Having Each Other’s Back: The Mediating Role of Supportive Behaviours in the Relationship Between Team Autonomy and Team Effectiveness

Alexandrino, Joana; Lourenço, Paulo Renato; Rebelo, Teresa; Dimas, Isabel Dórdio

doi:10.2478/orga-2024-0006

Abstract

Background and Purpose

Incorporating autonomy in teams has been an increasingly popular practice, but the mechanisms that make autonomous teams effective still need to be completely understood. Adopting a multidimensional approach to team effectiveness, the aim of this study was to analyse the mediating role of team members’ supportive behaviours in the relationship between team autonomy and team effectiveness (team performance, team viability, quality of group experience and team process improvement).

Methods:

This research adopts a group-level analysis with a sample of 90 teams of 40 organisations from different sectors. Regression analysis was used to analyse the data, namely the product of the coefficients method.

Results

A positive relationship between team autonomy and supportive behaviours, which, in turn, is positively related to the four criteria of team effectiveness, was found, suggesting that supportive behaviours are a team process that explains the relationship between team autonomy and team effectiveness.

Conclusion

This research enriches our knowledge of the antecedents of team effectiveness and explains the mechanisms through which team autonomy relates to team effectiveness, encouraging organisations to incorporate autonomy into teams’ design to enhance supportive behaviours and team effectiveness.

References

Aubé, C., & Rousseau, V. (2005). Team Goal Commitment and Team Effectiveness: The Role of Task Interdependence and Supportive Behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(3), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.9.3.189
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Aubé, C., Rousseau, V., & Tremblay, S. (2011). Team size and quality of group experience: The more the merrier? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15(4), 357–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025400
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein, K. J. and Kozlowski, S. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp 349–381), Pfeiffer.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bryman, A., Cramer, D., De Barros, A. F., Lopes, D., & De Lima, L. P. (2004). Análise de dados em ciências sociais: introdução às técnicas utilizando o SPSS para Windows (3rd ed.). Celta Editora.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Burke, M. G., Finkelstein, L. M., & Dusig, M. S. (1999). On Average Deviation Indices for Estimating Interrater Agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 2(1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819921004
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46(4), 823–847. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb01571.x
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chen, J., Neubaum, D. O., Reilly, R. B., & Lynn, G. S. (2015). The relationship between team autonomy and new product development performance under different levels of technological turbulence*. Journal of Operations Management, 33–34(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.10.001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cohen, S. M., & Ledford, G. E. (1994). The Effectiveness of Self-Managing Teams: A Quasi-Experiment. Human Relations, 47(1), 13–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700102
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cohen, S. M., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300303
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Devine, D. J., & Philips, J. A. (2001). Do Smarter Teams Do Better. Small Group Research, 32(5), 507–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640103200501
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gamero, N., González-Romá, V., & Peiró, J. M. (2008). The influence of intra-team conflict on work teams’ affective climate: A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317907x180441
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Haas, M. R. (2010). The Double-Edged Swords of Autonomy and External Knowledge: Analyzing Team Effectiveness in a Multinational Organization. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 989–1008. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.54533180
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hoegl, M., & Parboteeah, P. (2006). Autonomy and team-work in innovative projects. Human Resource Management, 45(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20092
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2011). Many cheers make light the work: how social support triggers process gains in teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(3), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941111112631
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015978
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M. K., & Jundt, D. K. (2005). Teams in Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 517–543. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness: the role of autonomy, interdependence, team development, and contextual support variables. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 877–904. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb01486.x.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jassawalla, A.R. & Sashittal, H.C. (2006). Collaboration in Cross-Functional Product Innovation Teams, in Beyerlein, M.M., Beyerlein, S.T. and Kennedy, F.A. (Ed.), Innovation through Collaboration: Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams Vol. 12 (pp. 1–25), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: the moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159571
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Langfred, C. W. (2000). The paradox of self-management: individual and group autonomy in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(5), 563–585. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1379(200008)21:5
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Langfred, C. W. (2005). Autonomy and Performance in Teams: The Multilevel Moderating Effect of Task Interdependence. Journal of Management, 31(4), 513–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304272190
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Leach, D., Wall, T. D., Rogelberg, S. G., & Jackson, P. (2005). Team Autonomy, Performance, and Member Job Strain: Uncovering the Teamwork KSA Link. Applied Psychology, 54(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00193.x
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading Workers to Lead Themselves: The External Leadership of Self-Managing Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(1), 106. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392745
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance (Vol. 14). Prentice Hall.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Moe, N. B., Šmite, D., Paasivaara, M., & Lassenius, C. (2021). Finding the sweet spot for organisational control and team autonomy in large-scale agile software development. Empirical Software Engineering, 26(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-09967-3
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Paolucci, N., Dimas, I. D., Zappala, S., Lourenço, P. B., & Rebelo, T. (2018). Transformational Leadership and Team Effectiveness: The Mediating Role of Affective Team Commitment. Revista De Psicología Del Trabajo Y De Las Organizaciones, 34(3), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2018a16
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pearce, J. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1987). The Design and Activation of Self-Regulating Work Groups. Human Relations, 40(11), 751–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678704001104
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pessoa, C. C., Dimas, I. D., Lourenço, P. B., & Rebelo, T. (2018). Liderança transformacional e a eficácia grupal: o papel mediador dos comportamentos de suporte. Estudos De Psicologia, 35(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-02752018000100003
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Robert, L. P., & You, S. (2018). Are you satisfied yet? Shared leadership, individual trust, autonomy, and satisfaction in virtual teams. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(4), 503–513. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23983
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rico, R., De La Hera, C. M. A., & Tabernero, C. (2011). Work team effectiveness, a review of research from the last decade (1999-2009). Psychology in Spain, 15, 57–79. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4027052
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rousseau, V., & Aubé, C. (2010). Team Self-Managing Behaviors and Team Effectiveness: The Moderating Effect of Task Routineness. Group & Organization Management, 35(6), 751–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601110390835
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tardy, C. H. (1985). Social support measurement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(2), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00905728
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wang, Y. (2018). An Overview of the Team Interaction Process. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 06(12), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2018.612001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Van Beveren, P., Dimas, I. D., Lourenço, P. B., & Rebelo, T. (2017). Psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the Global Transformational Leadership (GTL) scale. Revista De Psicología Del Trabajo Y De Las Organizaciones, 33(2), 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpto.2017.02.004
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Van Zijl, A., Vermeeren, B., Koster, F., & Steijn, B. (2019). Towards sustainable local welfare systems: The effects of functional heterogeneity and team autonomy on team processes in Dutch neighbourhood teams. Health & Social Care in the Community, 27(1), 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12604
Search in Google Scholar Back to article