Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Having Each Other’s Back: The Mediating Role of Supportive Behaviours in the Relationship Between Team Autonomy and Team Effectiveness Cover

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

Open Access
|Mar 2024

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance (Vol. 14). Prentice Hall.
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. Tardy, C. H. (1985). Social support measurement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(2), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00905728
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2024-0006 | Journal eISSN: 1581-1832 | Journal ISSN: 1318-5454
Language: English
Page range: 87 - 98
Submitted on: Feb 20, 2023
|
Accepted on: Aug 10, 2023
|
Published on: Mar 4, 2024
Published by: University of Maribor
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2024 Joana Alexandrino, Paulo Renato Lourenço, Teresa Rebelo, Isabel Dórdio Dimas, published by University of Maribor
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.