Browsing by Subject "team performance"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item An Investigation of the Effect of After-Action Reviews on Teams' Performance-Efficacy Relationships(2012-07-16) Schurig, IraPerformance and efficacy are reciprocally causal; however, the effect of performance on subsequent perceptions of efficacy has received little attention, especially in the context of team training. In addition, the moderating effect of feedback accuracy on the relationship between team performance and team-efficacy is largely unexplored. As such, the objective of the present study was to investigate the relationship between team performance and team-efficacy in the context of after-action reviews (AARs). Specifically, this study examined the conjoint influence of (a) the accuracy of performance feedback available to trainees during AARs, and (b) time on the predictive validity of team performance on team-efficacy. Data were obtained from 492 undergraduate students assigned to 123 teams in a 5 hr team training protocol using a 3 (training condition: non-AAR, versus subjective AAR, versus objective AAR) x 3 (sessions) repeated measures design. Contrary to the first set of hypotheses, the positive relationship between performance and efficacy was strongest for teams trained without AARs and weakest for teams trained using subjective AARs. Although team-efficacy was predicted more strongly by more proximal team performance than by more distal team performance, this pattern of results was found only for teams trained either without AARs or with objective AARs. The predictive validity of performance on efficacy decreased as performance episodes became more proximal among teams trained using subjective AARs. Finally, within-team agreement of team-efficacy ratings decreased over time for teams that engaged in AARs and remained constant over time for teams that did not engage in AARs. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed. It is anticipated that this research will provide insight into the roles of feedback accuracy and time in the performance-efficacy relationship and provide guidance to researchers and practitioners in effectively integrating AAR design characteristics into team training environments.Item Setting the stage for effective teams: a meta-analysis of team design variables and team effectiveness(Texas A&M University, 2004-11-15) Bell, Suzanne TamaraTeams are pervasive in organizations and provide an important contribution to organizational productivity. Since Hackman's (1987) seminal work, the team research focus has shifted from describing teams to outlining how researchers might use points of leverage, such as team design, to increase team effectiveness. There has been a wealth of research on team design variables that relate to team effectiveness. However, more than 15 years later, the team design literature remains fragmented and is inconsistent, and conclusions regarding optimal team design are difficult to make. The present study sought to unify the team design research by proposing a conceptual model and testing hypothesized relationships between specified design variables and team effectiveness using meta-analytic techniques. Specifically, the objectives of this study were to: (a) identify team design variables over which researchers and practitioners have some degree of control, (b) summarize the literature related to each of these variables, (c) hypothesize how each of the design variables are related to team effectiveness, (d) assess the relationship between these variables and team effectiveness using meta-analysis, (e) assess the influence of specified moderator variables (e.g., study setting, team tenure) on the team design variable/team effectiveness relationships, (f) make theoretically- and empirically-based recommendations for the design of effective teams, and (g) highlight areas in need of additional research. Results indicated that several team design variables show promise as a means of increasing team effectiveness. The strength of the team composition variable/team performance relationships was dependent on the study setting (lab or field); however, the study setting had considerable overlap with the type of team assessed (intellectual or physical). For lab studies (intellectual teams), team general mental ability (GMA) and task-relevant expertise were strong predictors of team performance, while team personality variables were unrelated to team performance. In field studies (physical teams), team agreeableness and conscientiousness had stronger relationships with team performance than team GMA and team task-relevant expertise. Team task design variables (e.g., task significance) had consistent, positive relationships with team performance, and several team structure variables (e.g., degree of self- management) were also related to team performance.