance in group
brainstroming: the illusion o f group productivity. Personality and Social
Psychology,.! 9(1), 78-89.
Paulus, P. B., Dzindolet, M. T., Poletes, G. W. & Camaho, L. M. (1993).
Perception o f performance in group brainstorming: the illusion o f group
productivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 19. 78-79.
Paulus, P. B. & Dzindolet, M. T. (1993). Social influence processes in group
brainstorming. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology. 64.
575-586.
Payne, C. (1991). The comer intervention model and school reform in Chicago:
Implications o f two models o f Change. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 78.
306-309.
Payne, R. (1981). Stress in task-focused groups. Small Group Behavior. 12(31.
253-268.
Payne, R. & Cooper, C .L . (Eds.) (1981). Group at Work. England, Chichester:
Wiley.
Pedhazur, E. J. & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement. Design, and Analysis: An
Integrated Approach. New york: Hove and London.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
Pelz, D. C. (1989). Some social factors related to performance in a research
organization. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1. 3 10-325.
Pelz, D. C. (1988). Creative tensions in the research and development climate. In
Katz, R. (Ed.), Managing Professionals in Innovative Organizations: a
Collection o f Readings. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co.
(pp. 37-48)
Pentz, M. A. (1985). Social competence and self-efficacy as determinants o f
substance abuse in adolescence. In Wills, T. A. & Shiffinan, S. (Eds.),
Coping and Substance Use. New York: Academic, (pp. 117-142)
Pescosolido, A. T. (2001). Non-formal leaders and the development o f group
efficacy. Small Group Research. 32f H. 74-93.
Pescosolido, A. T. (2000). Group efficacy and overall group effectiveness. Small
Group Psychology. 30(11.23-41.
Peters, T. J. & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In Search o f Excellence: Lessons from
American's Best Run Companies. New York: Harper and Row.
Pintrich, P. R. & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’ motivational beliefs and their
cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. In Schunk, D. &
Meece, J. (Eds.), Student Perceptions in the Classroom: Causes and
Consequences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. (pp. 149-183)
Poulton, B. C. & West, M. A. (1994). Primary health care team effectiveness:
developing a constituency approach. Health and Social Care. 2. 77-84.
Prince, C. & Salas, E. (1993). Training and research for teamwork in the military
aircrew. In Wiener, E. L., Kanki, B. B. & Helmreich, R. L. (Eds.), Cockpit
Resource Management. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, (pp.337-366)
Pritchard, R. D. & Watson, M. D. (1992). Understanding and measuring group
productivity. Group Process and Productivity. London: Sage Publication.
Puccio, G. J. & Talbot, R. J. (1995). Exploratory examination o f relationships
between creativity styles and creativity products. Creativity Research
Journal. S(2Y 157-172.
Putai, J. (1993). Work motivation and productivity in voluntarily formed work
teams: a field study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes. 54. 133-154.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146
Pirola-Morlo, A. J. (2000). A Ph. D. dissertation: Innovative in R&D Project
Teams: Modeling the Effects o f Individual. Team and Organizational
Factors. Australia: University o f Melbourne.
Rentsch, J. R. & Duffy, L. T. (1994). W hat you know is what you get from
experience: team experience related to teamwork schemas. Group &
Organization Management. 11, 450-474.
Riggs, M. L. (1989). The Development o f Self-efficacv and Outcome Scales. A
paper presented at the society o f Industrial and organizational psychology
convention, Boston, MA.
Ringeimann, M. (1913). Recherches sur les moteurs animes, Annales De LMnstitut
National Aaronomigue. ze serie-tome XII. 1-40.
Rogo, M. (1990). The indirect influence o f creative training on work teams. Serle
De Psychologic. 34JTL 125-133.
Roxenfield, D., Folger, R. & Adelman, H. F. (1980). When rewards reflect
competence: a qualification o f the overy ustification effect. Journal o f
Personality and Social Psychology. 39. 368-378.
Rouse W. B., Cannon-Bowers, J. A. & Salas, E. (1993). The role o f mental models
in team performance in complex systems, IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man and Cybernetics. 22. 1296-1308.
Rouse, W. B. & Rouse, S. H. (1984). Human information seeking and design o f
information systems. Information Processing and Management 20.
129-138.
Russo, J. E. & Schoemaker, P. (1992). Managing overconfidence. Sloan
Management Review. Winter. 7-17.
Salas, Eduardo & Cannon-Bower, J. A. (1995). Military team research: ten years o f
progress. Military Psychology. 7(2>. 55-75.
Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A.& Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an
understanding o f team performance and training. In Swezey, R. W. &
Salas, E. (Eds.), Teams: their Training and Performance. Norwood. NJ: Aldex.
(pp.3-29)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
147
Sarnia, L. J. (1992). Self-efficacy theory: Implications for social facilitation and
social loafing. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology. 62.
774-786.
Seggar, J. F., Pedersen, D. M., Hawkes, N. R. & McGown, C. (1997). A measure
o f stress for athletic performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 84. 227-236.
Seggar, J. F. & Pedersen, D. M. (1997). A measure o f stress for athletic
performance. Perceptual and M otor Skills. 8 4 .227-236.
Schein, E. H. (1988). Process Consultation: its Role in Organization Development.
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Shamir, B. (1991). The charismatic relationship: alternative explanations and
predictions. Leadership Quarterly. 2. 81-104.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology. 40.
437-453.
Shea, G. P. & Guzzo, R. A. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in
organizations. In Dunnette, M. D. & Hough L. M. (Eds.), Handbook o f
Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
(pp.269-313)
Sherman, S. J. & Corty, E. (1984). Cognition heuristics. In Wyer, R. S., Jr. &
Srull, T. (Eds.). The Handbook o f Social Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ:ErIbaum.
(Vol l,pp. 189-286)
Shepperd, J. A. (1995). Remedying motivation and productivity loss in collective
setting. American Psychological Society. 4(53.131-134.
Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance group: a motivation
analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 113(11. 179-198.
Siau, K. L. (1995). Group creativity and technology. Journal o f Creative Behavior.
29(3), 201-217.
Siebold, G. L. (1994). The relation between solider motivation, leadership and
small unit performance. U.S. Army Research. 171-189.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
148
Silver, S. D., Cohen, B. P. & Crutchfield, J. H. (1994). Status differentiation in
information exchange in face-to-face and computer medicated idea
generation. Social Psychology Quarterly 57 108-123.
Siskel, R. (1992). How I learned to let my workers lead. Harvard Business Review.
68. 66-83.
Siskel, M. & Flexman, R. (1962). Study o f the effectiveness o f a flight simulator
for training complex aircrew skills. LA: Bell Aeronautics Company.
Smeekes, C. (1986). How to construct programs for teams. Training Special
Supplement “Reward and Recognition”. 21,4-6.
Smith-Jentsch, K. A. & Payne, S. C. (1998). Measuring team-related expertise in
complex environments. Making Decisions under Stress: Implications for
Individual and Team Training. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association, (pp. 95-126)
Smith, P. B. & Noakes, J. (1996). Cultural differences in group processes.
Handbook o f W ork Group Psychology. England, London: John Wiley &
Sons Ltd. (pp. 477-503)
Smith, P.B. & Bond, M. H. (1993). Social Psychology Across Cultures: Analysis
and Perspectives. Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall-Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Sonstroem, R J. & Bernardo, P. (1982). Intraindividual program state anxiety and
basketball performance: a re-examination o f the inverted-U curve. Journal
o f Snort Psychology. 4. 235-245.
Sonnentag, S. (1996). W ork group factors and individual well-being. In West,
M A . (Ed.), Handbook o f Work Group Psychology. England, London:
John W iley & Sons Ltd. (pp. 345-371)
Spielberger, R., Chi, D., Gorsuch, R. L. & Lushene, R. E. (1979). S.TA .I.
Questionnario di autovalutazione per pansia di stato e di tratto.
OrganlTzazioni Speciali. Firenze. 2 3 .9-23.
Spink, K. S. (1990). Collective efficacy in the sport setting. International Journal o f
Sport Psychology. 2 1 .380-395.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
149
Stankiewicsz, R. (1979). The effectiveness o f research groups in six countries. In
Andrews, F. M. (Ed.), Scientific Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge
University press, (pp. 191-221)
Stein, M. (1996). Unconscious phenomena in work groups. Handbook o f Work
Group Psychology. England, London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
(pp. 143-159)
Steiner, I. D. (1986). Paradigms and groups. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology. 19. 251-289.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group Process and Productivity. New York: Academic Press.
Stevens, M. J. & Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability
requirements for teamwork: implications for human resources management.
Journal o f Management. 20. 503-530.
Stone, D. N., Sivitanides, M. P. & Magro, A. P. (1994). Formalized dissent and
cognitive complexity in group processes and performance. Decision
Sciences. 25. 243-261.
Stroehe, D. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generality groups: tracking down the
blocking effect. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology. 61(31.
392-403.
Sundstrom, E. & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: application and effectiveness.
American Psychologist. 45(21. 120-133.
Sundstrom, E. (1990). Work teams: applications and effectiveness: an examination
o f conceptual and empirical developments. In Kelley, K. (Eds.). Issues.
Theory, and Research in Industrial/organizational Psychology.
Amsterdam:Elsevier. (pp. 117-153)
Swezey, R. W. & Salas, E. (1992). Teams: their Training and Performance. New
York: Albex Publishing Co.
Tannenbaum, S. I. & Cannon_Bowers, J. A. (1996). Promoting team effectiveness.
In West, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook o f Work Group Psychology. England,
London: John Wiley and Sons Ltd. (pp. 503-531)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
150
Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L. & Salas, E. (1992). Team building and its
influence on team effectiveness: an examination o f conceptual and
empirical developments. In Kelley, K. (Eds.), Issues. Theory, and Research
in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Amsterdam: Elserier. (pp. 117-153)
Taylor, D. M. (1994). Theories o f Intergroup Relations. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Taylor, K. M. & Popm a,J. (1990). An examination o f the relationships among
career decision-making self-efficacy, career salience, locus o f control, and
vocational indecision. Journal o f Vocational Behavior. 37. 17-31.
Taylor, J. (1987). Predicting athletic performance with self-confidence and somatic,
and cognitive anxiety as a function o f motor and physiological requirements
in six sports. Journal o f Personality. 55(T > . 139-153.
Tjosvold, D. (1993). Team Organization: an Enduring Competitive Advantage.
England, London: John W iley & Sons Ltd.
Tosi, H. L. (1992). The Environment/Organization/Person Contingency Model: a
MESO Approach to the Study o f Organization. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Triandis, H. C., Bass, A. R., Ewen, R. B. & Mikesell, E. H. (1983). Team
creativity as a function o f the creativity o f the members. Journal o f Applied
Psychology. 47(2'). 104-110.
Tschan, F. & Granach, M. V. (1996). Group task structure, process, and outcomes.
In West, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook o f Work Group Psychology. England,
London: John W iley & Sons Ltd. (pp. 95-125)
Tsui, A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: the important o f relational
demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy o f Management
Journal. 32.402-423.
Tziner, A. E. (1988). Effects o f team composition on ranked team effectiveness.
Small Group Behavior. 19. 363-378.
Ulich, E. & Weber, W. G. (1996). Dimensions, criteria and evaluation o f work
group autonomy. In West, M.A. (Ed.), Handbook o f Work Group
Psychology. England, London: John W iley and Sons Ltd. (pp. 247-285)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
151
Vealey, R. S. (1990). Advancements in competitive anxiety research: use o f the
sport competition anxiety test and the competitive state anxiety inventory-2.
Anxiety Research. 2. 243-261.
Varney, G. H. (1989). Building Productive Teams: an Action Guide and Resource
Book. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Walter, J. W. (1989). Enhancing creativity and imagination in strategic planners
through the utilization o f guided imagery. Organisation Development
Journal. Winter. 36-44.
Wallach, M. A. & Kogan, N. (1965). A new look at the creativity-intelligence
distinction. Journal o f Personality. 3 3 .348-369.
Wallach, M. A. (1965). A new look at the creativity-intelligence distinction.
Journal o f Personality. 33. 348-369.
Wallmark, J. T. (1973). The increase in efficiency with the size o f research teams.
Transaction on Engineering Management. 3. 80-86.
Warren E. W. & Larry K. M. (1988). Group interaction behaviors that affect group
performance on an intellective task. Group & Organisation studies. 13(4').
495-516.
Weaver, W. T. (1993). Creating a creative problem solving meeting. Journal o f
Creative Behavior. 27f4). 236-269.
Weinberg, R.& Jackson, A. (1990). Building self-efficacy in teams players: a
coach’s perspective. Applied Sport Psychology. 2. 164-174.
Weldom, E., Jehn, K. A. & Pradhan, P. (1991). Processes that mediate the
relationship between a group goal and improved group performance.
Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology. 61. 555-569.
West, M. A. (1996). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: a conceptual
integration. In W est, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook o f Work Group Psychology.
England, London: John W iley & Sons Ltd. (pp. 555-580)
W est, M. A. & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams.
Journal o f Applied Psychology. 81 (61. 680-693.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
152
W est, M. A. & Farr, J. L. (1996). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: a
conceptual integration. In West, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook o f Work Group
Psychology. England, London: John W iley & Sons Ltd. (pp. 555-580)
West, M. A. (1994). Effective Teamwork. England, Leicester: British
Psychological Society.
West, M. A. & Farr, J. L. (Eds.) (1990). Innovation and Creativity at Work:
Psychological and Organizational Strategies. England, Chichester John
Wiley.
West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology o f innovation in groups. In West, M. A.
& Farr, J. L. (Eds.). Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and
Organizational Strategies. England, C hichester Wiley, (pp. 309-333)
Wible, D. S. & Hui, C. H. (1985). Perceived language proficiency and person
perception. Journal o f Cross-Cultural Psychology. 16.206-222.
Wickens, C. D., Barnett, B., Stokes, A., Davis, T., Jr. & Hyman, F. (1989).
Expertise. Stress, and Pilot Judgment. Urbana: University o f Illinois,
Institute o f Aviation, Aviation Research Laboratory.
W illiam J. B. & William J. B. (1997). Leadership and innovation among teams: the
impact o f empowerment. Small Group Research. 28(3). 414-423.
Widmeyer, R. (1988). Task complexity as a moderator o f goal effects: a meta
analysis. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 7 2 .4 16-425.
Wiener, E. L., Kanki, B. B. & Helmreich, R. L. (Eds.) (1993). Team Resources
Management. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Wood, R. E., Mento, A. J. & Locke, E. A. (1987). Task complexity as a
moderator o f goal effects: a meta analysis. Journal o f Applied Psychology.
72,416-425.
Woodman, R. W. & Sherwood, J J . (1980). The role o f team development in
organizational effectiveness: a critical review. Psychological Bulletin. 88.
166-186.
Yammarino, F. J. (1996). Group leadership: a level o f analysis perspective. In
West, M A . (Ed.), Handbook o f Work Group Psychology. England,
London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. (pp. 189-225)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
153
Yerkes, R. M. & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation o f strength o f stimulus to
rapidity o f habit formation. Journal o f Comparative Neurological
Psychology. 18.459-482.
Zaccaro, S. J. (1994). Perceptions o f creativity in group work. Journal o f
Organizational Behavior. 10.267-273.
Zaccaro, S. J. & Dobbins, G. H. (1989). Contrasting group and organizational
commitment: evidence for differences among multilevel attachments.
Journal o f Organisational Behavior. 1 0 .267-273.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
APPENDIX
The Questionnaires
R&D Team Members’ Perceptions o f Collective Efficacy,
Team Anxiety, and Team Creativity/Innovation
This questionnaire is designed for a study that examines the relationships
among collective efficacy, team anxiety, team creativity/innovation and team
performance. Every team member has been given instructions on filling out the
questionnaires. In section one, please answer the basic questions about yourself.
In Section Two, please rate how you agree the perceptions described below by
circling the appropriate number. Your answers will be kept strictly confidential
and you will not be identified by name. The results will not affect your evaluation
at work. Please give your frank opinions. There are no right or wrong answers.
Do not spend too much time on any one question. Remember, give the answer that
describes how you generally think or feel. I will share the findings o f the study
with your company at the end o f study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Section One: Background Questions
Name o f your company: ________________ .
Name o f your department: _______________ .
What kind o f R&D team are you in (for example, Applied R&D team, New
Project team): ___________________________ .
Age: _______ .
Gender: Female________ Male_________ .
Education: Bachelor degree Master degree Ph.D. degree____
How many years are you in your team? ________ years
Are you a team leader or manager? yes No______
How many team members in your team (team siz e )? ________ persons
Is this a temporary team? Yes No .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
156
Section Two: Scales for collective efficacy, team creativity/innovation, and team
anxiety. This section will be answered by each, team member o f your team.
There are 18 questions, ranging from i=Strongly Disagree to 5=StrongIy
Agree.
Questions for Collective efficacy:
1. For better evolution o f advanced IC technology, I believe that better
decisions are always made in a team rather than by an
individual (5) (4) (3)___ (2)___(1)___.
2. My team is a very important entity in the world’s semiconductor
industry (5)___(4)_ _ _ (3)_ _ (2)___(1)___.
3. Our team is insecure about its ability to advance PC hardware and software
design ( 5 ) _ ( 4 ) _ ( 3 ) ___(2)_ _ (I)_ _ _ .
4. The semiconductor industry is highly skilled and experienced. We are
confident that the team ’s collective wisdom is greater than the sum o f its
individual members (5)___(4)_ _ (3)____ (2)_ _ (1)___.
5. Demands for faster design cycles have increased. We are confident that our
team can successfully meet every product development
schedule (5)___(4)____ (3)_(2)___(I)_ _ _ .
6. My team does not seem capable o f dealing with most problems that come
up ( 5 ) _ ( 4 ) _ ( 3 ) ____(2)_( 1)___ .
Questions for Team Creativity/Innovation:
7. My team is always searching for new technologies to meet the new
demands o f the PC industry (5) (4) (3)___(2)___(1)___
8. When we work as a member o f the team, every team member strives to
design our own brand o f IC products (5) (4)___(3)___(2)___(1)___.
9. My team members’ creativity is stimulated most when working on a
team ( 5 ) _ ( 4 ) _ ( 3 ) ___(2)___(I)___.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
157
10. I find it hard to generate novel ideas in a team
situation (5) (4) (3)___ (2)___(1)___ .
11. My team is provided practical support for new ideas and product
development (5)___(4)___(3)___(2)___(1)___.
12. My team is willing to doing new things and to experiment with
change (5)___(4)___(3)___(2)___ (1)___.
Questions for Team Anxiety:
13. I think my team members are prone to feel nervous in the team’s social
situation (5)___(4)___(3)___(2)___(1)___ .
14. Lack o f bosses and colleagues’ support make my team members feel
nervous (5) (4) (3)___(2)___( I)___ .
15. I think my team members usually feel less anxious because they have had
competitive experience than few
experience (5)___(4)_ _ _ (3)___ (2)_(I)_ _ _ .
16. My team members feel tense while having too many
responsibilities (5) (4) (3)___(2)___(1)___.
17. Project development time schedule usually make my team members feel
nervous (5) (4)___(3)___(2)___(1)___.
18. Previous good performance make our team members feel less anxious
now ( 5 ) _ ( 4 ) _ ( 3 ) ___ (2)___ (I)_.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
158
The Questionnaire
The Team Manager’s Evaluation o f The Team Performance
The questionnaire is designed to help a study o f the relationship among
collective efficacy, team creativity/innovation, team anxiety and team performance.
Every team leader or manager will be given instructions for filling out the
questionnaire. The following questionnaire includes six dimensions to evaluate
your team performance at the last session. Please evaluate your team performance
described below by circling the appropriate number. This study will open to share
the Endings to your company at the end o f study. Ranging from 5= Excellent; 4=
Exceed Requirement; 3=Meet Requirement; 2=Need Requirement; l=Poor.
1. Performance Quality and Quantity: performance versus standard and
volume......(5 )_ _ (4 )_ _ (3 )___ (2)__(1)___ .
2. Cooperation and Teamwork: their ability to work with
peers___ ( 5 )_ (4 )_ _ (3 )_ _ (2)___ (I)___.
3. Communication Skills: communications team knowledge and ideas verbally
and in writing..... (5) (4) (3)___(2)___(I)___.
4. Problem Solving Skills: demonstrates the ability to evaluate data, approach
and solve challenges in a methodical organized
manner......(5 )_ _ (4 )_ _ (3 )___ (2)__(1)___ .
5. Job Skills: demonstrate team possesses the relevant
skills.......(5 )_ _ (4 )_ _ (3 )_ _ (2)___(1)___.
6. Responsibility: team can be depended on to be diligently and reliably
working (5)_ _ (4)___(3)_ __ (2)___(1)___.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A structural model of the determinants, personal and situational influences, and the consequences of athlete dissatisfaction

PDF

Examining the relationship between writing self -efficacy, writing performance and general achievement for third graders

PDF

A teamwork skills questionnaire: A reliability and validity study of the Chinese version

PDF

Attachment style, interpersonal guilt, parental alcoholism, parental divorce and eating disordered symptomatology in college women

PDF

Effects of test interpretation style and need for cognition on elaboration, favorability, and recall

PDF

Atypicality: Benefit and bane. Provocation, trigger, typicality, and the expression of aggression and generalization

PDF

Anorexia nervosa: A developmental perspective

PDF

Assessment of racial identity and self -esteem in an Armenian American population

PDF

Individual motivation loss in group settings: An exploratory study of the social -loafing phenomenon

PDF

Comparison of the predictive validity of a written test, an integrity test, a conscientiousness questionnaire, a structured behavioral interview and a personality inventory in the assessment of j...

PDF

Family group conference: An innovative approach to truancy in schools. A case study

PDF

Class size reduction: A case study

PDF

Effects of email on learners' compositional ability: A quantitative and qualitative study

PDF

Development of a diagnostic tool for assessing knowledge management

PDF

Considering the impact of culture on the therapeutic relationship: A look at Latino school-age children in a special education setting

PDF

Gender differences in motivation for sexual intercourse: Implications for risky sexual behavior and substance use in a university and community sample

PDF

Alcohol treatment entry and refusal in a sample of older veterans

PDF

Heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men and the attitude functions they serve: Correlates, stability and gender differences

PDF

An adolescent -parent conflict resolution skills training program for ethnically diverse families: A program evaluation study

PDF

A daily diary approach to compare the accuracy of depressed and nondepressed participants' estimation of positive and negative mood: A test of the depressive realism hypothesis

Asset Metadata

Creator Tseng, TzuShan (author)

Core Title Collective efficacy, anxiety, creativity/innovation and work performance at the team level

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education - Counseling Psychology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, cognitive,psychology, industrial,psychology, social

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Hocevar, Dennis (committee chair), [illegible] (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-206421

Unique identifier UC11334739

Identifier 3065859.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-206421 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3065859.pdf

Dmrecord 206421

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Tseng, TzuShan

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA