Autonomy and Performance in Teams: The Multilevel Moderating Effect of Task Interdependence

The author predicts that the interaction between individual- and team-level autonomy influences team performance and that their combined effects are contingent on the level of task interdependence. Multiple regression analysis of data from 89 teams in a manufacturing setting confirm these expectations, demonstrating that team performance depends on the combination of individual and team autonomy. These findings suggest that the optimal combination of individual and team autonomy depends on the level of task interdependence in a team. Implications for future research, particularly in the areas of cross-level analyses and contingency theory, are discussed as well.

[1]  M. D. Dunnette.  Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 2005 .

[2]  Claus W. Langfred.  The paradox of self‐management: individual and group autonomy in work groups , 2000 .

[3]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  Team Structure and Performance: Assessing the Mediating Role of Intrateam Process and the Moderating Role of Task Type , 2000 .

[4]  George B. Graen,et al.  Individual Self-Management: Analysis of Professionals' Self-Managing Activities in Functional and Cross-Functional Work Teams , 1998 .

[5]  J. Colquitt,et al.  KNOWLEDGE WORKER TEAM EFFECTIVENESS: THE ROLE OF AUTONOMY, INTERDEPENDENCE, TEAM DEVELOPMENT, AND CONTEXTUAL SUPPORT VARIABLES , 1997 .

[6]  S. G. Cohen,et al.  What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite , 1997 .

[7]  R. Liden,et al.  Task Interdependence as a Moderator of the Relation Between Group Control and Performance , 1997 .

[8]  Ina S. Markham,et al.  Self-management and self-leadership reexamined: A levels-of-analysis perspective , 1995 .

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

[10]  K. Klein,et al.  Levels Issues in Theory Development, Data Collection, and Analysis , 1994 .

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

[12]  Lawrence R. James,et al.  Personality, affect, and behavior in groups revisited: Comment on aggregation, levels of analysis, and a recent application of within and between analysis. , 1993 .

[13]  L. James,et al.  rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. , 1993 .

[14]  R. Saavedra,et al.  Complex interdependence in task-performing groups , 1993 .

[15]  Francis J. Yammarino,et al.  On the application of within and between analysis: Are absence and affect really group-based phenomena? , 1992 .

[16]  K. Weick,et al.  Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization , 1990 .

[17]  Christopher G. Gresov.  Exploring fit and misfit with multiple contingencies. , 1989 .

[18]  Elizabeth C. Ravlin,et al.  The Design and Activation of Self-Regulating Work Groups , 1987 .

[19]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. , 1985 .

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

[21]  John W. Slocum,et al.  Technology, Structure, and Workgroup Effectiveness: A Test of a Contingency Model , 1984 .

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

[23]  M. Kiggundu.  Task interdependence and job design: test of a theory. , 1983, Organizational behavior and human performance.

[24]  H. P. Sims,et al.  A Typology for Integrating Technology, Organization, and Job Design , 1980 .

[25]  T. G. Cummings,et al.  Improving Productivity and the Quality of Work Life , 1980 .

[26]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

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

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

[29]  Charles C. Manz.  The Illusion of Self-Management: Using Teams to Disempower , 2003 .

[30]  R. Golembiewski.  Handbook of Organizational Behavior , 2001 .

[31]  D. Rousseau,et al.  Trends in organizational behavior , 2000 .

[32]  J. Stoker,et al.  Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams , 1997 .

[33]  Larry E. Toothaker,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions , 1991 .

[34]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  Cognitive and motivational effects of participation: A mediator study , 1994 .

[35]  Richard A. Guzzo,et al.  Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. , 1992 .

[36]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[37]  D. Rousseau.  Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. , 1985 .

[38]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action , 1967 .