Photo credit: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/19007/enhancing-the-effectiveness-of-team-science
Here’s a link to a presentation I gave recently on Evidence-Based Practice regarding Personality, Process and Performance in Interprofessional Teams: Hood MHRC Research Methods Seminar 02.04.16
Sources for Scientific Evidence on Teams in the Organizational Sciences (not exhaustive)
1. Academy of Management Journal
2. Academy of Management Review
3. Journal of Management
4. Administrative Science Quarterly
5. MIS Quarterly
6. Academy of Management Learning and Education
7. Journal of Managerial Education
8. Strategic Management Journal
9. Journal of Applied Psychology
10. Personnel Psychology
11. Journal of Organizational Behavior
12. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
13. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
14. Leadership Quarterly
15. Journal of Business and Psychology
16. Journal of Managerial Psychology
17. Small Group Research
18. Group and Organization Management
Evidence-Based Practice in Managerial Decision Making and Learning
1. Wright, A. L., Middleton, S., Greenfield, G., Williams, J., & Brazil, V. (2016). Strategies for teaching evidence-based management: What management educators can learn from medicine. Journal of Management Education. doi:10.1177/1052562915624123.
2. Rousseau, D. M., & Gunia, B. C. (2016). Evidence-based practice: The psychology of EBP implementation. Annual Review of Psychology, 67(1), 667-692. doi:doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033336.
3. Giluk, T. L. (2014). Becoming the Evidence-Based Manager: Making the Science of Management Work for You. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(3), 491-495. doi:10.5465/amle.2013.0185.
4. Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Evidence-based management. Harvard Business Review, 84(1), 62.
5. Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as “evidence-based management”? Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 256-269.
Review Articles in the Organizational Sciences
1. Schneid, M., Isidor, R., Li, C., & Kabst, R. (2015). The influence of cultural context on the relationship between gender diversity and team performance: a meta-analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(6), 733-756. doi:10.1080/09585192.2014.957712.
2. Sarooghi, H., Libaers, D., & Burkemper, A. (2015). Examining the relationship between creativity and innovation: A meta-analysis of organizational, cultural, and environmental factors. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(5), 714-731. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2014.12.003
3. Fulmer, C. A., & Ostroff, C. (2015). Convergence and emergence in organizations: An integrative framework and review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, n/a-n/a. doi:10.1002/job.1987
4. Frese, M., & Keith, N. (2015). Action Errors, Error Management, and Learning in Organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 66(1), 661-687. doi:doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015205.
5. Weaver, S. J., Dy, S. M., & Rosen, M. A. (2014). Team-training in healthcare: a narrative synthesis of the literature. BMJ Quality & Safety, 23(5), 359-372. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001848.
6. Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. K. (2014). Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of an Interpersonal Construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 23-43. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305.
7. O’Neill, T. A., Allen, N. J., & Hastings, S. E. (2013). Examining the “Pros” and “Cons” of Team Conflict: A Team-Level Meta-Analysis of Task, Relationship, and Process Conflict. Human Performance, 26(3), 236-260.
8. Collins, A. L., Lawrence, S. A., Troth, A. C., & Jordan, P. J. (2013). Group affective tone: A review and future research directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(S1), S43-S62. doi:10.1002/job.1887.
9. de Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. 2012. The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2): 360-390.
10. DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. 2010. The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1): 32-53.
11. DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. 2010. Measuring shared team mental models: A meta-analysis. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14(1): 1-14.
12. Henttonen, K. 2010. Exploring social networks on the team level–A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 27(1-2): 74-109.
13. Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. 2008. Team Effectiveness 1997-2007: A Review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse Into the Future. Journal of Management, 34(3): 410-476.
14. Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., DeChurch, L. A., Jimenez-Rodriguez, M., Wildman, J., & Shuffler, M. 2011. A meta-analytic investigation of virtuality and information sharing in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2): 214-225.
15. Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. 2009. Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2): 535-546.
16. Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L., & Hamilton, K. 2010. Metaphor No More: A 15-Year Review of the Team Mental Model Construct. Journal of Management, 36(4): 876-910.
17. Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Stein, J. H. 2009. Coping with challenge and hindrance stressors in teams: Behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(1): 18-28.
18. Stewart, G. L. 2006. A Meta-Analytic Review of Relationships Between Team Design Features and Team Performance. Journal of Management, 32(1): 29-55.
Previously Validated Scales in the Organizational Sciences
Individual Difference Variables
Positive Affectivity (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1998)
Negative Affectivity (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1998)
Core-Self Evaluations Judge et al. (2003)
Big 5 Personality- Conscientiousness TIPI (Gosling, Rentfrow & Swann, 2003)
Big 5 Personality- Agreeableness TIPI (Gosling, Rentfrow & Swann, 2003)
Big 5 Personality- Emotional Stability TIPI (Gosling, Rentfrow & Swann, 2003)
Big 5 Personality- Openness to Experience TIPI (Gosling, Rentfrow & Swann, 2003)
Big 5 Personality- Extraversion TIPI (Gosling, Rentfrow & Swann, 2003)
Entrepreneurial orientation Covin and Slevin (1989)
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Chen et al., 1998; Forbes, 2005)
Previous entrepreneurial experience (Zhao et al., 2006)
Desire for more formal entrepreneurial learning Zhao et al., (2006)
Entrepreneurial intentions (Chen et al., 1998; Forbes, 2005)
Task complexity Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999)
Friendship Networks Shah et al., 2006
Process-Oriented Variables Source
Task Conflict Jehn (1995)
Relationship Conflict Jehn (1995)
Process Conflict Jehn 1995; Jehn & Mannix, 2001
Psychological Safety Edmondson (1999)
Transactive Memory Systems Lewis (2003)
Task Interdependence Van der Vegt & Janssen (2003)
Goal Interdependence Campion et al (2003)
Transformational Leadership Bass and Avolio (1989)
Transactional Leadership
Inspirational Leadership
Team Cohesion Dobbins & Zaccaro (1986) 8-items
Psychological Contract Breach Robinson and Morrison’s (2000) 5-items
Trust Jehn and Mannix (2001) 3-items
Organizational Support (adapted for team context) Eisenberger and colleagues (1986) 17-items
Shared Vision Leana and Pil (2006) 6-items
Organizational Citizenship Behavior – Helping Van Dyne & LePine (1998) 5-items
Organizational Citizenship Behavior – Voice Van Dyne & LePine (1998)
Organizational Citizenship Behavior – Courtesy Van Dyne & LePine (1998)
Organizational Citizenship Behavior – Conscientiousness Van Dyne & LePine (1998)
Organizational Citizenship Behavior – Sportsmanship Van Dyne & LePine (1998)
Counterproductive Work Behavior-I (directed towards supervisor) Stewart et al. (2009); Dalal, Lam, Weiss, Welch & Hulin’s (2009) 5-items
Participation in Decision Making Campion et al., 1993; De Dreu & West, 2001
Decision Comprehensiveness Miller, 1990; Simons, Pelled, & Smith, 1999
Decision Speed Talaulicar, Grundei, & Werder, 2005
Stress Hunter and Thatcher’s (2007) 6-items
Multiplex Friendship and Conflict Hood et al. in press
Network Unethicality Tillman et al., 2014
Outcome-Oriented Variables Scales
Team Viability (Lewis, 2004)
Team Creativity Jehn, Rispens, & Thatcher (2010)
Team Innovation
Team Performance in Simulation Lee et al., 2014; Hood et al., (in press)
Team Performance
Team Effectiveness Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Oh, Chung, Labianca, 2004; Sparrowe et al., 2001
Turnover Intentions Chatman (1991); Begley and Czajka’s (1993)
Scales used in Previous Teams Research
Psychological Safety – (Edmondson, 1999)
1. If you made a mistake on this team, it was often held against you. (reverse)
2. Members of this team were able to bring up problems and tough issues.
3. People on this team sometimes rejected others for being different. (reverse)
4. It was safe to take risks on this team.
5. It was difficult to ask other members of this team for help. (reverse)
6. No one on this team deliberately acted in ways that undermined my efforts.
7. Working with members of this team, my unique skills and talents were valued and utilized.
Big-Five Personality Characteristics – (TIPI: Gosling, Rentfrow & Swann, 2003)
Using the following scale please write the number in front of each trait indicating how accurately it describes you.
Citizenship Behaviors
Helping 1-5 (adapted from Van Dyne & LePine, 1998); Voice 6-10 (adapted from Van Dyne & LePine, 1998); Courtesy 11-14 (adapted from Van Dyne et al., 1994); Sportsmanship 15-18 (adapted from Van Dyne et al., 1994); Conscientiousness 19-22 (adapted from Van Dyne et al., 1994)
1. Members of my group often volunteer to do things that help the group (without being asked).
2. Members in my group help other group members with their part of the project for the benefit of the group as a whole.
3. Members in my group are actively involved in the project in ways that benefit the group as a whole.
4. Members in my group goes out of their way to help others in this group.
5. Members in my group generally adjusts their schedules to accommodate the schedules of other group members.
6. The members of my group are instrumental in developing plans and making recommendations for issues that affect this group.
7. My group members speak up to encourage others in this group to get more actively involved.
8. Members in my group challenge other group members to come up with new or better ways of doing things.
9. The members of my group frequently motivate other group members to express their true ideas and opinions about the project.
10. Members in my group expresses their honest opinions about the project, even when others may disagree.
11. Members in my group are always courteous toward one another.
12. Members in my group are proactive in preventing problems with other group members.
13. My group members generally talk to one another before doing anything that will impact the entire group.
14. The members of my group stop to consider how their actions will influence the group as a whole.
15. The members of this group spends a lot of time complaining about trivial matters.
16. Some members in my group tend to make “mountains out of molehills” (i.e., they make problems bigger than they are).
17. There are members of my group that often complains about other group members or the group project.
18. The members in my group generally focus on what’s wrong with the group or project, rather than looking at the positive side of things.
19. The members of my group are always punctual.
20. During meetings members of my group don’t take long breaks or zone out for long periods of time.
21. Members of my group are good about following the directions of the project, and doing the right thing even when no one is watching.
22. During group meetings members of the group are good about staying focused and not getting distracted.
Group Cohesion 1-6 (Dobbins & Zaccaro 1986)
1. If given the chance, I would choose to leave my group and join another.
2. The members of my group get along well together.
3. I feel that I am really a part of my group.
4. I look forward to being with members of my group each class.
5. I find that I generally do not get along with the other members of my group.
6. I enjoy belonging to this group because I am friends with many group members.
PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1998)
This scale consists of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Read each item and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next to the word. Indicate to what extent you have felt this way during the past few weeks. Use the following scale to record your answers.
1-Very slightly or not at all, 2-a little, 3-moderately, 4-quite a bit, 5-extremely
1. Interested ________
2. Distressed ________
3. Excited ________
4. Upset ________
5. Strong ________
6. Guilty ________
7. Scared ________
8. Hostile ________
9. Enthusiastic ________
10. Proud ________
11. Irritable ________
12. Alert ________
13. Ashamed ________
14. Inspired ________
15. Nervous ________
16. Determined ________
17. Attentive ________
18. Jittery ________
19. Active ________
20. Afraid ________
Task Interdependence (Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003)
1. I need information and advice from group members to perform my tasks well.
2. I have a one-person job; it is not necessary for me to coordinate or cooperate with others. (R)
3. I need to collaborate with my group members to perform my tasks well.
4. My group members need information and advice from me to perform their tasks well.
5. I regularly have to communicate with my group members about project-related issues.
Task Interdependence – Van der Vegt & Janssen (2003)
1. I have to obtain information and advice from my colleagues in order to complete my work
2. I depend on my colleagues for the completion of my work
3. I have a one-person job; I rarely have to check or work with others
4. I have to work closely with my colleagues to do my work properly
5. In order to complete their work, my colleagues have to obtain information and advice from me.
Goal Interdependence – Campion et al (2003)
1. We receive feedback about our team performance
2. We are collectively held accountable for our team performance
3. We receive regular feedback about our team functioning
4. We are informed about the goals we should attain as a group
5. We regularly receive information about what is expected from our team
6. We have several clear targets we have to attain as a group
Trust 1-7 (Robinson 1996), 8-12 Affect-based Trust, 13-17 cognition based trust (McCallister, 1995)
1. I believe my group members have high integrity.
2. I can trust members of my group to treat me in a consistent and predictable fashion.
3. My group members are not always honest and truthful.
4. In general, I believe this my group members’ motives and intentions are good.
5. I don’t think members of this group treat me fairly.
6. Members of this group are open and up-front with me.
7. I am not sure I fully trust members of this group.
8. We have a sharing relationship.
9. We can freely share our ideas, feelings, and hopes in this group.
10. I can talk freely to members of my group about difficulties I am having with the project and know that they will want to listen.
11. If I shared my problems with my group members, I know they would respond constructively and caringly.
12. I would have to say that our group has made considerable emotional investments in our working relationship.
13. Members of my group approach their tasks with professionalism and dedication.
14. Given our group’s track record, I see no reason to doubt its competence and preparation for the project.
15. I can rely on my group members not to make this project more difficult by careless work.
16. Other students in this class who interact with our group consider us to be trustworthy.
17. If the instructor knew more about our group, he or she would be more concerned and monitor our performance more closely.
Transactive Memory (Lewis, 2003)
Specialization
1. Each team member has specialized knowledge of some aspect of our project.
2. I have knowledge about an aspect of the project that no other team member has.
3. Different team members are responsible for expertise in different areas.
4. The specialized knowledge of several different team members was needed to complete the project deliverables.
5. I know which team members have expertise in specific areas.
Credibility
1. I was comfortable accepting procedural suggestions from other team members.
2. I trusted that other members’ knowledge about the project was credible.
3. I was confident relying on the information that other team members brought to the discussion.
4. When other members gave information, I wanted to double-check it for myself. (reversed)
5. I did not have much faith in other members’ “expertise.” (reversed)
Coordination
1. Our team worked together in a well-coordinated fashion.
2. Our team had very few misunderstandings about what to do.
3. Our team needed to backtrack and start over a lot. (reversed)
4. We accomplished the task smoothly and efficiently.
5. There was much confusion about how we would accomplish the task. (reversed)
Adapted Measures for Social Networks Research
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (Based on Van Dyne & LePine, 1998)
Helping refers to the little things individuals do to help out, which are not technically required of them. These include volunteering to do extra things for members of the group, being on time and prepared for all group meetings, assisting others with their work for the benefit of the group, being actively engaged in the project.Using the following scale, how frequently during the last two weeks have you engaged in helping behaviors towards this person?
1= never 2 = once or twice 3= 2-3 times a week 4 = 4-5 times a week 5 = daily
Group Member 1_____
Group Member 2_____
Group Member 3_____
Using the same scale, how frequently during the last two weeks do you think this person has engaged in helping behaviors towards you?
Group Member 1_____
Group Member 2_____
Group Member 3_____
Voice refers to the extent to which a team member encourages others to get more actively engaged in the team’s project, challenges other team members to come up with new or better ideas, expressing their honest opinions about the project-even when others may disagree, making positive comments when the group experiences difficulties, encouraging others when they are having problems, and so forth. Using the following scale, how frequently during the last two weeks have you engaged in voice behaviors towards this person?
1= never 2 = once or twice 3= 2-3 times a week 4 = 4-5 times a week 5 = daily
Group Member 1_____
Group Member 2_____
Group Member 3_____
Using the same scale, how frequently during the last two weeks do you think this person has engaged in voice behavior towards you?
Group Member 1_____
Group Member 2_____
Group Member 3_____
Trust (Based on McAllister, 1995 and adapted from Chua et al 2008)
Cognitive-Based
Using the following scale, rate the extent to which you can rely on this person to complete the tasks he or she has agreed to do, and to have the knowledge and competence to accomplish his or her tasks.
1= not at all 2 = a little 3=somewhat 4 = to a good extent 5 = to a great extent
Group Member 1_____
Group Member 2_____
Group Member 3_____
Affective-Based
Using the same scale, rate the extent to which you feel that you can share your personal problems and difficulties, as well as your hopes and aspirations with this person.
Group Member 1_____
Group Member 2_____
Group Member 3_____
Task Interdependence (based on Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003) refers to the extent to which successful completion of your team’s task work is dependent upon the exchange of information and advice, regular communication, coordination and cooperation between you and another team member. Using the scale below, rate the extent to which you and this person are dependent upon each other to fulfill the responsibilities of your group’s project.
1= not at all 2 = a little 3=somewhat 4 = to a good extent 5 = to a great extent
Group Member 1_____
Group Member 2_____
Group Member 3_____
Friendship (Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 2001)
Friendship refers to how much you consider this person an especially good friend; that is, someone you would spend your free time with, allow to visit your home or apartment, or would attend a public function with such as a party or sporting event.
1=dislike a lot 2=dislike slightly 3=feel neutral toward 4= like slightly 5= like a lot
Group Member 1_____
Group Member 2_____
Group Member 3_____
Dislike (based on Venkataramani & Dalal, 2007) refers to the extent to which there is animosity, conflict or tension between you and this person. Due to difficulties in getting along with this person due to differences in values, personalities, or preferences, you would prefer to avoid this person if at all possible. Using the scale below, how do you generally feel about this person?
1=dislike a lot 2=dislike slightly 3=feel neutral toward 4= like slightly 5= like a lot
Group Member 1_____
Group Member 2_____
Group Member 3_____
Advice Network (based on Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne & Kraimer, 2001)
To what extent do you go to (Group Member#) for school-related advice or to receive help on school related problems?
1= not at all 2 = a little 3=somewhat 4 = to a good extent 5 = to a great extent
Group Member 1_____
Group Member 2_____
Group Member 3_____
Task conflict (based on Jehn, 1995) refers to the extent to which you and this team member have had different ideas, viewpoints or opinions concerning your team’s project. Task conflicts may result in disagreements or debates that are not personal, but instead are based on which strategies, solutions or decision alternatives would be best for the team. To what extent do you have task conflict with…
1= not at all 2 = a little 3=somewhat 4 = to a good extent 5 = to a great extent
Group Member 1_____
Group Member 2_____
Group Member 3_____
Relationship Conflict (based on Jehn, 1995) refers to the extent to which there is or has been personal tension, anger or bad feelings between you and this team member due to differences in personality, values, or non-task related preferences. To what extent do you have task conflict with…
1= not at all 2 = a little 3=somewhat 4 = to a good extent 5 = to a great extent
Group Member 1_____
Group Member 2_____
Group Member 3_____
