Work teams: bidimensionality, interdependence and performance

1. Work teams: bidimensionality, interdependence and performance Ana PINTO, Paulo Renato LOURENÇO, José MIGUEZ luisa.s.pinto@gmail.com; prenato@fpce.uc.pt; miguez@egp.up.pt INTRODUCTION Hypothesis 2 also received empirical support: as in Rousseau, Aubé and Savoie (2006), the interpersonal support dimension and the work management dimension are positively correlated (p<.01) with team performance (r=.52 e r= .40 respectively). The impact of the relationship is moderate (Bryman & Cramer, 1990/1993; Cohen & Holliday, 1982; Pestana & Gageiro, 2005), explaining 27% and 16%, respectively, of the variance of team task performance (Table 1). In the results obtained by Rousseau, Aubé and Savoie (2006), the interpersonal support dimension and the work management dimension are positively correlated (p<.05) wit h team task performance (r=.35 and r=.31), explaining 12.3% and 9.6%, respectively, of the variance of team performance. The literature on groups/teams converges in the fact that the group processes are responsible for facilitating the performance of common tasks [e.g. cooperation – Campion, Papper & Medsker (1996); psychological support – Campion et al (1993,1996); communication – Barry & Stewart (1997), resource management – Weldon et al. (1991), etc.]. However, there is a lack of consensus on how to conceptualize the behaviors related to the internal functioning of the groups/teams (some authors study them randomly, others, despite believing in the multidimensionality of behaviors, do not test it). Table 1. Intercorrelations, means and standard deviation of the dimensions of the internal functioning of work teams and team performance Rousseau, Aubé and Savoie (2006) have proposed and tested a multidimensional conception of the internal functioning of groups/teams. • Rousseau, Aubé and Savoie (2006) carried out a study on the “internal functioning” (IF) of the work groups/teams (it is a series of behaviors which members exhibit and have the potential to facilitate the performance of common tasks within the teams) taking into consideration its relationships with: • ◊ task performance • ◊ team task interdependence • The study by Rousseau, Aubé and Savoie (2006) • The studies by Rousseau, Aubé and Savoie focused on 71 work groups/teams (376 members of the group/team and 71 immediate superiors), each composed of a mean of 6 members (SD=4.4). • In a first phase, based, on seven dimensions associated with performance-related functions and with team maintenance (cooperation, communication, psychological support, conflict management, work planning/organization, resource management and support to innovation), they assessed the validity of the multidimensional conception of the work teams ´behaviors. • In a second phase, these authors analyzed the extent to which a) the IF of the work teams is related to task performance and b) task interdependence plays a moderator role on the relationship between the IF and group´s task performance. • ◊ the results • did not confirm the multidimensional conception of the internal functioning of work groups/teams. Instead, a bidimensional structure emerged. The authors named each of the dimensions as: 1) interpersonal support (the degree to which group/team members optimize the quality of their interactions; it includes processes such as cooperation, communication, psychological support and conflict management) and 2) work management (it plays an instrumental role particularly oriented towards task performance; it includes processes such as work planning/organization, resource management and support to innovation). • showed that the dimensions of the internal functioning of work groups/teams are positively related to task performance, and that task interdependence has a moderator role on this relationship. **p<.01 Hypothesis 3 was not empirically supported: contrary to the results obtained by Rousseau, Aubé and Savoie (2006), the task interdependence does not play a moderator role in the relationship between interpersonal support and team performance since there was no significant variance in the dependent variable(ΔR2 = .002, ns) (Table 2). Theresultsobtainedby Rousseau, Aubé and Savoie (2006) showedthattaskinterdependenceplays a moderator role intherelationshipbetweentheinterpersonalsupportdimensionandteam performance (theintroductionofinteractiontermsintheregressionmodelhassignificantlyincreasedthepercentageoftheexplainedvariancein 5%) Table 2. Results of the hierarchical regression analysis with the interpersonal support dimension and the interdependence as predictors of team performance RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES GENERAL RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: • ◊ based on the studies by Rousseau, Aubé and Savoie (2006), weanalysedtheconsistencyoftheresultsobtained, using a samplecomposedofteamsfromPortugueseorganizations. • More specifically, we: • ◊tested the bidimensional conception of the functioning of work groups/teams; • ◊analysed the extent to which interpersonal support and work management are related to task performance; • ◊analysed if task interdependence has a moderator role in the relationship between internal functioning and task performance. • 8 ***p<.001 Hypothesis 4 was not empirically supported: contrary to the results obtained by Rousseau, Aubé and Savoie (2006), the task interdependence does not play a moderator role in the relationship between work management and team performance since there was no significant variance in the dependent variable(ΔR2 = .007, ns) (Table 3). Theresultsobtainedby Rousseau, Aubé and Savoie (2006) showedthattaskinterdependenceplays a moderator role intherelationshipbetweentheworkmanagementdimensionandteam performance (theintroductionofinteractiontermsintheregressionmodelhassignificantlyincreasedthepercentageoftheexplainedvariancein 5%) RESEARCH HYPOTHESES: • ◊ Hypothesis 1 – The internal functioning of work teams is composed of two dimensions: interpersonal support and work management. • ◊Hypothesis 2 – Each dimension of the internal functioning of work teams is positively related to team task performance. • ◊Hypothesis 3 – The relationship between the interpersonal support of the groups' internal functioning and the task performance is moderated by task interdependence between team members. • ◊Hypothesis 4 – The relationship between the work management of the groups' internal functioning and the task performance is moderated by task interdependence between team members. Table 3. Results of the hierarchical regression analysis with the work management dimension and the interdependence as predictors of team performance METHOD • The design of this study is non-experimental. To achieve the abovementioned objectives self-administered questionnaires were used for data collection. • Measures: • ◊for the independent variable, dimensions of the internal functioning of work teams, we used the Internal Functioning of Work Teams scale (Rousseau, Aubé & Savoie, 2006). In this scale, participants indicated what is happening in their group/team, using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1=“not true at all” and 5=“entirely true”). • ◊the dependent variable, team task performance, was measured using the Team Performance scale (Rousseau, Aubé & Savoie, 2006). The data from this questionnaire were obtained from immediate superiors who indicated whether they considered the statements true, according to a 5-point Likert-type scale (1=“not true” and 5=“completely true”). • ◊for the moderator variable, interdependence, we used the Team Task Interdependence scale (Rousseau, Aubé & Savoie, 2006). Participants indicated their level of agreement with a set of statements, using a 6-point Likert-type scale (1=“completely disagree” and 6=“completely agree”). • We adapted these instruments to Portuguese. The scales were administered to a sample of 72 work teams [408 group/team members and 66 immediate superiors, each composed of a mean of 7 members (SD=2.87)] • Data were analysed using factor analysis (to empirically test the bidimensional conception of the internal functioning of work group/team), correlations (relationship between the dimensions of the internal functioning of work groups/teams and task performance) and hierarchical multiple regression (the role of task interdependence in the relationship between the dimensions of the internal functioning of work groups/teams and task performance). Whenever there was a need to aggregate data to the group level (IF and TI), the Average Deviation Index was used [Burke, Finkelstein & Dusig, 1999; Burke & Dunlap, 2002]. *p<.05; **p<.01 DISCUSSION This study allowed us to demonstrate that the classic roles of the behaviors of work group/team members (expressive and instrumental, or, in other words, socio-affective/relational and task/technique) are the IF dimensions of work groups/teams. It shows that they complement each other, that they contribute to team effectiveness. Managing a team – and its effectiveness – is to manage these two interactive and interdependent poles of tension. Task interdependence did not play a moderator role in the relationship between IF dimensions and team performance in this study and that was perhaps due to the fact that the results may have been conditioned by factors which are external to the underlying theory, particularly the small sample size (which may result in Type II errors). Thus, it points to the need for further research with larger samples. The adaptation to the context of Portuguese teams and the studies on the psychometric properties of the questionnaires about the internal functioning of work teams (IF Questionnaire), the task interdependence (TI Questionnaire) and team performance (TP Questionnaire) are also important outputs of this work. REFERENCES Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L., (1997). Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology,82,62- 78. Bryman, A. & Cramer, D. (1993). Análise dos dados em ciências sociais: Introdução às técnicas utilizando o SPSS. Oeiras: Celta (Obra original publicada em 1990). Burke, M. J., & Dunlap, J. P. (2002). Estimating interrater agreement with the average deviation index: a user´s guide. Organizational research methods, 5(2), 159-172. Burke, M. J., Finkelstein, L.M., & Dusig, M.S. (1999). On average deviation indices for estimating interrater agreement. Organizational research methods, 2(1), 49-68. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. PersonnelPsychology, 46, 823-850. Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429-452. Cohen, L. & Holliday, M. (1982). Statistics for Social Scientists, London: Harper & Row. Lourenço, P.R. (2002). Concepções e dimensões da eficácia grupal: desempenho e níveis de desenvolvimento. Dissertação de Doutoramento, Faculdade de Psicologia e Ciências da Educação, Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra. Pestana, M. H., & Gageiro, J. (2005). Análise dos dados para ciências sociais: A complementaridade de SPSS (4.ª ed.). Lisboa: Sílabo. Rousseau, V., Aubé, C., & Savoie, A. (2006). Le fonctionnement interne des équipes de travail : concepcion et mesure. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 38, 120-135. Weldon, E., Jehn, K. A., & Pradhan, P. (1991). Processes thatmediatetherelationshipbetween a groupgoalandimprovedgroup performance. JournalofPersonalityand Social Psychology, 61, 555-569. RESULTS The results obtained were partially consistent with those obtained by Rousseau, Aubé e Savoie (2006). Hypothesis 1 received empirical support: as in Rousseau, Aubé and Savoie (2006), we also observed the emergence of two factors (interpersonal support dimension and work management dimension) which explained 60.59% of the variance of the results obtained. The interpersonal support dimension includes 10 items (of the original 12 items of the Internal Functioning of Work Teams scale) and the work management dimension includes 6 items (of the original 10 items). As for reliability, the alpha score for the interpersonal support factor is .94 and .90 for the work management factor. The variance score of the results obtained by Rousseau, Aubé and Savoie (2006) was 53.8%, whereas alpha´s coefficient for the interpersonal factor and for the work management factor was .93 and .91 respectively. This