A Framework for Exploring Team Effectiveness

Stock (2014) utilises an input-process-outcome approach (McGrath, 1964) to understand interorganizational team innovation effectiveness. This approach mirrors another model utilised by Edmondson (1999), who built on the input-mediator-outcome model (Ilgen et al., 2005). In the model of Team Learning, Edmondson (1999) presents a model whereby team learning is depicted as a process similar to team innovation. The antecedent conditions such as the context are seen to affect the beliefs that the team have about the interpersonal context found within the team. In turn team beliefs and antecedent conditions are seen to affect the team learning behaviours and finally affecting team performance. Team performance is affected by several factors; the antecedent conditions, the beliefs that team members have about their performance and the behaviours that occur in fulfilling the task (Edmondson, 1999). However, Edmondson (1999)’s model is solely a model of team learning and as such does not

76

either feature boundary-spanning or the sense that innovation can be an ongoing process, behaviour and outcome.

This input-process-outcome approach to team effectiveness (McGrath, 1964; Stock, 2014) allows emergent processes and many different types of factors being applied from the literature to be categorised together. The approach is also heavily embedded in Pettigrew’s context-process-outcome perspective on strategy (1992), which indicates that context has a heavy influence in the process of strategy formulation. In so doing, the input in this model should be viewed as synonymous with context. Context can be viewed not only as the contextual setting of the empirical research but the individual context of each of the projects within the sample. This allowance is vital for the qualitative stages of the research design, as much of the findings will be heavily context specific.

Pettigrew’s context-process-outcome (CPO) perspective on strategy (1992) is equally useful as a potential theoretical model to base this research. However, for the purposes of this research, the strengths of the IPO and IMO models are both present as the models are amalgamated. In the diagram below, these two frameworks have been summarised in order to better articulate where these similarities lie. In Pettigrew’s model there is the opportunity to examine all antecedent factors both from the internal interorganizational team perspective but also including external context. Certainly the IPO model (McGrath, 1964) allows the inputs and antecedent factors to be explored from the individual, team, organisational, interorganizational, and contextual environment levels. However, by only allowing processes to be measured, this significantly reduces the factors that play a part in the transfer between input and outcome.

The Input-Mediator-Output model of team effectiveness (Ilgen, 2005) combines all process and affect factors that emerge between the inputs and outcomes and allows for loops of feedback from mediators to inputs, to demonstrate the evolving nature of mediators. There are also interactions between different layers of antecedent inputs between the individual, team,

Chapter Four: Interorganizational Teams

77

organizational and interorganizational levels which furthermore demonstrates the intricacies of environmental contexts and the impact that they have on each other at different levels. Finally, the mediator replaces the process aspect of the IPO, CPO models, as it includes process factors alongside factors of affect, cognition, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours which ultimately lead to effective team outputs.

Environment Organisation Team Individual

Input

size, diversity, TDS characteristics, champions, leadership, structure, size,

funding

Contextual Factors

Emerging Factors

Affect, Behaviour, Cognitive, Psychological

i.e. beliefs and states – psychological safety, trust, motivation

i.e. behaviours – reflexivity, feedback seeking, innovative behaviour, communication, roles

Processes

Outcomes

Team Effectiveness Innovation Outcomes

i.e. team satisfaction, progress, performance, completion, adoption

Figure 1: The Input-Process-Output Framework of Team Effectiveness (McGrath, 1964; Stock, 2014) and Input- Mediator-Outcome framework of Team Effectiveness (Ilgen et al., 2005; Edmondson, 1999), combined with The Context-Process-Output Framework (Pettigrew, 1992). (Italic font depicts example factors).

For the purposes of this research the IMO model of team effectiveness is favoured, but is overlaid with the IPO/CPO model as well as Edmondson’s (1999) model of team learning which has its basis in team psychology. There are merits of each of the approaches and each of the frameworks allows for external context to be included within the inputs. The context- process-outcome combines internal and external contexts. There is an emphasis on context in this research project and it is for this reason that Pettigrew’s context-process-outcome (1992) framework has been overlaid as well as the IPO model with the IMO model of team

78

effectiveness. The application of existing insights from the team literature can be applicable within this framework. By utilising an existing framework, this research can be deployed in the future in order to compare across samples and even contexts. Moreover, there is the opportunity to align the interpretivist approach by exploring the factors that emerge and categorising them easily within this framework. This model will be used as a framework for the purposes of this exploratory research, but relationships may be tested in future research.

4. Chapter Summary

This chapter has presented the final body of contributory literature, the emerging body of interorganizational teams. The organizational team literature has been more recently introduced into the interorganizational collaboration literature (Bergenholtz & Waldstrom, 2011) and this approach is also evidenced in the growing findings of interorganizational team academics (i.e. Stock, 2014). In doing so, an amalgamated model of team effectiveness originating in the organizational psychology and team psychology literature (Ilgen, 2005; McGrath, 1964; Stock, 2014; Edmondson, 1999; Pettigrew, 1992) has been put forward as a framework to use to explore the context of innovation within interorganizational teams.

The aim of the research is to extend the extant intraorganizational teams literature into the interorganizational team setting. By utilising this framework, the context can be explored and antecedent and mediating factors can be identified and their impact upon interorganizational team outputs and overall effectiveness can be evaluated.

Chapter Five: Research Paradigm, Strategy, Design and Methodology

79

Chapter Five: Research Paradigm, Strategy, Design and Methodology

The research aims to explore and understand the antecedent conditions and factors that contribute to interorganizational team effectiveness and successful innovation outcomes. This section of the thesis provides justification for the research paradigm, research strategy and high level design. By clearly understanding the original philosophical perspectives that are involved in the field and the perspective being taken in the research, one can ensure that informed, suitable and clear research designs can be developed (Easterby-Smith, Thorpe & Lowe, 2002).

The practical setting will be presented and justification given for the selection of the setting. Additionally an in-depth description of the methods, sampling, and data collection techniques that have been used will follow. Finally a discussion of the ethical issue and how ethical principles have been upheld concludes the chapter. This will then lead onto the findings section of the thesis.