Dyadic Viability in Project Teams: the Impact of Liking, Competence, and Task Interdependence
- PDF / 674,671 Bytes
- 19 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 50 Downloads / 181 Views
ORIGINAL PAPER
Dyadic Viability in Project Teams: the Impact of Liking, Competence, and Task Interdependence Jane Shumski Thomas 1 & Andrew C. Loignon 2 & David J. Woehr 3 & Misty L. Loughry 4 & Matthew W. Ohland 5
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
Abstract Drawing from social exchange theory and the relational approach to social exchange relationships, we examine liking and competence judgments as predictors of dyadic viability, a new, complementary, operationalization of team viability. We also consider team-level task interdependence as a moderator of these dyadic relationships. Based on data from dyads nested within project teams, we found that both liking and competence significantly relate to teammates’ dyadic viability. Additionally, task interdependence at the team level significantly moderates the dyadic-level effects of liking and competence on dyadic viability, such that the effect of liking judgments is stronger when team task interdependence is high, and the effect of competence judgments is stronger when team task interdependence is low. We also show that aggregated (across team members) measures of dyadic viability are highly similar to proxies that have been classified as team viability in the past—team satisfaction and cohesion. However, the moderating effect of task interdependence was not found with these team-level measures. Keywords Liking . Competence . Viability . Dyads . Task interdependence . Teams . Social relations model
Introduction As organizations continue to adopt decentralized and leaner work structures, they increasingly rely on selfdirected teams to accomplish complex tasks (Devine, Clayton, Phillips, Dunford, & Melner, 1999; Hollenbeck, Beersma, & Schouten, 2012). The success of a team is typically conceptualized in terms of two general Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09647-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. * Jane Shumski Thomas [email protected] 1
Department of Managerial Studies, Purdue University Northwest, Anderson 327, 2200 169th St., Hammond, IN 46323, USA
2
Rucks Department of Management, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
3
Department of Management, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA
4
Crummer Graduate School of Business, Rollins College, Winter Park, FL, USA
5
School of Engineering Education, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
criteria—task performance and team viability (Balkundi & Harrison, 2006; Hackman, 1987). While task performance is important, it is also imperative that the social processes of the group “…maintain or enhance the capability of members to work together on subsequent team tasks” (Hackman, 1987, p. 323). A team that performs well but no longer wants to work together is less successful than one that performs well and also maintains its capacity to work together again (De Cooman, Vantilborgh, Bal, & Lub, 2016; de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012; Hack
Data Loading...
