See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/247515862

The Team Climate Inventory: Development of the TCI and Its

Applications in Teambuilding for Innovativeness

Article  in  European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · March 1996

DOI: 10.1080/13594329608414840

CITATIONS READS

303 11,362

2 authors:

Neil Robert Anderson Michael A. West

University of Bradford Lancaster University
253 PUBLICATIONS   18,710 CITATIONS    287 PUBLICATIONS   29,657 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Innovation and Psychological Well-being View project

Validity of Personnel Selection Methods View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Neil Robert Anderson on 02 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Brunel University], [Miss Ana Cristina Costa]
On: 29 May 2013, At: 12:33
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

The team climate inventory:

Development of the tci and its
applications in teambuilding for
innovativeness
a b
Neil Anderson & Michael A. West
a
Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths College, London, UK
b
Institute of Work Psychology University of Sheffield, UK
Published online: 14 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: Neil Anderson & Michael A. West (1996): The team climate inventory:
Development of the tci and its applications in teambuilding for innovativeness, European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 5:1, 53-66

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594329608414840

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK A N D ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1996,5 (1). 53-66

The Team Climate Inventory:

Development of the TCI and its Applications in
Teambuilding for Innovativeness
Neil Anderson
Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths College, London, U K
Downloaded by [Brunel University], [Miss Ana Cristina Costa] at 12:33 29 May 2013

Michael A. West
Institute of Work Psychology, University of Shejjield, U K

This article describes the development and application of a measure of group

processes and climate for innovation-the Team Climate Inventory. It
focuses on shared objectives or vision; group participation and safety; team
support for innovation; and the group’s task orientation. Two case studies
of diagnostic interventions, employing the Team Climate Inventory, are
described.

The concerns of personnel practitioners and work and organization (W/O)

psychologists have extended over recent years to incorporate less tangible
phenomena at the group and organizational levels of analysis. Interest in
the process of innovation, organization culture and climate, and covert
group norms has mushroomed, and these examples are merely representa-
tive of a much more diverse set of phenomena of undoubted importance
in W/O psychology. As these interests have developed, W/O psychologists
have become increasingly involved in the gamut of methodological and
measurement issues inherent in measuring collective-level phenomena,
either at the group or the wider organizational level of analysis. In this
article we argue that W/O psychologists need to maintain and extend this
involvement based upon their existing competence and measurement skills
in individual level assessments, and we illustrate our case by describing the
development, validation, and application of one such group level
measure-the Team Climate Inventory (TCI).

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Dr Neil Anderson, Department of Psycho-

logy, Goldsmiths College, New Cross, London SE14 6NW, UK.

0 1996 Psychology Press, an imprint of Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & Francis Ltd
 54 ANDERSON AND WEST

THE CASE FOR MEASURES OF COLLECTIVE

PHENOMENA
Why should W/O psychologists take an active professional role in the
measurement of collective-level phenomena in organizations? Our argu-
ment, potentially a somewhat controversial one, is based upon three key
suppositions:
1. That international changes in business environments have provoked
major developments in organization design, particularly stimulating the
importance of innovation for organizational success.
Downloaded by [Brunel University], [Miss Ana Cristina Costa] at 12:33 29 May 2013

2. That such new forms of organization have led to a rapid growth in

the use of teamworking in organizations.
3. That W/O psychologists lag behind these trends and the pragmatic
demands of H R practitioners for valid measures of group and organiza-
tional phenomena.

Let us address each point in turn, but also allude to the longstanding
emphasis in W/O psychology on the individual, and on individual differ-
ences, as the primary unit of analysis.

META-TRENDS I N THE CONTEXT OF

W/O PSYCHOLOGY
New forms of organization structure built upon the inherent advantages
of flexibility, adaptiveness to environmental change, definite distinctions
between core and peripheral segments of the labour force, and the
increasing use of teamwork in such organizations to stimulate innovative-
ness and commitment to quality have been commented upon extensively
by authors in the fields of organization behaviour and HRM as meta-trends
sweeping across many European countries in recent years (e.g. Blyton &
Turnbull, 1992; Storey, 1992).
Similarly, such trends have not passed by unnoticed in W/O psychology
where research attention has shifted away somewhat from traditional issues
in industrial psychology towards more macro-analytical, organizational-
level issues. Increasingly, W/O psychologists have researched topics
such as:

0 innovation and change in organizations (e.g. Anderson & King, 1993;

King & Anderson, 1995; West, 1987; West & Farr, 1990)
0 psychological aspects of HRM (e.g. Guest, 1990)
0 employment relations and the changing nature of the psychological
contract (e.g. Hartley, Jacobson, Klandermans, & Van Vuuren, 1991;
Herriot, 1992)
 TEAM CLIMATE INVENTORY 55

action theory in organizational settings (Frese & Zapf, 1994)

teamwork (West, 1994).

The common theme binding all of these emergent topics in W/O psychology
is that they are collective-level phenomena which can only sensibly be
measured as variables at the group, inter-group, or organizational levels
of analysis. But such a broad brush-stroke commentary fails to portray
with any fidelity the huge implications of such strategic shifts in the business
environment and thus the agendas of W/O psychologists for theoretical
Downloaded by [Brunel University], [Miss Ana Cristina Costa] at 12:33 29 May 2013

development, model building, research design, and, in particular, for the

methodological assumptions and methods of measurement at our disposal
in both research and consultancy settings. Many of these points have
received wide-ranging debate elsewhere and so we concentrate in this
article upon the latter of these implications-the development of measures
of team- and organizational-Ievel phenomena.

THE IMPERATIVE FOR VALID MEASURES

Historically, and for a whole host of legitimate reasons, W/O psychologists
have specialized their efforts towards measuring variables at the individual
level of analysis. Measures of personality, cognitive ability, organization
commitment, stress and coping strategies, leadership style, psychological
well-being, and, of course, individual propensity to innovate, are just some
examples of a seemingly infinite array of measures of the individual at
work. Such has been the intensity of our concentration upon the individual,
and, indeed, such has been the unique contribution of the expertise of
WIO psychologists to measurement theory and practice at this level, that
we now run the risk of being type-cast as only being able to offer these
methodological competencies to client/host organizations (see also
Hosking & Anderson, 1992).
Another set of emergent trends in work psychology lends added impetus
to our call for a transfer of measurement competencies. This is the
emergence of the constructs of culture and climate in W/O psychology and
the concomitant growth in the number of empirical studies into culture
and climate which has undoubtedly accompanied increasing attention to
these constructs (see Reichers & Schneider, 1990, for an excellent review
of this area). Both constructs are now widely held to be quintessentially
collective-level phenomena in organizations; the methodological issues
which stem from this being related to demonstrating “sharedness” at a
level sufficient to justify talking of a “shared culture” or of a “shared
climate”. Consequently, W/O psychologists have become embroiled in
debates of measuring collective beliefs and perceptions of group and organ-
izations and of cut-off Scores indicative of shared perceptions of group and
 56 ANDERSON AND WEST

organization climate and culture (e.g. Dansereau & Alutto, 1990; Payne,
1990; Patterson, West, & Payne, 1992). The challenge, then, is for W/O
psychologists to be heard in such debates and for their expertise in
measurement theory and practice to inform such controversies in a con-
stuctive manner.
Having acknowledged these trends and challenges, it would be mis-
leading to suggest that W/O psychologists have not been active to some
extent in developing work group- and organizational-level measures. For
instance, in the UK, Saville and Holdsworth recently launched a self-report
measure of organization culture. In the USA, the Campbell Development
Downloaded by [Brunel University], [Miss Ana Cristina Costa] at 12:33 29 May 2013

Surveys, consisting of three separate measures, on team functioning, on

leadership style, and an employee attitude survey, were recently launched
and are now being distributed commercially to practising managers and
psychologists in Europe. These measures, and a few others like them, are
exceptional, however, and it is still early days in terms of the involvement
of W/O psychologists in developing such collective-level instruments.
To illustrate some of the issues involved in designing and validating such
measures we now describe our experiences in developing a facet-specific
measure of work group climate-the Team Climate Inventory (TCI).
Whilst it would be presumptuous to hold up the TCI as a model in this
field (indeed, it is still undergoing further validation and refinement), its
development in the UK spanned a six-year period, normative data is held
for over 150 teams and 1000 individuals, it has been translated into at
least six other languages, and the TCI is now being used in several other
countries across Europe and the rest of the world.

DEVELOPMENT AND STRUCTURE OF THE

TEAM CLIMATE INVENTORY
The Team Climate Inventory (TCI) was originally designed as a facet-
specific measure of team climate for innovation. A detailed description of
its development is given in Anderson and West (1994, submitted) and so
we restrict our comments here to a brief review of the key stages. Figure 1
summarizes this development cycle.
Following an exhaustive review of the research literatures on innovation
and climate, a number of individual and organizational measures of these
constructs were located. More importantly, this review informed the
development of West’s “Four Factor Model” of facet-specific climate for
innovation (West, 1990). This model sets out hypothesized relationships
between four climatic factors, evident across existing studies, and work
group innovativeness. Thus, the TCI was developed to measure these four
factors, together with a number of other team-level demographic and
structural characteristics.
 TEAM CLIMATE INVENTORY 57

lanuary 1988 - literature search & Major literature search.

February 1989 - review. - Review of existing research. Copies of
existing measures of climate obtained.

February 1989
I
Development of the
Four Factor
Theory of climate.
Synergizing the literature.
Identifying common themes across
the research on workgroup climate.
Hypothesized four factor model
Downloaded by [Brunel University], [Miss Ana Cristina Costa] at 12:33 29 May 2013

December 1988 - Item Self-generated items to measure four

February 1989 generation. climate factors.
Refinement and modification of items.

March 1989 - Trialling of the original Pilot studies designed.

April 1989 version TCI. ~

Access negotiated.
Feedback results noted.

April 1989 - Major validation Design of major validation study.

April 1991 study with British Access to 27 management teams agreed.
management teams - Results analyzed in detail.
Summarized version 44 item TCI proposed.

+
April 1991 - Follow-up Four independent follow-up studies
April 1992 validation studies. -Checks
commissioned.
of factor structure and reliability
carried out on the 44 item version.
Various validity checks completed including
construct, predictive, discriminable and
consensual validity.

April 1992 - Extension of Additional norm sets developed.

to date norm data and Further validation studies completed.
validation. Computer-administeredversion of the

FIG. 1. Development of the Team Climate Inventory.

The original 116-item TCI has been subjected to exploratory and confirm-
atory factor analyses across a number of samples subsequently (see also
Agrell & Gustafson, 1994), resulting in the published 44-item short-form
version (Anderson & West, 1994). This published version also contains a
six-item social desirability scale designed to alert the user to potential
faking-good of climatic responses. Our efforts have most recently moved
on to follow-up validation studies (Burningham & West, 1994; Kuk, Wood,
Anderson, & West, 1994) and towards collaborative research with col-
leagues using the TCI in other European countries as a research measure.
 58 ANDERSON AND WEST

With regard to the structure of the short-form TCI, its 15 sub-scales,

five superordinate scales, and item dispersions with exemplars are shown
in Fig. 2. For further details of this development and structure refer to
Anderson and West (1994, submitted).

SCALES

-
Downloaded by [Brunel University], [Miss Ana Cristina Costa] at 12:33 29 May 2013

r I. Inlormation
Sharing
3 Items - 'We share lnfonnalion generally in the team
rather than keeping it to ourselves.'

PARIICIPATIVE
Ii. Salely - 2 Items - 'People feel understood and accepted by
each other.'
SAFETY
Ill. Influence - 3 item3 - 'Everyone's view is listened to, even if if Is
in I minority.'

IV. Interaction
Frequency
- 4 items - 'Members of the team meet frequently to
talk both lormally and informally.'

V . Articulated - - People In this team are always searching for

'ftesh, new ways of looking at problems.'
SUPPORT FOR Support
INNOVATION
Vi. Enacled
support
- 4 Items - 'Team members provide practical support
lor new ideas and their application.'

it
111. \-,.a",' ',,el.,, objmlns are?'

4 Items

VISION
'To what extent do you think other team
IX. Sharedness 1 Items

'To what extent do you think these

X. Attainability
obimives are realistic and can be attained?'

7 XI. Excellence - 2 Items - that the team should achieve the highest

TASK
ORIENTATION
XII. Appralsal - 3 Items - 'Do you and your colleagues monitor each
other so as lo maintain a higher standard of
wrk?

- XIII. ideation - 2 Items - 'Do members of the team build on each

others Ideas in order to achieve dre best

XIV. Social
n__l__LII:
"a,l,~",,,,".
._.. .
, I.__.
,,ern,
'People in the team never feel tense with
one another.'
SOCIAL Salal Aspwt
DESIRABILIIY XV. Social
Deslrabillty:
Task A+
- 3 Items - 'The team always lunctlons to the best of
capabilifv.'

TOW1 44 IIEMS
FIG 7 Ctriirtiire nf the AA-item T e a m f'limnte lnventnrv
 TEAM CLIMATE INVENTORY 59

The five subordinate scales relate to:

1. Participative safety: how participative the team is in its decision-

making procedures and how psychologically safe team members feel it is
to propose new and improved ways of doing things.
2. Support for innovation: the degree of practical support for innovation
attempts contrasted against the rhetoric of professed support by senior
management (many organizations have an abundance of the latter but a
scarcity of the former!).
3 . Vision: how clearly defined, shared, attainable, and valued are the
Downloaded by [Brunel University], [Miss Ana Cristina Costa] at 12:33 29 May 2013

team’s objectives and vision.

4. Task orientation: the commitment of the team to achieve the highest
possible standards of task performance, including the use of constructive
progress monitoring procedures.
5. Social desirability: a check scale which indicates excessive faking and
impression management by respondents.

PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE TCI

Here we review briefly data from a number of studies attesting to the
validity and reliability of the TCI. Again, for comprehensive reports see
Anderson & West (1994, submitted) and West and Anderson (submitted).
Throughout this validation strategy, data has been analysed relating to
internal reliability, construct validity, predictive validity of team innova-
tiveness, and consensual and discriminant validity. Clearly, we cannot hope
to re-report all these findings here. Table 1 , however, reports scale and
sub-scale reliabilities as the initial check of the measure’s internal homo-
geneity. All scales and sub-scales reveal acceptable reliability; the only
sub-scale perhaps showing some room for improvement being the three-
item “influence” sub-scale (alpha = 0.64). Results from two longitudinal
studies (Agrell & Gustafson, 1994; West & Anderson, submitted) have
shown that team scores on the TCI significantly predict subsequent levels
of team innovation.

THE TCI AS A TEAMBUILDING MEASURE

Rather than delve further into the psychometric properties of the TCI, it
may be more useful to describe a case study of our use of the measure as
a tool for teambuilding. This case compares and contrasts two senior
management teams in the British National Health Service (NHS).
Although the team descriptions presented here have been altered to pro-
tect the identity of both teams, the TCI results are genuine, as are the
details of the teambuilding interventions undertaken. At the time of these
 60 ANDERSON AND WEST

TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities for the TCI

CoefFcienr
ScalelSub-scale N Mean SD Alpha
~~

Participative Safety 717 45.10 7.76 0.91

Information Sharing 717 11.67 2.31 0.83
Safety 717 7.32 1.h5 0.73
Intluence 717 11.28 2.04 0.64
Interaction Frequency 717 14.82 2.85 0.79
Downloaded by [Brunel University], [Miss Ana Cristina Costa] at 12:33 29 May 2013

Support for Innovation 717 31.87 8.25 0.95

Articulated Support 717 16.05 4.38 0.91
Enacted Support 717 15.83 4.15 0.91
Vision 717 56.59 11.81 0.93
Clarity 717 10.09 2.49 0.75
Perceived Value 717 21.32 4.82 0.86
Sharedness 717 15.21 3.56 0.85
Attainability 717 9.97 2.43 0.82
Task Orientation 717 28.76 7.02 0.88
Excellence 717 9.85 2.52 0.79
Appraisal 117 19.72 4.79 0.83
Ideation 717 13.53 3.97 0.79

Sample: Teams from diverse organizational settings (N = 717 individuals in 121

teams).

interventions (early 1990) the NHS was in a state of flux and undergoing
considerable government-imposed change with regard to its funding
arrangements and procedures for the evaluation of the quality of patient
care. Consequently, the management teams of all hospitals were under
pressure to change their established management methods and increasingly
to “compete” for patient referrals from general practitioners (West &
Anderson, 1992). Both teams involved in this case completed the TCI with
a view to follow up teambuilding; the characteristics of each team have
only been modified slightly to protect their anonymity.

Team A
Team A was the senior management team of an acute hospital in the north
east of England. The unit boasted speciality departments in microsurgery,
ear, nose, and throat (ENT), and obstetrics and gynaecology, it possessed a
total of 170 patient beds supported by some 970 medical and administrative
staff, and annual expenditure was $20 million at the time of our intervention
(1990191 levels). The management team comprised five individuals-the
Unit General Manager (UGM), Accountant, Director of Nursing, Per-
 TEAM CLIMATE INVENTORY 61

sonnel Director, and the Director of Works. A closely knit team, this group
had been together for over four years in total, a fact of which the UGM
was evidently proud. Indeed, the UGM’s style of management may have
contributed to this-she was a highly charismatic leader, much respected
and admired by the team and by staff in the hospital. Her major weakness
seemed to be that of trying to do too much by herself and taking on every
aspect of the hospital’s strategic planning process personally, steadfastly
refusing to involve any of her senior colleagues by delegating planning
tasks to them.
Downloaded by [Brunel University], [Miss Ana Cristina Costa] at 12:33 29 May 2013

Team B
An entirely different team in many respects, Team B was responsible for
the day-to-day management of one of the largest general hospitals in the
UK. Based in a major city centre in the north of England, this unit had
an annual expenditure of 241 million in 1990191 and employed over 3100
staff. Including all wards, there were some 300 patient beds, and, import-
antly, the unit was one of the first in the country (in the so-called “first
wave”) to become a semi-autonomous NHS Trust Hospital. This meant
that the management team had greater autonomy from the local Regional
Health Authority, but that income was dependent upon local GPs referring
their patients to the hospital for treatment. It had also resulted in greater
decentralization in decision making so that the management team alone
could decide upon all issues of resource allocation within the hospital. Of
course, this had also led to much political intrigue and lobbying by all
departments. Quite content to preside over a degree of inter-departmental
rivalry, the Chief Executive had radically restructured the management
team in 1989. It now comprised eight members-the Chief Executive him-
self, three Directors of Patient Services representing each of the major
clusters of medical specialities in the hospital, the Unit Business Manager,
Finance Director, Director of Human Resources, and Director of Com-
munity Services. To describe the Chief Executive as a politically adept
manager would be to understate the case-he was remarkably skilled at
getting the best out of senior staff and had been known to pit managers
against one another. Competition for resources was intense and the final
decision over all types of resource allocation (finance, staff, services, etc.)
was always the sole responsibility of the Chief Executive.

TCI PROFILES AND TEAMBUILDING

INTERVENTIONS
Both teams completed the TCI early in 1990, and Fig. 3 shows their
resultant profiles.
 Downloaded by [Brunel University], [Miss Ana Cristina Costa] at 12:33 29 May 2013

SC4LE'SUBSUIlE S E N PROFILE
LOWSCALE S M R E HIGH SCALE SCORE
1

exwll."t task performansc

~ p p r m a~~e s mmembers r w d v crwally apomse poimtml weaknesser ly
Team mamben l r ~ u ~ n tappraise potential w e a k n e s s Team msmbels regulsrly
Team memben rarely montfor colleagues work performance tc - .- : . . . mon~torcolleagues work Dertormance
Idealion Team members seldom provide useful adem and help, nor butla Team member3 onen provide useful Ideas and help, and ltequsnlly bulla upon the
upon the adear of other team members idear 01 mher team members
r iq==- . .--.----,3

' '* 1 eas Team member3 believe the team to be the best in nts field
I
Norma Management Teams

FIG. 3. Team Climate Inventory profiles for Team A and Team B. Team A: $----$----$; Team B: 0-0-0
OCopyright Anderson & WestlASE (1994) This Profile may not be reproduced in any way wtthout the prior permissionof the copynght holders
 TEAM CLIMATE INVENTORY 63

Team A
Team A profiled as high on Participative Safety, Support for Innovation,
and Task Orientation, but lower on some facets of Vision, and also scored
very highly on the Social Desirability check scale. This suggested a team
climate where individuals actively participated in decision making, where
information was shared as necessary, and where individuals felt safe with
one another at work. Conversely, it also suggested that whilst there was
some enacted support for innovation, this fell far short of articulated or
professed levels of support-a common finding when using the TCI. Of
Downloaded by [Brunel University], [Miss Ana Cristina Costa] at 12:33 29 May 2013

more concern perhaps were Team A’s scores in relation to the Vision scale.
There appeared little clarity over team objectives and some doubt over the
value of these objectives in the view of team members, but perceived
attainability and sharedness of objectives were higher. A further potential
area for development was the middling score on appraisal on the Task
Orientation scale-the extent to which team members constructively
appraised each other and checked upon progress. But these results were
all moderated by Team A’s profile on the Social Desirability scale which
clearly indicated likely faking in the team’s portrayal of itself in too positive
a light. Thus, we treated the more flattering points of the profile with some
scepticism since, more accurately, those factors would have been likely to
be less impressive.
Given this profile, what teambuilding interventions were recommended
to Team A? Our opening gambit was to give direct feedback on this profile
in order to get behind the social desirability response. Here, we questioned,
constructively but with some tenacity, the team’s responses to the TCI,
probing for agreement that the team really did concur with this profile.
Secondly, a series of teambuilding meetings were designed to clarify, dis-
cuss, and agree the team’s vision/objectives. These lasted over several
weeks following feedback of the TCI profile. Although levels of perceived
sharedness and attainability were higher, attention needed to be given to the
clarity of team objectives and to their perceived value to team members. A
third issue warranting attention was the team’s mid-scale score on appraisal.
Whilst not an immediate cause for concern, it was apparent that the team
would benefit from closer self-monitoring and critical appraisal of progress.
Again, workshop sessions were developed and agreed with the team leader
which were subsequently run as part of the teambuilding intervention to
improve this aspect of team functioning.

Team B
Again referring to Fig. 3 , Team B showed an entirely different profile to
Team A. This team profiled as low on all aspects of Safety apart from
Interaction Frequency; very low on Enacted Support for Innovation, but
 64 ANDERSON AND WEST

higher on the Vision scale. Task Orientation was lower but we also noted
that the low Social Desirability scores suggested little impression manage-
ment or faking whilst completing the questionnaire. This profile suggested
a climate of minimal trust and participation between team members,
despite regular meetings and contact between individuals. It seemed that
the team was meeting but under a negative climate of distrust and perceived
unsafety. Perhaps one contributor to this could well have been the inter-
departmental competition and rivalry for resources within the management
team, a point strongly suggestive of developmental needs during the follow-
Downloaded by [Brunel University], [Miss Ana Cristina Costa] at 12:33 29 May 2013

up teambuilding intervention. Another point of note was the discrepancy

between Articulated Support for Innovation (the levels of support as
professed by team members) and Actual Support (as perceived by team
members). It appeared that team members felt the rhetoric far outweighed
reality in terms of the support or resources in terms of the time, finance,
and personnel needed to implement innovative solutions. Finally, we noted
the team’s lowest possible sub-scale score on Appraisal-very little self-
evaluation appeared to be going on in comparison with other similar
management teams used as the norm group for this profile.
What teambuilding interventions were appropriate based upon Team B’s
profile on the TCI? First, a series of non-threatening exercises to encourage
interpersonal trust and co-operation were recommended. This involved
taking the management team away from the hospital for a few days to
preclude ongoing work pressures from interfering with the event. Exercises
were designed to reinforce strongly the superordinate goals of the organiza-
tion and to emphasize the need for collaborative efforts and co-operative
task performance to achieve overriding objectives. Supportive inter-
personal behaviours were highlighted and any destructive rivalry or intra-
team competitiveness fed back to individuals via classic “sensitivity train-
ing” methods. A second intervention was conducted to address the twin
concerns of low Enacted Support for Innovation and low levels of
Appraisal by the team. Here, the aim was to make the team aware of these
results, to facilitate discussion and action planning over measures, to
redress these aspects of team climate, and to engage in teambuilding exer-
cises to encourage appraisal via process management of interpersonal
interactions. In this team’s case, both interventions were interdependent
and we were conscious of needing to be diplomatic and tactful in relation
to the Chief Executive’s management style.

Unfortunately, for both teams a second administration of the TCI to

validate the teambuilding interventions was inappropriate since the items
had been used extensively and repeatedly to facilitate discussions in
the feedback meetings. Both, however, demonstrated improvements in
their work-related behaviours, although a fair evaluation would be to
 TEAM CLIMATE INVENTORY 65

describe these improvements as “moderate” rather than “fundamental”

or “extensive”. This was due, we felt, to the extreme pressure of work the
teams were under at this time (all teambuilding sessions, for instance, had
to be held at weekends), which forced them to attend constantly to work
issues rather than to issues of intra-team climate and effectiveness. Both
teams reported that they found the feedback on their TCI profile useful,
but at times discomforting. As an illustration of the utility of climate inter-
ventions, this case highlights the need for careful preparation of such feed-
back and for the teambuilder to be conscious of the potential impact his
Downloaded by [Brunel University], [Miss Ana Cristina Costa] at 12:33 29 May 2013

or her comments will have upon the climate of the participating team.

CONCLUSION
In this article we have argued that it is imperative for W/O psychologists
to be actively engaged in developing collective-level measures of organiza-
tional phenomena, illustrating our case by describing the development and
use of one particular team-level measure that we have been involved with
over recent years. Certainly, measurement issues at this level are not going
to fade away in the foreseeable future. More likely they will become
increasingly important as teamwork in organizations, coupled with the
demand for staff to be innovative in developing new and improved ways
of doing things, compel W/O psychologists to shift their foci more towards
these and other collective-level phenomena. Are we simply calling for a
return to one of our roots in W/O psychology: survey feedback and action
research? Partly, but our concern goes much further than this and centres
upon W/O psychologists applying their existing competencies in measure-
ment-competencies which are largely unique compared with management
consultants and organization development practitioners-to collective-
level variables.

REFERENCES
Agrell, A . , & Gustafson, R . (1994). The team climate inventory (TCI) and group innova-
tion: A psychometric test on a Swedish sample of work groups. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 67, 143-152.
Anderson, N . R . , & King, N . (1993). Innovation in organizations. In C.L. Cooper &
I.T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology
(Vol. 8, pp. 1-34). London: John Wiley.
Anderson, N . R . , & West, M . A . (1994). The team climate inventory: Manual and user’s
guide. Windsor: ASE, NFER-Nelson.
Anderson, N.R., & West, M.A. (submitted). Measuring climate for work group innovation:
Development and validation of the team climate inventory
Blyton, P . , & Turnbull, P . (Eds.). (1992). Reassessing human resource management. Lon-
don: Sage.
Burningham, C . , & West, M . A . (1994). Individual, climate and group interaction processes
as predictors of work team innovation. Unpublished manuscript.
 66 ANDERSON AND WEST

Dansereau, F., & Alutto. J.A. (1990). Level-of-analysis issues in climate and culture
research. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational c h a f e and culfure (pp. 193-236). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach.
In M.C. Triandis, M.D. Dunnette, & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (2nd edn., Vol. 4, pp. 271-340). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Guest, D.E. (1990). Human resource management and the American dream. Journal of
Managemeni Studies, 27(4), 377-397.
Hartley, J., Jacobson, D., Klandermans, B., & Van Vuuren, T. (1991). Job insecurity:
Coping with jobs at risk. London: Sage.
Downloaded by [Brunel University], [Miss Ana Cristina Costa] at 12:33 29 May 2013

Herriot, P. (1992). Selection: The two subcultures. European Work and Organizational
Psychologist, 2(2), 129-140.
Hosking, D.M., & Anderson, N . R . (1992). Organizational change and innovation: Psycho-
logical perspectives and practices in Europe. London: Routledge.
King, N . , & Anderson, N.R. (1995). Innovation and change in organizaiions. London:
Rout ledge.
Kuk, G., Wood, D., Anderson, N.R., & West, M.A. (1994). A longitudinal study of group
processes in management meetings. Paper presented at the XXV IAAP Congress, Madrid,
July 1994.
Patterson, M., West, M.A., & Payne, R.L. (1992). Collective climates: A test of their socio-
psychological significance. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference,
Los Angeles, 1992.
Payne, R. (1990). Madness in our method: A comment on Jackofsky and Slocum’s paper
“A longitudinal study ofclimates”. Journal of Organizarional Behavior, I I , 77-80.
Reichers, A.E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs.
In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Storey, J. (Ed.). (1992). Developmenis in the management of human resources. Oxford:
Blackwell.
West, M.A. (1987). Role innovation in the world of work. British Journal of Social Psycho-
logy, 26, 305-315.
West, M.A. (1990). The social psychology of work group innovation. In M.A. West & J.L.
Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies.
London: John Wiley.
West, M.A. (1994). Effective teamwork. Leicester: BPS Books.
West, M.A., & Anderson, N.R. (1992). Innovation, cultural values and the management
of change in British hospitals. Work and Stress, 6 , 293-310.
West, M.A., & Anderson, N.R. (submitted). Predicting management team innovation:
Individual and structural factors.
West, M.A., & Farr, J.L. (Eds.). (1990). Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological
and organizational siraiegies. London: John Wiley.

View publication stats