Team Autonomy, Performance, and Member Job Strain ...€¦ · Team Autonomy, Performance, and...

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2005,

54

(1), 1–24

© International Association for Applied Psychology, 2005. Published by Blackwell Publishing,9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.Oxford, UKAPPSApplied Psychology: an International Review0269-994X© International Association for Applied Psychology, 2004January 2005541Original ArticleTEAM AUTONOMYDESMOND J. LEACH ET AL.

Team Autonomy, Performance, and Member Job Strain: Uncovering the Teamwork KSA Link

Desmond J. Leach* and Toby D. Wall

Institute of Work Psychology, University of Sheffield, UK

Steven G. Rogelberg

University of North Carolina, Charlotte, USA

Paul R. Jackson

Manchester School of Management, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, UK

En raison du développement des équipes de travail dans les organisations, onsouhaite obtenir des informations sur la meilleure façon de structurer les groupespour les rendre efficients. Cette étude porte sur la relation de l’expérience del’autonomie et du travail en équipe, des capacités et des compétences (KSAs)avec la performance du groupe et l’effort émanant de ses membres. Deux modèlesont été mis à l’épreuve à partir d’une recherche théorique et empirique continue.Des données provenant d’un échantillon de 41 équipes de production (174participants) apportèrent des éléments en faveur du modèle de médiation selonlequel l’autonomie est associée à la perfomance et à l’effort par l’intermédiaire desKSAs. Le modèle alternatif de modération qui suppose que l’autonomie et les KSAsinteragissent pour déboucher sur la performance et l’effort ne fut pas corroboré.

Given the increasing use of work teams in organizations, interest exists in iden-tifying the best ways to design teams so that they lead to positive outcomes.This study examined how team autonomy and teamwork knowledge, skills,and abilities (KSAs) relate to team performance and member job strain. Basedon extant empirical and theoretical work, two models were tested. findingsfrom a sample of 41 production teams (174 team members) showed support forthe mediation model—that autonomy is associated with performance and strainthrough teamwork KSAs. The alternative moderation model, suggesting thatautonomy and teamwork KSAs interact in predicting performance and strain,was not supported.

* Address for correspondence: Desmond J. Leach, Institute of Work Psychology, Universityof Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK. Tel: 44 114 222 3297; Fax: 44 114 272 7206; Email:[email protected]

2

DESMOND J. LEACH ET AL.

© International Association for Applied Psychology, 2005.

INTRODUCTION

Teamwork is increasingly popular in contemporary organizations, with researchsuggesting that the use of autonomous work groups or self-managing teamsin particular is becoming more prevalent. In the UK it was found that 40%of personnel managers reported that their organization had some form ofself-managed teams (Industrial Society, 1995). Three years later, resultsfrom the Workplace Employee Relations Survey found in 65% of work-places that “most employees were in formally designated teams” (Cully etal., 1998, p. 10). Similarly, a survey based on a representative sample of UKmanufacturing companies conducted in 1996 found that 55% reportedat least moderate use of self-managing teams (Waterson et al., 1999); witha follow-up study three years later showing this figure had risen to 66%(Wood, Stride, Wall, & Clegg, 2004). Looking more widely, Clegg et al.(2002), in an international comparative study (building on the survey ofWaterson et al., 1999), found that use of self-managing teams was evengreater in Australia and Switzerland than in the UK (though less prevalentin Japan).

That this is a more global trend is suggested by findings from the UnitedStates. Cohen, Ledford, and Spreitzer (1996), for example, reported that by1990 almost half of the largest companies were using self-managed workteams in at least some areas of work activity. Correspondingly, Osterman(1994) found teams were used by 54% of leading organizations; and alongitudinal study of Fortune 1000 companies showed an increase in the useof teams from 27% in 1987 to 68% in 1993 (Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford,1995).

It may be that such surveys overestimate the true extent of teamworking,and that the teamworking revealed by the studies may not always be fully-fledged. However, the trend is clear. This gives credence to the view thatthere is a “current wave of interest in teamworking” (Mueller, Proctor, &Buchanan, 2000, p. 1388), and that “interest in team-based systems of workorganization appears to have reached new heights” (Delbridge, Lowe, &Oliver, 2000, p. 1460). It also fuels interest in identifying the best ways todesign teams so that they lead to positive organizational and employeeoutcomes. Of interest to this study is how one central design factor, teamautonomy, relates to team performance and member job strain while con-sidering teamwork knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs).

Teamwork Design

Though teamwork is high on today’s agenda, interest in this form of workorganization stretches back many decades, to the pioneering work of theTavistock Institute in London (e.g. Rice, 1958; Trist & Bamforth, 1951;

TEAM AUTONOMY

3


Trist, Higgins, Murry, & Pollack, 1963) and beyond. A legacy of that earlysocio-technical systems approach has been to focus attention on the designof work teams. One such design characteristic is team autonomy, referringto the level of discretion or autonomy afforded to groups of interdependentemployees. Members of teams with autonomy are typically responsible forthe day-to-day management of “some natural unit of work” (Cordery, 1996,p. 225), involving decision making (e.g. task allocation and execution) andproblem solving (e.g. fault rectification), as well as other general duties(e.g. training recruits).

Empirical studies of team autonomy have examined its relationship witha host of factors and outcomes. Two outcomes receiving considerableattention, due both to their theoretical and practical relevance, are teamperformance and member job strain. From a theoretical standpoint, teamperformance outcomes are assumed to accrue from the motivational bene-fits of enriched jobs, from the opportunity for team members to respondrapidly and flexibly to work demands (cf. the socio-technical principle of“control of variance at source”, see Cherns, 1976; Parker & Wall, 1998), andfrom gains in members’ skills and knowledge which greater involvement inwork activities affords (e.g. Wagner, Leana, Locke, & Schweiger, 1997).Furthermore, organizations should benefit from indirect labor savings (i.e.,a reduction in both technical and managerial support costs) as teams takeon responsibility for day-to-day duties and tasks. The benefits with regardto job strain follow not only from the assumed greater need fulfillment andsocial support provided by autonomous teamwork (Herbst, 1974), but alsobecause autonomy allows team members discretion over when and how todeal with job demands, thus decreasing strain (Karasek, 1979; Karasek &Theorell, 1990).

Although effective teamwork can be affected adversely by many factors(e.g. uncooperative behaviors, inadequate process skills, poor technicalskills), evidence to date supports the above theoretical expectations, in thatnumerous studies have found that teams with greater autonomy have betterperformance and lower member strain (e.g. Cordery, Wright, & Wall, 1997;Herbst, 1974; Karasek & Theorell, 1990; Kasl, 1989; Manz & Sims, 1993;Wall & Clegg, 1981; Wall, Kemp, Jackson, & Clegg, 1986). Such evidenceis consistent with inquiry at the individual level. For instance, change studieshave found that enhanced autonomy for operators of complex technologyis effective in improving output (e.g. Wall, Jackson, & Davids, 1992), andstudies of the demand-control model have shown that decision latitude(autonomy) is negatively related to strain (e.g. Wall, Jackson, Mullarkey,& Parker, 1996). Though some studies have failed to show such confirma-tory effects (e.g. Goodman, Devadas, & Griffith-Hughson, 1988), we areunaware of any adverse findings (i.e., an increase in autonomy leading toreduced performance or greater strain).

4



Despite the marked appeal of teamwork design generally, and autonomymore particularly, it is unlikely to be the sole determinant of, or provide acomplete explanation for, individual- and team-level outcomes. For thisreason studies have examined the effects of individual factors (e.g. cognitiveability, personality) on team effectiveness (e.g. Barrick, Stewart, Neubert,& Mount, 1998; Barry & Stewart, 1997; Neuman & Wright, 1999). Further-more, studies of team training have emphasized the importance of skill-basedfactors as determinants of effectiveness (e.g. Tannenbaum, Beard, & Salas,1992; Tannenbaum, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996). An underlyingdeficiency, however, is one of integration, that is, studies to date have rarelyexamined team characteristics and team skills at the same time.

A partial exception to this differentiation in research is the workundertaken by Campion and colleagues (Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993;Campion, Papper, & Medsker, 1996) who found that performance was morestrongly associated with team-process variables, such as workload sharingand communication, than with team characteristics, such as task variety anddegree of self-management (autonomy). This notwithstanding, and reflectingresearch more generally, they did not examine the likely interplay betweenteam characteristics and team-process variables.

These deficiencies are problematic because they narrow the field of inquiryand limit analysis to direct relationships between team characteristics (e.g.managerial support, autonomy) and outcome criteria (e.g. performance,strain). More specifically, such deficiencies preclude comprehensive theoret-ical development and restrict practical recommendations concerning teamdesign. This study seeks to address some of the research deficiencies byexamining how team autonomy together with teamwork KSAs relate toteam performance and member job strain.

Teamwork KSAs

From an extensive review and analysis of the team literature, Stevens andCampion (1994) identified 14 team member knowledge, skill, and abilityrequirements (i.e., requisite process skills) for teamwork, such as: recognizeand encourage desirable, but discourage undesirable, team conflict; listennonevaluatively and use active listening techniques (aspects of effectivecommunication); coordinate tasks and assign appropriate members tospecific duties; and help establish specific, challenging, and accepted teamgoals. To assess the KSAs, Stevens and Campion developed a situationaltest hereafter referred to as the teamwork-KSA test.

Research on the teamwork-KSA test is generally supportive of its efficacyin understanding individual and team behavior. Stevens and Campion(1999) provided two validation studies examining the teamwork-KSAtest. The first investigated incumbent employees of a pulp processing mill

TEAM AUTONOMY

5


(

n

=

70) who were applying for jobs within a newly constructed mill. Theteamwork-KSA test correlated both with supervisory ratings of employeeteamwork performance (comprising measures of communication, team con-tribution and self-management;

r

=

.44,

p

<

.01) and ratings of overall jobperformance (comprising measures of teamwork performance together withlearning orientation and technical knowledge;

r

=

.52,

p

<

.01). To calculatesuch ratings, scores obtained from multiple independent supervisors wereaveraged. Stevens and Campion’s second study involved employees from acardboard processing company (

n

=

72), for whom the teamwork-KSA testwas found to correlate both with supervisory ratings of teamwork performance(

r

=

.21,

p

<

.05) and rankings by peers (

r

=

.23,

p

<

.05). They reasoned thatthe weaker correlations of this study, relative to the first, reflected the factthat participants were volunteers rather than participants applying for jobs.

In addition, McClough and Rogelberg (2003) found that the teamwork-KSA test successfully predicted individual team member behavior as indexedby external raters (

r

=

.31,

p

<

.01) and peers (

r

=

.34,

p

<

.01), such thathigher scores on the teamwork-KSA test related to greater individualeffectiveness within teams.

Why Study Teamwork KSAs?

In this study we chose to study teamwork KSAs along with autonomy, teamperformance and member job strain for a number of reasons. With respectto performance, the relevance of KSAs is manifest, since the very conceptof skill implies greater effectiveness. More specifically, higher performanceis assumed to stem from members’ capacity to set appropriate goals, resolveconflicts and in other ways contribute to the management and coordinationof the work in an effective and timely way (Stevens & Campion, 1994, 1999).This is consistent with Medsker and Campion’s (1998) assertion that teameffectiveness “can depend heavily on members’ interpersonal competence ortheir ability to maintain healthy working relationships and to react to otherswith respect for their viewpoints” (p. 475). The aforementioned validationwork (e.g. Stevens & Campion, 1999) certainly supports this supposition.

With regard to strain, the premise is that teamwork KSAs will mitigatethe effects of work demands by increasing employees’ ability to cope withthem, for example because those skills serve to minimize interpersonal con-flict, and by affecting strain-related perceptions. This line of argument isinherent in several leading models of strain, most notably in the “DynamicDemand-Control Model” proposed by Karasek and Theorell (1990), whichholds that “feelings of mastery inhibit strain perception” (p. 99).

More importantly, though, we chose to study teamwork KSAs because webelieve its relationship with autonomy in understanding team performanceand member job strain is potentially important from both a theoretical and

6



practical perspective. Interestingly, past empirical and theoretical worksuggest two main models for understanding how autonomy and teamworkKSAs may work together to explain team performance and member jobstrain. The rationale underlying both models is considered below.

The Mediation Model

The mediation model posits that KSAs mediate the relationship betweenautonomy and performance and between autonomy and job strain. Therationale for the effect of KSAs on performance and strain is as discussedabove (i.e., the concept of skill implies greater performance, and KSAs willmitigate the effects of work demands by increasing employees’ ability tocope with them). The distinctive feature of this model concerns the effect ofautonomy on KSAs.

There is considerable theoretical justification for assuming that autonomywill be related to KSAs. For example, Action Theory (Hacker, 1986;Hacker, Skell, & Straub, 1968) casts autonomy as a prerequisite for learningor skill development. Frese and Zapf (1994) describe the theory’s implica-tions thus: “skills can only be acquired . . . when there is control at work”(p. 319). Herzberg (1966) made a parallel observation on the basis of histwo-factor theory, and the form of job design (i.e., job enrichment, charac-terized by increased autonomy) to which that theory gave rise. He arguedthat: “job design promotes psychological growth which involves knowingmore, seeing more relationships in what we know” (p. 76). Lawler (1992),promoting the idea of “high involvement organizations”, similarly arguedin their favor by reasoning that: “because they have the autonomy to makeongoing improvements, employees can also fine-tune and make adjustmentsin the work process as they become increasingly more knowledgeable abouthow the work can best be done” (p. 85).

Empirical work has further demonstrated how initiatives increasingemployee autonomy not only encourage employees to use their existingknowledge better but also to learn new skills (Jackson & Wall, 1991; Wall,Corbett, Martin, Clegg, & Jackson, 1990; Wall et al., 1992). There is aparallel here with a study reported by Campion, Cheraskin, and Stevens(1994), who found that work experience through job rotation was associ-ated with the acquisition of interpersonal and communication skills.

The Moderation Model

The moderation model contends that autonomy and KSAs interact to pre-dict performance and strain. With regard to performance, the form of theinteraction is expected to show that autonomy has benefits when KSAs arehigh but has little or no effect when KSAs are low. In other words, autonomy

TEAM AUTONOMY

7


will have a positive impact on team performance only to the extent thatmembers have teamwork knowledge, skills, and abilities to respond to suchan opportunity. This model is not only intuitively appealing, but has itsbasis in the theoretical propositions of Peters and O’Connor (1980) andBlumberg and Pringle (1982), who argued for the need to extend the tradi-tional notion of work performance being the product of motivation andability to include opportunity as an equally important factor. In this con-text, team autonomy provides the opportunity for people with relevantKSAs to use them, and conversely KSAs provide the means for people touse autonomy to greatest effect.

With regard to strain, the form of the interaction is predicted to showthat autonomy has a beneficial effect (i.e., reduces strain) when KSAs arehigh, but has a detrimental effect when they are low. Specifically, underconditions of greater autonomy (i.e., control or decision-making latitude)team members will experience psychological strain if they are neither competentin their interactions nor possess the skills to manage their work effectively.This proposition is based on the demands-control model of job strain (Karasek,1979; Karasek & Theorell, 1990) and the wider literature on self-efficacy(e.g. Bandura, 1986).

The Present Study

This study seeks to contribute both to the work design literature and theteamwork-KSA literature. Besides looking at how autonomy and teamworkKSAs, respectively, relate to performance and job strain, the aim of thepresent study was to test the two aforementioned models empirically. Thus,three hypotheses were tested.

1. Autonomy and teamwork KSAs will be individually related to teamperformance and member job strain. (This represents a replication ofprevious studies, for instance Campion et al., 1996.)

2. Teamwork KSAs will mediate the relationship of autonomy both withteam performance and member job strain.

3. Autonomy and teamwork KSAs will interact to predict team perform-ance and member job strain.

METHOD

Setting and Sample

The research was conducted in the manufacturing facilities of two medium-sized UK organizations. The reason for involving two organizations wasto provide sufficient teams for analytical purposes. Company A makes steel

8



products, such as rolled bars and sections, for customers throughoutEurope, and has some 450 employees. Company B produces photographicpaper and film for its home market as well as for export to Japan, the USA,India and Europe, and has about 800 employees. In collaboration withmanagement and technical support staff, shopfloor production teams wereselected for the study using several criteria, namely that members were partof a clearly identifiable work unit, were responsible for a discrete aspect ofproduction, and were reliant on each other in order to complete tasks. Thisprocess ensured that only legitimate teams (i.e., those that conformed tostandard definitions of teamwork) were involved in the study. As recruitmentwas affected by opportunity (i.e., not all teams were available to take part dueto shift systems and manufacturing demands), the full sample comprised41 teams, with a total of 174 team members (96% participation). Employeeparticipation was voluntary. Twenty-five teams were drawn from CompanyA (98 employees with 96% average participation); and 16 teams from Com-pany B (76 employees, with 95% average participation). The lowest level ofparticipation for any one team was 63%. For the combined sample, the age ofemployees (all of whom were male) ranged from 21 to 62 years (

M

=

40.93),the time spent in their current team ranged from 1 to 26 years (

M

=

6.78),and the length of service ranged from 1 to 41 years (

M

=

14.72).At the time of the study, the practice of affording teams greater autonomy

had been in existence for some 15 months. Levels of autonomy, however,varied in both organizations, although each team was minimally responsiblefor the management of routine task activities. Variation in autonomy wasprimarily due to managers’ preferences and manufacturing demands. Bothorganizations had invested in training to support team autonomy, includingmost notably aspects of Total Productive Maintenance that concern faultrectification. Teamwork KSAs, however, were not explicitly targeted.

Procedure

The senior author was introduced to the participants in a series of meetings.These provided an opportunity to: discuss teamworking; clarify what parti-cipation in the study involved; and emphasize confidentiality (that only theresearchers would have access to the data). Measures of teamwork KSAs,autonomy and strain were combined into a single booklet. Booklets wereadministered during working hours, and were handed to the researcherupon completion.

Measures

Team Autonomy.

The degree to which teams were involved in managingtheir own work activities was assessed by a three-item scale, based on Little

TEAM AUTONOMY

9


(1989) and Sprigg, Jackson, and Parker (2000). Items included “Are teammembers themselves involved in making decisions about setting goals andtargets?” and “Are most job-related decisions made by team membersrather than by just the shift manager?” The five-point response scaleranged from 1 “not at all” to 5 “a great deal”. Internal consistency reliability(Cronbach’s alpha) was .78. Team scores were calculated as the mean ofmember scores. The rationale for this was based on the assumption thatmembers would possess similar perceptions of team autonomy. To deter-mine whether the data could be legitimately used in this way, scores for eachteam were subjected to a test of within-group agreement (r

wg

) (see James,Demaree, & Wolf, 1984, 1993). Averaged across all teams, this gave an r

wg

coefficient of .80 (93% of teams were at or above the acceptable r

wg

thresholdof .7), signifying a considerable degree of consistency of perceptions amongmembers of the same team. We conducted all analyses using both the fullsample (

n

=

41) and a sample excluding teams with an r

wg

coefficient belowthe .7 threshold (

n

=

38). As the pattern of findings for both sets of analyseswas equivalent, we report findings based on the full sample.

In support of conducting analyses at the group level, it is consideredappropriate also to examine between-group variation, to preclude the possib-ility that a high within-group agreement is merely the result of similar ratingsby all employees regardless of team. Analysis of covariance (controlling forcompany) showed a statistically significant difference across teams (

F

=

1.88,

p

<

.01).

Teamwork KSAs.

The Teamwork-KSA Test, developed by Stevens andCampion (1994, 1999), was used to assess team members’ teamwork know-ledge, skills, and abilities. This measure “emphasizes attributes which man-agement can influence (e.g. via selection procedures or training programs),rather than trait or dispositional attributes which are presumed to be morestable characteristics of individuals which cannot be as readily influenced”(Stevens & Campion, 1994, p. 504). The test has 35 multiple-choice itemsthat describe possible team situations, and participants are asked to indicatehow they would behave in each case. An example item follows: “Supposeyou are presented with the following types of goals. You are asked to pickone for your team to work on. Which would you choose?” The four responseoptions for this question are: A. An easy goal so the team will be assuredof reaching it, thus creating a feeling of success; B. A goal of average diffi-culty so the team will be somewhat challenged, but successful without toomuch trouble; C. A difficult and challenging goal that will stretch the teamto perform at a high level, but attainable so that effort will not be futile; D.A very difficult, or even impossible goal so that even if the team falls short,it will at least have a very high target to aim for. The 35 items are nestedunder 5 sub-categories. Three concern interpersonal KSAs, namely conflict

10



resolution KSAs, collaborative problem solving KSAs, and communicationKSAs; and the other two concern self-management KSAs, namely goalsetting and performance management KSAs and planning and task coordina-tion KSAs.

As recommended, an overall score for teamwork KSAs was obtained bysumming the correct answers, giving a possible range from 0 to 35, withhigher scores signifying greater KSA levels. The test authors (Stevens &Campion, 1999) reported an internal consistency reliability (alpha) of .80.Cronbach’s alpha for the present sample was .70. Although it would havebeen potentially interesting to examine differential effects for the KSA sub-categories, their internal reliabilities were below the acceptable threshold.Therefore, finer-grain analyses using such categories were not appropriate.These findings, however, reflect Steven and Campion’s (1997) recommenda-tion that sub-categories should only be used for assessing training anddevelopment needs, not for employee selection purposes (and by implicationnot for research purposes either).

As referred to above, Stevens and Campion propose that teamworkKSAs are learnable skills. As such, a possibility to consider is that membersof the same team possess similar KSAs. Equivalent KSAs within teamscould occur, for instance, from less able members “picking up” or acquiringskills from more able ones, or from members jointly acquiring skills asthey develop norms about how to carry out their tasks, or from both. Thisoffers an alternative view to the common assumption that KSAs vary withinteams. To examine the validity of this possibility, the test of within-groupagreement (r

wg

) was used. Averaged across all teams, this gave a coefficientof .83 (90% of teams gave a coefficient at or above the .7 threshold). Thissuggests that teamwork KSA scores (obtained from individuals) actuallyrepresent a team-level variable, and that the mean team KSA score is themost appropriate index for analysis. We thus conducted analyses using thefull sample (

n

=

41) and a sample omitting teams with an r

wg

coefficientbelow the threshold (

n

=

37). As these gave identical patterns of results, wereport findings based on the full sample.

As previously discussed, it is also appropriate to examine between-groupvariation prior to conducting team-level analyses. Analysis of covariance(controlling for company) showed a statistically significant difference acrossthe teams (F = 1.60, p < .05).

Job Strain. Job strain was assessed using the short forms of the job-relatedanxiety and job-related depression scales developed by Warr (1990). Eachof these scales has three items (see Mullarkey, Wall, Warr, Clegg, & Stride,1999). Respondents are asked how much of the time their job has madethem feel a particular way, which is indicated by the use of such adjectivesas “tense” or “miserable”. Answers are given on a 5-point response scale

TEAM AUTONOMY 11


ranging from 1 “never” to 5 “all the time”. As the scales were strongly inter-correlated (r = .70), they were combined to form a single six-item index.Higher scale scores denote greater job-related strain. Cronbach’s alpha was.87. Although team members were asked to rate their own feelings towardwork, it was anticipated that they would experience similar levels of straindue to task interdependences and shared responsibilities. Preliminary ana-lyses of the data confirmed this, with the test of within-group agreement (rwg)producing an average team coefficient of .86 (93% of teams were at or abovethe acceptable threshold of .7), indicating similar ratings among membersof the same team. As with the teamwork KSA measure, this finding suggeststhat the scores for job strain (individual-level data) may in fact represent ateam-level variable (e.g. levels of strain for members of the same team maycollectively change in line with work demands). Thus, to enable subsequentanalysis at the team level, an index of team strain was used.

In line with above, we conducted analyses using the full sample (n = 41)and a sample excluding teams with an rwg coefficient below the .7 threshold(n = 38). The pattern for both sets of analyses was equivalent, therefore wereport findings based on the full sample. The test of between-group variance(controlling for company) showed a statistically significant difference acrossthe teams (F = 1.75, p < .05).

Team Performance. Team performance was assessed through manage-rial ratings. These were obtained by using four items from the “work uniteffectiveness” (WUE) scale developed by Uhl-Bien and Graen (1998). Itemsincluded “How good is the team at achieving its goals?” and “How wouldyou rate the performance of the team as a whole?” Responses were recordedon a five-point response scale ranging from 1 “very poor” to 5 “very good”.Cronbach’s alpha was .86. Managers rated teams at about the same time asemployees completed the teamwork KSA test and other measures. Themeasure was administered in one of three ways, reflecting the preferencesand “political sensitivities” of different managers. For 16 of the teams (8from Company A and 8 from Company B) team performance was calcu-lated as the mean of individual manager ratings (each manager rated theperformance of their own team and that of at least two others with whichthey were most familiar). Inter-rater agreement (rwg) among managers ratingidentical teams was high, producing an average team coefficient of .89 (allteams were above the rwg threshold of .7). This confirms the relative ease andconsistency with which managers were able to discriminate between theperformance of teams. For the further 8 teams in company B, performancedata were obtained from managers working in groups of 4 to complete theWUE sub-scale. Each management group produced an agreed (consensus)performance score for the teams they dealt with. Finally, performance of theremaining 17 teams in company A was measured by single ratings from

12 DESMOND J. LEACH ET AL.


managers who assessed their own teams (4 managers completed the scale).It is important to note that analysis of variance showed no statistical differencebetween the mean performance ratings obtained by the different methods(F = 2.17, ns), signifying that performance data could be treated as a whole.

Although the collection of meaningful objective performance data wasnot viable across the sample of teams as a whole (there was no commonmetric applicable to all teams in the sample), such information was availablefor a sub-sample of 8 teams from Company A. These were teams thatworked on the same technology and products, but on different shifts. Thisprovided an opportunity to examine the validity of managers’ ratings ofteam performance by determining how well these related to actual perform-ance. Reported team performance was derived from individual managerratings (32 in total); that is, performance for each team was calculated asthe mean of 4 independent ratings. Actual performance was tonnes of steelproduced during a six-month period prior to the study. Findings showed aclose positive association between the two measures, with a rank-order cor-relation (Spearman’s rho) of .80.

RESULTS

Preliminary AnalysesPotential “Third Factors”. Evaluation of the models required initial

consideration of the relationships among the background, predictor anddependent variables, so as to identify any third factors that might affect theresults. This was approached initially through an inspection of zero-ordercorrelations among the study variables as shown in Table 1. These showedno relationship of age (team average), length of service (team average), teamtenure (average) or team size with KSAs, autonomy, performance or teamstrain. Company membership, however, had a strong relationship withautonomy and with team strain. Team members in company A reportedhigher levels of autonomy and lower levels of strain than team members incompany B. Thus in subsequent analyses this factor was controlled.

The absence of significant zero-order correlations between background(excluding company membership) and other variables does not, however,preclude the possibility that variables such as team tenure or team size couldaffect the results. Each background variable therefore was individuallyincluded as a control variable in the analyses to examine this possibility(examination of effects of all control variables at the same time was notappropriate because of sample size constraints). As the pattern of findingswas the same regardless of which background variable was controlled,the following section presents analyses that only control for companymembership.

TE

AM

AU

TO

NO

MY

13

© International A

ssociation for Applied P

sychology, 2005.

TABLE 1Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Study Variables

Variable Mean SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

1. Age (team level) 40.92 4.46 –2. Length of service (team level) 14.79 4.38 0.73** –3. Team tenure 6.15 3.20 0.19 0.38* –4. Team size 4.24 1.41 −0.06 −0.22 −0.05 –5. Company membership – – −0.02 −0.27 −0.15 0.29 –6. Team autonomy 3.00 0.73 −0.11 0.27 −0.02 −0.08 −0.60** –7. Teamwork KSAs 18.75 3.05 −0.20 −0.25 −0.26 0.11 0.05 0.45** –8. Team performance 3.80 0.61 0.14 −0.02 −0.12 0.04 −0.43* 0.49* 0.51** –9. Team strain 2.17 0.46 0.03 0.06 0.18 −0.21 0.37* −0.48** −0.41** −0.52**

n = 41, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0. 01.



Main AnalysesAll three hypotheses were tested by running two complementary hierarchicalregression analyses, each with 4 steps. For regression 1, company member-ship was entered at step 1, autonomy at step 2, KSAs at step 3 and theinteraction term (autonomy × KSAs) at step 4. Regression 2 was the sameexcept that steps 2 and 3 were reversed, with KSAs entered at step 2 andautonomy at step 3. The results are shown in Table 2, which for economyof presentation integrates the two sets of analyses.

Hypothesis 1. The first hypothesis is that higher levels of autonomy andKSAs will be individually associated with greater team performance andlower team strain, respectively. The basic test for this comes from consider-ing step 2 of each of the two regression analyses, in which company mem-bership (dummy coded) was entered as a control at step 1, and eitherautonomy or KSAs at step 2. Considering autonomy first (row 2 in thebody of Table 2), it is evident that this is related as predicted both to teamperformance (β = .35, R2∆ = .09, p < .05) and to team strain (β = −.38, R2∆= .10, p < .05), accounting for 9 and 10% of the additional variance, respec-tively. The equivalent analysis for the KSAs variable (row 4) shows this hasan even stronger effect, being a predictor of both team performance (β = .53,R2∆ = .28, p < .01) and team strain (β = −.43, R2∆ = .19, p < .01), accountingfor 28 and 19% of additional variance, respectively. Thus, there is supportfor hypothesis 1 since both autonomy and KSAs relate to both outcomesrespectively. This confirms previous research dealing with these variablesseparately. Nonetheless, it is evident that KSAs are more strongly related toperformance than autonomy (Hotelling’s t = 3.02, p < .01), and this opensup the possibility that KSAs may explain the relationship of autonomy with

TABLE 2Hierarchical Regression Analyses Testing Alternative Models of the Effects of

Autonomy and KSAs on Performance and Strain

Performance Strain

Regression Step Predictor β R 2∆ β R 2∆

1 & 2 1 Company membership −0.43** 0.19 0.37* 0.14

1 2 Autonomy 0.35* 0.09 −0.38* 0.103 KSAs 0.54** 0.20 −0.37* 0.09

2 2 KSAs 0.53** 0.28 −0.43** 0.193 Autonomy 0.02 0.00 −0.12 0.01

1 & 2 4 Autonomy × KSAs 0.01 0.00 0.19 0.03

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01; n = 41 teams.

TEAM AUTONOMY 15


the outcomes. Since this issue is central to hypothesis 2, the relevant findingsare presented in the next section.

Hypothesis 2. The premise of hypothesis 2 is that KSAs will mediate,that is account for, the relationship of autonomy with performance andstrain. This was tested using the rationale set out by Baron and Kenny (1986).This involves showing that where a chosen variable (in this case autonomy)has a simple effect on an outcome, the effect is removed by the priorinclusion in the regression equation of the mediating variable (in this caseteamwork KSAs). The relevant findings are shown in Table 2. As alreadyestablished from the results for hypothesis 1, autonomy (controlling forcompany membership) is related to both outcomes (row 2). The additionalevidence required to establish mediation comes from regression 2. This con-firms that once the effect of the hypothesized mediating variable (KSAs) isremoved (see row 5), there is no residual statistically significant relationshipeither between autonomy and performance (β = .02, R2∆ = .00, ns) orbetween autonomy and strain (β = −.12, R2∆ = .01, ns). Thus the inclusionof KSAs effectively accounts for the relationship of autonomy with theoutcomes, consistent with hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 3. The final hypothesis is that autonomy and KSAs interactto predict effectiveness and strain. The standard test for such an interactionis moderated regression, covered in our analysis through entering the cross-product of autonomy and KSAs into the equation at step 4, after the maineffects of the independent variables have been removed (all variables werestandardized prior to analysis). The results are shown in the final row ofTable 2 and show no statistically significant effect for the cross-productterm for either performance (β = .01, R2∆ = .00, ns) or strain (β = .19, R2∆= .03, ns). Thus, hypothesis 3 is rejected.

Supplementary AnalysesFurther analyses were conducted to: (1) investigate a plausible alternativemodel of the relationship of autonomy and KSAs with the outcomes; (2)determine whether the effects for performance and strain revealed by themain analyses were independent of each other; and (3) examine whether thepattern of findings differs according to company.

1. Although lacking the degree of theoretical justification of the mainmodels, a plausible and logically possible alternative model is that autonomymediates the relationship of teamwork KSAs with performance and memberstrain. The rationale for one aspect of this proposition, that autonomy willbe related to the outcomes, has already been discussed in the Introduction;and empirical evidence that this is the case in the present sample is apparent



in Table 2 (row 2). The part that requires further consideration is that KSAsare related to autonomy. The conceptual basis for this view can be tracedto Graen’s (1976) discussion of “role-making” within organizations. Hisargument is that work roles are to some extent negotiated. Managers withmore able employees are likely to afford them more autonomy and, corre-spondingly, employees shape their work to fit their individual competencies.Similarly, Parker, Wall, and Cordery (2001) suggest that “more proactiveindividuals shape and expand their job content”. The evidence that thiscould be the case is shown by the correlation of r = .45 between autonomyand KSAs (see Table 1). Thus the basic requirements for mediation are met,and it only remains to determine whether the observed relationships betweenKSAs and the outcomes are removed when autonomy is controlled. Therelevant findings are included in the previous analyses. Given that KSAsrelate to both performance and strain even after autonomy has been enteredinto the regression equation (see Table 2, row 3, where β = .54, R2∆ = .20,p < .01 and β = −.37, R2∆ = .09, p < .05, respectively), this alternative modelis rejected. Importantly, this finding provides further evidence in favor ofthe predicted mediation model. Nonetheless, to test the direction of causalityimplied by the predicted model, data collected longitudinally are necessary(see Discussion).

2. In the analysis so far, performance and strain have been treated asdistinct outcome variables. That assumption, however, can be challenged. Itis not unreasonable to suggest that in teams experiencing greater strain,performance may suffer. It is equally plausible to assume that teamsperforming better might experience less strain, because successful output islikely to reduce negative feedback and work pressure. That these possibili-ties could apply in the present study is suggested by the data presented inTable 1, where performance correlates −.52 with strain (p < .01).

To examine this issue, that performance may mediate the effects of KSAson strain, or strain may mediate the effect of KSAs on performance, twofurther hierarchical regression analyses were conducted. In the first, per-formance was the dependent variable, company membership was enteredinto the regression equation at step 1, and both strain and KSAs at step 2.In the second regression, strain was the dependent variable, company mem-bership was entered at step 1, and both performance and KSAs at step 2.The results are presented in Table 3. These show that KSAs are related toperformance having controlled for strain (β = .45, R2∆ = .16, p <.01), andthat strain has no relationship with performance once KSAs are controlled(β = −.20, R2∆ = .03, ns). Furthermore, they reveal that neither KSAs norperformance is related to strain (β = −.30, R2∆ = .06, ns, and β = −.25, R2∆ =.03, ns, respectively) where the other is controlled. This indicates significantoverlap (shared variance) between performance and KSAs in predictingstrain. The results also reveal there is no statistically significant relationship

TEAM AUTONOMY 17


between performance and strain once the effects of KSAs have beenremoved. In other words, the link between performance and strain evidentfrom the zero-order correlation is partially due to the fact that they have acommon source.

3. In order to achieve an adequate sample size we combined data fromtwo companies, and included company membership as a control variable toeliminate any spurious effects from that source. Nonetheless, it is importantto determine whether the findings obtained for the sample as a whole areequivalent within the two company sub-samples (rather than due to astrong effect in one sub-sample, and none in the other). To investigatethis possibility, we conducted moderated regression analyses, entering aninteraction term for autonomy X company, and for KSA X company, totheir respective main effects as predictors of performance and strain.Findings showed that in every case the interaction term was non-significant,that the results apply to both companies.

DISCUSSION

The aim of the present study was to test alternative hypotheses of therelationship of team autonomy and members’ teamwork KSAs on the onehand, with team performance and employee job-related strain on the other.The findings support hypothesis 2, showing that KSAs mediate the relationshipof autonomy with both performance and strain. These findings thereforeindicate that support for hypothesis 1, that team autonomy and KSAs areindividually related to performance and strain, is overly simplistic andpotentially misleading. No support was found for hypothesis 3, that auton-omy interacts with KSAs to predict performance and strain.

The findings have both important theoretical and practical implications.From a theoretical viewpoint, the study supports propositions concerning

TABLE 3Results of Regression Analyses Testing Effects of KSAs on Performance

Controlling for Strain, and on Strain Controlling for Performance

Performance Strain

Step Predictor β R2∆a β R2∆

1 Company membership −0.43* 0.19 0.37* 0.142 Strain/performanceb −0.20 0.03 −0.25 0.03

KSAs 0.45** 0.16 −0.30 0.06

a Value at step denotes unique variance explained by variable. b Strain was included where performance was the dependent variable; and performance where strain was the dependent variable.* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.



the role of cognitive-based mechanisms in teamwork (e.g. Stevens & Cam-pion, 1994); that is, findings show that the association of team autonomywith team performance and strain can be accounted for by teamwork KSAs.This perspective complements a growing body of work suggesting cognitiveprocesses are an important mechanism underpinning work redesign effects(e.g. Frese & Zapf, 1994; Herzberg, 1966; Jackson & Wall, 1991; Lawler,1992; Leach, Jackson, & Wall, 2001; Wagner et al., 1997), over and abovethe motivational processes traditionally assumed (e.g. the Job Characteris-tics Model, Hackman & Oldham, 1976).

In terms of practical recommendations for enhancing performanceand reducing strain, the present findings support the view that increasingautonomy for teams could be a worthwhile strategy from both a team andindividual perspective. Given team autonomy is associated with KSAs, thismay be a major lever through which to improve such skills. In other words,through hands-on experience of managing work activities, it is plausiblethat ineffective behaviors are abandoned, and more effective KSAs acquired,as members begin to realize how their actions (or lack thereof) relate to thegoals for which their team is responsible (e.g. meeting production targets,quality standards). The particular value of autonomy as a means of increas-ing KSAs is likely to be because it enables active learning and rehearsal ofeffective skills in the workplace. As such, a possibility to be considered isthat autonomy represents a complementary strategy for enhancing team-work KSAs along with training.

Although we used teams in genuine production settings, the study hasseveral limitations, of which the following six are among the most impor-tant. The first concerns generalizability. While KSA scores of the presentstudy are comparable to those obtained for production employees in othermanufacturing settings, we do not know the extent to which the findings canbe extended to other types of team and environment, and thus constructivereplications are necessary.

The second limitation is that the study provides no basis for causalinference, due to its cross-sectional design. To be sure, if the directions ofcausality assumed in the causal models proposed were correct they shouldbe evident in cross-sectional data; and the absence of such relationshipswould contradict causal assumptions. Our finding of such relationships,however, is not proof of causality. Thus there is a need for complementarylongitudinal intervention studies. Given the particular characteristics of themodel supported in this investigation, such a study should involve theenhancement of autonomy in some teams and of teamwork KSAs in others(as well as a no intervention control condition). Although it may be impos-sible to calibrate those interventions to be of equal magnitude, and hence adirect comparison of effects would be difficult, such longitudinal researchwould allow investigation of the sequence of causality assumed.

TEAM AUTONOMY 19


The third limitation concerns the relatively small sample size (n = 41), whichaffects the power to detect multivariate effects. This does not appear problem-atic with regard to the positive findings for hypothesis 2, since the effect sizesof interest were quite substantial and sample size is taken into account indetermining statistical significance. However, the small sample size does reduceconfidence in negative outcomes. As such, it is appropriate to treat the absenceof support for hypothesis 3, which posits an interaction between autonomy andKSAs as predictors of team effectiveness, with caution. This is because moder-ated regression can be insensitive to such effects, relative to main effects, insmaller samples (Aiken & West, 1991; Busemeyer & Jones, 1983). Nonetheless,given that the interaction effect for performance explained 0% of the vari-ation between teams, and the effect for strain a modest 3%, it is reasonable toconclude that the findings offer little support for the moderation model.

The fourth limitation relates to the measurement of team performance.Although we asked managers to rate teams, uncertainty exists concerningthe objectivity of this method. For instance, the quality of the workingrelationship that a manager has with his/her team may affect perceptions ofperformance and, concerning multiple ratings, managers may rate their ownteams more favorably than those of others. As such, it would have beenpreferable to base team performance on company records. This, unfortunately,was not possible for the entire sample in the present study. Future researchshould consider in detail the measurement of performance from the outset,to enhance both the reliability of findings and strength of recommendations.

The fifth limitation concerns the scope of the study; that is, it focused onthe relationship between just two characteristics (autonomy and teamworkKSAs) and two outcome variables (team performance and member job strain).Compared with more broadly conceived studies (e.g. Campion et al., 1996;Cohen et al., 1996), the present investigation therefore does not providesuch comprehensive coverage of teamwork. Nevertheless, the study’s nar-row focus can be regarded as a strength in that broader studies often grouprelated variables together, thereby precluding finer-grain analysis of the typereported here. Thus, studies such as ours have a key role in understandingthe relationship between discrete determinants of team effectiveness.

Finally, the question of the construct validity of the KSA test needsto be considered. Thus far we have assumed this is an adequate measure ofteamwork knowledge, skills, and abilities. In developing the test, however,Stevens and Campion (1999) reported relatively strong relationships withmore general measures of cognitive ability (in two small samples). Thisraises the possibility that it is cognitive ability, rather than teamwork KSAsper se, that links autonomy to performance. More specifically, if cognitiveability led to better performance and also led managers to afford the teamswith more able employees greater autonomy, then it would give a patternof results identical to those obtained consistent with a mediation effect.



That possibility cannot be precluded, though it does not seem particularlyplausible in the present context. This is so for two reasons. First, in termsof face validity, the KSA test is manifestly about teamwork skills ratherthan general cognitive ability. Items are concerned with awareness of appro-priate behaviors in team situations rather than being tests of numerical,verbal or spatial reasoning. Second, Stevens and Campion (1999) demon-strated that the KSA test explained teamwork performance and overall jobperformance beyond that accounted for by aptitude tests (a statisticallysignificant 8% and 6% increase in explained variance, respectively). Thesegains are typical of increases in predictive validity (over general mentalabilities) for other personnel measures (e.g. job knowledge tests, job tryoutprocedure, reference checks) in relation to overall job performance, asshown by a major meta-analytical study (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). None-theless, there are doubts about construct validity, and this reinforces the callabove for longitudinal change studies, in which, of course, any effects ofcognitive ability would be held constant.

In addition to providing an opportunity to examine conceptual and meth-odological issues, change studies would also enable an investigation of theacquisition of KSAs over time and of the relationship between personalityand KSAs. Following an increase in autonomy, it would be informativeto examine the extent to which KSAs develop either collectively (i.e., animmediate improvement across all KSAs) or sequentially (i.e., in a stage-likemanner). In terms of the latter, a number of different configurations areplausible, for instance: an initial improvement in interpersonal KSAs(e.g. as interactions between members increase) followed by gains in taskmanagement KSAs (as members learn to manage work tasks and duties), orvice versa. Importantly, this line of inquiry could also attempt to examinethe point at which KSAs (in terms of their development) begin to mediatethe relationship of autonomy with performance. (NB: An examination ofsub-category reliability, see Method, suggests that the KSA test may notbe an appropriate measure for investigating the development of specificteamwork skills.)

Following enhanced autonomy, it would also be of interest to examinewhether aspects of personality, such as agreeableness, affect KSA acquisi-tion. An issue to consider, for example, is whether more agreeable members,those with a propensity to get on well with others, acquire KSAs at a fasterrate than others.

CONCLUSION

This study sought to address a substantive deficiency in teamwork researchto date, by examining how team autonomy together with teamwork KSAsrelate to team performance and member job strain. Our findings are

TEAM AUTONOMY 21


consistent with the view that the link between team autonomy and effective-ness is mediated by teamwork KSAs, and this has important implications forresearchers studying team design and for practitioners interested in takinga systemic perspective on improving team performance and decreasingteam-member strain.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting inter-actions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive view.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinctionin social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L., Neubert, M.J., & Mount, M.K. (1998). Relatingmember 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 personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 62–78.

Blumberg, M., & Pringle, C. (1982). The missing opportunity in organizationalresearch: Some implications for a theory of work practice. Academy of ManagementReview, 7, 360–369.

Busemeyer, J.R., & Jones, L. (1983). Analysis of multiplicative combination ruleswhen causal variables are measured with error. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 549–562.

Campion, M.A., Cheraskin, L., & Stevens, M.J. (1994). Career-related antecedentsand outcomes of job rotation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1518–1542.

Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J., & Higgs, A.C. (1993). Relations between workgroup characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective workgroups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–850.

Campion, M.A., Papper, E.M., & Medsker, G.J. (1996). Relations between workteam characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. PersonnelPsychology, 49, 429–452.

Cherns, A.B. (1976). The principles of socio-technical design. Human Relations, 29,783–792.

Clegg, C.W., Wall, T.D., Pepper, K., Stride, C., Woods, D., Morrison, D., Cordery, J.,Couchman, P., Badham, R., Kuenzler, C., Grote, G., Ide, W., Takahashi, M., &Kogi, K. (2002). An international study of the use and effectiveness of modernmanufacturing practices. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 12,171–191.

Cohen, S.G., Ledford, G.E., & Spreitzer, G.M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49, 643–676.

Cordery, J.L. (1996). Autonomous work groups and quality circles. In M.A. West(Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 225–246). New York: John Wiley.



Cordery, J.L., Wright, B.H., & Wall, T.D. (1997). Towards a more comprehensiveand integrated approach to work design: Production uncertainty and self-managingwork team performance. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Societyfor Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.

Cully, M., Woodland, S., O’Reilly, A., Dix, G., Millward, N., Bryson, A., & Forth, J.(1998). The 1998 workplace employee relations survey: First findings. London: DTI.

Delbridge, R., Lowe, J., & Oliver, N. (2000). Shopfloor responsibilities under leanteamworking. Human Relations, 53, 1459–1479.

Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A Germanapproach. In H.C. Triandis, M.D. Dunnette, & J.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook ofindustrial and organizational psychology (pp. 271–340). Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologists.

Goodman, P.S., Devadas, R., & Griffith-Hughson, T.L. (1988). Groups and pro-ductivity: Analyzing the effectiveness of self-managing teams. In J.P. Campbell,R.J. Campbell, & Associates (Eds.), Productivity in organizations (pp. 295–327).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Graen, G.B. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M.D.Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201–1245). Stokie, IL: Rand McNally.

Hacker, W. (1986). Arbeitspsychologie. Bern: Huber.Hacker, W., Skell, W., & Straub, W. (1968). Arbeitspsychologie und wissenschaftlich-

technische revolution. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work:

Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.Herbst, P.G. (1974). Socio-technical design. London: Tavistock Publications.Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, OH: World.Industrial Society. (1995). Self-managed teams. London: Industrial Society.Jackson, P.R., & Wall, T.D. (1991). How does operator control enhance perform-

ance of advanced manufacturing technology? Ergonomics, 34, 1301–1311.James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater

reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 85–98.James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of within-group

interrater agreement. Journal of Applied psychology, 78, 306–309.Karasek, R.A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: Implica-

tions for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–308.Karasek, R.A., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the

reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books.Kasl, S.V. (1989). An epidemiological perspective on the role of control on health.

In S.L. Sauter, J.J. Hurrell, & C.L. Cooper (Eds.), Job control and worker health.New York: John Wiley.

Lawler, E.E. (1992). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high involvement organiza-tion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawler, E.E., Mohrman, S.A, & Ledford, G.E. (1995). Creating high performanceorganizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Leach, D.J., Jackson, P.R., & Wall, T.D. (2001). Realizing the potential of empower-ment: The impact of a feedback intervention on the performance of complextechnology. Ergonomics, 44, 870–886.

TEAM AUTONOMY 23


Little, C. (1989). The Group Participation Index: A measure of work group autonomy.Human Management Resource Australia, 26, 23–36.

Manz, C.C., & Sims, H.P. (1993). Business without bosses: How self managing teamsare building high performance companies. New York: Wiley.

McClough, A., & Rogelberg, S.G. (2003). Selection in teams: An exploration of theteamwork knowledge, skills, and ability test. International Journal of Selectionand Assessment, 11, 56–66.

Medsker, G.J., & Campion, M.A. (1998). Job and team design. In G. Salvendy(Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 450–489). New York:John Wiley.

Mueller, F., Procter, S., & Buchanan, D. (2000). Teamworking in its context(s):Antecedents, nature and dimensions. Human Relations, 53, 1387–1424.

Mullarkey, S, Wall, T.D., Warr, P.B., Clegg, C.W., & Stride, C.B. (1999). Measuresof job satisfaction, mental health and job-related well-being. Malta: Interprint Ltd.

Neuman, G.A., & Wright, J. (1999). Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitiveability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 376–389.

Osterman, P. (1994). How common is workplace transformation and who adopts it?Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 47, 173–188.

Parker, S.K., & Wall, T.D. (1998). Job and work design. London: Sage.Parker, S.K., Wall, T.D. & Cordery, J.L. (2001). Future work design research and

practice: Towards and elaborated work characteristics approach. Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 413–440.

Peters, L., & O’Connor, E. (1980). Situational constraints and work outcomes: Theinfluence of an often overlooked construct. Academy of Management Review, 5,391–397.

Rice, A.K. (1958). Productivity and social organization. London: Tavistock.Schmidt, F.L, & Hunter, J.E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods

in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years ofresearch findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.

Sprigg, C.A., Jackson, P.R., & Parker, S.K. (2000). Production teamworking: Theimportance of interdependence and autonomy for employee strain and satisfaction.Human Relations, 53, 1519–1543.

Stevens, M.J., & Campion, M.A. (1994). The knowledge, skills, and ability require-ments for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal ofManagement, 20, 503–530.

Stevens, M.J., & Campion, M.A. (1997). Teamwork-KSA Test: Examiner’s manual.Rosemont, IL: NCS.

Stevens, M.J., & Campion, M.A. (1999). Staffing work teams: Development andvalidation of a selection test for teamwork settings. Journal of Management, 25,207–228.

Tannenbaum, S., Beard, R., & Salas, E. (1992). Team building and its influence onteam effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. InK. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory and research in industrial/organizational psychology(pp. 117–153). Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier.

Tannenbaum, S., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (1996). Promoting team effec-tiveness. In M. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 503–529).New York: Wiley.



Trist, E.L., & Bamforth, K.W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequencesof the long-wall method of coal-getting. Human Relations, 4, 3–38.

Trist, E.L., Higgins, G., Murry, H., & Pollack, A. (1963). Organisational Choice.London: Tavistock.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Graen, G.B. (1998). Individual self-management: Analysis of pro-fessionals’ self-managing activities in functional and cross-functional work teams.Academy of Management Journal, 41, 340–350.

Wagner, J.A., Leana, C.R., Locke, E.A., & Schweiger, D.M. (1997). Cognitive andmotivational frameworks in U.S. research on participation: A meta-analysis ofprimary effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 49–65.

Wall, T.D., & Clegg, C.W. (1981). A longitudinal field study of group work redesign.Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 2, 31–49.

Wall, T.D., Corbett, M.J., Martin, R., Clegg, C.W., & Jackson, P.R. (1990).Advanced manufacturing technology, work design and performance: A changestudy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 691–697.

Wall, T.D., Jackson, P.R., & Davids, K. (1992). Operator work design and roboticssystem performance: A serendipitous field study. Journal of Applied Psychology,77, 353–362.

Wall, T.D., Jackson, P.R., Mullarkey, S., & Parker, S.K. (1996). The demands-control model of job strain: A more specific test. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 69, 153–166.

Wall, T.D., Kemp, N.J., Jackson, P.R., & Clegg, C.W. (1986). Outcomes of auto-nomous work groups: A long-term field experiment. Academy of ManagementJournal, 29, 280–304.

Warr, P.B. (1990). The measurement of well-being and other aspects of mentalhealth. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 129–148.

Waterson, P.E., Clegg, C.W., Bolden, R., Pepper, K., Warr, P.B., & Wall, T.D.(1999). The use and effectiveness of modern manufacturing practices: A surveyof U.K. industry. International Journal of Production Research, 37, 2271–2292.

Wood, S.J., Stride, C.B., Wall, T.D., & Clegg, C.W. (2004). Revisiting the use andeffectiveness of modern management practices. Human Factors and Ergonomicsin Manufacturing, 14, 415–432.

Team Autonomy, Performance, and Member Job Strain ...€¦ · Team Autonomy, Performance, and...

Documents

Transcript of Team Autonomy, Performance, and Member Job Strain ...€¦ · Team Autonomy, Performance, and...