Organizational Research Methods

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Quigley, N. R.
Right arrow Articles by Tesluk, P. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
This version was published on October 1, 2007
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 10, No. 4, 589-608 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1094428106286853

Comparing Consensus- and Aggregation-Based Methods of Measuring Team-Level Variables

The Role of Relationship Conflict and Conflict Management Processes

Narda R. Quigley

Villanova University

Amanuel G. Tekleab

Wayne State University

Paul E. Tesluk

University of Maryland, College Park

Using data collected from 53 student teams, the authors examine the relationships between team cohesion as measured through aggregation of individual team member responses and consensus methods and two outcome variables. They examine whether the different methods of assessment affect the strength of the relationships between cohesion and the outcome variables in cases of high and low relationship conflict and conflict management. Moderated regression results reveal three-way interactions among cohesion, method of assessment, and conflict management on team satisfaction and perceived team performance; in addition, the authors find support for a three-way interaction between cohesion, method of assessment, and relationship conflict on perceived team performance. The pattern of findings suggests that the team consensus approach to assessing cohesion may result in stronger relationships with outcome variables than the individual aggregation method only when teams are able to manage relationship conflict effectively. The findings and their implications for measuring team-level variables are discussed.

Key Words: measurement of team-level variables • aggregation and consensus methods • team relationship conflict • team conflict management

References

  • Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K.S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53, 625-642.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of self-control. New York: Freeman.
  • Bar-Tal, D. (1990). Group beliefs. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  • Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Beal, D.J., Cohen, R.R., Burke, M.J., & McLendon, C.L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989-1004.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J., & Higgs, A.C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Salas, E., & Converse, S.A. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision-making. In N. J. Castellan Jr. (Ed.), Current issues in individual and group decision making (pp. 221-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Carless, S.A., & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31, 71-88.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Carron, A.V., & Brawley, L.R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research, 31, 89-106.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234-246.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Chang, A., & Bordia, P. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion—group performance relationship. Small Group Research, 32, 379-405.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Chatman, J.A., & Flynn, F.J. (2001). The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 956-974.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., & Aiken, L.S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Cohen, S.G., & Bailey, D.E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290.[Abstract]
  • Cosier, R.A., & Dalton, D. (1990). Positive effects of conflict: A field assessment. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1, 81-92.
  • De Dreu, C.K.W., & Weingart, L.R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741-749.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Dion, K.L. (2000). Group cohesion: From "field of forces" to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics, 4, 7-26.[CrossRef]
  • Earley, P.C. (1999). Playing follow the leader: Status-determining traits in relation to collective efficacy across cultures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 192-212.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Evans, C.R., & Dion, K.L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22, 175-186.[Abstract]
  • Fleenor, J.W., Fleenor, J.B., & Grossnickle, W.F. (1996). Interrater reliability and agreement of performance ratings: A methodological comparison. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10, 367-380.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Gibson, C.B. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 138-152.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Gibson, C.B., Randel, A.E., & Earley, A.E. (2000). Understanding group efficacy: An empirical test of multiple assessment models. Group and Organization Management, 25, 67-97.[CrossRef]
  • Griffin, M.A. (1997). Interaction between individuals and situations: Using HLM procedures to estimate reciprocal relationships. Journal of Management, 23, 759-773.[Abstract]
  • Gully, S.M., Devine, D.J., & Whitney, D.J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance. Small Group Research, 26, 497-520.[Abstract]
  • Guzzo, R.A., Yost, P.R., Campbell, R.J., & Shea, G.P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87-106.[ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Hackman, J.R. (1987). The design of effective work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315-341). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Herman, J.B., & Hulin, C.L. (1972). Studying organizational attitudes from individual and organizational frames of reference. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 84-108.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Hyatt, D.E., & Ruddy, T.H. (1997). An examination of the relationship between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 50, 553-571.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Janis, I.L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
  • Jehn, K.A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Jehn, K.A., & Mannix, E.A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238-251.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Jung, D.I., & Sosik, J.J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: The role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research, 33, 313-336.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Kirkman, B.L., Tesluk, P.E., & Rosen, B. (2001). Assessing the incremental validity of team consensus ratings over aggregation of individual-level data in predicting team effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 54, 645-667.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Klein, K.J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R.J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195-229.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20, 403-437.[Abstract]
  • Lott, A.J., & Lott, B.E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259-309.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E., & Zaccaro, S.J. (2001). A temporally based theory and taxonomy of team process. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-377.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Mason, C.M., & Griffin, M.A. (2003). Identifying group task satisfaction at work. Small Group Research, 34, 413-442.[Abstract]
  • Mason, C.M., & Griffin, M.A. (2003). Group absenteeism and positive affective tone: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 667-687.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Mathieu, J.E., Heffner, T.S., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273-283.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Morgeson, F.P., & Hofmann, D.A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24, 249-265.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Pfeffer, J.A. (1980). A partial test of the social information processing model of job attitudes. Human Relations, 33, 457-469.[Abstract]
  • Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Prapavessis, H., & Carron, A.V. (1997). Cohesion and work output. Small Group Research, 28, 294-301.[Abstract]
  • Rouse, W.B., & Morris, N.M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 349-363.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Rousseau, D.M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multilevel and cross-level perspectives. In L. L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 1-38). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
  • Saal, F.E., Downey, R.G., & Lahey, M.A. (1980). Rating the ratings: Assessing the quality of rating data. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 413-428.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Salas, E., Rozell, D., Mullen, B., & Driskell, J.E. (1999). The effect of team-building on performance: An integration. Small Group Research, 30, 309-329.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Seashore, S.E. (1954). Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  • Shah, P., & Jehn, K.A. (1993). Do friends perform better than acquaintances? The interaction of friendship, conflict, and task. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2, 149-165.[CrossRef]
  • Tjosvold, D. (1997). Conflict within interdependence: Its value for productivity and individuality. In C. K. W. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 23-37). London: Sage.
  • Van Der Vegt, G.S., Emans, B.J.M., & Van De Vliert, E. (2001). Patterns of interdependence in work teams: A two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 54, 51-69.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Wagner, J.A., III. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152-172.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Widmeyer, W.N., Brawley, L.R., & Carron, A.V. (1985). The measurement of cohesion in sport teams: The group environment questionnaire. London, Canada: Sports Dynamics.
  • Zander, A., & Medow, H. (1963). Individual and group levels of aspiration. Human Relations, 16, 89-105.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Quigley, N. R.
Right arrow Articles by Tesluk, P. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?