Drawing on resource allocation theory, the authors examined boundary conditions for the positive effects of two aspects of teamwork (backing up behavior and performance monitoring) on team performance. Participants were 276 undergraduate business students who were organized into 69 teams and who worked on a computer simulation across multiple performance episodes. Approximately half the teams experienced a workload distribution problem. Results indicated that performance monitoring had positive effects on team performance when teams experienced a workload distribution problem. Backing up behavior had positive effects only when teams had both a workload distribution problem and during early performance episodes. The findings of this study suggest that resource allocation theory can provide insights regarding when members should devote and coordinate their own individual resources to assist others in teams. The implications of these findings for future theory and practice regarding teamwork are discussed.

Although the relationship between collective efficacy beliefs and team performance has been well-documented, few studies have explored the causal mechanisms that might explain these effects. In the current study, the authors explore the role of backing up behavior, a specific form of teamwork behavior, in explaining why high efficacy beliefs lead to high levels of team performance. Participants were 416 undergraduate business students who were organized into 104 four-person teams. The teams worked on an interdependent, computerized, decision-making task. Results of the study revealed that collective efficacy beliefs were positively related to team performance and that backing up behaviors largely mediated these effects. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

No abstract

Although a considerable amount of theoretical and empirical attention has been devoted to understanding individuals' responses to goal-performance discrepancies (GPDs), little attention has been devoted to examining how teams respond to GPDs. The present research sought to examine how teams responded to negative GPDs. We predicted that failing to reach higher goals would be perceived as less negative than failing to reach lower goals, and we examined the moderating influence of setting higher versus lower goals on how teams responded to performance that fell short of those goals. We also examined the role that efficacy beliefs that were formed early in those teams played in further explaining these effects. Results from 94 teams who all failed to reach self-set goals revealed that teams that failed to reach higher goals downwardly revised their goals less than teams that failed to reach lower goals. Early efficacy beliefs further explained these effects. High efficacy beliefs lessened the negative effects of failing to reach lower goals on subsequent goals. High efficacy beliefs also lessened the negative effects of failing to reach higher goals while low efficacy beliefs strengthened the negative effects of failing to reach higher goals. The implications of these findings for theory, research, and practice are discussed.