KNOWLEDGE WORKER TEAM EFFECTIVENESS: THE ROLE OF AUTONOMY, INTERDEPENDENCE, TEAM DEVELOPMENT, AND CONTEXTUAL SUPPORT VARIABLES

This study investigated how autonomy, interdependence, and team development, along with process and contextual support variables, were related to the effectiveness of teams of “knowledge workers.” The sample included 231 knowledge workers from 27 work teams. Team members completed surveys measuring the design, process, and contextual factors. Effectiveness measures included multiple key stakeholder evaluations of team performance and self-report measures of attitudinal outcomes. The results suggest that interactions among design, process, and contextual support factors have important implications for team effectiveness. In particular, the positive relationship between team autonomy and team job motivation was reduced as teams worked under more interdependent conditions. This interaction effect also varied across the types of autonomy (e.g., planning-related, product-related, and people-related) the team was given. Results also demonstrated that the relationship between job motivation and team process behaviors (helping, sharing, and innovating) was more positive in teams who were developmental mature. Process behaviors were positively related to effectiveness, but those relationships became more positive in the presence of certain contextual factors (high-quality goals and efficient information transmission), and less positive in the presence of others (feedback and time pressure). Future research needs and practical implications of these results are discussed.

[1]  Gina J. Medsker,et al.  RELATIONS BETWEEN WORK TEAM CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTIVENESS: A REPLICATION AND EXTENSION , 1996 .

[2]  Richard A. Guzzo,et al.  Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness. , 1996, Annual review of psychology.

[3]  R. Wageman.  Interdependence and Group Effectiveness , 1995 .

[4]  N. Schmitt.  Method bias: The importance of theory and measurement , 1994 .

[5]  P. Drucker.  The Age of Social Transformation , 1994 .

[6]  Gina J. Medsker,et al.  RELATIONS BETWEEN WORK GROUP CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTIVENESS: IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGNING EFFECTIVE WORK GROUPS , 1993 .

[7]  Jia Lin Xie,et al.  Mediating and Moderating Effects in Job Design , 1992 .

[8]  Deborah G. . Ancona,et al.  Bridging the Boundary: External Activity and Performance in Organizational Teams. , 1992 .

[9]  J. C. Henderson,et al.  Managing I/S Design Teams: A Control Theories Perspective , 1992 .

[10]  J. E. Champoux.  A multivariate test of the Job Characteristics Theory of Work Motivation. , 1991 .

[11]  John Cordery,et al.  Attitudinal and Behavioral Effects of Autonomous Group Working: A Longitudinal Field Study , 1991 .

[12]  Deborah G. . Ancona.  Outward Bound: Strategic for Team Survival in an Organization , 1990 .

[13]  Jennifer M. George,et al.  Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. , 1990 .

[14]  E. Sundstrom,et al.  Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. , 1990 .

[15]  C. Gersick.  Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group Development , 1988 .

[16]  R. Keller,et al.  Predictors of the Performance of Project Groups in R & D Organizations , 1986 .

[17]  T. Wall,et al.  Outcomes of Autonomous Workgroups: A Long-Term Field Experiment , 1986 .

[18]  David W. Johnson,et al.  The Effect of Prolonged Implementation of Cooperative Learning on Social Support Within the Classroom , 1985 .

[19]  J. Breaugh.  The Measurement of Work Autonomy , 1985 .

[20]  Edwin L. Miller,et al.  Coordination and Output Attainment in Work Units Performing Non-routine Tasks: A Cross- National Study , 1985 .

[21]  D. L. Gladstein.  Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. , 1984 .

[22]  Joseph L. C. Cheng.  Organizational Coordination, Uncertainty, and Performance: An Integrative Study , 1984 .

[23]  Paul H. Cheney,et al.  Effects of individual characteristics, organizational factors and task characteristics on computer programmer productivity and job satisfaction , 1984, Inf. Manag..

[24]  L. James,et al.  Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. , 1984 .

[25]  John F. Rockart,et al.  An Examination of Work-Related Correl ates of Job Satisfaction in Programmer/Analysts , 1984, ICIS.

[26]  Chris W. Clegg,et al.  Autonomous work groups in a greenfield site: A comparative study , 1983 .

[27]  Joseph L. C. Cheng.  Interdependence and Coordination in Organizations: A Role-System Analysis , 1983 .

[28]  Kathryn M. Bartol,et al.  Managing Information Systems Personnel: A Reveiw of the Literature and Managerial Implications , 1982, MIS Q..

[29]  R. Katz.  The Effects of Group Longevity on Project Communication and Performance. , 1982 .

[30]  Paula C. Morrow,et al.  Work Related Communication, Environmental Uncertainty, and Subunit Effectiveness: A Second Look at the Information Processing Approach to Subunit Communication , 1981 .

[31]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[32]  Richard,et al.  Motivation through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory. , 1976 .

[33]  J. Hackman,et al.  Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey , 1975 .

[34]  B. Tuckman.  DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE IN SMALL GROUPS. , 1965, Psychological bulletin.