Several attempts have been made to clarify which antecedent circumstances and defining characteristics are particularly influential to team effectiveness and innovation.
One such factor is group composition (Moreland, Levine & Wingert, 1996), which has many facets ranging from cultural background to personality type. There are huge volumes of research into personality and team effectiveness, and as much debate over how successful it has been (Driskell, Hogan & Salas, 1988). As such, it is ever increasing in popularity for work
Chapter Two: Exploring the Organizational Team Literature
37
psychology researchers. Driskell et al., (1988) found that Team Personality Evaluation (TPE) and Team Personality Diversity (TPD) both predicted differences in the team’s performance ratings. Furthermore, each Big 5 Personality Trait was found to predict either TPE or TPD: TPE positively correlated with traits of conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness to experience; TPD correlated team performance with extraversion and emotional stability. Furthermore, extraversion and emotional stability have been found to be associated with social cohesion (the extent to which the team socialises and integrates) as well as team viability (Barrick, Stewart, Newbert & Mount, 1998). Another facet to group composition research is familiarity; if the group are familiar or strangers to each other it has been found to directly affect decision making and team performance (Gruenfield, Mannix, Williams & Neale, 1996). Furthermore, the size of the team has group composition effects, with the preferable number of members lying between 4 and 7 (Robbins & Judge, 2007).
Group composition has been found to have a large impact on highly innovative team outcomes. Heterogeneity amongst new ventures teams has been found to significantly impact entrepreneurial activity and innovation (Jin, Kellermanns, Xi & Crook, 2014), where direct and mediating effects on team performance and innovation were found with significant diversity in group composition. Furthermore Eesley, Hsu & Roberts (2014) reported that group composition cannot be ignored when creating founding teams in new venture contexts. Diverse founding teams were reported to produce high performance in a competitive commercial environment, but that less diversity in technically focussed teams lead to alignment with an innovative strategy and a cooperative commercial environment. This suggests that innovation strategy alignment in the future requires some level of diversity, particularly if the aim is cooperation rather than competition in the market place.
Group composition has been included in recent debates about temporal factors impacting upon the outcomes and interactions affecting team effectiveness. Mathieu et al., 2014, suggest
38
that group composition will impact upon team effectiveness in different ways and this will be dependent on the stage of group development. It is therefore vital that consideration is given to antecedent factors, particularly group composition, which may be confounded by temporal factors.
Group development has also been seen to impact on team effectiveness (Tuckman, 1965; Mathieu et al., 2014) with the length of time teams spend in each phase of group development and how well they cope with each stage affecting the progress on the task as well as the effectiveness of a team in working together. A further multi-faceted and widely researched factor affecting team performance and effectiveness is that of collective identification and group diversity (Van Der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005). The effect of personality diversity on team performance has already been discussed; however it is a key to considering how far the impact of diversity on team effectiveness goes.
Cultural diversity research indicating resistance to team work due to culture has shown that culture and its associated differences must be managed appropriately within the organization (Kirkman & Shapiro, 1997). Social category diversity has been found to positively influence member morale within a team. Diversity of values has been reported to decrease team-member satisfaction, intent to remain in the team and team commitment (Jehn, Northcraft & Neale, 1999). However, relationship conflict with another member of the team was found to have a mediating effect on the influences of value diversity. It is evident that a subtle and delicate balance of diversity must be met when teams are created within an organization, and this is still being addressed. Team learning has a mediating effect on the relationship between diversity and team-effectiveness (Van Der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005).
In 63 recent studies of diversity in teams, there were benefits and losses related to diversity across many organizational levels (Jackson, Joshi & Erhardt, 2003; Jin et al., 2014; Eesley et al., 2014). Jackson et al., (2003) also suggest that future research must have an emphasis on
Chapter Two: Exploring the Organizational Team Literature
39
how organizational change can incorporate diversity, for example in multi-disciplinary teams. They additionally recommend that diversity research is sparse at a higher whole organizational perspective, and while a lot of research is ongoing in team research they report no research on network or interorganizational team diversity and effectiveness.
There has been a proposal that “inputs” are involved in motivating effective team innovation and the organizational processes which are also involved (West, Hirst, Richter & Shipton, 2004). This model provides seven of twelve steps considered as “inputs” which can influence team and organizational innovation and change. The “inputs” are similar to those previously discussed; attributes of the members (knowledge, skills and abilities), team composition and organizational context. These are presented as a framework of steps which will foster innovation within the organization. Included in these steps are intrinsic and extrinsic reward management, selecting innovative people, setting up a learning and development climate, and promoting diversity at many levels. We can see that this pulls together the factors previously discussed and applies them to a whole organizational perspective.
Diversity is considered as important to both the team effectiveness (Van de Vegt & Bunderson, 2005) and on organizational effectiveness (Kirkman & Shapiro, 1997), particularly in relation to innovation outcomes in teams (West, Hirst, Richter & Shipton, 2004). However, as with the innovation literature, successful performance of a team is difficult to measure (Griffin & Page, 1996). The Team Diagnostic Survey (TDS; Wageman et al., 2005) has been developed based on the model of team effectiveness (Hackman, 1987, 1990, 2002; Hackman & Wageman, 2005) and aims to provide measures of the factors proposed in the model in order that a measure of overall team effectiveness may be obtained.
40 The TDS uses the five conditions of;
i. The team is a ‘real’ team, complying with the criteria in the TDS (Richardson & West, 2010)
ii. The team has a compelling direction
iii. The team has a structure which facilitates their task
iv. The team has a supportive organizational context
v. There is the opportunity for coaching and team member development
The items for each sub-scale were selected from already existing measures and adapted before being administered to 2,474 individuals, belonging to 321 teams. The reliability and validity of the TDS has been found to be satisfactory, requiring testing in different types of teams in order to strengthen these measures and apply the survey confidently to all teams. However, this set of conditions can provide a good basis which not only identifies the team as ‘real’ but also considers the antecedent conditions surrounding the team which ultimately will
affect their performance on the innovation project.
In exploring “real” team characteristics, Lyubovnikova, West, Dawson & Carter (2014) proposed that the distinction of real team characteristics in a group such as shared objectives reflexivity and interdependence would impact upon positive outcomes at each level. Using data from the NHS Staff Survey (n = 62,733), found that the presence of these characteristics within the team led to fewer reported incidences such errors, injuries, patient incidences, retention and absence and improved patient outcomes. The findings add weight to the importance of group composition.
The relationship between team interdependence and performance has been found to be mediated by team processes (Stewart & Barrick, 2000), with the statistical relationship strengthening when the team is engaged in conceptual tasks. This research also found that the team leadership being held within the bounds of the team, or self-leadership, worked alongside
Chapter Two: Exploring the Organizational Team Literature
41
interdependence as an input factor, leading to team processes that mediated team performance. This not only upholds the concept of team autonomy (Cohen & Bailey, 1997), allowing teams greater impact upon their own performance, but also builds on the IPO model. By utilising the socio-technical systems theory (Trist, 1981) that task demands impact performance, the research finds that if the team is solely behaving as a team as well as operating under authority from outside its bounds, the effect on performance is weaker. However if a team is allowed autonomy, can lead itself, is interdependent and therefore requires inputs from all members, as well as working on innovative and conceptual tasks, the effect on performance will be stronger statistically (Stewart & Barrick, 2000).