This article was downloaded by: [New York University] On: 19 May 2015, At: 13:25 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjrl20

Making Teamwork Work: Team Knowledge for Team Effectiveness a

b

b

Priyanko Guchait , Puiwa Lei & Michael J. Tews a

University of Houston

b

The Pennsylvania State University Published online: 09 Apr 2015.

Click for updates To cite this article: Priyanko Guchait, Puiwa Lei & Michael J. Tews (2015): Making Teamwork Work: Team Knowledge for Team Effectiveness, The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, DOI: 10.1080/00223980.2015.1024596 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2015.1024596

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,

and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Journal of Psychology, 2015, 00(0), 1–22 C 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Copyright  doi: 10.1080/00223980.2015.1024596

Making Teamwork Work: Team Knowledge for Team Effectiveness

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

PRIYANKO GUCHAIT University of Houston PUIWA LEI MICHAEL J. TEWS The Pennsylvania State University

ABSTRACT. This study examined the impact of two types of team knowledge on team effectiveness. The study assessed the impact of taskwork knowledge and teamwork knowledge on team satisfaction and performance. A longitudinal study was conducted with 27 service-management teams involving 178 students in a real-life restaurant setting. Teamwork knowledge was found to impact both team outcomes. Furthermore, team learning behavior was found to mediate the relationships between teamwork knowledge and team outcomes. Educators and managers should therefore ensure these types of knowledge are developed in teams along with learning behavior for maximum effectiveness. Keywords: team knowledge, team learning behavior, team performance, team satisfaction, service-management, team-based learning

TEAMWORK IS AN INEVITABLE PART OF ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE. Arguably, no one works alone in the hospitality industry. Creating a positive customer experience is everyone’s job (Garlick, 2010). Line employees and managers alike must collaborate with one another to ensure smooth operations, superior service quality, and enhanced profitability. Recent research has highlighted that managers need to focus on getting everyone involved and create a strong team feeling (Garlick). Organizational success depends on the ability of teams to work effectively, and hiring managers often focus on teamwork skills when selecting individuals for employment (Chen, Donahue, & Klimoski, 2004). Given the importance of teamwork skills, team building exercises, and team projects are a hallmark of hospitality management schools to prepare future leaders for the industry. Moreover, several researchers have focused on improving the effectiveness of student teams (e.g., Wolfe & Gould, 2001; Susskind & Borchgrevink, 1999). Address correspondence to Priyanko Guchait, 229 C.N. Hilton Hotel & College, Houston, TX 77204-3028, USA; [email protected] (e-mail). 1

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

2

The Journal of Psychology

Regrettably, problems with teamwork and team projects in industry or college are commonplace, despite their potential value. Almost everyone can recall a “group from hell” with vivid detail. Students dislike team projects because of unclear goals, group conflict, difficulty coordinating efforts, unequal member participation, lack of control, and lack of motivation (Hansen, 2006; Wolfe & Gould, 2001). Team leaders in the industry as well as instructors managing teams in their courses may also have less than favorable attitudes toward teamwork because of the conflict inherent in many teams and the resulting poor quality of the team effort. Scholars have offered a number of suggestions to improve the effectiveness of teamwork, including teaching teamwork skills, conducting team building exercises, emphasizing the relevance of teamwork, and team-based learning (Hansen; Wolfe & Gould). Notwithstanding the importance of such interventions, there is a need to better understand the mechanisms that explain the effectiveness of successful teams. Such knowledge will help design team training methods to improve team project effectiveness. Moreover, recent hospitality scholars and practitioners have noted the importance of teams for organizational effectiveness (Hu, Horng, & Sun, 2009), implying the need for team related studies in service/hospitality contexts. The current study examines how different forms of team knowledge impact team satisfaction and performance. Specifically, this study focuses on shared taskwork knowledge and shared teamwork knowledge. Taskwork knowledge refers to a similar understanding of task-specific knowledge required to achieve performance goals (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993). Teamwork knowledge refers to an understanding of how members should work together to function effectively (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994). Furthermore, this study examines the mediating effect of team learning behavior between team knowledge and team outcomes. The first section will review previous research on team knowledge and team effectiveness, and will detail the specific aims of the present study and the research hypotheses. Then, the research design for the study will be described in which the impact of the different aspects of team knowledge were assessed with 178 students in 27 teams in a restaurant management course at a major university. The final sections present the results and the implications of findings.

The Present Study Team knowledge is a broad term that refers to the collective knowledge of a group (Tindale, Meisenhelder, Dykema-Engblade, & Hogg, 2001). Team knowledge is considered a central driver of team performance and a key ingredient of expert teams (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010). A recent meta-analysis found that team knowledge was a strong predictor of team motivation, processes, and performance (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus). Team knowledge is multidimensional and has been examined in different ways in previous research. As

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

Guchait, Lee, & Tews

3

highlighted in the introduction, the present study focuses on shared taskwork knowledge, and shared teamwork knowledge. Shared knowledge refers to members’ common understanding of elements of the team’s relevant environment (Mohammed & Dumville, 2001). Shared taskwork knowledge refers to members’ similar understanding of work goals and performance requirements (Mohammed, Ferzandi, & Hamilton, 2010). Shared teamwork knowledge refers to members’ similar understanding of how the team should work together such as interpersonal interaction requirements and team beliefs (CannonBowers & Salas, 2001). Shared knowledge allows teams to coordinate efforts, make predictions about the behavior and needs of their teammates, and act accordingly to promote effective performance (Cooke, Salas, Cannon-Bowers, & Stout, 2000). Hereafter, shared taskwork knowledge and shared teamwork knowledge will simply be referred to as taskwork knowledge and teamwork knowledge. Research on team knowledge has been conducted in diverse settings, and several positive relationships have been established (Lewis, 2004; Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Cannon-Bowers, & Salas, 2005). Taskwork and teamwork knowledge have been found to favorably impact decision quality (Kellermanns, Floyd, Pearson, & Spencer, 2008), client satisfaction (Rentsch & Klimoski, 2001), safety and efficiency (Smith-Jentsch, Mathieu, & Kraiger, 2005), and team performance (Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). One can conclude that each of these two forms of knowledge is important for team effectiveness. Some limitations of the previous research should be noted. First, within the shared knowledge stream of research, scholars have noted that different types of knowledge (i.e., shared knowledge about taskwork and teamwork) should be examined simultaneously to assess team effectiveness (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993). However, there are still only few studies which measured both taskwork and teamwork knowledge (Mathieu, Tammy, Rapp, Maynard, & Mangos, 2010). Second, past research has focused on team performance as team outcome. Recent scholars have noted the need to investigate additional team effectiveness criteria such as affective states (e.g., team satisfaction and team commitment) (Mohammed et al., 2010). Therefore, this research will examine the influence of taskwork and teamwork knowledge as predictors of team effectiveness. The current study will address the research need by examining the effects of taskwork and teamwork knowledge on team performance, and team satisfaction Third, while few studies have investigated the factors that mediated the relationship between team knowledge and team outcomes, the focus has been only on team processes. Laboratory research has examined the mediating effect of team processes (e.g., communication, coordination, and team backup behavior) that explain how team knowledge impacts outcomes (Mathieu et al., 2000; Mathieu et al., 2005). Scholars argued that the extent to which team members are on the same page, they are more likely to better coordinate actions, predict each other’s behavior, and perform important processes relate to team performance. However, Ilgen,

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

4

The Journal of Psychology

Hollenbeck, Johnson, and Jundt (2005) highlighted another class of mediating mechanisms that links team knowledge and team performance, namely, emergent states. Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001) presented taxonomy of team processes and differentiated team processes from team emergent states. While team processes refer to “members’ interdependent acts that convert inputs to outcomes though cognitive, verbal, and behavioral activities directed toward organizing taskwork to achieve collective goals,” emergent states refer to team properties that are “typically dynamic in nature and vary as a function of team context, inputs, processes, and outcomes” such as team cohesion, trust, and efficacy (Marks et al.). A recent meta-analysis shows that whereas the link between team knowledge and the traditionally examined action processes is .29, the link between team knowledge and emergent states is .37 (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010). A recent study by Mathieu et al. (2010) is the only study to examine the mediating mechanism of an emergent state-collective efficacy. Therefore, this study will examine the mediating influence of team learning behavior in the team knowledge-team outcome relationships. Team learning behavior has attributes of both an emergent state and a process (Mohammed et al., 2010; Mohammed & Dumville, 2001). Team learning behavior has attributes of a process as it include activities, such as seeking feedback, sharing information, asking for help, talking about errors, and experimenting (Edmondson, 1999). Team members use these activities (i.e., engage in learning behaviors) to obtain and process data to adapt and improve (Edmondson). Team learning behavior has attributes of an emergent state as it is about shared belief regarding the extent to which the team members engage in these activities to perform the task effectively. In this sense, team learning behavior represents what Chan (1998) called a referent shift aggregate variable. Referent shift variables presume that members agree about the extent to which some collective property exists in the team. In this case, the collective property is the extent to which the team can engage in learning activities such as information sharing, seeking feedback or discussing about errors. This construct has not been investigated as a mediator between team knowledge and team outcomes and can fulfill an important research gap. The study will examine the effects of taskwork and teamwork knowledge on team learning behavior and how team learning behavior consequently leads to team outcomes. Therefore, the mediated relationships will be tested. The conceptual model is presented in Figure 1. Finally, recent studies and review articles have noted that previous research in this area has been dominated by laboratory studies (Mathieu et al., 2010; Mohammed et al., 2010), and more work is necessary in “real life” contexts. Moreover, almost all studies examining the mediating mechanisms have been conducted in laboratory settings (Mathieu et al., 2010). Few field studies have been conducted in this area (e.g., Lim & Klein, 2006; Mathieu et al., 2010); however, they have been done with action teams such as military teams or air-traffic control. Recent scholars have highlighted the need to examine these relationships with management teams such as project management, decision-making teams, and service

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

Guchait, Lee, & Tews

5

FIGURE 1. Conceptual model.

management teams to extend the generalizability of the team knowledge theories (Mohammed et al.; Chou, Wang, Wang, Huang, & Cheng, 2008).Therefore, this research will utilize a sample of hospitality management student teams in a high-fidelity simulation of a restaurant setting. The teams were responsible for planning, executing, and evaluating a theme dinner twice during the semester for this course. The restaurant management task performed by student teams is comparable to tasks performed in any restaurant. The performance requirements, expectations, and evaluations are based on standards used in any real-life restaurant setting. The student teams participated in a real-life educational laboratory. The current context is realistic and generalizable to any restaurant. Therefore, the findings of the study may be generalizable to any hospitality context including restaurants and hotels. Because, customers were real, the food was real, the service delivery was real, differentiated this study from most previous studies conducted in laboratories using simulations.

Hypotheses Development Each of the two types of team knowledge is hypothesized to have a positive impact on performance. The presence of these two forms of knowledge helps teams to ensure that members are on the same page in knowing what to expect, anticipating what other teammates need, and knowing what other teammates know. Taskwork knowledge will impact performance because it relates to focal goal accomplishment. Taskwork knowledge includes knowledge about how the task is accomplished in terms of procedures, strategies, and likely contingencies and problems (Mathieu et al., 2000). When teammates have shared understanding about their performance requirements and work goals, teams are likely to perform well (Mohammed et al., 2010).

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

6

The Journal of Psychology

Teamwork knowledge is important as it is related to effective team processes. Teamwork knowledge involves common understanding about how the team interacts (e.g., understanding roles/responsibilities of teammates, interaction patterns, communication channels, and role interdependencies), and common understanding about teammates (e.g., their knowledge, skills, attitudes, preferences, and values) (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993). Such knowledge allows team members to tailor their behavior based on their expectation of their teammates’ behavior. Because, teamwork knowledge improves team processes (e.g., communication and coordination), it is likely to impact team performance (Mathieu et al., 2000). Researchers have noted that in order to be successful, team members not only need to perform task-related functions well (i.e., have taskwork knowledge) but also must work well together as a team (i.e., have teamwork knowledge) (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010).Therefore, the two forms of knowledge allow the teams to coordinate actions and adapt behavior based on task demands which result in improved decision-making and higher performance. The following hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 1: Taskwork knowledge will be positively related to team performance. Hypothesis 2: Teamwork knowledge will be positively related to team performance.

Each of the two forms of team knowledge is also hypothesized to have a positive impact on team satisfaction. Taskwork knowledge is argued to be important because it helps members accurately predict others’ behaviors and their potential needs, allowing individuals to obtain support from others more easily (Chou et al., 2008). Such support most likely improves team member satisfaction. Teamwork knowledge is believed to be important because it involves cooperation, communication, and knowledge about teammates’ beliefs and preferences (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 2001), which leads to high quality relationships with others (Chou et al.). The following hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 3: Taskwork knowledge will be positively related to team satisfaction. Hypothesis 4: Teamwork knowledge will be positively related to team satisfaction.

Mediating Role of Team Learning Behavior Another issue to be examined is whether team learning behavior mediates the team knowledge-team performance relationships. Previous studies in team knowledge have used the input-process-outcome (I-P-O) framework to explain the mediating mechanism linking team knowledge and team performance (Kraiger &

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

Guchait, Lee, & Tews

7

Wenzel, 1997). This framework suggests that team inputs (I) lead to the formation of team processes (P), which result in team outcomes (O) (Hackman, 1987). Using this framework, previous research has demonstrated that shared taskwork and teamwork knowledge impacts team processes such as coordination, cooperation and strategy, which consequently impacts team performance (Mathieu et al., 2000). However, Ilgen et al. (2005) noted that many of the mediational factors that intervene and transmit the influence of inputs to outcomes are not processes. Marks et al. (2001) developed a taxonomy of team processes and correctly noted that many constructs presented by researchers trying to invoke the IPO model as process are not really process at all, but emergent cognitive and affective states. Some examples of emergent states include team cohesion, and collective efficacy. Previous studies in team knowledge only tested the mediating mechanisms using the team process variables highlighted by Marks et al. However, Ilgen et al. (2005) highlighted that there is a need to broaden the range of variables that are important mediational influences with explanatory power for explaining variability in team performance. Based on this argument, Ilgen et al. (2005) highlighted team emergent states as another class of mediating mechanisms that links team attributes such as team knowledge and team performance. Following Ilgen et al.’s (2005) suggestion, Mathieu et al. (2010) examined the mediating effect of collective efficacy between team knowledge and team effectiveness. In the present study, we examine the mediating role that team learning behavior may play in the team knowledge-outcome relationship. The decision to investigate team learning behavior as a mediator was multifaceted. First, team learning behavior has been highlighted to be an important predictor of team outcomes such as performance and attitudes (Edmondson, 1999). Investment in continuous learning process is critical for team effectiveness (Allred, Snow, & Miles, 1996). Argyris and Schon (1978) defined learning as a process of detecting and correcting error. Building on this approach, Edmondson conceptualized team learning behavior as an “ongoing process of reflection and action, characterized by asking questions, seeking feedback, experimenting, reflecting on results, and discussing errors or unexpected outcomes of actions” (p. 353). Team learning behavior refers to activities through which individuals in teams acquire, share, and combine knowledge to adapt and improve performance (Argote, Gruenfeld, & Naquin, 1999; Gibson & Vermeulen, 2003). Team learning behavior is important as it results in reduced costs and increased team performance (Edmondson, Bohmer, & Pisano, 2001), improved product and service quality (Chan, 2002), and increased customer satisfaction (Edmondson). Team learning behavior helps teams understand their environment and their customers, adapt to changes, detect and correct errors, discover unexpected consequences of previous actions, coordinate member’s actions effectively, and improve quality and efficiency of their work (Bresman, 2010; Edmondson). A recent study by Sengupta and Dev (2011) also highlighted the importance of sharing of negative information (e.g., employee errors, customer complaints) by hotel employees to improve hotel operations.

8

The Journal of Psychology

Often employees do not share negative information because they fear that management will think poorly of them (Sengupta & Dev). Team learning behavior thus appears central for team and organizational performance in the hospitality industry where the environment is dynamic, uncertainties are high, and errors are inevitable. The relationship between team learning behavior and team outcomes is tested in the current context of service-management teams. The following hypotheses are proposed:

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

Hypothesis 5: Team learning behavior will be positively related to team performance. Hypothesis 6: Team learning behavior will be positively related to team satisfaction.

In addition, although not adequately considered within empirical examinations, there are reasons to believe that team learning behavior may help to explain the mechanism linking team knowledge and performance. Scholars have noted that lack of shared knowledge and distributed knowledge may create problems for learning in teams (Mohammed & Dumville, 2001). Common goals, values, and beliefs in teams were considered important conditions in a team learning process (Kasl, Marsick, & Dechant, 1997). According to Cannon-Bowers and Salas (2001), shared beliefs in teams are components of shared knowledge. In line with this argument, Edmondson (1999) found that team psychological safety influence team learning behavior, which leads to higher performance. Psychological safety was defined as “a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking” (p. 350). She explained that team members are more likely to engage in learning behaviors when they believe that there are few risks involved in doing so, thus linking team shared beliefs and team learning behavior. Similarly, Cannon and Edmondson argued that shared beliefs about failure in work groups mitigate barriers to productive identification, discussion, and analysis of mistakes and problems (i.e., team learning behavior). Along these lines, it is reasonable to expect that taskwork and teamwork knowledge are likely to make team members engage in team learning behaviors. Based on the theoretical evidence just outlined, and the shortcomings in this line of research discussed, we consider the issue worthy of additional investigation. Consequently, we propose that both taskwork and teamwork knowledge will impact team learning behavior ultimately resulting in team outcomes. When members do not have a shared understanding/knowledge of taskwork and teamwork, individuals work toward different objectives (Mathieu et al., 2000). Taskwork knowledge will impact learning behavior because when team members are on the same page with regards to performance requirements and work goals, they are more likely to engage in relevant information sharing about taskwork, and reflect on results which assist teams to understand and predict their immediate

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

Guchait, Lee, & Tews

9

work environment resulting in improved team performance and achievement of teams’ work goals. Teamwork knowledge will impact learning behaviors because when members are on the same page with regards to how to work in a team, they are more likely to engage in effective interpersonal communication involving seeking feedback, information sharing, asking for help, and talking about errors, and these team learning behaviors help team members to predict member behaviors and coordinate effectively resulting in improved team performance and satisfaction. Thus, shared knowledge assist team members engage in learning behaviors which help teams to achieve their common objectives in terms of superior team performance and increased satisfaction. Therefore, given that the different types of team knowledge may impact learning behavior, team learning behavior is hypothesized to mediate the team knowledge-team outcomes relationships. The following hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 7: Taskwork knowledge will be positively related to team learning behavior. Hypothesis 8: Teamwork knowledge will be positively related to team learning behavior. Hypothesis 9: Team learning behavior will mediate the relationship between taskwork knowledge and team performance. Hypothesis 10: Team learning behavior will mediate the relationship between teamwork knowledge and team performance. Hypothesis 11: Team learning behavior will mediate the relationship between taskwork knowledge and team satisfaction. Hypothesis 12: Team learning behavior will mediate the relationship between teamwork knowledge and team satisfaction.

Methodology Participants and Setting The participants were undergraduate students enrolled in an advanced food production and service management course in a hospitality management program at a large university in the Northeastern U.S. Twenty-seven teams were involved in the study which included a total of 178 members. Team size ranged from 4 to 9 individuals. The participants were 54% female, 78% Caucasian, and 22 years old on average. The participants’ average GPA was 3.02. The teams were intact for 16-weeks throughout the semester. This research utilized a sample of hospitality management student teams in a high-fidelity simulation of a restaurant setting. This study examined team effectiveness over a period of 16 weeks, a relatively long period of time compared to

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

10

The Journal of Psychology

previous research endeavors. The performance requirement of the teams is to develop, produce, and evaluate an authentic dining experience. Each team executed its dinner twice during the semester, serving between 90 and 140 customers for each dinner. The teams were responsible for administrative tasks (budgeting, purchasing, menu planning, and cost accounting), leadership tasks (decision-making, developing strategy, and supervising employees), and managing the overall service experience of customers. The restaurant management task performed is comparable to tasks performed in any restaurant. The performance requirements, expectations, and evaluations are based on standards used in any real-life restaurant setting. Students who do not perform can be fired from their team. Moreover, customers behave in the same manner as in a restaurant where they are happy/satisfied or unhappy/dissatisfied with the food, beverage and service quality. Data Collection Data were collected at three time points during the teams’ 16-week lifespan (one semester) via questionnaires. At Time 1 (6th week) a questionnaire was completed by the teams that assessed the predictors: taskwork knowledge and teamwork knowledge. This time frame was adopted to make sure that the team members had an opportunity to work together before answering team-related questions. Conducting this part of the survey before the teams’ actual meal delivery also assured that the teams’ outcomes did not influence the predictor variables. At Time 2 (14th week) teams provided data on the mediating variable: team learning behaviors. This data was collected one week prior to the team’s meal delivery. Finally, at Time 3 (16th week) data was collected on team outcomes: team performance and satisfaction, after the teams’ meal delivery. During the same time, instructors also assessed team performance. Collecting the predictors, mediating variable, and outcome variables at different times and from different sources (teams and instructors) served to limit common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Measures All measures were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Shared Knowledge (Time 1) In accordance with guidelines laid out by Lorenzet, Eddy, and Klein (2003), we conducted a task analysis in order to develop a relevant scale. Given that shared knowledge is contextual in nature, knowing what content to measure is a key step in the measurement process (Mohammed & Hamilton, 2012). The team’s task was analyzed through observations, conducting interviews, and questionnaires. Observations were made both during planning (e.g., theme development, menu

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

Guchait, Lee, & Tews

11

development, pricing, forecasting, pre-production reporting, post-production reporting) and execution stages of the teams (when the teams managed the meals). Observations focused on gathering data on how team members communicated, coordinated, and shared information, delegated tasks, trained employees, managed time, forecasted, ensured service quality, and handled customer complaints. Furthermore, twenty semi-structured 30-minute interviews were used to gather data from members of three teams. These three teams were not included in the study sample. Questions focused on understanding the nature of the team’s taskwork and teamwork. Course instructors, who reviewed the teams’ performances, were also interviewed to validate the team members’ responses. Based on the data gathered in the observations and interviews, items were generated on the two types of team knowledge. Finally, participants were asked to rate the relative importance of items to team effectiveness. Responses were provided on a scale of 1 (not at all important) to 10 (very important). Following the procedure, discussed above, shared teamwork knowledge was measured with six items. The teamwork items focused on team coordination and team values. Some sample items are “Our team members value being efficient”; “Our team members value being result oriented.” The internal consistency reliability estimate was .93. Similarly, shared taskwork knowledge was measured with six items. The taskwork knowledge items focused on the technical-administrative duties of team. Some sample items are “Our team members are in agreement about how best to ensure the highest-quality food and beverage”; “Our team members have a common understanding about how best to train our employees.” The internal consistency reliability estimate was .85 (Appendix A). Team Learning Behavior (Time 2) To measure team learning behavior four items were used from the team learning behavior scale developed by Edmondson (1999). Some sample items from the scale are “In our team, people discuss ways to prevent and learn from mistakes”; “Problems and errors in our team are never communicated to the appropriate people so that corrective action can be taken.” The internal consistency reliability estimate was .87. Team Performance (Time 3) The course instructors were asked to rate the teams’ performance. Team performance was measured with five items adapted from a team performance scale developed by Lewis (2004). Some sample items are “The team’s deliverables were of excellent quality”; “The team managed time effectively.” Internal consistency of the scale items was .83.

12

The Journal of Psychology

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

Team Satisfaction (Time 3) Team members rated satisfaction at Time 3. To measure team satisfaction, six items were used from Lewis (2004) and Bushe and Coetzer (2007). Slight edits were made to these items to ensure that they related to the team task used in the current study. Some sample items from the scale are, “Being a member of this team was a positive experience”; “Being a member of this team has been personally satisfying.” The internal consistency reliability estimate was .95. Aggregation Justification for aggregation of the individual items to the team was based on rwg (a measure of intra-team similarity that looks at within group agreement) and ICC (intra-class correlation estimates, measures the extent to which team members’ responses agree with each other (ICC 1) and differ from other teams (ICC 2)) estimates (George, 1990; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). The mean rwg and ICC estimates of all team level variables were found to be acceptable (taskwork knowledge: rwg (.86), ICC 1 (.28), ICC 2 (.67); teamwork knowledge: rwg (.88), ICC 1 (.21), ICC 2 (.61); distributed knowledge: rwg (.91), ICC 1 (.26), ICC 2 (.67); team learning behavior: rwg (.88), ICC 1 (.21), ICC 2 (.59); team performance: rwg (.86), ICC 1 (.30), ICC 2 (.68); and team satisfaction: rwg (.80), ICC 1 (.29), ICC 2 (.67) (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984; Bliese, 2000). Based on these estimates, team members’ responses were aggregated to the team level. Analysis We used Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), consisting of a two-step procedure, measurement model, and structural model analyses (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). At the stage of measurement model analysis, we examined the convergent and discriminant validity of the study variables. Finally, at the stage of the structural model analysis, the hypothesized theoretical structural relationships among the study latent variables were assessed based on a good fitting measurement model found in the previous stage. SEM was performed using Mplus (version 7), and robust weighted least square (WLSMV) was adopted as an estimation method. Results Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the study variables. Measurement Model Before examining specific relationships between variables in the research model, we examined the measurement model with confirmatory factor analysis

Guchait, Lee, & Tews

13

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

TABLE 1. Variable Correlations and Descriptive Statistics

Time 1 1. Taskwork Knowledge 2. Teamwork Knowledge Time 2 3. Team Learning Behaviors Time 3 4. Team Performance 5. Team Satisfaction

M

SD

Alpha

1

2

4.06 3.91

.51 .69

.78 .89

.52

3.51

.76

.83

.30

.38

3.94 3.89

.69 .91

.83 .95

.24 .34

.35 .47

3

4

.53 .50

.56

Note. Alpha: Composite Reliability; Team Performance (Instructor rated).

(CFA) to validate the constructs (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). All five constructs in this research were verified to be five unique constructs. All measurement items showed significant factor loadings on their expected constructs, and the measurement model showed an acceptable degree of fit to the data (χ 2 = 433.41; df = 314; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .05). All measurement items had loadings greater than .50 and were statistically significant at the alpha level of .01, indicating convergent validity (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). Discriminant validity was also thought to be ensured since the average variance extracted (AVE) of all constructs were greater than the squared correlation between constructs (Hair et al.). Additionally, we compared the 5-factor solution with the 4-factor solution (combining two most highly correlated constructs) and found that the 5-factor solution had a significantly better fit than the 4-factor solution (χ 2 = 46.89, p < .01). The composite reliability of each construct was over .70. Structural Models First, we examined the fit of the hypothesized research model, which is the partial mediation in which both taskwork and teamwork knowledge were allowed to make a direct impact on team outcomes aside from their impact through team learning behavior. We compared this model with the full-mediation model that does not include the direct relationship between taskwork and teamwork knowledge and team outcomes. Although the full mediation model indicated an acceptable fit to the data, (χ 2 = 476.10; df = 318; CFI = .97; RMSEA = .05, the partial-mediation model presented a significantly better fit to the data, (χ 2 = 433.41; df = 314; CFI = .98; RMSEA = .04). With the partial-mediation model, the chi-square value improved significantly at the .01 level of alpha (χ 2 = 28.21, df = 4). Therefore, we used the results from the partial-mediation model to explain the relationships among variables.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

14

The Journal of Psychology

∗∗

FIGURE 2. Structural path coefficients. p < .01.

Figure 2 indicates that the direct path from taskwork knowledge to team performance was not significant (β = –.05, p > .05), and therefore, Hypothesis 1 was not supported. The direct path from teamwork knowledge to team performance was found to be significant (β = .30, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 2. For the relationship between taskwork knowledge and team satisfaction, the direct path was shown to be nonsignificant (β = .03, p > .05), and, therefore, Hypothesis 3 was not supported. The direct path from teamwork knowledge to team satisfaction was found to be significant (β = .32, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 4. The direct path from team learning behavior to team performance was found to be significant (β = .520, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 5. The direct path from team learning behavior to team satisfaction was found to be significant (β = .45, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 6. For the relationship between taskwork knowledge and team learning behavior, the direct path was shown to be nonsignificant (β = .16, p > .05), therefore, Hypothesis 7 was not supported. The direct path from teamwork knowledge to team learning behavior was found to be significant (β = .33, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 8. The indirect path from taskwork knowledge to team learning behavior and from team learning behavior to team performance was not significant (β = .08, p > .05), and, therefore, Hypothesis 9 was not supported. The indirect path from teamwork knowledge to team learning behavior and from team learning behavior to team performance was significant (β = .17, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 10. Finally, we tested the mediating effect of team learning behavior between team knowledge and team satisfaction. The indirect path from taskwork knowledge to team learning behavior and from team learning behavior to team satisfaction was not significant (β = .07, p > .05), and, therefore, Hypothesis 11 was not supported. However, the indirect path from teamwork knowledge to team learning behavior and from team learning behavior to team satisfaction was significant (β = .15, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 12 (Appendix B).

Guchait, Lee, & Tews

15

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

Discussion The findings of the study clearly demonstrate the importance of shared teamwork knowledge for team performance and team satisfaction. Furthermore, it was found that team learning behavior mediates the relationship between shared teamwork knowledge and team effectiveness. The findings show that when shared teamwork knowledge is high in teams, members are likely to engage in team learning behaviors, consequently enhancing team performance and team satisfaction. The timing of our data collection supports our proposed causal order, which is consistent with the team knowledge literature (Lindsley, Brass, & Thomas, 1995). Although the management teams consisted of students, they planned, prepared, and delivered the food and beverage, and service to real customers in an actual restaurant setting. The tasks performed by the teams are comparable to tasks in any real-life restaurant setting. Therefore, the findings of the current work should be generalizable to any hospitality context such as restaurants and hotels. Although our data did not show the relationship between taskwork knowledge and team outcomes, we still suspect it is an important determinant of team outcomes. It is possible that there was not sufficient variance in taskwork knowledge due to the coursework setting, or the lack of support could be due to the simplicity/complexity of the task or to a deficiency in our operationalization. Although all the hypotheses related to shared teamwork knowledge were supported, none of the hypotheses related to shared taskwork knowledge were supported. In the past, studies that have examined both taskwork and teamwork knowledge in a single study have found mixed results. Although teamwork knowledge was found to predict team performance in Mathieu and colleagues (2000), taskwork knowledge was found to be a stronger predictor in a study by Lim and Klein (2006). Mathieu and colleagues (2000) involved student teams performing PC-based command and control simulations, whereas Lim and Klein used military teams. Therefore, the results of our study are consistent with prior research that suggests that the relative importance of taskwork knowledge and teamwork knowledge depends on the team context and the task. In our study, teamwork knowledge was the more powerful predictor of team performance. This result suggests that in restaurant settings, at least, shared teamwork knowledge may be more important than shared taskwork knowledge. More recent researchers have investigated the interaction effects of the types of team knowledge and have found positive interactions between the two forms of team knowledge such that team effectiveness was highest when both taskwork and team work knowledge was high in teams (Smith-Jentsch et al., 2005). It could be possible that the effect of taskwork knowledge on team outcomes is contingent on teamwork knowledge, that is, teamwork knowledge could moderate the relationship between taskwork knowledge and team outcomes (Mathieu et al., 2010). However, the results of studies of the interaction effects are also mixed. While a significant interaction effect of the two forms of knowledge was found by

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

16

The Journal of Psychology

Smith-Jentsch and colleagues, and Mathieu et al. (2010), no significant interactions were found when the interactions were tested using the samples of Mathieu et al. (2000, 2005). Smith-Jentsch et al. and Mathieu et al. (2010) collected data from air traffic controller teams, whereas Mathieu and colleagues (2000, 2005) involved undergraduate student teams that completed a series of missions on a PC based flight simulator. Based on these findings, we did post-hoc tests to examine the interaction effects of the two forms of team knowledge. However, the model fit became worse and the interactions were not significant. As indicated by Mathieu et al. (2010), such interactions may be more prominent in more complex field settings or take a while to develop. Therefore, this finding requires additional investigation with long-term teams operating in more complex field environments. Furthermore, such findings may be, in part, the result of the operationalization of the constructs (Mathieu et al., 2010). Because of the context specific nature of the team knowledge construct, scholars have found mixed results. Researchers who assessed both taskwork knowledge and teamwork knowledge in one study have found that members tend to interpret and rate the items of the two constructs differently (e.g., Smith-Jentsch et al., 2005). As suggested by scholars, we conducted thorough task and team analysis before creating the scale items. We also consulted the subject matter experts (the instructors) while creating the scales. Future scholars can use multiple forms of team knowledge measurements such as paired comparisons (Mathieu et al., 2000) and cognitive mapping (Marks et al., 2000). Practical Implications The key implication of this research is that teams need to be proficient in teamwork knowledge. Accordingly, HRM practices should focus on acquiring, developing, and deploying such knowledge. From a selection perspective, utilizing work samples (e.g., case studies) and behavioral and situational interviewing questions are advocated as best practice. Furthermore, individuals should be selected based on attributes such as general mental ability, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and agreeableness, which have consistently been demonstrated to positively impact team effectiveness (Yukl, 2012). Traditionally, training focuses on the development of one’s own technical skills, which is certainly important. The results from this study, however, suggest that greater attention be paid to the development of teamwork skills. It should be noted that prior research highlights that it is important to train taskwork and teamwork skills separately in different sessions rather than integrate these content domains as trainees could become overwhelmed by too much content (Salas et al., 2008). Further, research by Ellis, Bell, Ployhart, Hollenbeck, and Ilgen (2005) demonstrated that it is better to enhance teamwork knowledge prior to taskwork knowledge to facilitate greater performance improvement. Finally, organizations should implement regular multi-source feedback focused on teamwork and align compensation systems with the development and use of such skills. While these suggestions may make

Guchait, Lee, & Tews

17

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

intuitive sense, implementing them may be a challenge as organizations shift from “me-work” to teamwork. Limitations Although meaningful, the findings from the present study should be interpreted in the context of four primary limitations. First, given that data on team knowledge, team learning behaviors, and team satisfaction were collected from a single source, common method bias could have been an issue. However, the CFA results demonstrated that these variables were distinct constructs (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In addition, data on the predictors (taskwork and teamwork knowledge), mediator (learning behaviors), and outcome (team satisfaction) were collected at different times. Finally data on team performance was collected from instructors. Therefore, common method bias was not a strong problem in the current study. Second, student teams were employed in this study similar to the majority of previous research on team effectiveness (Lewis, 2004; Mathieu et al., 2000). While it has been argued that student teams are not unlike and similar to professional teams (Lewis), future research should nonetheless strive to employ “real word” teams to validate the generalizability of the results demonstrated herein. For example, future research could focus on samples or contexts (e.g., departmental teams in hotels and restaurant unit management teams) and other team types (e.g., top management teams). If similar patterns of results are demonstrated, such findings would further validate the use of student in future research endeavors. Third, the present study focused on teams over a relatively short a duration over a period of a couple of months. Future research should examine team effectiveness issues with more mature teams over a longer duration than that employed in this research. Finally, our sample of 27 teams affords limited statistical power, and future research would do well to sample more teams. Future Directions The current findings highlight a number of areas which needs future research. A fruitful area of future research would be to investigate the effects of other mediating variables. The current work focused on a team-level mediating variable. Recent work demonstrated the evidence of the mediating effects of individual-level variables (trustworthiness and trustfulness) (Chou et al., 2008). Future studies need to investigate other important mediating variables both at team-level (e.g., team efficacy, team cohesion, and psychological safety) and at individual-level (e.g., self-esteem and self-efficacy). Additionally, it can be investigated if, team-level predictors impact team outcomes through individual-level mediating variables (individual engagement, self-efficacy, and satisfaction). Additionally, the impact of team knowledge on other team effectiveness criteria both at team-level (e.g., team creativity), and at individual-level (member creativity and performance) can be investigated. These investigations might help researchers better understand how team knowledge influence team outcomes.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

18

The Journal of Psychology

Another area of research would be to examine specific training methods to develop different types of team knowledge. Earlier studies in shared knowledge have heavily focused on training interventions to enhance development of team knowledge (Cannon-Bowers, 2007). Various types of team training (e.g., selfcorrection training and team interaction training) have been found to influence shared taskwork and teamwork knowledge (Mohammed et al., 2010). However, research in the distributed knowledge tradition has not focused on training interventions. Training studies in this area has focused on how distributed knowledge develops in teams when team members are trained together compared to when members are trained alone. However, the focus has still been on taskwork training. It will be worthwhile to examine if certain training interventions/methods develops distributed knowledge in teams. Further, do same training methods develop both shared knowledge (taskwork and teamwork) and distributed knowledge in teams or variety of training methods are required to develop each? Finally, future research needs to focus on examining the predictors of team knowledge. Although, research in shared knowledge tradition has focused on predictors of shared knowledge (which includes team interventions (e.g., planning and reflexivity), team member characteristics (e.g., cognitive ability), and contextual factors (e.g., stress)), but researchers have called for further investigation of predictors (e.g., personality homogeneity and trust). There is scarcity of research examining predictors of distributed knowledge in teams. It will be worth examining if same or different predictors influence development of shared knowledge and distributed knowledge. AUTHOR NOTES Priyanko Guchait is an Assistant Professor at University of Houston. His current research interests are organizational culture and climate, error management, learning, forgiveness, and team effectiveness. Puiwa Lei is an Associate Professor at The Pennsylvania State University. Her current research interests are structural equation modeling, hierarchical linear modeling, categorical data analysis methods, and item response theory. Michael J. Tews is an Assistant Professor at The Pennsylvania State University. His current research interests are personality, ability, and employee job performance; decision making in employee selection; coworker support, workplace fun, and employee retention; and learner engagement in training and development contexts. REFERENCES Allred, B. B., Snow, C. C., & Miles, R. E. (1996). Characteristics of managerial careers in the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive, 10, 17–27. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommend two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

Guchait, Lee, & Tews

19

Argote, L., Gruenfeld, D., & Naquin, C. (1999). Group learning in organizations. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research (pp. 369–412). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analyses. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bresman, H. (2010). External learning activities and team performance: A multimethod field study. Organization Science, 21, 81–96. Bushe, G. R., & Coetzer, G. H. (2007). Group development and team effectiveness: Using cognitive representations to measure group development and predict task performance and group viability. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 184–212. Cannon, M. D., & Edmondson, A. C. (2001). Confronting failure: Antecedents and consequences of shared beliefs about failure in organizational work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 161–177. Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2007). Fostering mental model convergence through training. In F. Dansereau & F. Yammarino (Eds.), Multi-level issues in organizations and time (pp.149–157). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2001). Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 195–202. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. A. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan (Ed.), Current issues in individual and group decision making (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Chan, C. C. A. (2002). Individual, team, and organizational learning: Underpinnings of competitive advantage (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Murdoch University. Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246. Chen, G., Donahue, L. M., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Teaching undergraduates to work in organizational teams. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, 27–40. Chou, L., Wang, A., Wang, T., Huang, M., & Cheng, B. (2008). Shared work values and team member effectiveness: The mediation of trustfulness and trustworthiness. Human Relations, 61, 1713–1742. Cooke, N. J., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Stout, R. J. (2000). Measuring team knowledge. Human Factors, 421, 151–173. DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 32–53. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383. Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 685–716. Ellis A.P. J., Bell, B. S., Ployhart, R. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Ilgen, D. R. (2005). An evaluation of generic teamwork skills training with action teams: Effects on cognitive and skill-based outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58, 641–672. Garlick, R. (2010). Do happy employees really mean happy customers? Or is there more to the equation? Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 51, 304–307. George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 107–116.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

20

The Journal of Psychology

Gibson, C., & Vermeulen, F. (2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 202–239. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Hansen, R. S. (2006). Benefits and problems with student teams: Suggestions for improving team projects. Journal of Education for Business, 82, 11–19. Hu, M. M., Horng, J., & Sun, Y. (2007). Hospitality teams: Knowledge sharing and service innovation performance. Tourism Management, 30, 41–50 Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98. Kasl, E., Marsick, V. J., & Dechant, K. (1997). Teams as learners: A research-based model of team learning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33, 227–246. Kellermanns, F. W., Floyd, S. W., Pearson, A. W., & Spencer, B. (2008). The contingent effect of constructive confrontation on the relationship between shared mental models and decision quality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 119–137. Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20, 403–437. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Kraiger, K., & Wenzel, L. H. (1997). Conceptual development and empirical evaluation of measures of shared mental models as indicators of team effectiveness. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement (pp. 63–84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lewis, K. (2004). Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: A longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management Science, 50, 1519–1533. Lim, B.C., & Klein, K. (2006). Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 403–418. Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (1995). Efficacy-performing spirals: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 20, 645–678. Lorenzet, S. J., Eddy, E. R., & Klein, G. D. (2003).The importance of team task analysis for team human resource management. Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, 9, 113–145. Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376. Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2005). Scaling the quality of teammates’ mental models: Equifinality and normative comparisons. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 37–56. Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273–283.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

Guchait, Lee, & Tews

21

Mathieu, J. E., Tammy, L., Rapp, T. L., Maynard, M. T., & Mangos, P. (2010). Interactive effects of team and task shared mental models as related to air traffic controllers collective efficacy and effectiveness. Human Performance, 23, 22–40. Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B. C. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expending theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 89–106. Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L., & Hamilton, K. (2010). Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model construct. Journal of Management, 36, 876–910. Mohammed, S., & Hamilton, K. (2012). Studying team cognition: The good, the bad, and the practical. In A. B. Hollingshead & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research Methods for Studying Groups: A Behind-the-Scenes Guide (pp. 132–153). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis/Routledge. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. Rentsch, J. R., & Klimoski, R. J. (2001). Why do “great minds” think alike?: Antecedents of team member schema agreement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 107–120. Salas, E., DiazGranados, D., Klein, C., Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Goodwin, G. F., & Halpin, S. M. (2008). Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50, 903–933. Sengupta, A., & Dev, C. S. (2011). Service innovation: Applying the 7-I model to improve brand positioning at the Taj Holiday Village Goa, India. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 52, 1–19. Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Kraiger, K. (2005). Investigating linear and interactive effects of shared mental models on safety and efficiency in a field setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 52–535. Susskind, A., & Borchgrevink, C. P. (1999). Team-based interaction in the foodservice instructional laboratory: An exploratory model of team composition, team-member interaction, and performance. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 10, 22–29. Tindale, R. S., Meisenhelder, H. M., Dykema-Engblade, A. A., & Hogg, M. A. (2001). Shared cognition in small groups. In M. A. Hogg & R. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 1–30). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Wolfe, K., & Gould, R. (2001). Insights on team-based learning. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education, 13, 87–96. Yukl, G. (2012). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Original manuscript received July 2, 2014 Final version accepted February 23, 2015

APPENDIX 1 Taskwork Knowledge 1. Our team members are in agreement about how best to manage the staff during our meal night. 2. Our team members have similar understanding about how best to serve the guest.

22

The Journal of Psychology

3. Our team members are in agreement about how best to ensure the highestquality food and beverage. 4. Our team members have a common understanding about how best to ensure that the service standards are maintained. 5. Our team members have a shared understanding about how best to ensure that we meet our sales goals. 6. Our team members have a common understanding about how best to train our employees.

Downloaded by [New York University] at 13:25 19 May 2015

Teamwork Knowledge 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Our team members value being efficient. Our team members value being result oriented. Our team members value being cost-effective. Our team members value being precise. Our team members value being result oriented. Our team members value paying attention to detail. APPENDIX 2

Hypothesis 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Relationship Taskwork knowledge →Team performance Teamwork knowledge →Team performance Taskwork knowledge →Team satisfaction Teamwork knowledge →Team satisfaction Team learning behavior →Team performance Team learning behavior →Team satisfaction Taskwork knowledge →Team learning behavior Teamwork knowledge →Team learning behavior Taskwork knowledge →Team learning behavior →Team performance Teamwork knowledge →Team learning behavior →Team performance Taskwork knowledge →Team learning behavior →Team satisfaction Teamwork knowledge →Team learning behavior →Team satisfaction

Finding Not supported Supported Not supported Supported Supported Supported Not supported Supported Not supported Supported Not supported Supported

Making Teamwork Work: Team Knowledge for Team Effectiveness.

This study examined the impact of two types of team knowledge on team effectiveness. The study assessed the impact of taskwork knowledge and teamwork ...
203KB Sizes 0 Downloads 10 Views