Jehn (e.g., 1997) offered three distinct types of team conflict, namely, task conflict, relationship conflict, and process conflict. Despite existing meta-analyses, there remain important and ongoing issues that warrant further meta-analytic investigation. Our contribution is threefold. First, we report novel meta-analytic findings involving moderators of the conflict-team performance relationship. Second, we report on meta-analytic correlations involving all three conflict types and team innovation. Third, we report on the relations involving task conflict and relationship conflict with previously unexamined, but critical, teamwork variables: team potency, cooperative behaviors, competitive behaviors, and avoidance behaviors. Input for the current meta-analysis included 89 independent samples, 6,122 teams, and approximately 28,000 team members.

No abstract

Although counterproductive work behavior (CWB) has long been established as a broad domain of job behaviors, little agreement exists about its internal structure. The present research addressed alternative models of broadly defined CWB according to which specific behaviors can be grouped into (a) one general factor, or into (b) two, (c) five, or (d) eleven narrower facets, and a number of possible integrations of these models. First, conceptual differences between these models (including the nature of overall CWB as implying a reflective or formative model, boundaries of the domain, and relations among specific facets) are reviewed with regard to theoretical and practical implications. In Study 1, structural meta-analysis was then used to test whether a reflective higher-order factor underlies meta-analytically constructed correlation matrices of five CWB facets. Analyses supported a general factor model. For Study 2, a primary data set (N = 1,237 employees) was collected in order to test alternative structural models and possible integrations of these models. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the best fit was for a bimodal (nonhierarchical) model in which individual CWBs simultaneously load on one of the eleven facets describing their content (e.g., theft, absenteeism) and on one of three factors describing the target primarily harmed (organization, other persons, self). Less support was found for hierarchical models and for models involving fewer content factors. These findings suggest that CWB is best described by a reflective higher-order factor at the general level and by a complex set of bimodal facets at the more specific level.

Engagement with frontline critical care providers is essential for understanding their experiences and perspectives regarding strained capacity and for the development of sustainable strategies for improvement.

BackgroundAlberta Health Services is a provincial health authority responsible for healthcare for more than four million people. The organization recognized a need to change its care delivery model to make care more patient- and family-centred and use its health human resources more effectively by enhancing collaborative practice. A new care model including changes to how providers deliver care and skill mix changes to support the new processes was piloted on a medical unit in a large urban acute care hospital Evidence-based care processes were introduced, including an initial patient assessment and orientation, comfort rounds, bedside shift reports, patient whiteboards, Name Occupation Duty, rapid rounds, and team huddles. Small teams of nurses cared for a portion of patients on the unit. The model was intended to enhance safety and quality of care by allowing providers to work to full scope in a collaborative practice environment.MethodsWe evaluated the new model approximately one year after implementation using interviews with staff (n = 15), surveys of staff (n = 25 at baseline and at the final evaluation) and patients (n = 26 at baseline and 37 at the final evaluation), and administrative data pulled from organizational databases.ResultsStaff interviews revealed that overall, the new care processes and care teams worked quite well. Unit culture and collaboration were improved, as were role clarity, scope of practice, and patient care. Responses from staff surveys were also very positive, showing significant positive changes in most areas. Patient satisfaction surveys showed a few positive changes; scores overall were very high. Administrative data showed slight decreases in overall length of stay, 30-day readmissions, staff absenteeism, staff vacancies, and the overtime rate. We found no changes in unit length of stay, 30-day returns to emergency department, or nursing sensitive adverse events.ConclusionsConclusions from the evaluation were positive, providing initial support for the idea of the collaborative practice model vision for adult medical units across Alberta. There were also a few positive effects on patient care suggesting that models such as this one could improve the organization’s ability to deliver sustainable, high-quality, patient- and family-centred care without compromising quality.