ASSESSING THE INCREMENTAL VALIDITY OF TEAM CONSENSUS RATINGS OVER AGGREGATION OF INDIVIDUAL‐LEVEL DATA IN PREDICTING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

Using data collected from 98 work teams, empowerment levels were assessed based on the aggregation of individual team member ratings as well as on a team consensus approach utilized after aggregation. These 2 methods of measuring team empowerment were then compared on their ability to predict manager ratings of team effectiveness on 4 dimensions. Findings demonstrated that the consensus method of measuring team empowerment explained significantly greater variance in team effectiveness than did the aggregation method alone. We discuss implications for team research and practice based on these findings and include a discussion on when using consensus after aggregation may be most appropriate.

[1]  Verlin B. Hinsz,et al.  The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. , 1997, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  David A. Hofmann,et al.  A CROSS-LEVEL INVESTIGATION OF FACTORS INFLUENCING UNSAFE BEHAVIORS AND ACCIDENTS , 1996 .

[3]  Robert E. Wood,et al.  Goal setting and the differential influence of self-regulatory processes on complex decision-making performance. , 1991 .

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

[5]  Amy E. Randel,et al.  Understanding Group Efficacy , 2000 .

[6]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. , 1998 .

[7]  Caroline A. Bartel,et al.  The Collective Construction of Work Group Moods , 2000 .

[8]  John W. Fleenor,et al.  Interrater reliability and agreement of performance ratings: A methodological comparison , 1996 .

[9]  A. O'Leary-Kelly,et al.  Monkey See, Monkey Do: The Influence of Work Groups on the Antisocial Behavior of Employees , 1998 .

[10]  Daniel J. Brass,et al.  Efficacy-Performing Spirals: A Multilevel Perspective , 1995 .

[11]  Poppy Lauretta Mcleod,et al.  New Communication Technologies for Group Decision Making: Toward an Integrative Framework , 1996 .

[12]  J. Pfeffer,et al.  A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. , 1978, Administrative science quarterly.

[13]  T. S. Bateman,et al.  The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates , 1993 .

[14]  Paul R. Yost,et al.  Potency in groups: articulating a construct. , 1993, The British journal of social psychology.

[15]  P. Nemiroff,et al.  Group Decision-Making Performance as Influenced by Consensus and Self-Orientation , 1975 .

[16]  Robert T. Golembiewski,et al.  Measuring Change and Persistence in Human Affairs: Types of Change Generated by OD Designs , 1976 .

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

[18]  Benson Rosen,et al.  Powering up teams , 2000 .

[19]  D. Isenberg.  Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. , 1986 .

[20]  E. Salas,et al.  Understanding team performance: A multimethod study. , 1993 .

[21]  J. McGrath,et al.  Group Task Performance and Communication Technology , 1993 .

[22]  Kenneth L. Bettenhausen.  Five Years of Groups Research: What We Have Learned and What Needs to Be Addressed , 1991 .

[23]  A. Bandura,et al.  Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation , 1986, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

[24]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  ELECTRONIC BRAINSTORMING AND GROUP SIZE , 1992 .

[25]  Stephanie Jarboe,et al.  Procedures for Enhancing Group Decision Making , 1996 .

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

[27]  Jay Hall,et al.  Group Dynamics Training and Improved Decision Making , 1970 .

[28]  K. Sirotnik.  PSYCHOMETRIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE UNIT‐OF‐ANALYSIS PROBLEM (WITH EXAMPLES FROM THE MEASUREMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE) , 1980 .

[29]  D. Chan.  Functional Relations among Constructs in the Same Content Domain at Different Levels of Analysis: A Typology of Composition Models , 1998 .

[30]  J. Kevin Ford,et al.  Extending the social information processing perspective: New links to attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions , 1990 .

[31]  L. James.  Aggregation Bias in Estimates of Perceptual Agreement. , 1982 .

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

[33]  R. H. Moorman,et al.  Individualism‐collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior , 1995 .

[34]  Irving M. Lane,et al.  Quality and Acceptance of an Evaluative Task: The Effects of Four Group Decision-Making Formats , 1984 .

[35]  Bradley L. Kirkman,et al.  Beyond Self-Management: Antecedents and Consequences of Team Empowerment , 1999 .

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

[37]  David Chan,et al.  The Conceptualization and Analysis of Change Over Time: An Integrative Approach Incorporating Longitudinal Mean and Covariance Structures Analysis (LMACS) and Multiple Indicator Latent Growth Modeling (MLGM) , 1998 .

[38]  Amy Buhl Conn,et al.  Is everyone in agreement? An exploration of within-group agreement in employee perceptions of the work environment. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[39]  A. Zander,et al.  Individual and Group Levels of Aspiration , 1963 .

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

[41]  G. Spreitzer.  PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT IN THE WORKPLACE: DIMENSIONS, MEASUREMENT, AND VALIDATION , 1995 .

[42]  Miguel A. Quiñones,et al.  A survey of assessment center practices in organizations in the United States. , 1997 .

[43]  S. Kozlowski,et al.  A disagreement about within-group agreement: Disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. , 1992 .

[44]  Joan E. Pynes,et al.  Mechanical vs Consensus- Derived Assessment Center Ratings: A Comparison of Job Performance Validities , 1992 .

[45]  Simon S. K. Lam,et al.  Improving group decisions by better pooling information: a comparative advantage of group decision support systems. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[46]  Warren E. Watson,et al.  Member competence, group interaction, and group decision making: A longitudinal study. , 1991 .

[47]  Avraham N. Kluger,et al.  MAKING DECISIONS FROM AN INTERVIEW: EXPERT MEASUREMENT AND MECHANICAL COMBINATION , 2000 .

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

[49]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  A foundation for the study of group decision support systems , 1987 .

[50]  Erich Kirchler,et al.  The influence of member status differences and task type on group consensus and member position change , 1986 .

[51]  Kenneth S. Law,et al.  CONFLICT MANAGEMENT, EFFICACY, AND PERFORMANCE IN ORGANIZATIONAL TEAMS , 2000 .

[52]  J. Mathieu.  A cross-level nonrecursive model of the antecedents of organizational commitment and satisfaction. , 1991 .

[53]  D. Myers,et al.  The group polarization phenomenon. , 1976 .

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

[55]  Michael J. Burke,et al.  On Average Deviation Indices for Estimating Interrater Agreement , 1999 .

[56]  T. Ruddy,et al.  AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORK GROUP CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE: ONCE MORE INTO THE BREECH , 1997 .

[57]  Gerald E. Ledford,et al.  The Effectiveness of Self-Managing Teams: A Quasi-Experiment , 1994 .

[58]  C. Gibson.  Do they do what they Believe they can? Group Efficacy and Group Effectiveness Across Tasks and Cultures , 1999 .

[59]  Marilyn E. Gist,et al.  Self-Efficacy: Implications for Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management , 1987 .

[60]  Gerben S. van der Vegt,et al.  PATTERNS OF INTERDEPENDENCE IN WORK TEAMS: A TWO‐LEVEL INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONS WITH JOB AND TEAM SATISFACTION , 2001 .

[61]  Earley,et al.  Playing Follow the Leader: Status-Determining Traits in Relation to Collective Efficacy across Cultures. , 1999, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[62]  Warren E. Watson,et al.  A realistic test of individual versus group consensus decision making. , 1989 .

[63]  David L. Ford,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF TWO NORMATIVE STRUCTURAL INTERVENTIONS ON ESTABLISHED AND AD HOC GROUPS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPROVING DECISION MAKING EFFECTIVENESS , 1976 .

[64]  Carolyn M. Anderson,et al.  The relationship of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness to cohesion, consensus, and satisfaction in small groups , 1999 .

[65]  Cheri Ostroff,et al.  Comparing Correlations Based on Individual-Level and Aggregated Data , 1993 .

[66]  D. Feltz,et al.  Perceived team and player efficacy in hockey. , 1998, The Journal of applied psychology.

[67]  Dennis J. Devine,et al.  Teams in Organizations , 1999 .

[68]  Paul E. Tesluk,et al.  Overcoming roadblocks to effectiveness: Incorporating management of performance barriers into models of work group effectiveness. , 1999 .

[69]  Gerald E. Ledford,et al.  A Predictive Model of Self-Managing Work Team Effectiveness , 1996 .

[70]  Michael K. Lindell,et al.  Measuring Interrater Agreement for Ratings of a Single Target , 1997 .

[71]  Amy Buhl Conn,et al.  Implementing computerized technology: an organizational analysis. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[72]  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 .