Beyond Team Types and Taxonomies: A Dimensional Scaling Conceptualization for Team Description.

HOLLENBECK, JOHN R.; Beersma, Bianca; Schouten, Maartje E.

doi:10.5465/armr.2010.0181

Cited by 122 publications

(192 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

189

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, we believe this task is representative of an interdependent team task and that our study generalizes to short-term project teams whose members work interdependently on novel tasks within a fixed period of time (Devine, 2002;Hollenbeck, Beersma, & Schouten, 2012). Observation of our participants also suggested that they found the task psychologically engaging and the financial incentives motivating based on their enthusiasm regarding the task and the concerns they expressed about the rewards.…”

Section: Goal Setting In Teams 26mentioning

confidence: 85%

Goal setting in teams: The impact of learning and performance goals on process and performance

Nahrgang

DeRue

Hollenbeck

et al. 2013

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Goal Setting In Teams 26mentioning

confidence: 85%

Goal setting in teams: The impact of learning and performance goals on process and performance

Nahrgang

DeRue

Hollenbeck

et al. 2013

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, there is a lively and on-going disucssion in the literature on the conceptualization of teams and team membership (e.g., Hackman, 2012;Hollenbeck et al, 2012;Mortensen, 2014;Tannenbaum et al, 2012;Wageman et al, 2012;West & Lyubovnikova, 2012), and thus rather than concluding that the approach taken here is the definitive and optimal way of defining and measuring real team and co-acting group membership, we instead aimed to contribute to this emerging and dynamic discussion using findings from the secondary data available to us. Indeed, treating reflexivity as a definitional criterion, as opposed to an enabling condition may be considered by some as a departure from the existing literature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Learmonth (2009) also argues that academics adopt the term 'team' liberally and indiscriminately, with the result that research findings on the effects of team working are frequently inconsistent. Indeed, there have been calls in the recent literature to tighten up our definitions of team and team membership in order to reinforce conceptual integrity and help move the science forward (Hollenbeck, Beersma, & Schouten, 2012;Mortensen, 2014;Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cohen, 2012a). As we explore in this paper, real teams are more than simply a collective of individuals (Hackman, 2002(Hackman, , 2012Wageman, 2001;West & Lyubovnikova, 2012).…”

Section: Membership In Healthcare Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

24-Karat or fool’s gold? Consequences of real team and co-acting group membership in healthcare organizations

Lyubovnikova

West

Dawson

et al. 2014

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article ReuseUnless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version -refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher's website. TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. REAL TEAM AND CO-ACTING GROUP MEMBERSHIP 1 AbstractWhile theory on team membership is emerging, limited empirical attention has been paid to the effects of different types of team membership on outcomes. We propose that an important but overlooked distinction is that between membership of real teams and membership of coacting groups, with the former being characterized by members who report that their teams have shared objectives, structural interdependence and engage in team reflexivity. We hypothesize that real team membership will be associated with more positive individual and organizational level outcomes. These predictions were tested in the English National Health Service, using data from 62,733 respondents from 147 acute hospitals. The results revealed that individuals reporting the characteristics of real team membership, in comparison to those reporting the characteristics of co-acting group membership, witnessed fewer errors and incidents, experienced fewer work related injuries and illness, were less likely to be victims of violence and harassment, and were less likely to intend to leave their current employment.At the organizational level, hospitals with higher proportions of staff reporting the characteristics of real team membership had lower levels of patient mortality and sickness absence. The results suggest the need to clearly delineate real team membership in order to advance scientific understanding of the processes and outcomes of organizational teamwork.

show abstract

“…In line with the specialized nature of collectives in many organizations (Hollenbeck, Beersma, & Schouten, 2012), members were given different responsibilities in the development of a new toy for a toy company. The first member focused on how the toy would be designed.…”

Section: Sample Study Design and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

A (Blurry) Vision of the Future: How Leader Rhetoric about Ultimate Goals Influences Performance

Carton

Murphy

Clark

2014

AMJ

229

175

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Beyond Team Types and Taxonomies: A Dimensional Scaling Conceptualization for Team Description.

Cited by 122 publications

References 45 publications

Goal setting in teams: The impact of learning and performance goals on process and performance

Goal setting in teams: The impact of learning and performance goals on process and performance

24-Karat or fool’s gold? Consequences of real team and co-acting group membership in healthcare organizations

A (Blurry) Vision of the Future: How Leader Rhetoric about Ultimate Goals Influences Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About