Team processes, their antecedents and consequences:

Implications for dierent types of teamwork

Conny Antoni
Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Trier, Trier, Germany
Guido Hertel
Organizational Psychology, University of Munster, Munster, Germany
Although inputprocessoutput models of teamwork are quite popular,
relatively few studies have tested empirically the mediation of team design and
team context variables on team eectiveness by team process variables. This
review briey describes mediation eects of team process variables. Moreover,
moderating eects of dierent team tasks and types of teamwork are
summarized. Based on this framework, we introduce and compare the four
articles included in this special issue which provide examples of process-oriented
studies in dierent types of teamwork. In doing so, these studies not only
illustrate the variety of potential team process variables (e.g., communication
between team members, team reexivity and self-regulation, self-leadership of
team members) but also dierent methodological strategies to explore them.
Keywords: Team eectiveness; Team processes; Team reexivity; Task
structure; Self-regulation.
Groups and teamwork are quite popular in and between work organizations
today, and have attracted a lot of research from various disciplines (the
terms team and group are used interchangeably in this article). In
addition to many journal articles and book chapters, special issues on
teamwork have been published in various journals, such as Human Relations
(Vol. 53, No. 11, 2000), New Technology, Work and Employment (Vol. 16,
No. 3, 2001), Personnel Review (Vol. 31, No. 3, 2002), International Journal
of Operations and Production Management (Vol. 24, No. 8, 2004), and,
International Journal of Human Resource Management (Vol. 16, No. 2,
2005). So, why just another special issue on teams?
Correspondence should be addressed to Conny Herbert Antoni, Work and Organizational
Psychology, University of Trier, 54286 Trier, Germany. E-mail: antoni@uni-trier.de
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WORK AND
ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
2009, 18 (3), 253 266
2008 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
http://www.psypress.com/ejwop DOI: 10.1080/13594320802095502
According to our perception, the predominant amount of existing group
research has focused on the detection or verication of specic predictors of
successful teamwork without demonstrating the mediating mechanism how
and why these predictors have the eects they have. However, we need to know
more about the psychological mechanisms of group work in order to explain
and predict why certain groups are working successfully while others dont.
Consequently, the objective of the present special issue is to contribute to
a process orientation in group research that seems to have been somewhat
forgotten since the early studies on group dynamics by Kurt Lewin and his
colleagues. Even though processes are included in the prominent Input
ProcessOutput (I-P-O) frameworks of group research (e.g., Hackman &
Morris, 1975; Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005; Kozlowski & Bell,
2003; McGrath, 1964), concrete examples of research studies that
demonstrate team processes as mediators empirically are rather rare (see,
for examples, Curral, Forrester, Dawson, & West, 2001; Hertel, Konradt, &
Orlikowski, 2004; Porter, 2005). In fact, typical team process variables such
as communication and cooperation are often considered as predictor
variables (e.g., Campion, Papper, & Medsker, 1996; Cohen, Ledford, &
Spreitzer, 1996; Hyatt & Ruddy, 1997). Given the recent development of
more sophisticated statistical tools such as mediation and multilevel
analyses (e.g., Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Strout & Bolger, 2002), numerous
new opportunities and research questions arise in this eld. The current issue
provides four examples of process-oriented studies, illustrating not only the
variety of dierent team processes (e.g., communication between team
members, team reexivity and self-regulation, or self-leadership of team
members) but also dierent methodological strategies to explore them.
The rst article of this issue, written by Brav, Anderson, and Lantz,
analyses the intervening role of group processes, particularly of team
reexivity, between team task characteristics on the one hand and group
initiative and self-organization on the other hand in production teams. The
second article, authored by Kaueld and Meyers, reports the exploration of
interaction patterns in team discussions of production teams and how they
can be changed. The third contribution, authored by Gevers, van Eerde, and
Rutte, analyses how project teams regulate themselves to meet project
deadlines. Finally, the fourth article, authored by Konradt, Andreen, and
Ellwart, analyses how self-leadership inuences individual performance in
service teams and how team characteristics moderate these relationships.
On the following pages, we give a brief review of recent ndings on team
processes as a framework for this special issue, including determining factors
and consequences for dierent types of team tasks and types of teamwork.
Moreover, we briey introduce and compare the four articles included in
this special issue, each providing answers to the questions raised earlier, and
posing new ones.
254 ANTONI AND HERTEL
TEAM EFFECTIVENESS FRAMEWORK
Team eectiveness in organizations is perceived as having at least two
dimensions: team performance and team viability (Hackman, 1987;
Sundstom, DeMeuse, & Futrell, 1990). Team performance refers to the
degree that team output meets or exceeds the performance standards given by
supervisors or customers within or outside the organization. Measuring team
performance according to the expectations of customers or stakeholders also
implies the relation between team and organizational performance. Team
viability refers to the degree whether team processes maintain or enhance the
capability and willingness of team members to continue their collaboration,
and whether team experiences satisfy members needs.
There is no doubt that the eectiveness of organizational teams depends
on much more variables than can be conceptually or empirically analysed at a
time, thus, it is not surprising that existing models of team eectiveness focus
on dierent variables as important input or process determinants of team
eectiveness (see Guzzo & Shea, 1992, for a comparison). However, despite
this variation and further controversies regarding whether constructs are to
be considered as input or as process factor, there is considerable agreement
on major input and process variables particularly if they can be addressed by
team interventions in order to improve team eectiveness (cf. Figure 1).
Figure 1. An heuristic framework of team eectiveness.
TEAM PROCESSES, THEIR ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES 255
Among the most prominent input variables for team processes and team
eectiveness are aspects of the team design, such as task structure, group
norms, and group composition, and aspects of the organizational context of
teams, such as rewards and incentives, training, information systems, as well
as leadership or management control itself (Cohen & Bailey, 1997;
Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987; Tannenbaum, Beard, & Salas, 1992;
West, Borril, & Unsworth, 1998). These aspects can be participatively
designed or changed by management, for instance as a function of
organizational strategy and culture, intergroup relations, the availability
of resources, environmental demands, and of course as part of learning
processes.
Empirical research exploring these input factors usually relies on team
members assessments (e.g., Gladstein, 1984; Stewart & Barrick, 2000),
which can be infected by various method biases (e.g., Podsako,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsako, 2003). Measuring team input constructs
independently from team members perceptions (and also independent from
team processes; see Brav and her colleagues in this issue for an example)
avoids such biases and increases the reliability of implications for practical
interventions based on these factors.
Among potential group processes, team communication, within-team
cooperation, and intrateam conict are important elements of team
interaction. Closely related to team interaction, and also mediating the
eects of group design and group context on team performance, are the
amount of eort and the coordination of eort that members apply to a
task, together with the use and development of task performance strategies
and of members knowledge and skills (e.g., Hackman, 1987). Similarly,
team reexivity, team climate, group cohesion, group potency and ecacy,
shared mental models, and group emotional tone have been proposed as
both mediating and process variables (West et al., 1998).
Some authors have described these latter concepts as closely related, but
distinct from team processes. For example, Cohen and Bailey (1997)
perceive these concepts as stable group psychological traits, Marks,
Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001) as more dynamic and varying emergent
cognitive and aective states. Both group psychological traits and emergent
states are dened as shared understandings, attitudes or motivations, which
are both inputs and proximal outcomes of team processes in a series of
I-P-O cycles. Marks et al. (p. 358) stress that emergent states are not
processes in and of themselves, because they do not describe the nature of
member interaction. This argument can be questioned as team reexivity,
for example, describes shared perceptions of specic behaviour patterns of
team members. Similarly, scales measuring team climate for innovation,
group cohesion, or group potency also address team interaction or task
behaviour patterns. As these concepts reect at least in part perceived
256 ANTONI AND HERTEL
interaction processes and are closely interrelated with them, we subsume
both team interaction processes and emergent cognitive and aective states
under team processes.
Furthermore, we do not dierentiate between team processes and team
taskwork as two aspects of team interaction, as suggested by Marks et al.
(2001). The latter dene team processes as team members interdependent
cognitive, verbal, and behavioural activities directed toward organizing task
work within a team in order to achieve collective goals. Task work, on the
other hand, is dened as a teams interaction with tasks, tools, machines
and systems (Marks et al., 2001, p. 357). It might be conceptually useful to
restrict the denition of team processes to team members regulatory
activities of their task-related interaction. However, in applied settings it is
dicult to distinguish between regulatory processes and task work as they
are intertwined and regulatory processes are not restricted to verbal
behaviour. Team processes might be analysed at the microlevel by coding
specic individual behaviour in groups (see Kaueld & Meyer, this issue), or
at the molar level by team members self-assessment of team interaction,
team conict, team reexivity, or shared mental models (see the other
articles of this special issue).
TEAM PROCESSES AS MEDIATING VARIABLES
Despite the fact that many team studies are based on inputprocessoutput
models, relatively few studies test mediation assumptions explicitly (Stewart
& Barrick, 2000). For instance, Hertel et al. (2004) could show that eects of
task, goal, and outcome interdependence on the eectiveness of virtual
teams were partly mediated by team members motivation. Stewart and
Barrick demonstrated that both social processes (i.e., team openness-to-
communication and conict) and task-related processes (i.e., shirking and
exibility) mediated the curvilinear relation between task interdependence
and team performance.
Recently, team process aspects such as team mental models, team
reexivity, or team climate have attracted a lot of research. However, most
of the available studies focus only on parts of a complete test whether
process variables mediate the eects of group design and context variables
on group eectiveness. Some of the studies show only positive relationships
between work design, work context, and team processes. For instance,
Curral et al. (2001) reported a positive relationship between innovative task
requirements and a team climate for innovation. Other studies reveal only
positive relationships between team processes and team eectiveness. For
example, Austin (2003) showed that transactive memory is positively related
to the performance of organizational teams. Carter and West (1998)
reported positive relations between team reexivity and team eectiveness,
TEAM PROCESSES, THEIR ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES 257
as well as between team climate for innovation and team member mental
health. Hackman and Morris (1975) have previously provided empirical
data on positive eects of within team discussion of task strategies (i.e., team
task reexivity) on creativity of group products. Other studies have
demonstrated positive relations between team climate, team innovation,
and team performance (Bain, Mann, & Pirola-Merlo, 2001; West &
Anderson, 1996).
Among the relatively few studies that tested the complete mediation
process is the study of Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson (2003), who showed
that group potency and cohesiveness can partially mediate eects of
transactional and transformational leadership. In a similar way, Sy, Co te ,
and Saavedra (2005) reported that the relation between leader mood and
group coordination is mediated by positive and negative group aective
tone. Antoni (2005) reported that team climate for innovation mediates
eects of team task structure on team innovation, i.e., self-regulating teams
reported more process improvements than restrictive teams. De Dreu (2007)
provided evidence that team learning can mediate eects of cooperative
outcome interdependence and task reexivity on team eectiveness.
However, the proposed mediation processes were not always successfully
conrmed (e.g., Cannon & Edmondson, 2001; Porter, 2005). Together, more
research is needed to explain the mechanism leading to group eectiveness
and the conditions under which they operate.
MODERATING EFFECTS OF TASK STRUCTURE
AND TEAM TYPE
There is widespread agreement that the structure and characteristics of team
tasks are key factors for the development of a team and of team processes.
However, team task structure not only should be perceived as input variable
but also as a moderator of team processes on team eectiveness (see
Hackman & Morris, 1975). In fact, the eects of certain group behaviour on
team eectiveness depend to a substantial extent on the nature of the task,
the availability of adequate material resources such as technical equipment
or quality of supplies, and on other contextual variables (Goodman,
Devadas, & Hughson, 1988).
Early taxonomies of team tasks (e.g., Steiner, 1972) have enabled fruitful
laboratory research, for instance, on team members motivation as a
function of the combination of individual contributions. As teams in
organizations usually perform dierent types of tasks as part of their work
assignment, categorizing existing organizational teams according to their
predominant collaboration pattern can be dicult. Nevertheless, theoretical
implications from laboratory research with certain task structures can be
successfully replicated in more complex settings. For instance, the
258 ANTONI AND HERTEL
motivational implications of being indispensable for the team were
investigated with conjunctive task structures in the laboratory (e.g., Hertel,
Deter, & Konradt, 2003) and could be replicated within existing business
teams using the degree of task interdependence instead of a conjunctive task
structure (Hertel et al., 2004).
Alternatively, teams might be characterized according to the amount of
time they spend on dierent tasks in order to test for moderating eects.
Only few studies have analysed moderating eects of team task structure yet
(Gladstein, 1984; Stewart & Barrick, 2000). For instance, Stewart and
Barrick (2000) found partial support that team task structure moderates the
relationship between team processes and team performance. They dened
task structure as the time team members spend on conceptual or behavioural
tasks (Stewart & Barrick, 2000). As expected, conict and shirking
relationships were more strongly related to performance for conceptual
than for behavioural tasks. Furthermore, the reported mediation of team
processes regarding the eect of task interdependence on team performance
was stronger for conceptual than for behavioural tasks. Contrary to their
hypotheses, no moderation eects of task structure were conrmed
regarding the eects of team communication and exibility on team
performance. This corresponds to the ndings of Gladstone (1984), who
also found no moderation of task complexity on the eects of openness-to-
communication, discussion of performance strategies, and boundary
management on team task performance. A recent meta-analysis provides
support that task interdependence moderates the relationship between team-
ecacy and performance, but not between potency and team performance
(Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, & Beaubien, 2002).
In practice, it often is possible to determine which process variable is
most important for a given task simply by inspection (Hackman & Morris,
1975). As teams are often labelled and classied according to the tasks they
do, a rst step to reveal moderating eects is to compare inputprocess
outcome relationships for dierent types of teamwork in the organizational
context. If dierent team types, such as project teams, quality circles, or self
regulating work teams, show dierent relationships between team processes
and eectiveness, these ndings can guide further specications of
theoretical modelling, as well as the design and implementation of
organizational interventions. In a next step, more elaborate measurements
of team task structure might be used, such as assessing the time team
members spend on conceptual versus behavioural tasks.
Nevertheless, team types can be used as a rst estimate of the type of
tasks a team is primarily engaged in. For example, project teams or task
forces are set up to solve novel, unique, and complex problems aecting
several organizational functions. Similarly, quality circles are small groups
of workers, who meet voluntarily to discuss and solve their quality and other
TEAM PROCESSES, THEIR ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES 259
work-related problems. As both types of team are established for problem-
solving and optimizing tasks, one can assume they perform primarily
conceptual tasks. Work teams in productions, e.g., assembling products,
perform more primarily behavioural tasks with more or less conceptual add-
ons, depending on their degree of self-regulation and task-regulation
requirements (Hacker, 2003). Yet little is known about dierential eects for
dierent types of teamwork.
One of the studies comparing the eects for dierent types of teamwork
reports signicant dierences. Cohen and Bailey (1997) reviewed research
from 1990 to 1997 on team eectiveness for four types of teams, which they
identied in organizational practice: (1) project teams; (2) parallel teams,
such as quality circles; (3) work teams; and (4) management teams. Their
team types, exempt management teams, correspond to ones proposed by
Sundstrom et al. (1990), who dierentiate teams according to the need for
external integration and dierentiation inherent in the relation between a
team and the surrounding organization, as well as by Antoni (1990), who
dierentiates according to the degree of external integration as well as to the
degree of participation or self-regulation in not-integrated, parallel, and
temporary teams with high versus low participation (quality circles vs.
project-teams) and integrated stable teams with high versus low participa-
tion or self-regulation (semiautonomous work groups vs. classic manager-
led teams; see Hackman, 2002, for a similar dierentiation). Cohen and
Bailey (1997) report that type of team matters for performance.
Performance and attitudinal benets from self-directed work teams were
superior to parallel teams, suggesting that group autonomy and self-
regulation have stronger eects than consultative participation. Autonomy
was related to higher performance for work teams, but not for project
teams. Functional diversity had no eect on team performance in work
teams but showed eects in parallel teams, as well as mixed eects in project
and management teams. Further evidence for dierences due to team task
and team type is provided by, for example, Bain et al. (2001). They showed
that the relationship between team climate for innovation and individual
and team innovation was stronger for research teams than for development
teams. These ndings underpin the proposition of Hackman and Morris
(1975) that no single theory can simultaneously encompass the complexity
of group task eectiveness, and their plea for more specic theories for
specic aspects, phases, or circumstances of team eectiveness.
THIS ISSUE
This issue presents four articles that deal with dierent types of teamwork
ranging from semiautonomous work teams in manufacturing and produc-
tions support, service teams with trading and back oce tasks in the
260 ANTONI AND HERTEL
nancial sector to project teams, which had to nd innovative solutions to
business problems. They also focus on dierent aspects of inputprocess
output models of group eectiveness, but share a common interest in self-
regulating processes in or of teams.
Agneta Brav, Kin Anderson, and Annika Lantz analyse in their study
how job design, cooperation, and social support inuence group reexivity,
initiative, and self-organizational activities. Based on action regulation
theory they assessed the task requirements of semiautonomous work groups
in manufacturing and production support. Task requirements with respect
to task completeness, demand on cooperation, cognitive demand, and
demand on learning were obtained by observations and complementary
interviews of trained workers carrying out the various work tasks, whereas
the other variables were obtained by self-assessment. The study shows in
accordance with the hypothesized path model a positive path from task
design to group reexivity, i.e., the extent to which team members
collectively reect upon the teams objectives, strategies, and processes.
Group reexivity, in turn, shows a positive path to self-organizational
activities of the group, such as initiating and developing new work tasks and
routines, improving working conditions, and widening group autonomy and
responsibilities. Contrary to expectations, group reexivity shows no path to
group initiative. Rather, group initiative, i.e., whether groups have an active
and self-starting approach to work goals and tasks and are persistent in
overcoming barriers and setbacks, can be explained by group cooperation
and social support and seems to predict self-organizational activities.
Team members have to communicate with one another if they want to
reect collectively on their goals and strategies and want to develop common
action plans. Simone Kaueld and Renee Meyers analyse such commu-
nication patterns of work group discussions about optimizing tasks of blue-
collar work teams in the automobile and chemical industry. In particular,
they show how communication patterns develop: Complaining begets
further complaining and inhibits solution-oriented statements. In a similar
way, solution-oriented statements are often followed by more solution-
oriented statements. The support of complaining or solution-oriented
statements, in turn, can establish complaining or solution-oriented discus-
sion patterns. However, the results reported also suggest that specic
structuring statements can be used to inhibit negative communication circles
in group discussions.
Another important aspect of team self-regulation and performance is
temporal planning. This is especially true for project teams, which have to
nish their project task until dened deadlines. Josette Gevers, Wendelien
van Eerde, and Christel Rutte show in their study that temporal planning in
early project stages and temporal reminders in later project stages help to
develop temporal consensus. Temporal consensus increases the ability of
TEAM PROCESSES, THEIR ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES 261
project teams to establish coordinated action and to meet deadlines.
Interestingly and contrary to the hypotheses, temporal reexivity did not
contribute to temporal consensus but was indicative for time-related
conicts within the teams.
Whereas the articles mentioned so far focus on group self-regulation and
group behaviour, Udo Konradt, Panja Andreen, and Thomas Ellwart
analyse how individual self-leadership inuences performance in service
teams in the nancial services with trading and back oce tasks.
Furthermore, they explore whether this relationship is moderated by team
characteristics. The results of their multilevel study show that self-leadership
of team members is positively related to individual performance. Moreover
and in line with their assumptions, this relationship is partially mediated by
self-ecacy and instrumentality perceptions of the team members.
Furthermore, the study shows that both intrateam task and relationship
conicts as group-level variables were negatively related to team member
performance. However, contrary to expectations, the relationship between
self-leadership and performance did not vary between teams, providing no
evidence for moderating eects of team characteristics (i.e., autonomy, task
type, conict level). As explanation for the lack of moderating eects, the
authors suggest that self-leadership might be more strongly inuenced by
personality characteristics of the individuals.
Although all four studies dier somewhat in their focus, they all describe
self-regulation processes in or of teams, demonstrating that self-regulation is
important for team eectiveness and team development at the individual
and team level. In the study of Konradt and his colleagues, self-leadership
predicts the performance of team members. One aspect of self-leadership is
the ability to identify and change dysfunctional beliefs and thought patterns.
Complaining circles identied by Kaueld and Meyers could be perceived as
a collective dysfunctional thought and behaviour pattern. Attempts of team
members to stop such complaining circles with structural statements might
be both an indication of self-leadership and team self-regulation. Brav and
her colleagues show that collective reection processes correlate positively
with self-organizational team behaviour, such as initiating and developing
new work tasks and routines, improving working conditions, and extending
group autonomy and responsibilities. Similar to contextual performance
(Motowidlo & van Scotter, 1994), self-organizational team behaviour can be
perceived as an important aspect of team performance in modern
organizations, supplementing traditional task performance. Gevers and
her colleagues report no eect of team temporal reexivity on temporal
consensus and the eectiveness of project teams to meet their deadlines.
However, the reported correlations show that team reexivity at early
project stages signicantly correlates with meeting deadlines at the end. This
corresponds with other ndings showing that team reexivity can be positive
262 ANTONI AND HERTEL
for team performance (Carter & West, 1998; Gurtner, Tschan, Semmer, &
Na gele, 2007; Tjosvold, Tang, & West, 2004), especially when appropriate
task strategies have to be developed. Task strategies have to be developed
and collectively reected when a group starts working on a novel task, as in
early phases of a project, when problems with the existing task strategy
arise, or when team members disagree on strategies, deadlines, etc. The
latter is at least not helpful for successfully nishing a project, which is
indicated in the study of Gevers and her colleagues. As both studies by Brav
et al. and Gevers et al. report no signicant correlations between team
reexivity and team cooperation or coordination, the mechanisms how team
reexivity aects performance have to be analysed in further research.
The results of the studies by Brav et al. and Gevers et al. also indicate that
the eects of team reexivity might dier depending on the type of
teamwork, team task, the phase of team development, the type of
performance criteria, and the focus of reection. For example, project
teams are typically formed to solve novel tasks and problems within a given
timeframe, and are dissolved after these goals are accomplished or the time
scheduled is over. The development and test of adequate and shared task
strategies, team roles, responsibilities, and realistic schedules that require
collective task and social reection processes seems crucial in early phases of
the project in order to get going and nish the project in time. In later phases
of the project, discussions about schedules and deadlines seem to be less
useful for meeting deadlines. Things might be dierent for collective
reections about how unexpected problems could be solved, but Gevers and
her colleagues did not measure these aspects. In contrast, established
production teams, as analysed by Brav and her colleagues, are characterized
by a broader mixture of routine and nonroutine, optimizing, and innovating
tasks they work on as part of their daily work, with more or less changes
over time. It appears plausible that regular collective reection processes,
e.g., once a week, focusing on recent experiences, new information and
knowledge, as well as the assumptions about issues under discussion
inuence the development work tasks, responsibilities, and the change of
working conditions. For these reasons, inconsistent ndings on team
reexivity might be explained by the focus of reection and the type of
teamwork analysed.
Apart from dierent constructs of team self-regulation, the four articles
of this special issue also illustrate various methodological approaches to
study team processes. Gevers and her colleagues analyse team processes in a
longitudinal design, which enables interesting analyses of causal relation-
ships. Kaueld and Meyers demonstrate the strengths of detailed observa-
tional analyses based on video documentation of team interaction process
cycles that are later encoded based on existing coding schemes. In contrast
to retrospective self-assessments of team processes, these data are less biased
TEAM PROCESSES, THEIR ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES 263
by memory or motivation of participants and allow a more reliable view on
the development and change of interaction processes. Future studies might
use such observational codings to explore how interaction patterns might be
related to team characteristics and team outcomes. Based on these results,
causal eects of team development interventions, such as moderation and
reection techniques (e.g., Gurtner et al., 2007), might be explored.
The observation-based work analysis of task requirements used by Brav
and colleagues oers another interesting and complementary approach to
traditional self-assessments of task characteristics. Combining dierent
approaches for assessing team task characteristics might also help to better
understand individual and collective task redenition processes, which are a
precondition for individual and collective self-regulation and self-leadership.
It would be interesting to analyse how individual self-regulation and self-
leadership of team members inuence collective self-regulation and self-
leadership, and vice versa, particularly over time as this allows individual
and team learning, and depending on dierent types of goal, task, and
reward interdependencies.
Of course, this special issue only addresses a small selection of team
processes and related antecedents and consequences. However, we hope that
this work might stimulate further research on this fascinating and promising
topic. A sound understanding of team processes and their dierential impact
in dierent types of teams, task structures, and organizational contexts is at
the core of a psychological analysis of teamwork, and a precondition of
eective and enduring interventions in teams and organizations.
REFERENCES
Antoni, C. H. (1990). Qualitatszirkel als Modell partizipativer GruppenarbeitAnalyse der
Moglichkeiten und Grenzen aus der Sicht betroener Mitarbeiter [Quality circles as a model of
participative teamwork: Analysis of opportunities and limits from employee perspective].
Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
Antoni, C. H. (2005). Eects of team task structure on team climate for innovation and team
outcomes. Enterprise and Work Innovation StudiesJournal of IET Research Centre, 1,
917.
Austin, J. R. (2003). Transactive memory in organizational groups: The eects of content,
consensus, specialization, and accuracy on group performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 866878.
Bain, P. G., Mann, L., & Pirola-Merlo, A. (2001). The innovation imperative: The relationships
between team climate, innovation and performance in research and development teams.
Small Group Research, 32, 5573.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
207218.
Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team
characteristics and eectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429
452.
264 ANTONI AND HERTEL
Cannon, M. D., & Edmondson, A. C. (2001). Confronting failure: Antecedents and
consequences of shared beliefs about failure in organizational work groups. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 22, 161177.
Carter, S. M., & West, M. A. (1998). Reexivity, eectiveness, and mental health in BBC-TV
production teams. Small Group Research, 29, 583601.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group eectiveness research
from the shop oor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239290.
Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing
work team eectiveness. Human Relations, 49, 643676.
Curral, L. A., Forrester, R. H., Dawson, J. F., & West, M. A. (2001). Its what you do and the
way that you do it: Team task size and innovation-related group processes. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 187204.
DeDreu, C. K. W. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reexivity, and team
eectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 628638.
Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group eectiveness. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 29, 499517.
Goodman, P. S., Devadas, R., & Hughson, T. L. G. (1988). Groups and productivity:
Analyzing the eectiveness of self-managing teams. In J. P. Campbell, R. J. Campbell, &
Associates (Eds.), Productivity in organizations (pp. 295327). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-
ecacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of
observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819832.
Gurtner, A., Tschan, F., Semmer, N. K., & Na gele, Ch. (2007). Getting groups to develop good
strategies: Eects of reexivity interventions on team process, team performance, and shared
mental models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 127142.
Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in
organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (pp. 609645). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hacker, W. (2003). Action regulation theory: A practical tool for the design of modern work
processes? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 105130.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of
organizational behavior (pp. 315342). Englewood Clis, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process and group
performance eectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 4599). New York: Academic Press.
Hertel, G., Deter, C., & Konradt, U. (2003). Motivation gains in computer-mediated work
groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 20802105.
Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Orlikowski, B. (2004). Managing distance by interdependence: Goal
setting, task interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 128.
Hyatt, D. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (1997). An examination of the relationship between work group
characteristics andperformance: One more into the breech. Personnel Psychology, 50, 553585.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations:
Frominput-process-output models toIMOI models. Annual Reviewof Psychology, 56, 517543.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C.
Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and
organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333375). London: Wiley.
TEAM PROCESSES, THEIR ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES 265
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in
organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J.
Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations,
extensions, and new directions (pp. 390). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Marks, M. E., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and
taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356376.
Marks, M. E., Mathieu J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). A temporally based framework and
taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356376.
McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Motowidlo, S. J., & van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be
distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475480.
Podsako, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, Y., & Podsako, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879903.
Porter, C. O. L. (2005). Goal orientation: Eects on backing up behavior, performance, ecacy,
and commitment in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 811818.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the role of
intra-team process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal,
43, 135148.
Strout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies:
New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422445.
Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Application and
eectiveness. The American Psychologist, 45, 120133.
Sy, T., Co te , S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leaders mood on
the mood of group members, group aective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 295305.
Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., & Salas, E. (1992). Team building and its inuence on team
eectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. In K. Kelley (Ed.),
Issues, theory and research in industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 117153). North-
Holland: Elsevier.
Tjosvold, D., Tang, M. M. L., & West, M. (2004). Reexivity for team innovation in China: The
contribution of goal interdependence. Group and Organization Management, 29, 540559.
West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in top-management teams. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81, 680693.
West, M. A., Borrill, C., & Unsworth, K. L. (1998). Team eectiveness in organizations. In
C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational
psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 148). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
266 ANTONI AND HERTEL