A Meta Analytic Review of Relationships Between Team Design Features and Team Performance - Stewart

http://jom.sagepub.
com/
Journal of Management
http://jom.sagepub.com/content/32/1/29
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0149206305277792
2006 32: 29 Journal of Management
Greg L. Stewart
A Meta-Analytic Review of Relationships Between Team Design Features and Team Performance
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Southern Management Association

can be found at: Journal of Management Additional services and information for
http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://jom.sagepub.com/content/32/1/29.refs.html Citations:
at University College of Wales on July 31, 2010 jom.sagepub.com Downloaded from

10.1177/0149206305277792 ARTICLE Journal of Management / February 2006 Stewart / Team Design
A Meta-Analytic Review of
Relationships Between Team Design Features
and Team Performance
Greg L. Stewart*
College of Business, 108 PBAB, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242-1000
This article presents a quantitative review of 93 studies examining relationships between team
design features and teamperformance. Aggregated measures of individual ability and disposition
correlate positively with teamperformance. Teammember heterogeneity and performance corre-
late near zero, but the effect varies somewhat by type of team. Project and management teams have
slightly higher performance when they include more members. Team-level task meaningfulness
exhibits a modest but inconsistent relationship with performance. Increased autonomy and
intrateam coordination correspond with higher performance, but the effect varies depending on
task type. Leadership, particularly transformational and empowering leadership, improves team
performance.
Keywords: teams; groups; performance; team design
Thirty years ago, Leavitt (1975) wrote an article titled Suppose We Took Groups Seri-
ously. His basic premise was that, contrary to accepted practice, organizations should con-
sider their basic building block to be the group rather than the individual. In the ensuing years,
the number of organizations adopting team-based structures has steadily increased (Devine,
Clayton, Philips, Dunford, &Melner, 1999). Research related to teams has proliferated along
with this trend in practice. Anumber of qualitative summaries, many published in the Journal
This article was accepted under the editorship of Daniel Feldman.
*Corresponding author. Tel.: 319-335-1947; fax: 319-335-1956.
E-mail address: Greg-Stewart@uiowa.edu
Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, February 2006 29-54
DOI: 10.1177/0149206305277792
2006 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved.
29
of Management, have reviewed teams research (e.g., Bettenhausen, 1991; Cohen & Bailey,
1997; Gist, Locke, &Taylor, 1987; Guzzo &Dickson, 1996; Kozlowski &Bell, 2003; Levine
& Moreland, 1990; McGrath & Kravitz, 1982; Shaw, 1981). A few quantitative reviews
have also focused on relationships between team performance and features such as member
homogeneity (Bowers, Pharmer, & Salas, 2000; Webber & Donahue, 2001) and training/
development (Hays, Jacobs, Prince, &Salas, 1992; Salas, Rozell, Mullen, &Driskell, 1999). I
build on this previous work by quantitatively reviewing studies conducted at the teamlevel of
analysis.
The most recent qualitative review in the Journal of Management was conducted 9 years
ago by Cohen and Bailey (1997), who presented a heuristic framework for understanding
teams. This framework suggests that teameffectiveness is a function of environment (industry
characteristics, turbulence), design factors (composition, task features), internal and external
processes (communication, conflict), and psychosocial traits (norms, shared mental models).
Although this heuristic framework may not capture all constructs related to teams, it provides
a guide for classifying research findings. In the current quantitative review, I focus specifically
on design factors. Cohen and Bailey defined design factors as those features of the task,
group, and organization that can be directly manipulated by managers to create the conditions
for effective performance (1997: 243). Within the commonly accepted input-process-output
framework of teams (Gladstein, 1984; Goodman, Ravlin, & Argote, 1986; Hackman, 1987;
McGrath, 1984), design features constitute inputs.
Classification and Theory
I synthesize research findings by classifying previous team studies into categories of
design features and then by using meta-analysis techniques to determine if the design features
are consistently linked to team performance. As a beginning point for classification, Cohen
and Bailey (1997) provided three broad categories of design feature: group composition, task
design, and organizational context.
Group composition looks at the characteristics of individual team members. One line of
research examines aggregated characteristics to assess whether the inclusion of individuals
with desirable dispositions and abilities improves teamperformance. A related but somewhat
different area of research looks at how heterogeneity of individual characteristics relates to
team outcomes. Researchers also study how group size correlates with performance. I thus
adopted aggregated member characteristics, member heterogeneity, and team size as catego-
ries for quantitatively reviewing design features associated with group composition.
Task design concerns how work activities are differentiated and integrated (Lawrence &
Lorsch, 1967). Hackman and Oldhams (1980) notion of task meaningfulness has been
applied at the team level to assess whether differences in the tasks assigned to a team result in
performance variation. Team-level autonomy is the key construct that has emerged to describe
how a teams tasks are coordinated with other parts of the organization. Intrateam coordina-
tion captures task coordination activities within the team. I thus chose task meaningfulness,
team-level autonomy, and intrateam coordination as constructs within the category of task
design features.
30 Journal of Management / February 2006
Organizational context represents the third type of design feature. Perceptions of support
from the leader can be nearly synonymous with perceptions of support from the organization
(Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002). Team leadership
provides a point of interface between the teamand the broader organizational context. Leader-
ship received fromthe designated supervisor thus served as the classification category captur-
ing organizational context.
Support for the adoption of the three categories of design feature can be found in Table 1,
which summarizes variables from a number of qualitative reviews. Table 1 suggests that a
majority of research outside of processes, which are defined as interactions within the group
such as communication and conflict (Cohen &Bailey, 1997), can indeed be classified into the
categories of composition (aggregated characteristics, heterogeneity, team size), task design
features (meaningfulness, autonomy, intrateam coordination), and organizational context
(leadership).
The breadth of the classification categories does create some potential difficulty for inter-
preting the constructs being assessed, as diverse measures might be classified into a single cat-
egory. Nevertheless, one purpose of meta-analysis is to determine the extent to which different
measures can be grouped together to form a broad construct that exhibits consistent relation-
ships with other variables. The existence of a broad construct underlying different measures is
supported when the various measures grouped into that broad classification exhibit a con-
sistent relationship with another variable such as performance (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). In
contrast, the improper grouping of nonsimilar measures is a possible explanation why vari-
ance across studies remains after correcting for statistical artifacts. A starting point for meta-
analysis is thus to begin with broad classification and then attempt more specific classifica-
tion in instances where variance across studies remains. Beginning with broad constructs is
also supported by research in personality that has examined trait bandwidth and concluded
that both broad and narrowconstructs have value, and that research can often advance best by
Stewart / Team Design 31
Table 1
Summary of Variables Included in Review Articles
Study Composition Task Design Context and Leadership
Gist, Locke, & Taylor
(1987)
Group structure, size, abil-
ity, personality, gender,
race
Leadership, rewards
Levine & Moreland
(1990)
Size, demographics, abil-
ity, personality
Ecology (physical sur-
roundings), leadership
Bettenhausen (1991) Size, heterogeneity Structure, interdepen-
dence, self-managing
groups
Guzzo & Dickson (1996) Size, heterogeneity,
familiarity
Leadership training, auto-
mation, computers
Cohen & Bailey (1997) Size, tenure, diversity, age Autonomy, task
characteristics
Rewards, supervision
Kozlowski & Bell (2003) Size, diversity, personal-
ity, ability
Team type, self-managing
teams
Team leadership, team
training
first examining broad constructs and then more specific classifications (Ashton, Jackson,
Paunonen, Helmes, & Rothstein, 1995; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996; Stewart, 1999).
Group Composition
Group composition concerns what individual members bring to the group in terms of skill,
ability, and disposition (Driskell, Hogan, & Salas, 1987; Hollenbeck et al., 1995; Tesluk &
Mathieu, 1999). A great deal of research has linked individual abilities and dispositions with
individual performance (Barrick &Mount, 1991; Hunter &Hunter, 1984; Gatewood &Feild,
2000). A meta-analysis by Mount, Barrick, and Stewart (1998) specifically concluded that
certain personality traits correlate with high individual performance in team settings. How-
ever, this evidence does not automatically guarantee that teams composed of individuals
selected for high individual performance will perform better as collective units (Stewart,
2003). As pointed out by Schneider, Smith, and Sipe, The effects of a valid selection proce-
dure can be nullified by any lack of cooperation within groups and by bottlenecks, shirking,
and social loafing (2000: 99). They also pointed out that the positive impact of some dis-
positions and abilities might be intensified in group settings.
The important question for teams is therefore whether individual dispositions and abilities
combine to precipitate high performance for the group as a whole. This question of relating
individual dispositions and ability to collective performance has only recently begun to
receive substantial research attention. A quantitative review of these findings can help assure
that researchers and practitioners are not erroneously applying individual-level findings at the
team level.
Aggregated characteristics. Group composition research requires individual differences to
somehow emerge to form team-level constructs that in turn relate to collective performance
(Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). One form of emergence occurs when individual characteristics
combine in a linear fashion such that the mean or sum of individual characteristics represents
the team-level construct (Chan, 1998; Stewart, 2003). The assumption underlying this formof
aggregation is that desirable dispositions and abilities of individuals provide the team with a
resource of talent and that more talent is always better. Specific studies from this perspective
have focused on assessing member skill and ability levels (LePine, Hollenbeck, & Ilgen,
1997; Tziner & Eden, 1985; Yetton & Bottger, 1982), member personality traits (Barrick,
Stewart, Neubert, &Mount, 1998; LePine et al., 1997; Neuman &Wright, 1999), and member
background and experience (Bantel & Jackson, 1989). At the individual level, some of these
categories of individual difference exhibit stronger relationships with performance than oth-
ers (Bobko, Roth, &Potosky, 1999). However, little is known about the relative value of differ-
ent characteristics when they are aggregated to predict collective performance. I thus assessed
the extent to which individual characteristics cumulate linearly to influence collective perfor-
mance and explored potential differences among types of disposition and ability (i.e., person-
ality, cognitive ability, expertise).
Member heterogeneity. Adifferent perspective of group composition suggests that individ-
ual characteristics do not aggregate in a linear fashion. This perspective highlights the impor-
tance of assessing fit between team members (Kristof-Brown & Stevens, 2001). In essence,
the desirability of a specific individuals traits depends on the traits of other team members
(Barry &Stewart, 1997; Stewart, 2003). Much of the research fromthis perspective focuses on
the heterogeneity or homogeneity of team member characteristics and uses variance-based
measures of individual characteristics to form team-level indicators of composition. Hetero-
geneity of team members has been measured along demographic lines (e.g., race, sex),
psychosocial traits (e.g., intelligence, personality), and background characteristics (e.g.,
career paths, education).
Some studies support the proposition that heterogeneity is best (Bantel & Jackson, 1989;
Magjuka & Baldwin, 1991). Other studies suggest that homogeneity is most desirable
(Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Wiersema & Bird, 1993). Theoretical arguments sup-
porting heterogeneity focus on the creativity associated with diverse viewpoints and skill sets,
whereas arguments supporting homogeneity focus on the notion that highly similar people
experience less conflict. Heterogeneity of team members is thus usually advocated for teams
engaged in creative tasks but not for teams engaged in routine tasks (Guzzo &Dickson, 1996;
Jackson, May, & Whitney, 1995). Recent research has also emerged to suggest that heteroge-
neity of some traits is more beneficial than heterogeneity of other traits. Specifically, heteroge-
neity of characteristics that are clearly job related is argued to be more beneficial than hetero-
geneity of less direct characteristics such as demographic variables (Pelled, Eisenhardt, &
Xin, 1999; Webber & Donahue, 2001; Williams & OReilly, 1998). I thus assessed the extent
to which team member heterogeneity is related to team performance. I also conducted analy-
ses to determine if heterogeneity matters more for teams engaged in creative work and if job-
related heterogeneity matters more than demographic heterogeneity.
Team size. Research findings related to teamsize are mixed. Some studies find large teams
to suffer coordination and process losses (Gooding &Wagner, 1985; Markham, Dansereau, &
Alutto, 1982; Mullen, Symons, Hu, & Salas, 1989). Other studies find large teams to be more
effective (Magjuka & Baldwin, 1991; Yetton & Bottger, 1982). Kozlowski and Bell (2003)
pointed out that the benefits of a larger team likely depend on the nature of the team and its
environment. In particular, they build on the work of Hill (1982) and suggest that larger teams
may be more able to obtain resources such as time, energy, money, and expertise. These
resources are expected to be particularly beneficial for completing difficult tasks in complex
and uncertain environments. The possibility of additional members being more beneficial for
some types of teams has not, however, been quantitatively explored. The final area of review
for group composition research was thus to assess whether variation in team size is related to
differences in teamperformance and if increased teamsize is indeed more important for teams
performing difficult tasks in uncertain environments.
Team-Level Task Design
Task meaningfulness. Task design consists of guidelines and task-driven prescriptions for
coordinating various work tasks (Campion et al., 1993; Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Hollenbeck
et al. 1995). One team-level focus concerns the characteristics of the tasks pursued by the col-
lective group. Specifically, Hackman and Oldham (1980) theorized that their individual-level
job characteristics could be applied at the teamlevel of analysis and that teams perform better
when their work provides meaning through skill variety, task identity, and task significance.
Meaningfulness is enhanced by teams perceiving their work to be worthwhile and important.
Teams engaged in meaningful tasks should performbetter because they experience higher lev-
els of internal motivation (Batt &Applebaum, 1995; Campion et al., 1993). Evidence suggests
that providing individuals with meaningful tasks does indeed increase individual productivity
(Fried & Ferris, 1987; Kopelman, 1986). However, the extrapolation of this finding to the
team level of analysis is uncertain. A clear understanding of the relationship between team-
level task meaningfulness and teamperformance does not exist. I thus quantitatively reviewed
research concerning collective task meaningfulness to provide insight at the team level of
analysis.
Autonomy. Whereas task meaningfulness focuses on perceptions about the nature of the
tasks themselves, autonomy is concerned with how tasks are coordinated with other parts of
the organization. The relevant focus is on the level of autonomy for the collective group rather
than on autonomy for individuals. Teams with more autonomy are given increased freedomto
make decisions, to plan work activities, and to adapt to changing conditions. Autonomy is fre-
quently achieved through empowering workers with greater information and decision-making
authority, so that they experience heightened self-determination (Spreitzer, 1995). In fact,
researchers frequently use the terms autonomy and empowerment interchangeably. Both refer
to the concept of providing workersgroups of workers in the present contextwith in-
creased opportunity to determine their own courses of action.
Autonomy at the team level not only increases internal motivation (Cohen & Ledford,
1994; Wall, Kemp, Jackson, & Clegg, 1986) but also allows teams to improve performance
through localized adaptation to variation in work environments and demands (Manz &
Stewart, 1997; Pearce & Ravlin, 1987). Facilitating processes and interactions develop
because the team as a whole rather than a hierarchical leader is responsible for performance
(Beekun, 1989). Higher levels of collective autonomy should also improve teamperformance
by increasing the information held by teammembers (Hollenbeck, Ilgen, LePine, Colquitt, &
Hedlund, 1998).
Yet, some research suggests that high autonomy may not be universally desirable for teams
(Stewart & Barrick, 2000). Specifically, autonomy may not be as beneficial when teams per-
form tasks that are clearly understood and optimized (Manz & Stewart, 1997). In these situa-
tions, following hierarchically prescribed processes can lead to increased efficiency and supe-
rior performance (Adler & Cole, 1993). High autonomy may make it difficult to coordinate
the efforts of multiple teams. The value of team-level autonomy may depend on teamtasks and
purposes, with autonomy being more beneficial when work conditions and requirements are
uncertain and dynamic. This assumption has not, however, received adequate empirical exam-
ination. I thus determined the extent to which autonomy links with collective performance and
assessed whether the autonomy-performance relationship is stronger for teams engaged in
creative and dynamic work.
Intrateam coordination. Intrateam coordination focuses on task coordination within the
team. The focus of coordination differs fromautonomy in that it concerns relationships within
the team rather than relationships between the team and other parts of the organization. This
means that teams have high intrateam coordination when they are interdependent and mem-
bers depend on each other for information, materials, and reciprocal inputs (Campion et al.,
1993; Emery & Trist, 1969). Designing teams with high coordination encourages teammem-
bers to work together closely and develop shared expectations and norms for appropriate
behavior (Bonacich, 1987; Stewart & Barrick, 2000). High coordination improves intrateam
processes by opening communication channels, building feelings of esprit de corps, and re-
ducing social loafing.
However, high intrateam coordination creates high interdependence among team mem-
bers, and research studies have shown that interdependence among teammembers can exhibit
a curvilinear relationship with collective performance (e.g., Saavedra, Earley, & Van Dyne,
1993; Stewart & Barrick, 2000; Wageman, 1995). Both high and low levels of interdepen-
dence correspond with higher performance than moderate levels of interdependence. In con-
trast to the community-building aspects of high interdependence, the benefits of low interde-
pendence include efficiency and creative problem solving by individuals (Wageman, 1995).
Interdependence thus ranges along a continuum from low where people function as individu-
als, to moderate where some interaction takes place, and finally to high where extensive inter-
action and relationships occur. Performance varies nonlinearly with these forms of inter-
dependence, suggesting that meta-analytic assessment of linear relationships with intrateam
coordination may be somewhat difficult.
A critical issue associated with intrateam coordination in field settings is, nevertheless,
whether people operating with very low coordination are included in team studies. It takes at
least a minimum level of coordination for a collection of people to be classified as a group or
team. Although an earlier reviewby Goodman et al. (1986) reported some teamstudies based
on entire departments or individuals reporting to a common supervisor, recent studieswhich
represent the majority of studies included in this reviewtend to include groups with at least
moderate amounts of intrateamcoordination. This suggests that teams included in this review
will mostly fall in the range from moderate to high intrateam coordination. Increased coordi-
nation for included teams is thus likely to correspond with improved collective performance.
However, similar to autonomy, evidence suggests that increased coordination within teams
may not be as beneficial for teams performing routine work (Adler & Cole, 1993; Stewart &
Barrick, 2000). In these teams, moderate levels of coordination allow task specialization of
ongoing work, which increases efficiency as long as task demands and environmental condi-
tions remain stable (Thompson, 1967). I thus assessed the overall effect of intrateamcoordina-
tion on teams, as well as the question whether high coordination is indeed more beneficial for
teams engaged in creative tasks.
Leadership
The final type of design feature concerns the context of the surrounding organization.
Although topics from the qualitative reviews reported in Table 1 suggest that some studies
have focused on other context variables such as training, a majority of contextual research has
been in the area of leadership. A majority of the interactions between a team and the larger
organization occur through the individual who is designated as the team leader. Specifically,
Eisenberger et al. suggested that because leaders act as agents of the organization, who have
responsibility for directing and evaluating subordinates performance, employees would view
their supervisors favorable or unfavorable orientation toward themas indicative of the organi-
zations support (2002: 565). The leadership that a team receives from its designated leader
who represents the larger organization thus represents much of the organizational context and
represents contextual factors in the current review.
The effects of leadership at the teamlevel are not as well understood as at the organizational
and individual levels. In general, research has demonstrated that effective leadership can
improve performance of individuals (Wayne, Liden, Kraimer, & Graf, 1999) and organiza-
tions (Waldman, Ramirez, House, &Puranam, 2001). However, little is known about whether
the benefits of leadership also occur for teams. One reason why teams might differ is the
potential inability of a teamleader to create an overall vision, which is a critical component of
effective organizational leadership (Bass, Avolio, Jung, &Berson, 2003). Given potential dif-
ferences, a quantitative review of the effects of leadership at the team level seems especially
warranted.
The overall category of leadership is, nevertheless, a broad classification that includes a
wide variety of leadership activities. Because this broad category may contain measures that
are not homogeneous, I also reviewed findings related to two specific forms of leadership fre-
quently advocated for teams: transformational leadership and empowering leadership.
Transformational leadership uses charisma and intellectual stimulation to encourage teamfol-
lowers to transcend personal self-interest in order to accomplish team goals (Bass, 1985;
Keller, 1992; Ross & Offermann, 1997). Empowering leadership develops follower self-
capacity to achieve a state where teams actually lead themselves (Manz & Sims, 1987).
Although transformational and empowering leadership are developed and advocated from
different theoretical perspectives, they are expected to have somewhat similar outcomes in
teams, as a primary objective of each is empowerment of the team (Burns, 1978; Druskat &
Wheeler, 2003; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003).
Transformational leadership. Bass described transformational leadership as the moving
of followers beyond their self-interests for the good of the group, organization, or society
(1997: 130). Transformational leadership includes exhibiting charisma through conviction
and purpose, articulating an appealing vision of the future, stimulating new perspectives, and
dealing with others as individuals (Bass, 1985). Effective transformational leaders communi-
cate strong ideology, emphasize collective identity, and display exemplary behavior (Shamir,
Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998). This increases internal motivation for followers (Bono &
Judge, 2003) and builds higher cohesion and potency within teams (Bass et al. 2003). A criti-
cal focus of transformational leadership is thus using idealized influence to encourage team
members to transcend self-interests for the good of the collective team(Bass, 1999). To review
the effects of this form of influence, I examined the relationship between transformational
leadership and team performance.
Empowering leadership. Manz and Sims suggested that for highly empowered teams, the
dominant role of the external leader then, is to lead others to lead themselves (1987: 119).
The primary objective of leadership from this perspective is the successful transfer of power
and responsibility away from the leader to the collective of followers. This is done primarily
by building self-management practices of both individuals and the collective group. These
practices include activities like self-observation, goal setting, and self-reinforcement (Manz &
Sims, 1987). Druskat and Wheeler (2003) also suggested that empowering leadership aids
teams through boundary-spanning activities such as seeking information from, and develop-
ing political and/or social relationships with, other parts of the organization. Compared with
transformational leadership, empowering leadership moves the focus from the charismatic
vision created by the leader to the ownership and commitment generated by teams creating
and pursuing their own visions (Manz & Sims, 1991). As a final category, I assessed the
impact of this empowering form of leadership on team performance.
Method
I conducted a literature search to identify published studies of teams and groups. I used two
strategies to search the literature. I first did a computer search with PsycINFO and ABI/
Inform. Keywords included the terms group, team, effectiveness, teamwork, team decision
making, productivity, and performance. I also manually searched several leading academic
journals from the beginning of their publication. Journals searched include the Journal of
Applied Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Administrative Science Quarterly, Personnel Psychology, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Group Dynamics, Small Group Research,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Management, Human Relations, and Group &
Organization Management.
I adopted two criteria to determine whether a study should be included in the meta-
analyses. The first criterion was a participant sample of intact teams performing real-life tasks
in a natural setting. Although laboratory simulations provide an excellent forum for theory
development, numerous researchers have posited substantial differences between intact and
laboratory teams (e.g., McGrath, 1984). Natural settings are also preferred for obtaining accu-
rate estimates of actual relationships (Dobbins, Lane, &Steiner, 1988). The analyses reported
here thus use intact teams performing relevant tasks in their natural environments. Teams per-
forming simulated tasks, or tasks in artificial environments, are not included. The second cri-
terion was that the unit of analysis be teams rather than individuals. Measures obtained from
individuals are only included if the study reported a measure aggregated to the team level of
analysis.
I included studies through the end of 2003. Ninety-three studies met the outlined criteria.
An analysis of the publication dates of the studies suggests that a majority of this research
was done in the past 10 years (studies before 1975 = 9, 1975-1979 = 3, 1980-1984 = 5, 1985-
1989 = 3, 1990-1994 = 16, 1995-2000 = 27, 2001-2003 = 30). The 93 studies contain
correlational information for 697 measures. To conduct the meta-analyses, the 697 measures
were coded into the design feature categories (aggregated characteristics, heterogeneity, team
size, task meaningfulness, autonomy, intrateamcoordination, leadership), a performance cat-
egory, a broad category of teamprocesses (which was not in the content domain of the present
study), and an other category. Performance measures included both supervisor/observer rat-
ings and objective indicators such as output levels and financial indicators. Because the num-
ber of studies was expected to be limited in many categories, I did not plan analyses for differ-
ent types of performance measure. Indeed, an examination of the results confirms that there
are too few studies to conduct separate meta-analyses for different types of dependent vari-
ables. However, to eliminate the bias of a common measurement source, I did not include team
member self-ratings of performance.
Two raters familiar with the teams literature coded each measure. Raters initially classified
626 of the 697 measures into the same categorization (90%agreement). Raters then met to dis-
cuss the 71 measures that were not placed into a common cluster. Discussion resulted in a
mutually agreed upon classification for 46 of the measures, but 25 measures could not be clas-
sified accurately and were eliminated from the data. The 93 studies thus yielded 672 useable
measures.
Within several studies, more than one measure was classified into a given category. For
instance, one study correlated seven measures of team diversity with team performance.
Because measures in a common study are not independent, bias is introduced if each measure
of a construct is included separately in a meta-analysis. I thus calculated the mean correlation
coefficient for each category within each study and adopted this as a coefficient representing
the relationship for that study. In cases where a large number of measures were grouped into a
single classification, I conducted additional analyses to determine whether measures such as
different forms of heterogeneity should be grouped together.
I adopted Hunter and Schmidts (1990) methods for meta-analysis, weighting study effect
sizes by sample size. The meta-analyses also include corrections for unreliable measurement.
The best indicators of reliability are a pair of intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficients. The
first, which James (1982) labeled ICC(1), indicates the reliability of ratings from members of
the same team. The second, labeled ICC(2), indicates the extent that teams can be systemati-
cally differentiated on the construct of interest. ICC(1) is essentially the reliability of a single
rater, whereas ICC(2) represents the reliability of the measure based on the number of team
members providing assessment, which is the measure that is actually used to represent the
team-level construct. I thus chose ICC(2) as the appropriate indicator of reliability.
Because values for ICC(2) are not included in all studies, I used artifact distributions to cor-
rect for unreliability. I calculated distributions for task meaningfulness (mean reliability of
.77, SD = .08), autonomy (mean reliability of .76, SD = .03), intrateam coordination (mean
reliability of .61, SD = .16), aggregate team member characteristics (mean reliability of .75,
SD=.10), and teamleadership (mean reliability of .82, SD=.05). Only one study has assessed
reliability of performance at the teamlevel, with an estimate for reliability of .72 over a 1-year
period (Landis, 2001). Rothstein (1990) reported a value of .50 for the reliability of perfor-
mance at the individual level. Salgado (1997) also provided a distribution for the reliability of
individual performance (mean reliability = .63, SD = .12). To provide conservative correc-
tions, I used the estimate for the reliability of performance from Landis (2001) for all meta-
analyses. Because reliability indexes were unavailable, and because they usually used objec-
tive measurement, I did not make corrections for unreliability of measurement with team
heterogeneity and team size.
Results
Group Composition
Aggregated characteristics. Table 2 presents results of the initial meta-analyses. Aggre-
gated team member characteristics exhibit a significant relationship with team performance
(r = .27, credibility value [CV] is .05 to .50). A substantial amount of variance (60%) is not
explained by sampling error or unreliability. The search for an explanation of this variation
across studies focused on determining if nonequivalent constructs had been grouped into the
broad category. Specifically, Hunter and Schmidt suggested that if the meta-analysis does
find variance across studies, then the hypothesized nonequivalence of variables can be used as
a moderator variable (1990: 496). I thus conducted separate analyses for aggregated mea-
sures of personality, cognitive ability, and expertise. Analyses based on these categorizations
are reported in Table 3. Taken as a whole, the meta-analyses using subcategories of aggregated
member characteristics suggest the amount of variance across studies is less when character-
istics are grouped into specific categories. This supports the notion that aggregations of per-
sonality, cognitive ability, and expertise are indeed nonequivalent constructs.
The meta-analysis for personality included aggregated measures of team member traits
such as conscientiousness and agreeableness. The results are similar to those for the broader
classification in that a moderately strong relationship ( r = .26, CVis .12 to .41) exists. More-
over, variance across studies (40%) still cannot be explained simply by sampling error and
unreliability, suggesting moderation. Unfortunately, the small number of studies using per-
sonality measures prevents further searching for a moderator until additional research is done.
The meta-analysis for aggregated cognitive ability included studies using basic measures
of teammember mental ability. The results support a strong relationship (r = .40, CVis .31 to
.50) that has limited variance across studies.
The meta-analysis for aggregated expertise included measures of teammember experience
and education. The results support a moderate relationship (r = .16, CV is .16 to .16) that is
consistent across studies.
Member heterogeneity. Member heterogeneity exhibits a rather small, negative relation-
ship with teamperformance (r = .04, CVis .04 to .04), and all of the variance across stud-
ies can be explained by sampling error. Nevertheless, I tested for moderator effects because
using the amount of variance explained to assess moderation has low statistical power when
the number of studies is relatively small (Sackett, Harris, & Orr, 1986). Potential moderators
include differences in the work and tasks that a team is asked to do. One variable that poten-
tially captures many of these differences is team type. On the basis of the framework of
40
T
a
b
l
e

2
M
e
t
a
-
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

f
o
r

R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s

B
e
t
w
e
e
n

T
e
a
m

D
e
s
i
g
n

F
e
a
t
u
r
e
s

a
n
d

T
e
a
m

P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
K
N
r
s
2
r
s
2
e
%

V
E
r
S
D
r
8
0
%

C
V
G
r
o
u
p

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
A
g
g
r
e
g
a
t
e
d

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
3
8
3
,
0
3
7
.
2
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
1
2
4
0
.
2
7
.
1
8
.
0
5
.
5
0
H
e
t
e
r
o
g
e
n
e
i
t
y
2
6
1
,
8
3
0
.
0
4
.
0
0
9
.
0
1
5
1
0
0
.
0
4
.
0
0
.
0
4
.
0
4
T
e
a
m

s
i
z
e
2
6
1
,
8
6
2
.
0
3
.
0
0
9
.
0
1
4
1
0
0
.
0
4
.
0
0
.
0
4
.
0
4
T
a
s
k

d
e
s
i
g
n
T
a
s
k

m
e
a
n
i
n
g
f
u
l
n
e
s
s
1
5
1
,
3
2
7
.
1
2
.
0
2
0
.
0
1
1
5
5
.
1
6
.
1
3
.
0
2
.
3
2
A
u
t
o
n
o
m
y
1
9
1
,
4
1
0
.
1
9
.
0
3
6
.
0
1
3
3
6
.
2
5
.
2
0
.
0
1
.
5
1
I
n
t
r
a
t
e
a
m

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
1
1
5
7
4
.
1
6
.
0
1
6
.
0
1
9
1
0
0
.
2
5
.
0
0
.
2
5
.
2
5
L
e
a
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
O
v
e
r
a
l
l
5
3
2
,
4
3
7
.
2
0
.
0
4
6
.
0
2
1
4
6
.
2
6
.
2
0
.
0
0
.
5
1
T
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
1
2
5
4
1
.
2
6
.
0
1
1
.
0
1
2
1
0
0
.
3
3
.
0
0
.
3
3
.
3
3
E
m
p
o
w
e
r
i
n
g
9
5
8
0
.
2
5
.
0
4
7
.
0
1
4
3
0
.
3
2
.
2
3
.
0
3
.
6
2
N
o
t
e
:
K
=
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
N
=
t
o
t
a
l
s
a
m
p
l
e
s
i
z
e
;
r
=
m
e
a
n
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
v
a
l
i
d
i
t
y
;
s
2
r
=
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
v
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
;
s
2
e
=
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
e
r
r
o
r
v
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
;
%
V
E
=
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
v
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
e
d
b
y
a
r
t
i
f
a
c
t
u
a
l
e
r
r
o
r
s
;
r
=
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
t
r
u
e
v
a
l
i
d
i
t
y
;
S
D
r
=
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
;
C
V
=
c
r
e
d
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
v
a
l
u
e
.
41
T
a
b
l
e

3
M
e
t
a
-
A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

f
o
r

S
u
b
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
K
N
r
S
2
r
S
2
e
%
V
E
r
S
D
r
8
0
%

C
V
A
g
g
r
e
g
a
t
e
d

c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
i
t
y
2
0
1
,
8
4
2
.
2
0
.
0
1
8
.
0
1
0
6
0
.
2
6
.
1
1
.
1
2
.
4
1
C
o
g
n
i
t
i
v
e

a
b
i
l
i
t
y
1
0
7
9
1
.
3
0
.
0
1
5
.
0
1
1
7
8
.
4
0
.
0
8
.
3
1
.
5
0
E
x
p
e
r
t
i
s
e
1
4
1
,
2
1
2
.
1
2
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
1
1
0
0
.
1
6
.
0
0
.
1
6
.
1
6
H
e
t
e
r
o
g
e
n
e
i
t
y
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
8
8
0
4
.
0
3
.
0
0
4
.
0
1
0
1
0
0
.
0
3
.
0
0
.
0
3
.
0
3
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
1
0
5
6
1
.
0
6
.
0
1
1
.
0
1
8
1
0
0
.
0
7
.
0
0
.
0
7
.
0
7
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
8
4
6
1
.
0
3
.
0
1
2
.
0
1
8
1
0
0
.
0
4
.
0
0
.
0
4
.
0
4
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
1
4
7
7
4
.
0
6
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
8
1
0
0
.
0
7
.
0
0
.
0
7
.
0
7
E
x
p
e
r
t
i
s
e
1
1
1
,
0
4
6
.
0
5
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
1
1
0
0
.
0
5
.
0
0
.
0
5
.
0
5
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

t
e
n
u
r
e
1
0
9
0
6
.
0
7
.
0
2
5
.
0
1
1
4
4
.
0
8
.
1
4
.
2
5
.
1
0
T
e
a
m

s
i
z
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
6
6
2
4
.
0
5
.
0
0
4
.
0
1
0
1
0
0
.
0
6
.
0
0
.
0
6
.
0
6
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
1
2
7
4
9
.
0
1
.
0
1
2
.
0
1
6
1
0
0
.
0
1
.
0
0
.
0
1
.
0
1
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
8
4
8
9
.
0
8
.
0
0
7
.
0
1
6
1
0
0
.
0
9
.
0
0
.
0
9
.
0
9
A
u
t
o
n
o
m
y
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

w
o
r
k
1
1
6
8
4
.
1
9
.
0
3
1
.
0
1
5
5
0
.
2
6
.
1
7
.
0
4
.
4
7
P
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

w
o
r
k
6
3
8
0
.
2
7
.
0
4
9
.
0
1
4
2
9
.
3
6
.
2
5
.
0
4
.
6
7
I
n
t
r
a
t
e
a
m

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e

w
o
r
k
6
3
0
8
.
1
9
.
0
2
2
.
0
1
8
9
0
.
2
9
.
0
7
.
2
0
.
3
8
P
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

w
o
r
k
3
1
6
1
.
0
8
.
0
0
2
.
0
1
9
1
0
0
.
1
2
.
0
0
.
1
2
.
1
2
N
o
t
e
:
K
=
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
N
=
t
o
t
a
l
s
a
m
p
l
e
s
i
z
e
;
r
=
m
e
a
n
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
v
a
l
i
d
i
t
y
;
s
2
r
=
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
v
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
;
s
2
e
=
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
e
r
r
o
r
v
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
;
%
V
E
=
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
v
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
e
d
b
y
a
r
t
i
f
a
c
t
u
a
l
e
r
r
o
r
s
;
r
=
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
t
r
u
e
v
a
l
i
d
i
t
y
;
S
D
r
=
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
;
C
V
=
c
r
e
d
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
v
a
l
u
e
.
Sundstrom, DeMeuse, and Futrell (1990), Cohen and Bailey (1997) advocated four types of
team: production (work), project, management, and parallel teams. Production teams consist
of people working together in ongoing relationships to continuously produce goods or ser-
vices. Project teams consist of knowledge workers organized for a finite period to complete a
specific assignment. Management teams are ongoing groups of managers who work together
to develop strategy and coordinate work. Parallel teams are decision-making and advice teams
that exist outside the formal organizational structure. Studies were sorted into these catego-
ries, with 10 studies based on production teams, 8 studies each representing project and man-
agement teams, and 0 studies representing parallel teams. Table 3 shows meta-analytic results
within each of the three represented categories.
Project teams engage in nonrepetitive tasks and usually require application of knowledge
and expertise (Cohen &Bailey, 1997), suggesting a need for heterogeneity. Production teams
are generally stable and usually engage in short work cycles that require continuous comple-
tion of a small number of fairly routine tasks (Sundstrom et al., 1990), suggesting that hetero-
geneity may be detrimental. The results suggest a small positive relationship for heterogeneity
in project teams (r = .04, CV is .04 to .04) and a small negative relationship for production
teams (r = .07, CV is .07 to .07). The magnitude of these relationships is not strong, but
the results are consistent with heterogeneity being more desirable for teams engaged in cre-
ative tasks. To the extent that management teams engage in diverse and turbulent activities,
they should also benefit from heterogeneity. However, the results suggest a slight negative
relationship for management teams (r = .03, CV is .03 to .03). The analyses separating
heterogeneity effects by team type thus yield small effects but do provide limited support for
the notion that heterogeneity is more desirable in the creative setting of project teams than in
the routine setting of production teams.
I also probed for a confound created by classifying different types of heterogeneity into a
single category. Because they are frequently studied in the existing literature, heterogeneity
measures were classified as capturing either fewer job-related demographics or more job-
related measures of expertise and tenure. Demographics and expertise continue to exhibit
rather small negative relationships (r = .07, CVis .07 to .07; r = .05, CVis .05 to .05,
respectively) that do not vary across studies. The relationship with organizational tenure is
similar in magnitude and direction (r =.08, CVis .25 to .10) but varies across settings (56%
of variance unexplained). Because all effects remain quite small in magnitude and similarly
negative, the supplemental analyses based on more specific classifications of heterogeneity
thus do not support the prediction that some types of heterogeneity are more beneficial than
others.
Teamsize. Asmall but positive effect (r = .04, CVis .04 to .04) is found for teamsize, with
all variance across studies again being explained by sampling error. Yet, on the basis of theo-
retical arguments, I probed for a moderator effect. Studies were coded based on team type,
with 12 studies being classified as production teams, 8 as project teams, and 6 as manage-
ment teams. As shown in Table 3, team size is positively related to performance for project
teams (r = .09, CVis .09 to .09) and management teams (r = .06, CVis .06 to .06), but not for
production teams (r = .01, CVis .01 to .01). Project teams by definition, and management
teams in many cases, differ from production teams in that they work on ill-defined tasks and
require acquiring resources through substantial interaction with people and groups outside the
team(Sundstrom et al., 1990). The magnitude of the positive relationships remains small, but
the results are consistent with the notion that additional members are desirable when the team
is required to interact with, and obtain, resources such as supplies and expertise from a com-
plex environment.
Task Design
Task meaningfulness. As shown in Table 2, the relationship between task meaningfulness
and performance is modestly positive (r = .16, CV is .02 to .32). Unexplained variance
(45%) exists across studies, supporting moderation. Most studies related to meaningfulness
adopt Hackman and Oldhams (1980) measure, suggesting that more specific classification of
study variables is not possible. Moreover, all but two of the studies measuring task
meaningfulness are based on production teams, making it impossible to explore teamtype as a
potential moderator. Team-level task meaningfulness does, therefore, have a modest relation-
ship with performance in many teams, but the relationship is neither universally positive nor
consistent across settings.
Autonomy. The relationship between teamautonomy and performance is positive (r = .25,
CV is .01 to .51). Moderation is likely, as the credibility interval includes zero, and substan-
tial variation (64%) remains after correcting for artifacts. I began the search for moderation
with a classification of team type. Seventeen of the 19 studies were classified as production
teams, preventing analysis based on differences in teamtask. Building on the theoretical work
of Devine (2002), studies were then coded into two broad classifications related to primary
work tasks. One type is knowledge work, which consists primarily of thinking, mental skills,
and information production. The other type is physical work that involves physical skills, a
linear workflow, and tangible products. Eleven studies used teams engaged primarily in
knowledge tasks, 6 studies used teams doing mostly physical tasks, and 2 studies used teams
that could not be classified. Table 3 shows meta-analytic results within the categorizations of
knowledge work and physical work. Counter to expectations, the relationship is stronger for
teams engaged in physical work (r = .36, CV is .04 to .67) than for teams engaged in knowl-
edge work (r = .26, CVis .04 to .47). However, a great deal of variance remains across studies
in both categories (50% for knowledge work, 71% for physical work), suggesting that addi-
tional moderators exist. The positive effect of autonomy thus varies across settings, but oppo-
site the predicted manner.
Intrateam cooperation. Intrateam cooperation exhibits a positive relationship with perfor-
mance (r = .25, CVis .25 to .25). Variance across studies is explained by sampling error, but I
still conducted moderator analysis based on theoretical arguments. Similar to autonomy,
almost all studies examining intrateamcoordination used production teams. Studies were thus
categorized based on differences in knowledge work and physical work. Results are shown in
Table 3. Six studies used teams engaged in knowledge work, three studies used teams engaged
in physical work, and two studies have teams that could not be classified. Based on the small
number of studies included in the categories, results are speculative. However, consistent with
expectations, the relationship between intrateamcoordination and performance is stronger for
teams engaged in knowledge work (r = .29, CVis .20 to .38) than for teams engaged in physi-
cal work (r = 12, CVis .12 to .12). The results suggest that for teams operating in natural set-
tings, increased intrateamcoordination is indeed positively related to performance, and initial
evidence suggests the effect may be stronger when the predominant work tasks are knowledge
based.
Leadership
As shown in Table 2, the relationship between leadership and performance is consistently
positive (r =.26, CVis .00 to .51). Considerable variation in this relationship does exist across
studies (54%), suggesting the possible existence of moderators. One possible moderator is
type of leadership. Subsequent analyses based on transformational and empowering forms of
leadership thus provide valuable insight into differences across studies.
Transformational leadership. Transformational leadership exhibits a consistently positive
relationship with collective performance (r = .33, CVis .33 to .33). Variance for this relation-
ship can be explained by sampling error and unreliability. Transformational leadership thus
appears to be particularly potent for teams regardless of situational differences.
Empowering leadership. Empowering leadership also exhibits a positive relationship with
team performance (r = .32, CV is .03 to .62). Yet, this relationship is likely moderated, as
studies contain variation beyond sampling error and unreliability. This suggests that empow-
ering leadership is likewise beneficial for teams, but it is more beneficial in some settings than
others.
Discussion
Meta-analysis can be an especially valuable tool for teams research. Many primary studies
are based on rather small samples of teams, calling into question the validity of their conclu-
sions. This quantitative review thus provides insight by identifying important patterns of
results and increasing confidence in conclusions by summarizing results fromseveral primary
studies.
Group Composition
Aggregated characteristics. Aggregations of personality, cognitive ability, and expertise do
correspond with team performance. Who is included in the team matters. This finding at the
teamlevel of analysis represents a critical expansion of individual-level research and supports
the argument that individual characteristics emerge to form a collective construct that links
with higher team-level performance. Moreover, the pattern of relationship strength for these
aggregated characteristics is similar to the pattern at the individual level. Aggregated cognitive
ability has the strongest and most consistent positive relationship with teamperformance. Per-
sonality has a moderate relationship that varies across settings. Expertise has a small positive
relationship. As a whole, team performance is improved when members have high cognitive
ability, desirable personality traits, and relevant expertise.
The one type of aggregated characteristic with variation across settings is personality, high-
lighting the need for additional team-level research in this area. A likely explanation for the
inconsistent relationship is that some traits matter more than others. Studies suggest that inter-
personal traits such as agreeableness matter more in teams than in other organizational set-
tings. Yet, our understanding of which traits are most beneficial for collective performance of
teams is still evolving. Researchers should continue to examine a variety of traits so that future
meta-analyses can specifically determine which aggregated traits exhibit the strongest rela-
tionships with collective performance. The current results do, nevertheless, support the gen-
eral usefulness of aggregations of personality as predictors of team performance.
Member heterogeneity. Member heterogeneity exhibits consistently weak relationships
with team performance. This is similar to results reported in two other independent meta-
analyses (Bowers et al., 2000; Webber & Donahue, 2001). The current results do, however,
provide an extension and clarification of previous meta-analytic conclusions. Some support
was found for the argument that heterogeneity is most beneficial when teams operate in uncer-
tain and dynamic environments. Nevertheless, the magnitude of relationships with heteroge-
neity is still rather small, suggesting that forming teams based on heterogeneity of member
characteristics is not as important as choosing team members with high ability, expertise, and
desirable personality traits.
Teamsize. As predicted by Kozlowski and Bell (2003), larger teamsize is more helpful for
management and project teams. However, even with this finding, the optimal number of team
members may differ across team type. I explored this concern by determining the average
number of members for particular teams. Production teams had an average of 12 members.
Project teams had an average of 7 members. Even though team size corresponds with perfor-
mance in project teams, the optimal number of members for project teams may thus still be
smaller than the optimal number for production teams. Aclear prescription for optimumteam
size is thus difficult and appears to depend on the purpose and responsibilities of the team.
Future research examining team size should take relevant differences into account and focus
on why optimal team size might vary across types of teams.
Task Design
Task meaningfulness. Task meaningfulness at the group level links positively with collec-
tive performance. This relationship is stronger for some teams than for others. Unfortunately,
the current data do not allowfor meaningful moderator analysis. Additional studies might pro-
vide more data that yield greater insight. Yet, the modest magnitude of the relationship sug-
gests that research in other areas of task design such as autonomy and intrateam coordination
may be more fruitful.
Autonomy. Autonomy exhibits a moderately strong relationship with team performance.
Teams benefit from having greater information and freedom to make decisions. This relation-
ship is stronger for physical work than for knowledge work, which is opposite the theoretical
prediction of autonomy being most beneficial for teams performing creative and dynamic
work. As noted by an anonymous reviewer, perhaps this is because such routine work requires
less direction and supervision, which is consistent with the path-goal perspective of leadership
(House, 1971). Increased autonomy thus appears to be helpful for teams, but additional
research is needed to understand the environmental conditions that influence the extent to
which autonomy improves performance.
Intrateam coordination. The results show that increased intrateam coordination is desir-
able for teams operating in natural work environments. Greater cooperation is most beneficial
when teams perform creative and dynamic work. Team designers should encourage coopera-
tion among team members, and as expected, the benefits of this coordination are greater for
teams performing complex and creative work.
Leadership
Leadership correlates positively with teamperformance. The more specific perspectives of
leadershiptransformational and empoweringalso correspond with improved perfor-
mance. Relationships for the two specific forms of leadership are similar and stronger than the
relationship with the broad leadership category. Both transformational and empowering lead-
ers have positive effects on team performance.
Transformational leaders appear to be universally capable of consistently influencing oth-
ers, even when they operate within a larger organizational structure. The benefits of empower-
ing leadership are also positive but vary more across settings, highlighting the need for addi-
tional research that clearly identifies the conditions where empowerment is most beneficial.
The end conclusion, however, extends research at the individual and organizational levels by
showing that leadership does indeed matter for teams.
It is also interesting to note that a goal of both transformational and empowering leadership
is increased empowerment for teams. Very few studies simultaneously measure leadership
and team empowerment, but combining results for transformational and empowering leader-
ship with the results for autonomy illustrates a clear pattern of findings. Teams perform better
when they have increased opportunity to control their work activities. This effect is found both
when opportunity is measured directly (i.e., autonomy) and when it is measured indirectly via
leader actions that empower teams.
Of course, several leadership studies were not classified as either transformational or
empowering. These studies measured leadership areas such as provision of consideration,
structuring of work, performance monitoring, leader experience, and leader technical compe-
tence. Unfortunately, the studies were so varied that additional classification categories could
not be reliably created, but the substantial variance across the results of these studies suggests
that the various measures may not be assessing a common construct. This problemof prolifer-
ating constructs is particularly acute for leadership research. Perhaps teamsettings can be use-
ful for determining similarities and integrating concepts, as teams present an environment
where different leader actions can be linked to group characteristics. Understanding the extent
to which various forms of leadership similarly influence groups might provide insight into the
not yet understood mechanisms by which leadership operates and should be a focus of future
research.
Limitations and Conclusions
This review has several limitations. First, several of the meta-analyses are based on a rela-
tively small number of studies. Findings related to these constructs are tentative. Future meta-
analyses based on additional studies will provide more definitive results in these areas.
Several of the classification categories are also quite broad. As noted, this has the potential
to create construct difficulty. Throughout this study, analyses with broad classifications have
been accompanied by analyses with more specific classifications where possible. Analyses
based on both broad and narrow categorizations provide a balance between classifying
research into categories where enough studies exist to provide a meaningful reviewand assur-
ing that classification is made into homogeneous categories. In the end, the results suggest that
more specific classification is needed for aggregated personality traits and leadership,
whereas measures of member cognitive ability and task characteristics (meaningfulness,
autonomy, intrateam coordination) appear to assess rather homogeneous constructs.
A third potential limitation is the inclusion of only published studies. The primary goal of
this study is to quantitatively reviewpublished research. There is a potential trade-off between
the quality of unpublished studies and their possible contribution. Not including unpublished
studies can lead to somewhat inflated parameter estimates, as studies reporting weak results
are less likely to get published.
Taking the limitations into account, it seems reasonable to conclude that teams can indeed
be designed for high performance. Important design factors exist for group composition, task
design, and the organizational context of leadership. Teams perform better when members
have higher levels of cognitive ability and expertise. They also perform better when members
have desirable personality traits, but the extent of this benefit varies across team settings. The
task design factors of greater autonomy and intrateam coordination likewise facilitate team
performance. Similar to personality, the extent of benefit varies across teams, with increased
autonomy being more beneficial for teams doing physical work and higher coordination being
more beneficial for teams doing knowledge tasks. Effective leadership, particularly
transformational and empowering forms of leadership, also improves teamperformance. The
meta-analyses as a whole thus show that proper design is critical for high-performing teams.
Both research and practice can advance by paying increased attention to issues associated with
group composition, task design, and leadership.
References
* References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analyses.
Adler, P. S., & Cole, R. E. 1993. Designed for learning: A tale of two auto plants. Sloan Management Review, 34(3):
85-94.
* Ancona, D. G., &Caldwell, D. F. 1988. Beyond task and maintenance: Defining external functions in groups. Group
and Organization Studies, 13: 468-494.
* Ancona, D. G., &Caldwell, D. F. 1992. Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational
teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 634-665.
Ashton, M. C., Jackson, D. N., Paunonen, S. V., Helmes, E., & Rothstein, M. G. 1995. The criterion validity of broad
factor scales versus specific facet scales. Journal of Research in Personality, 29: 432-442.
Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. 1989. Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top
team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10: 107-124.
* Bare, A. C. 1978. Staffing and training: Neglected supervisory functions related to group performance. Personnel
Psychology, 31: 107-117.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. 1991. The big-five personality dimensions and job performance. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 44: 1-26.
* Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. 1998. Relating member ability and personality to
work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 377-391.
* Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. 1997. Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: The role of per-
sonality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 62-78.
* Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Turner, J. D. F., &Sonnenfeld, J. A. 2000. To your hearts content: A model of affective
diversity in top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 802-836.
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. 1997. Does the transactional-transformational paradigm transcend organizational and national bound-
aries? American Psychologist, 22: 130-142.
Bass, B. M. 1999. Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 8: 9-32.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. 2003. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational
and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 207-218.
Batt, R., &Applebaum, E. 1995. Worker participation in diverse settings: Does the formaffect the outcome, and if so,
who benefits? British Journal of Industrial Relations, 33: 353-378.
Beekun, R. I. 1989. Assessing the effectiveness of sociotechnical interventions: Antidote or fad? Human Relations,
47: 877-897.
Bettenhausen, K. L. 1991. Five years of groups research: What we have learned and what needs to be addressed. Jour-
nal of Management, 17: 345-381.
Bobko, P., Roth, P. L., &Potosky, D. 1999. Derivation and implications of a meta-analytic matrix incorporatingcogni-
tive ability, alternative predictors, and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 52: 561-589.
Bonacich, P. 1987. Communication networks and collective action. Social Networks, 9: 389-396.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. 2003. Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of
transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 554-571.
Bowers, C. A., Pharmer, J. A., &Salas, E. 2000. When member homogeneity is needed in work teams: Ameta-analysis.
Small Group Research, 31: 305-327.
* Brewer, N., Wilson, C., & Beck, K. 1994. Supervisory behaviour and team performance amongst police patrol ser-
geants. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67: 69-78.
* Bunderson, J. S., &Sutcliffe, K. M. 2002. Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in man-
agement teams: Process and performance effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 875-893.
Burns, J. M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
* Burpitt, W. J., &Bigoness, W. J. 1997. Leadership and innovation amongteams: The impact of empowerment. Small
Group Research, 28: 414-423.
* Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. 1993. Relations between work group characteristics and effective-
ness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46: 821-850.
* Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., &Medsker, G. J. 1996. Relations between work teamcharacteristics and effective-
ness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49: 429-452.
* 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.
* Carpenter, M. A., & Fredrickson, J. W. 2001. Top management teams, global strategic posture, and the moderating
role of uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 533-545.
Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A
typology of comparison models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 234-246.
* Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. 2001. The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and conse-
quences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 956-974.
Cohen, S. G., &Bailey, D. E. 1997. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research fromthe shop floor to the
executive suite. Journal of Management, 23: 239-290.
* Cohen, S. G., &Ledford, G. E. 1994. The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-experiment. Human Rela-
tions, 47: 13-43.
* Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., &Spreitzer, G. M. 1996. Apredictive model of self-managingworkteameffectiveness.
Human Relations, 49: 643-676.
* Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., &Jackson, C. L. 2002. Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences of procedural jus-
tice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55: 83-109.
* Darley, J. G., Gross, N., &Martin, W. C. 1952. Studies of groupbehavior: Factors associated with the productivity of
groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 36: 396-403.
* David, F. R., Pearce, J. A., & Randolph, W. A. 1989. Linking technology and structure to enhance group perfor-
mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 233-241.
* De Dreu, C. K. W., &Van Vianen, A. E. M. 2001. Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organiza-
tional teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 309-328.
* De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. 2001. Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in
decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1191-1201.
Devine, D. J. 2002. A review and integration of classification systems relevant to teams in organizations. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6: 291-310.
Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., &Melner, S. B. 1999. Teams in organizations: Prevalence,
characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30: 678-711.
Dobbins, G. H., Lane, I. M., & Steiner, D. D. 1988. A note on the role of laboratory methodologies in applied behav-
ioral research: Dont throw out the baby with the bath water. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9: 281-286.
Driskell, J. E., Hogan, R., & Salas, E. 1987. Personality and group performance. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of per-
sonality and social psychology: Group processes and intergroup relations, vol. 14: 91-112. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
* Druskat, V. U., & Kayes, D. C. 2000. Learning versus performance in short-term project teams. Small Group
Research, 31: 328-353.
Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. 2003. Managing fromthe boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work
teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 435-457.
* Eby, L. T., &Dobbins, G. H. 1997. Collectivistic orientation in teams: An individual and group-level analysis. Jour-
nal of Organizational Behavior, 18: 275-295.
* Eden, D. 1990. Pygmalion without interpersonal contrast effects: Whole groups gain fromraising manager expecta-
tions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 394-398.
* Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly,
44: 350-383.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., &Rhoades, L. 2002. Perceived supervisor sup-
port: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87: 565-573.
Emery, F. L., & Trist, E. L. 1969. Socio-technical systems. In F. L. Emery (Ed.), Systems thinking: 281-296. London:
Penguin.
* Fiedler, F. E. 1970. Leadership experience and leader performanceAnother hypothesis shot to hell. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Performance, 5: 1-14.
* Fiedler, F. E., OBrien, G. E., & Ilgen, D. R. 1969. The effect of leadership style upon the performance and adjust-
ment of volunteer teams operating in stressful foreign environment. Human Relations, 22: 503-514.
Fried, Y., &Ferris, G. R. 1987. The validity of the Job Characteristics Model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 40: 287-322.
* Fry, L. W., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. 1984. Technology, structure, and workgroup effectiveness: A test of a contingency
model. Academy of Management Journal, 27: 221-246.
Gatewood, R. D., & Feild, H. S. 2000. Human resource selection (5th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.
* George, J. M. 1995. Leader positive mood and group performance: The case of customer service. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 25: 778-794.
* George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. 1990. Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A
group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 698-709.
Gist, M. E., Locke, E. A., &Taylor, M. S. 1987. Organizational behavior: Group structure, process, and effectiveness.
Journal of Management, 13: 237-257.
Gladstein, D. L. 1984. Groups in context: Amodel of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29:
499-517.
Gooding, R. Z., &Wagner, J. A., III. 1985. Ameta-analytic reviewof the relationship between size and performance:
The productivity and efficiency of organizations and their subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 462-
481.
Goodman, P. S., Ravlin, E., &Argote, L. 1986. Current thinking about groups: Setting the stage for newideas. In P. S.
Goodman (Ed.), Designing effective work groups: 1-33. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guzzo, R. A., &Dickson, M. W. 1996. Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. In
J. T. Spence (Ed.), Annual review of psychology, vol. 47: 307-338. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Hackman, J. R. 1987. The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior: 315-
342. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
* Haleblian, J., &Finkelstein, S. 1993. Top management teamsize, CEOdominance, and firmperformance: The mod-
erating roles of environmental turbulence and discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 844-863.
* Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. 2002. Time, teams, and task performance: Changing
effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 1029-
1045.
Hays, R. T., Jacobs, J. W., Prince, C., &Salas, E. 1992. Flight simulator training effectiveness: Ameta-analysis. Mili-
tary Psychology, 4: 63-74.
* Hecht, T. D., Allen, N. J., Klammer, J. D., &Kelly, E. C. 2002. Group beliefs, ability, and performance: The potency
of group potency. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6: 143-152.
* Henderson, J. C., &Lee, S. 1992. Managing I/S design teams: Acontrol theories perspective. Management Science,
38: 757-777.
Hill, G. W. 1982. Group versus individual performance: Are N+1 heads better than one? Psychological Bulletin, 91:
517-539.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Hedlund, J. 1998. Extending the multilevel theory of
team decision making: Effects of feedback and experience in hierarchical teams. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 41: 269-282.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Sego, D., Hedlund, J., Major, D. A., &Phillips, J. 1995. The multi-level theory of team
decision-making: Decision performance in teams incorporatingdistributed expertise. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 80: 292-316.
* Hopfe, M. W. 1970. Leadershipstyle and effectiveness of department chairmenin business administration. Academy
of Management Journal, 13: 301-310.
House, R. J. 1971. A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 321-338.
Hunter, J. E., &Hunter, R. F. 1984. Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bul-
letin, 96: 72-98.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. 1990. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd
ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
* Hyatt, D. E., &Ruddy, T. M. 1997. An examination of the relationship between work group characteristics and per-
formance: Once more into the breech. Personnel Psychology, 50: 553-585.
* Ivancevich, J. M., &Donnelly, J. H. 1970. Leader influence andperformance. Personnel Psychology, 23: 539-549.
Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., &Whitney, K. 1995. Understandingthe dynamics of diversity in decision-makingteams. In
R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas, & Associates (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations: 204-261.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
James, L. R. 1982. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 219-
229.
* Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., &Noe, R. A. 1997. Knowledge worker teameffectiveness: The role of autonomy, interde-
pendence, team development, and contextual support variables. Personnel Psychology, 50: 877-904.
* Jehn, K. A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 40: 256-282.
* Jehn, K., & Mannix, E. A. 2001. The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and
group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 238-251.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., &Chen, G. 2003. The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 246-255.
* Katz, R. 1982. The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 27: 81-104.
* Keller, R. T. 1992. Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups.
Journal of Management, 18: 489-501.
* Keller, R. T. 2001. Cross-functional project groups in research and new development: Diversity, communications,
job stress, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 547-555.
* Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. 1999. Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empower-
ment. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 58-74.
* Kirkman, B. L., Tesluk, P. E., & Rosen, B. 2001. Assessing the incremental validity of team consensus ratings over
aggregation of individual-level data in predicting team effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 54: 645-667.
* Kolb, J. A. 1992. Leadership of creative teams. Journal of Creative Behavior, 26: 1-9.
* Komaki, J. L., Desselles, M. L., & Bowman, E. D. 1989. Definitely not a breeze: Extending an operant model of
effective supervision to teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 522-529.
* Konar-Goldband, E., Rice, R. W., & Monkarsh, W. 1979. Time-phased interrelationships of group atmosphere,
group performance, and leader style. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64: 401-409.
Kopelman, R. E. 1986. Managing productivity in organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
* Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., &Sapienza, H. J. 1995. Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strate-
gic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 60-84.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., &Bell, B. S. 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, &R. J.
Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbookof psychology: Industrial andorganizational psychology, vol. 12: 333-
375. New York: John Wiley.
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: 3-90. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Stevens, C. K. 2001. Goal congruence in project teams: Does the fit between members per-
sonal mastery and performance goals matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1083-1095.
Landis, R. S. 2001. A note on the stability of team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 446-450.
* Langfried, C. W. 1998. Is group cohesiveness a double-edgedsword? An investigation of the effects of cohesiveness
on performance. Small Group Research, 29: 124-143.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. 1967. Organization and environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Leavitt, H. J. 1975. Suppose we took groups seriously. . . . In E. L. Cass &G. G. Zimmer (Eds.), Men and work in soci-
ety: Areport on the symposiumheld on the occasionof the 50thanniversary of the original Hawthorne studies: 67-
77. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., &Ilgen, D. R. 1997. Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierarchi-
cal decision making teams: Much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 803-811.
* Lester, S. W., Meglino, B. M., &Korsgaard, M. A. 2002. The antecedents andconsequences of grouppotency: Alon-
gitudinal investigation of newly formed work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 352-368.
Levine, J. M., &Moreland, R. L. 1990. Progress in small group research. In M. R. Rosenzweig &L. W. Porter (Eds.),
Annual review of psychology, vol. 41: 585-634. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
* Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Bradway, L. K. 1997. Task interdependence as a moderator of the relation between
group control and performance. Human Relations, 50: 169-181.
* Lodahl, T. M., & Porter, L. W. 1961. Psychometric score patterns, social characteristics, and productivity of small
industrial work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45: 73-79.
* Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. 2001. Maximizing cross-functional new product teams
innovativeness and constraint adherence: Aconflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 44: 779-793.
* Magjuka, R. J., &Baldwin, T. T. 1991. Team-based employee involvement programs: Effects of design and adminis-
tration. Personnel Psychology, 44: 793-812.
* Man, D. C., & Lam, S. K. 2003. The effects of job complexity and autonomy on cohesiveness in collectivistic and
individualistic work groups: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 979-1001.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 1987. Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing
teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 106-128.
Manz, C. C., &Sims, H. P., Jr. 1991. Superleadership: Beyond the myth of heroic leadership. Organizational Dynam-
ics, 19(4): 18-35.
Manz, C. C., & Stewart, G. L. 1997. Attaining flexible stability by integrating total quality management and socio-
technical systems theory. Organization Science, 8: 59-70.
Markham, S. E., Dansereau, F., &Alutto, J. A. 1982. Group size and absenteeismrates: Alongitudinal analysis. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 25: 921-927.
* Mayo, M., Pastor, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. 1996. The effects of group heterogeneity on the self-perceived efficacy of
group leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 7: 265-284.
* McGee, J. E., Dowling, M. J., & Megginson, W. L. 1995. Cooperative strategy and new venture performance: The
role of business strategy and management experience. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 565-580.
McGrath, J. E. 1984. Group interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McGrath, J. E., &Kravitz, D. A. 1982. Group research. In M. R. Rosenzweig &L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of
psychology, vol. 33: 195-230. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
* Michel, J. G., &Hambrick, D. C. 1992. Diversification posture and top management teamcharacteristics. Academy
of Management Journal, 35: 9-37.
* Mohammed, S., Mathieu, J. E., & Bartlett, A. L. 2002. Technical-administrative task performance, leadership task
performance, and contextual performance: Considering the influence of team- and task-related composition vari-
ables. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 795-814.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., &Stewart, G. L. 1998. Five-factor model of personalityand performance in jobs involv-
ing interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11: 145-165.
Mullen, B., Symons, C., Hu, L., &Salas, E. 1989. Group size, leadership behavior, and subordinate satisfaction. Jour-
nal of General Psychology, 116: 155-170.
* Neuman, G. A., &Wright, J. 1999. Teameffectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 84: 376-389.
* OConnell, M. S., Doverspike, D., & Cober, A. B. 2002. Leadership and semiautonomous work team performance.
Group & Organization Management, 27: 50-65.
Ones, D. Z., & Viswesvaran, C. 1996. Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality measurement for personnel selec-
tion. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17: 609-626.
* Parker, T. C. 1963. Relationships among measures of supervisory behavior, group behavior, and situational charac-
teristics. Personnel Psychology, 16: 319-334.
* Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 2002. Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change
management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transaction, transformational, and empowering leader
behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6: 172-197.
Pearce, J. A., & Ravlin, E. C. 1987. The design and activation of self-regulating work groups. Human Relations, 40:
751-782.
* Pearson, C. A. L. 1992. Autonomous workgroups: An evaluationat an industrial site. HumanRelations, 45: 1992.
* Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. 1999. Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity,
conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 1-28.
* Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., &Ahearne, M. 1997. Moderating effects of goal acceptance on the relationship
between group cohesiveness and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 974-983.
* Ross, S. M., & Offermann, L. R. 1997. Transformational leaders: Measurement of personality attributes and work
group performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23: 1078-1086.
Rothstein, H. R. 1990. Interrater reliability of job performance ratings: Growth to asymptote level with increasing
opportunity to observe. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 322-327.
Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. 1993. Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78: 61-72.
Sackett, P. R., Harris, M. M., & Orr, J. M. 1986. On seeking moderator variables in the meta-analysis of correlational
data: A Monte-Carlo investigation of statistical power and resistance to Type I error. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 71: 302-310.
Salas, E., Rozell, D., Mullen, B., & Driskell, J. E. 1999. The effect of team building on performance: An integration.
Small Group Research, 30: 309-329.
Salgado, J. F. 1997. The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European community. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82: 30-43.
* Schminke, M., Wells, D., Peyrefitte, J., &Sebora, T. C. 2002. Leadership and ethics in work groups. Group &Orga-
nization Management, 27: 272-293.
Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., & Sipe, W. P. 2000. Personnel selection and psychology: Multilevel considerations. In
K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations,
extensions, and new directions: 91-156. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
* Schneier, C. E. 1978. The contingency model of leadership: An extension to emergent leadership and leaders sex.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21: 220-239.
* Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. 1998. Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units:
Subordinatesattitudes, unit characteristics, andsuperiorsappraisals of leader performance. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 41: 387-409.
Shaw, M. E. 1981. Group dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
* Siebold, G. L., &Lindsay, T. J. 1999. The relation between demographic descriptors and soldier-perceived cohesion
and motivation. Military Psychology, 11: 109-128.
* Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. 1999. Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and decision compre-
hensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 662-673.
* Slusher, A., Van Dyke, J., &Rose, G. 1972. Technical competence of group leaders, managerial role, and productiv-
ity in engineering design groups. Academy of Management Journal, 15: 197-204.
* Smith, K. G., Smith K. A., Olian, J. D., Sims H. P., OBannon, D. P., & Scully, J. A. 1994. Top management team
demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly,
39: 412-438.
Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation.
Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1442-1465.
* Spreitzer, G. M., Cohen, S. G., &Ledford, G. E., Jr. 1999. Developing effective self-managingwork teams in service
organizations. Group & Organization Management, 24: 340-366.
Stewart, G. L. 1999. Trait bandwidth and stages of job performance: Assessing differential effects for conscientious-
ness and its subtraits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 959-968.
Stewart, G. L. 2003. Toward an understanding of the multilevel role of personality in teams. In M. R. Barrick &A. M.
Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations: 183-204. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
* Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. 2000. Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam
process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 135-148.
* Student, K. R. 1968. Supervisory influence and work-group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52: 188-
194.
Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. P., &Futrell, D. 1990. Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psycholo-
gist, 45: 120-133.
* Taggar, S. 2002. Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model.
Academy of Management Journal, 45: 315-330.
* Tesluk, P. E., &Mathieu, J. E. 1999. Overcoming roadblocks to effectiveness: Incorporating management of perfor-
mance barriers into models of work group effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 200-217.
Thompson, J. P. 1967. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
* Tziner, A., &Eden, D. 1985. Effects of crewcomposition on crewperformance: Does the whole equal the sumof its
parts? Journal of Applied Psychology, 70: 85-93.
* Tziner, A., & Vardi, Y. 1983. Ability as a moderator between cohesiveness and tank crews performance. Journal of
Occupational Behavior, 4: 137-143.
* Uhl-Bien, M., & Graen, G. B. 1998. Individual self-management: Analysis of professionals self-managing activi-
ties in functional and cross-functional work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 340-350.
* Van der Vegt, G. S., &Janssen, O. 2003. Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal
of Management, 29: 729-751.
Wageman, R. 1995. Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 145-180.
* Wagner, W. G., Pfeffer, J., &OReilly, C. A., III. 1984. Organizational demography and turnover in top-management
groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 74-92.
Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., &Puranam, P. 2001. Does leadershipmatter? CEOleadershipattributes
and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 44:
134-143.
Wall, V. D., Kemp, N. J., Jackson, P. R., & Clegg, C. W. 1986. Outcomes of autonomous workgroups: A long-term
field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 29: 280-304.
* Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., &Michaelsen, L. K. 1993. Cultural diversitys impact on interaction process and perfor-
mance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 590-602.
* Watson, W., Michaelsen, L. K., &Sharp, W. 1991. Member competence, group interaction and group decision mak-
ing: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 803-809.
Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Kraimer, M. L., & Graf, I. K. 1999. The role of human capital, motivation, and supervisor
sponsorship in predicting career success. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20: 577-595.
Webber, S. S., &Donahue, L. M. 2001. Impact of highlyandless job-relateddiversity onworkgroupcohesionandper-
formance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27: 141-162.
* West, M. A., &Anderson, N. R. 1996. Innovation in top management teams. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 81: 680-
693.
* Wiersema, M. F., & Bird, A. 1993. Organizational demography in Japanese firms: Group heterogeneity, individual
dissimilarity, and top management team turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 996-1025.
Williams, K. Y., & OReilly, C. A., III. 1998. Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of
research. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 20: 77-140. Green-
wich, CT: JAI.
* Williams, M. L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Huber, V. 1992. Effects of group-level and individual-level variation in leader
behaviours on subordinate attitudes and performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
65: 115-129.
Yetton, P. W., &Bottger, P. C. 1982. Individual versus group problemsolving: An empirical test of best-member strat-
egy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29: 307-321.
* Zohar, D. 2000. Agroup-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of groupclimate on microaccidents in man-
ufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 587-596.
* Zohar, D. 2002. The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned priorities on minor injuries in
work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 75-92.
Biographical Note
Greg L. Stewart is an associate professor and Tippie Research Fellowin the Tippie College of Business at the Univer-
sity of Iowa. He received his Ph.D. fromArizona State University. His research focuses on the design and performance
of teams in work organizations. He also examines how personality traits influence work performance.

A Meta Analytic Review of Relationships Between Team Design Features and Team Performance - Stewart

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Meta Analytic Review of Relationships Between Team Design Features and Team Performance - Stewart

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

http://jom.sagepub.

Southern Management Association

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

at University College of Wales on July 31, 2010 jom.sagepub.com Downloaded from

Você também pode gostar