Team Performance Management: An International Journal

Teams in organizations: a review on team effectiveness

María Isabel Delgado Piña, Ana María Romero Martínez, Luis Gómez Martínez,
Article information:
To cite this document:
María Isabel Delgado Piña, Ana María Romero Martínez, Luis Gómez Martínez, (2008) "Teams in
organizations: a review on team effectiveness", Team Performance Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 14 Issue: 1/2, pp.7-21, https://doi.org/10.1108/13527590810860177
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/13527590810860177
Downloaded by ABE, Miss Claire Siegel At 06:56 27 September 2017 (PT)

Downloaded on: 27 September 2017, At: 06:56 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 75 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 13890 times since 2008*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2003),"Planning to use work teams effectively", Team Performance Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 9 Iss 3/4 pp. 50-58 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/13527590310482235">https://
doi.org/10.1108/13527590310482235</a>
(2003),"Work team trust and effectiveness", Personnel Review, Vol. 32 Iss 5 pp. 605-622 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/00483480310488360">https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480310488360</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:616458 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7592.htm

Teams in
Teams in organizations: a review organizations
on team effectiveness
Marı́a Isabel Delgado Piña, Ana Marı́a Romero Martı́nez and
Luis Gómez Martı́nez 7
Department of Business Administration, Complutense University of Madrid,
Madrid, Spain Received March 2007
Revised November 2007
Accepted November 2007

Abstract
Downloaded by ABE, Miss Claire Siegel At 06:56 27 September 2017 (PT)

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review the research on organizational teams. The aim is
delimiting the conceptual space of effectiveness and determining team-level measurement issues.
Design/methodology/approach – A range of published works, which analyse the different
variables of effectiveness for each type of team, is reviewed (the most used effectiveness criteria are
shown in a table). According to the existence of different types of teams – work team, parallel team,
project team and management team – the authors assess what variables and measures are more
appropriate according to team type, analyse the problems in gathering data and measuring in this
level of analysis and, finally, offer a proposal of measurement issues for future research.
Findings – The authors conclude that effectiveness is a multidimensional concept with three
dimensions: performance, attitudinal outcomes, and behavioural outcomes. Regarding team-level
measurement issues, the authors also conclude that there is a need to use multiple data sources and
multimethod analyses incorporating consensus and aggregation methods, as well as observation and
key informants.
Practical implications – The results of this work can support future research on teams. Although
considerable headway has been made in the team effectiveness studies, there are things that still need
to be done. The paper shows that a more complete measure of effectiveness must be developed,
according to the three dimensions: performance, attitudinal outcomes, and behavioural outcomes.
Originality/value – The paper is a comprehensive review and provides a basis for researchers in the
area of effective teams.
Keywords Team working, Measurement
Paper type General review

1. Introduction
Nowadays, there is a great interest in studying organizational teams. This interest is
concerned with the increasing use of teams in companies. The use of teams has
expanded dramatically in response to competitive challenges and organizational needs
of flexibility and adaptation. Moreover, literature recognizes that teams increase, at
least, employee satisfaction and commitment to organization (Stewart and Barrick,
2000) and move the firm closer to a set of objectives (Doolen et al., 2003; Tata and
Prasad, 2004).
Understanding effectiveness is a key issue in team research. In this sense, several
models have been developed with an objective: to identify multiple factors of
effectiveness and their relationships with success (Kirkman et al., 2001). Given this Team Performance Management
Vol. 14 No. 1/2, 2008
purpose, researchers have had problems in delineating the boundaries of team pp. 7-21
effectiveness and operationalizing this construct. Problems are related to distinguish q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1352-7592
between determinant factors and criteria of effectiveness. DOI 10.1108/13527590810860177
 TPM The main purpose of this study is to clarify the team effectiveness construct and to
14,1/2 find the best way for assessing it. With this objective, the study:
.
tries to delineate the space construct of team effectiveness reviewing previous
research and showing used variables and measures in them;
.
analyses the problems in gathering data and measuring in this level of analysis;
and
8 .
assesses what variables and measures are more appropriate according to team
type and offers a proposal of measurement issues for future research.

Therefore, the objective of this paper is to make a comprehensive review as a basis for
researchers in the area of effective teams.
Downloaded by ABE, Miss Claire Siegel At 06:56 27 September 2017 (PT)

2. Delineating the construct space of team effectiveness

2.1. Dimensions
The purpose of this section is to identify dimensions or criteria of team effectiveness.
Two types of models of team effectiveness can be distinguished. The first one is
unidimensional and uses objective measures of team performance (Kolodny and
Kiggundu, 1980; Shea and Guzzo, 1987) or of the degree of real productivity (Steiner,
1972). The second one is multidimensional, since it supposes that team effectiveness
depends on something else apart from performance or productivity (Hackman, 1987;
Hackman and Morris, 1975; Hackman and Walton, 1986; Nieva et al., 1978).
Several models have been developed under the multidimensional perspective. Thus,
apart from performance, satisfaction was aggregated by Shiflett (1979) and Gladstein
(1984). Cummings (1981) and Hackman and colleagues considered satisfaction and
commitment. Sundstrom et al. (1990) clustered satisfaction and commitment in team
viability. Finally, Cohen and Bailey (1997) categorized effectiveness into three major
dimensions according to the team’s impact:
(1) performance effectiveness (productivity, efficiency);
(2) attitudinal outcomes (satisfaction, commitment and trust in management); and
(3) behavioural outcomes that included absenteeism, turnover or safety.
In sum, a broad approach to effectiveness has been taken by previous research.
Effectiveness is categorized into the three proposed dimensions by Cohen and Bailey
(1997). However, these dimensions are not equally important and significant for each
type of team. The importance of each one will be concerned with team values and
activities. Thus, depending on the team values and activities, dimensions and variables
may be weighed up.

2.2. Variables and measures

Many typologies have identified different types of teams. These typologies were done
using criteria such as task characteristics, self-management, team composition,
complexity of the skills required, and others (Dunphy and Bryant, 1996). Depending on
these characteristics of the different types of teams, outcomes variables and its
measures will be different (Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Hackman and Walton, 1986;
Sundstrom et al., 1990). To obtain some conclusions about variables and measures, a
review of team research has been done. These conclusions are:
 Work teams. Recent studies use objective and subjective measures of team Teams in
performance. Objective measures are specific to the task and the type of team (for organizations
example, technician repair and response times: Wageman, 1995; sales: Gladstein, 1984
or Shea and Guzzo, 1987; client complaints: Cohen and Ledford, 1994). Subjective
measures are gathered through survey questions focused on perceptions of overall
team performance of team members themselves (Doolen et al., 2003; Drach-Zahavy and
Somech, 2002; Gladstein, 1984), of managers (Fry and Slocum, 1984; Hyatt and Ruddy, 9
1997; Tata and Prasad, 2004) or of both of them (e. g. Alper et al., 1998; Campion et al.,
1996; Cohen et al., 1997; Gibson et al., 2003). Amount and quality of work (Cohen and
Ledford, 1994; Cohen et al., 1996; 1997), productivity (Tata and Prasad, 2004), global
performance (Liden et al., 1997; Tata and Prasad, 2004) and customer satisfaction
(Mathieu et al., 2006; Tata and Prasad, 2004) are highlighted as subjective measures.
Downloaded by ABE, Miss Claire Siegel At 06:56 27 September 2017 (PT)

Many attitudinal and behavioural variables are also assessed. Among the most
common are satisfaction (Campion et al., 1993; 1996, Doolen et al., 2003), commitment to
the organization, trust and perceived positive change (Cohen and Ledford, 1994; Cohen
et al., 1996; 1997) – attitudinal variables – absenteeism, turnover and safety (Cohen
and Ledford, 1994; Cohen et al., 1996; 1997) – behavioural variables. Attitudinal and
behavioural variables are captured through subjective and objective measures,
respectively. Moreover, behavioural variables are used to assess the success of
self-managing teams.
Parallel teams. Recent studies also use three effectiveness dimensions: cognitive
task performance (Pelled, 1996a), internal and external perceived performance (Jehn,
1994; Jehn et al., 1997) and the range of perspectives shown in evaluating the situation,
problem identification, alternatives generated and quality of solutions (Watson et al.,
1993). Pearce et al. (2002) add to the Watson et al. (1993) measures: change, organizing
and planning, interpersonal, value and overall effectiveness. They are some of the
variables of performance effectiveness, captured through subjective measures. Team
satisfaction is also assessed in this kind of studies (Jehn, 1994; Jehn et al., 1997) and
trust (Appelbaum and Gonzalo, 2007). Behavioural outcomes are employed by Pelled
(1996a), who considers turnover variable in her theoretical study.
Project teams. The most frequently used measure of project team effectiveness is
external perceptions gathered of managers or supervisors. This is followed by internal
team perceptions and, finally, by external perceptions of customers or other
stakeholders.
In general, perceived performance is rated using six variables: adherence to
budgets, adherence to schedules, innovation, project quality, overall performance or
efficiency and outcomes of interactions among team members. Recently, Rickards et al.
(2001) also measure team productivity. Additional items included are satisfaction,
commitment to organization and trust (Baldwin et al., 1997; Porter and Lilly, 1996).
Management teams. The research in management teams define effectiveness as
firm performance and use objective measures. The most common rated variables are
return on equity (Bunderson and Sutcliffe, 2002; Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1990),
return on assets (Murray, 1989; Wiersema and Bantel, 1993), sales growth (Eisenhardt
and Shoonhoven, 1990; Simons, 1995), total return to shareholders (Haleblian and
Finkelstein, 1993; Murray, 1989), change in sales and change in profitability (Simons,
1995).
 TPM Nevertheless, other studies consider decision quality (Amason, 1996; Janssen et al.,
14,1/2 1999), contribution to decision (Kirchmeyer and Cohen, 1992), share information
(Bunderson and Sutcliffe, 2002) and task performance (Jehn, 1995; Schweiger et al.,
1986) variables at the team-level of analysis and rated with subjective measures.
Attitudinal outcomes are also taken into account for assessing effectiveness of
management teams. Specifically, some of these variables are consensus –
10 understanding and commitment to the decision – (Amason, 1996), team
commitment (Schweiger et al., 1986) and satisfaction (e.g. Amason, 1996; Janssen
et al., 1999; Jehn, 1995).
Few studies focus on behavioural outcomes, although turnover from both the team
and the firm is studied the most. Finally, Knight et al. (1999) use strategic consensus as
an outcomes variable. They define it as the adherence of management team to
organizational strategy.
Downloaded by ABE, Miss Claire Siegel At 06:56 27 September 2017 (PT)

In Tables I-V, we show the most used effectiveness criteria.

3. Methodology for assessing team effectiveness

The methodological problems of assessing team effectiveness at a team level of
analysis are: to gather data and process to obtain the final value of team effectiveness.
Both of them depend on the variables and types of measures used. In this sense, only
performance effectiveness and behavioural outcomes can be rated with objective
measures. Studies using these dimensions and measures have usually gathered data of
firm records and files. Nevertheless, these objective indicators have problems. The first
is that not all firms have data about these team indicators. The second is that, although
firms had these data, it is difficult to make comparisons because of the different
characteristics of teams, in terms of assigned tasks and composition (Campion et al.,
1993).
Because of these problems, in the majority of the cases, team studies use subjective
measures (Kirkman et al., 2001) and the survey as the instrument to gather data.
Specifically, two different methods that have been used for measuring team-level data
are based on assessing individual team members’ perceptions. In the first method, team
members respond to items asking about individual-level phenomena, and these
responses are aggregated to the team level (Tesluk et al., 1997). Authors generally use
the aggregation procedure of Rousseau (1985) that consists of: firstly, being sure that
there are similar responses within the same team and secondly, computing team
magnitude averaging individual responses. This approach has been criticized,
however, because aggregating items that assess individual perceptions of confidence
in one’s own ability may not, in many cases, capture the team’s collective sense of its
ability to successfully accomplish team task. On the other hand, these measures have
problems, such as overrating.
In the second method, survey items are written to capture not individual attributes
but attributes of the team as a whole. Thus, the referent used in each survey item
changes form the individual to the team (e.g. Earley, 1999; Feltz and Lirgg, 1998).
However, the level of measurement still resides at the individual, not the team level of
analysis. Moreover, the use of the survey as an instrument to gather data has other
problems. Perhaps, the most important at the team-level of analysis is the response
rate. If the response rate is low, the obtained effectiveness magnitude is not reliable.
 Downloaded by ABE, Miss Claire Siegel At 06:56 27 September 2017 (PT)

Types of
teams Performance
Work teams Subjective measures
Productivity (Campion et al., 1993; 1996;
Cohen et al., 1996; 1997; Gibson et al., 2003)
Production (Drach-Zahavy and Somech,
2002)
Quality (Campion et al., 1993; 1996; Cohen
et al., 1996; 1997; David et al., 1989; Doolen
et al., 2003; Gibson et al., 2003)
Costs (Cohen et al., 1996; 1997)
Service or customer satisfaction (Campion
et al., 1993; 1996; Gibson et al., 2003;
Gladstein, 1984; Hyatt and Ruddy, 1997;
Shea and Guzzo, 1987)
Overall performance (David et al., 1989;
Doolen et al., 2003; Fry and Slocum, 1984;
Gladstein, 1984; Jehn, 1995; Pagell and
Lepine, 2002)
Security (Doolen et al., 2003)
Amount of work, initiative, cooperation,
technical competence, dependence,
leadership and communication effectiveness
(David et al., 1989)
Schedule (Doolen et al., 2003)
Timeliness (Gibson et al., 2003)
Objective measures
Productivity (Campion et al., 1993; Jehn,
1995)
Sales (Gladstein, 1984; Shea and Guzzo,
1987b)
Technician repair (Wageman, 1995)
Response time (Hyatt and Ruddy, 1997;
Wageman, 1995)
Percentage of interrupted calls, hours of
maintenance (Hyatt and Ruddy, 1997)
Client complaints (Cohen and Ledford, 1994)
Attitudinal outcomes Behavioural outcomes
Subjective measures Objective measures
Employee satisfaction (Campion et al., 1993; Turnover (O’Reilly et al., 1989)
1996; Doolen et al., 2003) Accidents and security (Cohen and Ledford,
Team satisfaction (Cohen and Ledford, 1994; 1994; Cohen et al., 1996)
Cohen et al., 1996; 1997; Gladstein, 1984; Absenteeism (Cohen and Ledford, 1994;
Jehn, 1995) Cohen et al., 1996)
Job satisfaction (Cohen and Ledford, 1994;
Cohen et al., 1996; 1997; Gladstein, 1984;
Wageman, 1995)
Client service satisfaction (Gladstein, 1984)
Growth satisfaction (Cohen and Ledford,
1994; Cohen et al., 1996; 1997)
Social satisfaction (Cohen and Ledford, 1994;
Cohen et al., 1996; 1997)
Commitment to the organization (Cohen and
Ledford, 1994; Cohen et al., 1996; 1997; Fry
and Slocum, 1984)
Attempt of team leaving (Jehn, 1995 and
1997)
Perceived positive change (Cohen and
Ledford, 1994; Cohen et al., 1996; 1997)
Trust (Cohen et al., 1996; 1997)
organizations

effectiveness: work teams

and measures of team
Dimensions, variables
11

Table I.
Teams in
 Downloaded by ABE, Miss Claire Siegel At 06:56 27 September 2017 (PT)

12
TPM
14,1/2

Table II.

effectiveness:
self-managing teams
Dimensions, variables
and measures of team
Types of teams Performance Attitudinal outcomes Behavioural outcomes

Self-managing Subjective measures Subjective measures Objective measures

teams Production (Cohen and Ledford, 1994; Cohen Job satisfaction (Alper et al., 1998; Cohen Accidents and security (Cohen and
et al., 1996; 1997; Liden et al., 1997) and Ledford, 1994; Cohen et al., 1996; 1997) Ledford, 1994; Cohen et al., 1996; 1997)
Quality (Alper et al., 1998; Cohen and Growth satisfaction (Cohen and Ledford, Absenteeism (Cohen and Ledford, 1994;
Ledford, 1994; Cohen et al., 1996; 1997; Janz 1994; Cohen et al., 1996; 1997; Janz et al., Cohen et al., 1996)
et al., 1997; Jong et al., 2005; Liden et al., 1997)
1997; Tata and Prasad, 2004) Social satisfaction (Cohen and Ledford, 1994;
Productivity (Alper et al., 1998; Cohen and Cohen et al., 1996; 1997)
Ledford, 1994; Cohen et al., 1996; 1997; Tata Team satisfaction (Alper et al., 1998; Cohen
and Prasad, 2004) and Ledford, 1994; Cohen et al., 1996; 1997)
Costs (Alper et al., 1998; Cohen and Ledford, Customer satisfaction (Mathieu et al., 2006)
1994; Cohen et al., 1996; 1997; Mathieu et al., Commitment (Alper et al., 1998; Cohen and
2006; Tata and Prasad, 2004) Ledford, 1994; Cohen et al., 1996; 1997; Janz
Efficiency (Cohen and Ledford, 1994; Cohen et al., 1997)
et al., 1996; 1997; Janz et al., 1997; Tata and Trust (Cohen and Ledford, 1994; Cohen et al.,
Prasad, 2004) 1996; 1997)
Overall performance (Cohen and Ledford, Perceived positive change (Cohen and
1994; Cohen et al., 1996; 1997; Liden et al., Ledford, 1994; Cohen et al., 1996; 1997)
1997)
Initiative (Liden et al., 1997)
Timeliness (Janz et al., 1997; Tata and
Prasad, 2004)
Machine reliability and response time
(Mathieu et al., 2006; Tata and Prasad, 2004)
Customer satisfaction (Mathieu et al., 2006;
Tata and Prasad, 2004)
Service profitability (Jong et al., 2005)
Objective measures
Performance of business office (Cohen and
Ledford, 1994; Cohen et al., 1996; 1997)
 Downloaded by ABE, Miss Claire Siegel At 06:56 27 September 2017 (PT)

Types of teams Performance Attitudinal outcomes Behavioural outcomes

Parallel teams Subjective measures Subjective measures Objective measures

Approaches to analyse problems, identify problems, Team satisfaction (Jehn, 1994; Jehn et al., 1997) Turnover (Pelled, 1996a)
solutions, quality, organize and planning, Trust (Appelbaum and Gonzalo, 2007)
interpersonal performance, values and change
(Pearce et al., 2002; Watson et al., 1993)
Task performance (Pelled, 1996a; Jehn, 1994; Jehn
et al., 1997)
Overall effectiveness (Pearce et al., 2002)
organizations

and measures of team

teams
effectiveness: parallel
Dimensions, variables
Table III.
13
Teams in
 Downloaded by ABE, Miss Claire Siegel At 06:56 27 September 2017 (PT)

14

teams
TPM
14,1/2

Table IV.

effectiveness: project
Dimensions, variables
and measures of team
Types of teams Performance Attitudinal outcomes Behavioural outcomes

Project teams Subjective measures Subjective measures

Outcomes (Baldwin et al., 1997; Henderson and Lee, Team satisfaction (Sessa et al., 1993; Sessa, 1996;
1992; Pelled, 1996b; Pelled et al., 1999) Baldwin et al., 1997; Janz et al., 1997)
Interactions effectiveness of teams (Baldwin et al., Job satisfaction (Baldwin et al., 1997)
1997; Jehn et al., 1997) Commitment to the team (Janz et al., 1997; Porter and
Product amount (Saavedra et al., 1993) Lilly, 1996; Sessa et al., 1993; Sessa, 1996)
Product quality (Janz et al., 1997; Pelled, 1996b; Trust (Porter and Lilly, 1996)
Saavedra et al., 1993)
Efficiency (Henderson and Lee, 1992; Janz et al., 1997;
Pelled, 1996b; Pelled et al., 1999; Gupta et al., 1994)
Timeliness (Janz et al., 1997; Henderson and Lee,
1992)
Reputation (Pelled, 1996b)
Creativity and productivity (Rickards et al., 2001)
 Downloaded by ABE, Miss Claire Siegel At 06:56 27 September 2017 (PT)
Types of teams Performance
Management Subjective measures
teams Decision quality (Amason, 1996; Amason
and Schweiger, 1994; Edmondson et al.,
2003; Janssen et al., 1999; Kirchmeyer and
Cohen, 1992; Milliken and Vollrath, 1991;
Priem and Price, 1991; Priem et al., 1995)
Contribution to the decision (Kirchmeyer
and Cohen, 1992)
Task performance (Jehn, 1995; Pelled, 1996a;
Schweiger et al., 1986)
Information sharing (Bunderson and
Sutcliffe, 2002)
Objective measures
Return on capital (Bunderson and Sutcliffe,
2002; Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1990)
Return on assets (Murray, 1989; Smith et al.,
1994; Wiersema and Bantel, 1993)
Sales growth (Eisenhardt and Shoonhoven,
1990; Murray, 1989; Simons, 1995; Smith
et al., 1994)
Global return (Haleblian and Finkelstein,
1993; Murray, 1989)
Return change (Simons, 1995)
effectiveness:
management teams
and measures of team
Dimensions, variables
Table V.
Attitudinal outcomes Behavioural outcomes
Subjective measures Objective measures
Consensus (commitment to decisions and Turnover (Pelled, 1996a; Wiersema and
decisions comprehension) (Amason, 1996; Bantel, 1993)
Amason and Schweiger, 1994; Cosier and
Dalton, 1990)
Strategic consensus (Knight et al., 1999)
Commitment to the team (Schweiger et al.,
1986)
Attempt to leave the team (Jehn, 1995 and
1997)
Affective acceptance (team satisfaction,
decision satisfaction, job satisfaction)
(Amason, 1996; Amason and Schweiger,
1994; Cosier and Dalton, 1990; Janssen et al.,
1999; Jehn, 1995; Milliken and Vollrath,
1991; Priem and Price, 1991; Priem et al.,
1995; Schweiger et al., 1986)
organizations
15
Teams in
 TPM For increasing this rate it is necessary for researchers to access the firm and their
14,1/2 teams.
Because of the problems in items definition and answers aggregation, a third
method for measuring team-level data is proposed, the consensus method (or team
discussion) (Earley, 1999; Gibson, 1999; Gist, 1987). This involves having the entire
team meet together and collectively respond to survey items about a team level
16 construct using consensus decision making. Form the researcher’s perspective, the
team consensus methodology is quite labour intensive. Moreover, there is very little
evidence to date demonstrating the superiority of the consensus method compared to
aggregation. Nevertheless, Kirkman et al. (2001) compared the three methods and
concluded that consensus is often superior to best members performance. However, the
consensus method also has limitations. The disadvantages include all of the widely
recognized potential limitations of team decision making such as: teamthink,
Downloaded by ABE, Miss Claire Siegel At 06:56 27 September 2017 (PT)

popularisation, status differentiation, conformity, domination of discussion by one or

two members, or the increased time needed to reach consensus.
Owing to the problems in each method, Kirkman et al. (2001) recommend using
multiple methods: aggregation methods, the consensus approach, as well as others,
such as key informant or observation.

4. Conclusions
The increasing use of teams to answer to the requirements of environment flexibility
has woken a great interest among academics and professionals. Many studies have
been done in the last decades (for example, Campion et al., 1993; Gladstein, 1984;
Kirkman et al., 2001). Teams play a fundamental role in the organizational success in a
global, changeable and client-oriented economy (Mathieu et al., 2006).
Specifically, the most analysed question is team effectiveness. The ambiguity
around the term has hindered this study and, besides, the majority of the investigation
has focused on identifying effectiveness factors, instead of the dimensions and the
variables. Moreover, an added problem is that teams analysed in different studies are
different -work teams, parallel teams, project teams, management teams. Additionally,
team procedures of measurement have not been studied enough (for an exception, see
the work of Kirkman et al., 2001). Due to these delimiting and evaluation problems in
team effectiveness, in this work we have tried to review the literature to identify
dimensions, variables and measures. Also, we have analysed the procedures used to
measure team effectiveness. Several conclusions have been obtained from this
literature review. Firstly, the multidimensional character of the construct. This means
that several dimensions categorize its construct space. Specifically we have identified
three dimensions: performance effectiveness, attitudinal outcomes and behavioural
outcomes. The importance of each one will depend on particular values and activities
or tasks of the teams. Previous research shows that behavioural outcomes are not
significant for assessing effectiveness in parallel and project teams, but are important
in work teams, self-managing teams and relatively significant in management teams.
Objective and subjective measures are used. Although attitudinal outcomes are rated
in all teams, their role is more important in self-managing teams, being satisfaction the
most used variable. Attitudinal outcomes are subjectively measured. Objective and
subjective measures are also used for assessing performance effectiveness. However,
the use of objective measures is limited to traditional work teams and management
 teams. Secondly, using several data sources to remove assessment errors would be Teams in
advisable. All the team members, including external people, would assess the team organizations
effectiveness. Anyway, companies would also develop objective measures to assess
team effectiveness, although this is not possible for attitudinal outcomes. Finally, as
using multiple data sources, different methods for assessing effectiveness would be
combined (aggregation, consensus, and other methods, such as observation and key
informants). 17
In summary, this paper has sought to review the literature on team effectiveness
and compile variables and their measures. The results of this work can support future
research on teams. Although considerable headway has been made in team
effectiveness studies, there is still research to be done. The paper shows that a more
complete measure of effectiveness must be developed, according to the three
dimensions: performance, attitudinal outcomes and behavioural outcomes. Moreover, it
Downloaded by ABE, Miss Claire Siegel At 06:56 27 September 2017 (PT)

is necessary to shape the future research methods and measures to the phenomena that
we are studying. For example, project team research needs to complement the use of
survey performance measures with objective measures and to use multiple methods for
assessing effectiveness.

References
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D. and Law, K.S. (1998), “Interdependence and controversy in group decision
making: antecedents to effective self-managing teams”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 33-52.
Amason, A.C. (1996), “Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on
strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams”, The Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 123-48.
Amason, A.C. and Schweiger, D.M. (1994), “Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decision
making, and organizational performance”, International Journal of Conflict Management,
Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 239-53.
Appelbaum, S.H. and Gonzalo, F. (2007), “Effectiveness and dynamics of cross-functional teams:
a case study of Northerntranspo Ltd”, Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 36-44.
Baldwin, T.T., Bedell, M.D. and Johnson, J.L. (1997), “The social fabric of a team-based MBA
program: network effects on student satisfaction and performance”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 1369-97.
Bunderson, J.S. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2002), “Comparing alternative conceptualizations of
functional diversity in management teams: process and performance effects”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 875-93.
Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J. and Higgs, A.C. (1993), “Relations between work group
characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 823-50.
Campion, M.A., Papper, E.M. and Medsker, G.J. (1996), “Relations between work team
characteristics and effectiveness: a replication and extension”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 49, pp. 429-52.
Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E. (1997), “What makes teams work? Group effectiveness research
from the shop floor to the executive suite”, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 239-90.
Cohen, S.G. and Ledford, G.E. (1994), “The effectiveness of self-managing teams:
a quasi-experiment”, Human Relations, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 13-43.
 TPM Cohen, S.G., Chang, L. and Ledford, G.E. (1997), “A hierarchical construct of self-management
leadership and its relationships to quality of work life and perceived work group
14,1/2 effectiveness”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 275-308.
Cohen, S.G., Ledford, G.E. and Spreitzer, G.M. (1996), “A predictive model of self-managing work
team effectiveness”, Human Relations, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 643-76.
Cosier, R.A. and Dalton, D.R. (1990), “Positive effects of conflict: a field assessment”,
International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 1, pp. 81-92.
18
Cummings, T. (1981), “Designing effective work groups”, in Nystrom, P.C. and
Starbuck, W.H. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Design, Vol. 2 (Remodeling
Organizations and their environments), Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
David, F.R., Pearce, J.A. II and Randolph, W.A. (1989), “Linking technology and structure to
enhance group performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 233-41.
Doolen, T.L., Hacker, M.E. and Aken, E.M. (2003), “The impact of organizational context on work
Downloaded by ABE, Miss Claire Siegel At 06:56 27 September 2017 (PT)

team effectiveness: a study of production team”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering

Management, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 285-96.
Drach-Zahavy, A. and Somech, A. (2002), “Team heterogeneity and its relationship with team
support and team effectiveness”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 40 No. 1,
pp. 44-66.
Dunphy, D. and Bryant, B. (1996), “Teams: panaceas or perceptions for improved performance?”,
Human Relations, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 677-89.
Earley, P.C. (1999), “Playing follow the leader: status-determining traits in relation to collective
efficacy across cultures”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 80,
pp. 192-212.
Edmondson, A.C., Roberto, M.A. and Watkins, M.D. (2003), “A dynamic model of top
management team effectiveness: managing unstructured task streams”, Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 297-325.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Shoonhoven, C.B. (1990), “Organizational growth: linking founding team
strategy, environment and growth among US semiconductor ventures, 1978-1988”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 504-29.
Feltz, D.L. and Lirgg, C.D. (1998), “Perceived team and player efficacy in hockey”, Journal of
Business and Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 557-64.
Finkelstein, S. and Hambrick, D.C. (1990), “Top management team tenure and organizational
outcomes: the moderating role of managerial discretion”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 35, pp. 484-503.
Fry, L.W. and Slocum, J.W. Jr (1984), “Technology, structure and workgroup effectiveness: a test
of a contingency model”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 221-46.
Gibson, C.B. (1999), “Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group
effectiveness across tasks and cultures”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42,
pp. 138-52.
Gibson, C., Zellmer-Bruhn, M. and Schwab, D. (2003), “Team effectiveness in multinational
organizations: evaluation across contexts”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 28
No. 4, pp. 444-74.
Gist, M.E. (1987), “Self-efficacy: implications for organizational behavior and human resource
management”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 472-85.
Gladstein, D.L. (1984), “Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 499-517.
Gupta, P.P., Dirsmith, M.W. and Fogarty, T.J. (1994), “Coordination and control in a government
agency: contingency and institutional theory perspectives on GAO audits”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp. 264-84.
 Hackman, J.R. (1987), “The design of work teams”, in Lorsch, J.W. (Ed.), Handbook of Teams in
Organizational Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 315-42.
Hackman, J.R. and Morris, C.G. (1975), “Group tasks, group interaction process and group
organizations
performance effectiveness: a review and proposed integration”, Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 8, pp. 45-99.
Hackman, J.R. and Walton, R.E. (1986), “Leading groups in organizations”, in Goodman, P.S. (Ed.),
Designing Effective Work Groups, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 72-119.
19
Haleblian, J. and Finkelstein, S. (1993), “Top management team size, CEO dominance and firm
performance: the moderating poles of environmental turbulence and discretion”, Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 844-63.
Henderson, J.C. and Lee, S. (1992), “Managing I/S design teams: a control theories perspective”,
Management Science, Vol. 6, pp. 757-77.
Hyatt, D.E. and Ruddy, T.M. (1997), “An examination of the relationship between work group
Downloaded by ABE, Miss Claire Siegel At 06:56 27 September 2017 (PT)

characteristics and performance: once more unto the breech”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50,
pp. 553-85.
Janssen, O., Van De Vliert, E. and Veenstra, C. (1999), “How task and person conflict shape the
role of positive interdependence in management teams”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 117-42.
Janz, B.D., Colquitt, J.A. and Noe, R.A. (1997), “Knowledge worker team effectiveness: the role of
autonomy, interdependence, team development and contextual support variables”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 877-904.
Jehn, K.A. (1994), “Enhancing effectiveness: an investigation of advantages and disadvantages of
value-based intragroup conflict”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 5
No. 3, pp. 223-38.
Jehn, K.A. (1995), “A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup
conflict”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 256-82.
Jehn, K.A., Chadwick, C. and Thatcher, S.M.B. (1997), “To agree or not to agree? The effects of
value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity and conflict on workgroup
outcomes”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 287-305.
Jong, A., Ruyter, K. and Wetzels, M. (2005), “Antecedents and consequences of group potency:
a study of self-managing service teams”, Management Science, Vol. 51 No. 11, pp. 1610-25.
Kirchmeyer, C. and Cohen, A. (1992), “Multicultural groups: their performance and reactions with
constructive conflict”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 153-70.
Kirkman, B., Tesluk, P. and Rosen, B. (2001), “Assessing the incremental validity of team
consensus ratings over aggregation of individual-level data in predicting team
effectiveness”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 645-67.
Knight, D., Pearce, C.L., Smith, K.G., Olian, J.D., Sims, H.P., Smith, K.A. and Flood, P. (1999), “Top
management team diversity, group process and strategic consensus”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 445-65.
Kolodny, H. and Kiggundu, M. (1980), “Towards the development of a sociotechnical systems
model in woodlands mechanical harvesting”, Human Relations, Vol. 33, pp. 623-45.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, J.W. and Bradway, L.K. (1997), “Task interdependence as a moderator of the
relation between group control and performance”, Human Relations, Vol. 50 No. 2,
pp. 169-81.
Mathieu, J., Gilson, L. and Ruddy, T. (2006), “Empowerment and team effectiveness: an empirical
test of an integrated model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 97-108.
Milliken, F.J. and Vollrath, D.A. (1991), “Strategic decision-making tasks and group effectiveness:
insights from theory and research on small group performance”, Human Relations, Vol. 44
No. 12, pp. 1229-53.
 TPM Murray, A.L. (1989), “Top management group heterogeneity and firm performance”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 10, pp. 125-41.
14,1/2 Nieva, V.F., Fleishman, E.A. and Rieck, A. (1978), Team Dimensions: Their Identity, Their
Measurement and Their Relationships, Final Technical Report for Contract No.
DAHC19-78-C0001, Advanced Research Resources Organizations, Washington, DC.
Pagell, M. and Lepine, J. (2002), “Multiple case studies of team effectiveness in manufacturing
organizations”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 619-39.
20
Pearce, C., Gallagher, C. and Ensley, M. (2002), “Confidence at the group level of analysis:
a longitudinal investigation of the relationship between potency and team effectiveness”,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 115-19.
Pelled, L.H. (1996a), “Demographic diversity, conflict and work group outcomes: an intervening
process theory”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 615-31.
Pelled, L.H. (1996b), “Relational demography and perceptions of group conflict and performance:
Downloaded by ABE, Miss Claire Siegel At 06:56 27 September 2017 (PT)

a field investigation”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 7 No. 3,

pp. 230-46.
Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.R. (1999), “Exploring the black box: an analysis of work
group diversity, conflict and performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44,
pp. 1-28.
Porter, T.W. and Lilly, B.S. (1996), “The effects of conflict, trust and task commitment on project
team performance”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 361-76.
Priem, R.L. and Price, K.M. (1991), “Process and outcome expectations for the dialectical inquiry,
devil’s advocacy and consensus techniques of strategic decision making”, Group and
Organization Studies, Vol. 16, pp. 206-25.
Priem, R.L., Harrison, D.A. and Muir, N.K. (1995), “Structured conflict and consensus outcomes in
group decision making”, Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 691-710.
Rickards, T., Chen, M. and Moger, S. (2001), “Development of a self-report instrument for
exploring team factor, leadership and performance relationships”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 243-50.
Rousseau, D. (1985), “Issues of level in organizational research”, in Cummings, L.L. and
Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 1-37.
Schweiger, D.M., Sandberg, W.R. and Ragan, J.W. (1986), “Group approaches for improving
strategic decision making: a comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy
and consensus techniques of strategic decision making”, Academy Management Journal,
Vol. 29, pp. 51-71.
Sessa, V.I. (1996), “Using perspective taking to manage conflict and affect in teams”, Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 101-15.
Sessa, V.I., Bennett, J.A. and Birdsall, C. (1993), “Conflict with less distress: promoting team
effectiveness”, Nursing Administration Quarterly, Vol. 18, pp. 57-65.
Shea, G. and Guzzo, R. (1987), “Group effectiveness: what really matters?”, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 25-31.
Shiflett, S. (1979), “Toward a general model of small group productivity”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 67-79.
Simons, T. (1995), “Top management team consensus, heterogeneity, and debate as contingent
predictors of company performance: the complementarity of group structure and process”,
Academy of Management Journal, pp. 62-6.
Smith, K.G., Smith, K.A., Olian, J.D., Sims, H.P., O’Bannon, D.P. and Scully, J.A. (1994), “Top
management team demography and process: the role of social integration and
communication”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp. 412-38.
 Steiner, I.D. (1972), Group Process and Productivity, Academic Press, Orlando, FL. Teams in
Stewart, G.L. and Barrick, M.R. (2000), “Team structure and performance: assessing the organizations
mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 135-48.
Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K.P. and Futrell, D. (1990), “Work teams: applications and
effectiveness”, American Psychologist, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 120-33.
Tata, J. and Prasad, S. (2004), “Team self-management, organizational structure, and judgments 21
of team effectiveness”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 248-65.
Tesluk, P., Zaccaro, S.J., Marks, M. and Mathieu, J. (1997), “Task and aggregation issues in the
analysis and assessment of team performance”, in Brannick, M. and Salas, E. (Eds),
Assessment and Measurement of Team Performance: Theory, Research, and Applications,
JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 197-224.
Wageman, R. (1995), “Interdependence and group effectiveness”, Administrative Science
Downloaded by ABE, Miss Claire Siegel At 06:56 27 September 2017 (PT)

Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 145-80.

Watson, W.E., Kumar, K. and Michaelsen, L.K. (1993), “Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction
process and performance: comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 590-602.
Wiersema, M.F. and Bantel, K.A. (1993), “Top management team turnover as an adaptation
mechanism: the role of the environment”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14,
pp. 485-504.

About the authors

Marı́a Isabel Delgado Piña is Assistant Professor of Management at the Complutense University
(Madrid, Spain) and she is Vice-dean at the Business Administration Faculty of the Complutense
University. She has a PhD in Business Administration (Complutense University). Her teaching
interests are in human resource management and organization theory and her research focus
concerns team effectiveness, entrepreneurship and human resource management. She is
co-author of the book Gestión de recursos humanos: del análisis teórico a la solución práctica
(Prentice Hall, 2006). She has written papers and chapters of books on team effectiveness. Marı́a
Isabel Delgado Piña is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: maribel@ccee.ucm.es
Ana Marı́a Romero Martı́nez is Assistant Professor of Management at the Complutense
University (Madrid, Spain). She has a PhD in Business Administration (Complutense University).
Her teaching interests are in management and human resource management and her research
focus concerns entrepreneurship and human resource management. She is co-author of the book
Gestión de recursos humanos: del análisis teórico a la solución práctica (Prentice Hall, 2006). She
has written papers and chapters of books on entrepreneurship and privatisation.
Luis Gómez Martı́nez is Assistant Professor of Management at the Complutense University
(Madrid, Spain). His teaching interests are in human resource management and organization
theory and his research focus concerns team effectiveness, entrepreneurship and human resource
management. He is co-author of the book Gestión de recursos humanos: del análisis teórico a la
solución práctica (Prentice Hall, 2006). He has written papers and chapters of books on team
effectiveness.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Khawaja Fawad Latif, Nigel Williams. 2017. Team effectiveness in Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGOs) projects. Evaluation and Program Planning 64, 20-32. [Crossref]
2. ZuofaTarila, Tarila Zuofa, OchiengEdward G., Edward G. Ochieng. 2017. Working separately but
together: appraising virtual project team challenges. Team Performance Management: An International
Journal 23:5/6, 227-242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Deborah DiazGranados, Marissa L. Shuffler, Jesse A. Wingate, Eduardo Salas. Team Development
Interventions 555-586. [Crossref]
4. Ebrahim Kalani, Ehsan Kamrani. 2017. Study on the Effects of Work Teams on Human Resources
Excellence. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies 05:01, 12-20. [Crossref]
5. Rateb J. Sweis, Reham Al Sharef, Dana Jandali, Bader Y. Obeidat, Neveen Andrawes. 2017. The
relationship between project team members’ effectiveness and acknowledgment of talent: Team members’
Downloaded by ABE, Miss Claire Siegel At 06:56 27 September 2017 (PT)

perspective. International Journal of Construction Education and Research 1. [Crossref]

6. Christos Chaldezos, Damianos Sakas, Nasiopoulos K. Dimitrios, Despina S. Giakomidou. Calculating
Handling of Company Resources for Establishing an Effective Project Team 369-373. [Crossref]
7. Wen-Hsing Liu, Jennifer A. Cross. 2016. A comprehensive model of project team technical performance.
International Journal of Project Management 34:7, 1150-1166. [Crossref]
8. KidronAviv, Aviv Kidron, TzafrirShay S., Shay S. Tzafrir, MeshoulamIlan, Ilan Meshoulam. 2016. All we
need is trust: trust and human resource management. Team Performance Management: An International
Journal 22:3/4, 139-155. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Eduardo Salas, Marissa L. Shuffler, Amanda L. Thayer, Wendy L. Bedwell, Elizabeth H. Lazzara. 2015.
Understanding and Improving Teamwork in Organizations: A Scientifically Based Practical Guide. Human
Resource Management 54:4, 599-622. [Crossref]
10. Mary K. Foster, Augustus Abbey, Michael A. Callow, Xingxing Zu, Anthony D. Wilbon. 2015.
Rethinking Virtuality and Its Impact on Teams. Small Group Research 46:3, 267-299. [Crossref]
11. Florian Aubke, Karl Wöber, Noel Scott, Rodolfo Baggio. 2014. Knowledge sharing in revenue
management teams: Antecedents and consequences of group cohesion. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 41, 149-157. [Crossref]
12. Roger Bennett, Suzanne Kane. 2014. Factors affecting university teaching team effectiveness in detached
working environments. Journal of Further and Higher Education 38:3, 400-426. [Crossref]
13. Ingela Emma Christine Thylefors, Olle Persson. 2014. The more, the better?. Leadership in Health Services
27:2, 135-149. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Bright Mahembe, Amos S. Engelbrecht. 2014. The relationship between servant leadership,
organisational citizenship behaviour and team effectiveness. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 40:1. .
[Crossref]
15. Mohit Srivastava, Helen Rogers, Fiona Lettice. 2013. Team performance management: past, current and
future trends. Team Performance Management: An International Journal 19:7/8, 352-362. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
16. Bright Mahembe, Amos S. Engelbrecht. 2013. The relationship between servant leadership, affective
team commitment and team effectiveness. SA Journal of Human Resource Management 11:1. . [Crossref]
17. Lisa Rosh, Lynn R. Offermann, Rhonda Van Diest. 2012. Too close for comfort? Distinguishing between
team intimacy and team cohesion. Human Resource Management Review 22:2, 116-127. [Crossref]
 18. Jaime Andrés Bayona Bohórquez, Oswaldo Heredia Cruz. 2012. El concepto de equipo en la investigación
sobre efectividad en equipos de trabajo. Estudios Gerenciales 28:123, 121-132. [Crossref]
19. JASNA PRESTER, MARLI GONAN BOZAC. 2012. ARE INNOVATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL
CONCEPTS ENOUGH FOR FOSTERING INNOVATION?. International Journal of Innovation
Management 16:01, 1250005. [Crossref]
20. Harshada Patel, Michael Pettitt, John R. Wilson. 2012. Factors of collaborative working: A framework
for a collaboration model. Applied Ergonomics 43:1, 1-26. [Crossref]
21. Stuart Tennant, David Langford, Michael Murray. 2011. Construction Site Management Team Working:
A Serendipitous Event. Journal of Management in Engineering 27:4, 220-228. [Crossref]
22. Valerie I. Sessa, Manuel London, Christopher Pingor, Beyza Gullu, Juhi Patel. 2011. Adaptive, generative,
and transformative learning in project teams. Team Performance Management: An International Journal
17:3/4, 146-167. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Thomas J. Chermack, Wendy Bodwell, Maggie Glick. 2010. Two Strategies for Leveraging Teams Toward
Downloaded by ABE, Miss Claire Siegel At 06:56 27 September 2017 (PT)

Organizational Effectiveness: Scenario Planning and Organizational Ambidexterity. Advances in Developing

Human Resources 12:1, 137-156. [Crossref]
24. Zhang Shujuan, Hu Qibo, Shi Wei, Sheng Xiaofeng. The balance study of IT project and team member
442-445. [Crossref]
25. Alecos M. Kelemenis, D. Th. Askounis. An extension of fuzzy TOPSIS for personnel selection
4704-4709. [Crossref]
26. Seung‐Bum Yang, Sang Ok Choi. 2009. Employee empowerment and team performance. Team
Performance Management: An International Journal 15:5/6, 289-301. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. Vinh Sum Chau, Barry J. Witcher. 2008. Dynamic capabilities for strategic team performance
management: the case of Nissan. Team Performance Management: An International Journal 14:3/4,
179-191. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]