Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Despite a call within scientific literature to better account for contextual factors in team studies, very little research has systematically analyzed the potentially critical role of such factors, thus limiting organizations’ ability to provide contextual conditions that would foster team effectiveness. The Supportive Organizational Context for Teams (SOCT) construct effectively captures some of these factors (rewards, information, education, and resource allocation). However, while the internal consistency of the SOCT has been analyzed, its multidimensional representation has never been tested. In this study, we address these limitations by assessing the factor structure of a measure proposed by Wageman et al. (2005) and of its distinctive nature in relation to Perceived Organizational Support. Using a sample of 235 participants and the newly developed bifactor-ESEM framework, this study supports the notion that a high-order model is superior to a first-order model, and SOCT and Perceived Organizational Support are distinct from one another.

Keywords

bifactor-ESEM teams Supportive Organizational Context for Teams Perceived Organizational Support construct validity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aguinis

Kraiger

(2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451-474. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505

Aime

Meyer

C. J.

Humphrey

S. E.

(2010). Legitimacy of team rewards: Analyzing legitimacy as a condition for the effectiveness of team incentive designs. Journal of Business Research, 63(1), 60-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.02.014

Alves

M. M.

(2017). Where are team based incentives more important? A meta-analysis on the effect of incentives on team based contexts [Doctoral dissertation, ISCTE Business School, Universidade de Lisboa]. https://repositorio.iscte-iul.pt/bitstream/10071/14623/1/THESIS%20MARINA%20MERENDEIRO%20ALVES.pdf

Asparouhov

Muthén

(2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16(3), 397-438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204

Asparouhov

Muthén

Morin

A. J. S.

(2015). Bayesian structural equation modeling with cross-loadings and residual covariances. Journal of Management, 41(6), 1561-1577. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315591075

Aubé

Rousseau

Savoie

(2006). Les interventions régulatrices groupales et le rendement des équipes de travail: un modèle théorique [Group regulatory interventions and the performance of work teams: A theoretical model]. Le Travail Humain, 69(3), 269-294. https://doi.org/10.3917/th.693.0269

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

Jung

D. I.

Berson

(2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of applied psychology, 88(2), 207. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

Chen

F. F.

Hayes

Carver

C. S.

Laurenceau

J. P.

Zhang

(2012). Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: A comparison of the bifactor model to other approaches. Journal of Personality, 80(1), 219-251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00739.x

10.

Conroy

S. A.

Gupta

(2016). Team pay-for-performance: The devil is in the details. Group & Organization Management, 41(1), 32-65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115607746

11.

Deloitte. (2016). Human capital trends 2016: Out of sync? https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ca/Documents/human-capital/ca-en-2016-human-capital-trends-report.pdf

12.

Eisele

(2015). The predictive validity of the team diagnostic survey: Testing a model with performance and satisfaction as output variables. Team Performance Management, 21(5/6), 293-306. https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-08-2014-0049

13.

Eisenberger

Fasolo

Davis-LaMastro

(1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51-59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.51

14.

Eisenberger

Huntington

Hutchison

Sowa

(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 500-507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500

15.

Enders

C. K.

(2010). Applied Missing Data Analysis. Guilford press.

16.

Euske

K. J.

(2003). Public, private, not-for-profit: Everybody is unique? Measuring Business Excellence, 7(4), 5-11. https://doi.org/10.1108/13683040310509250

17.

Garbers

Konradt

(2014). The effect of financial incentives on performance: A quantitative review of individual and team-based financial incentives. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 102-137. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12039

18.

Guchait

Hamilton

(2013). The temporal priority of team learning behaviors vs. shared mental models in service management teams. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33(June), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.01.004

19.

Hackman

J. R.

(1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t). Jossey-Bass.

20.

Hackman

J. R.

(2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Harvard Business Press.

21.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

22.

James

L. R.

Choi

C. C.

C. H. E.

McNeil

P. K.

Minton

M. K.

Wright

M. A.

Kim

K. I.

(2008). Organizational and psychological climate: A review of theory and research. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(1), 5-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320701662550

23.

James

L. R.

Jones

A. P.

(1974). Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 81(12), 1096-1112. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037511

24.

Kennedy

F. A.

Loughry

M. L.

Klammer

T. P.

Beyerlein

M. M.

(2009). Effects of organizational support on potency in work teams: The mediating role of team processes. Small Group Research, 40(1), 72-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408326744

25.

Kline

R. B.

(2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.

26.

Kline

(1999). Remaking teams: The revolutionary research-based guide that puts theory into practice. Jossey-Bass.

27.

Kozlowski

S. W.

Ilgen

D. R.

(2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77-124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x

28.

Krishnan

Mary

V. S.

(2012). Perceived organisational support–an overview on its antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(4), 2-3.

29.

Kumar

(2016). The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-experiment. PARIPEX-Indian Journal of Research, 4(1), 197-198. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700102

30.

Landers

R. N.

Behrend

T. S.

(2015). An inconvenient truth: Arbitrary distinctions between organizational, Mechanical Turk, and other convenience samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(2), 142-164. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.13

31.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.

32.

Lindorff

(2010). The personal values of tomorrow’s workforce: Similarities and differences across sex and nationality. Journal of Management & Organization, 16(3), 353-368. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1833367200002017

33.

Maloney

M. M.

Bresman

Zellmer-Bruhn

M. E.

Beaver

G. R.

(2016). Contextualization and context theorizing in teams research: A look back and a path forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 891-942. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1161964

34.

Marsh

H. W.

Hau

K.-T.

Grayson

(2005). Goodness of fit in structural equation models. In Maydeu-Olivares

McArdle

J. J.

(Eds.), Contemporary psychometrics (pp. 275-340). Lawrence Erlbaum.

35.

Marsh

H. W.

Morin

A. J.

Parker

P. D.

Kaur

(2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85-110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700

36.

McDonald

R. P.

(1970). Theoretical foundations of principal factor analysis, canonical factor analysis, and alpha factor analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 23(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1970.tb00432.x

37.

Mickan

Rodger

(2000). The organisational context for teamwork: Comparing health care and business literature. Australian Health Review, 23(1), 179-192. https://doi.org/10.1071/AH000179

38.

Millsap

(2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. Taylor & Francis.

39.

Morin

A. J. S.

Arens

Marsh

(2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling, 23(1), 116-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.961800

40.

Morin

A. J. S.

Marsh

H. W.

Nagengast

(2013). Exploratory structural equation modeling. In Hancock

G. R.

Mueller

R. O.

(Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed., pp. 395-436). Information Age.

41.

Morin

A. J. S.

Myers

N. D.

Lee

(2020). Modern factor analytic techniques: Bifactor models, exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) and bifactor-ESEM. In Tenenbaum

Eklund

R. C.

(Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (4th ed.). Wiley.

42.

Mulaik

S. A.

James

L. R.

Van Alstine

Bennett

Lind

Stilwell

C. D.

(1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 430-445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.430

43.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

(2017). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén.

44.

Perreira

T. A.

Morin

A. J.

Hebert

Gillet

Houle

S. A.

Berta

(2018). The short form of the Workplace Affective Commitment Multidimensional Questionnaire (WACMQ-S): A bifactor-ESEM approach among healthcare professionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 106(June), 62-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.12.004

45.

Rainey

H. G.

Bozeman

(2000). Comparing public and private organizations: Empirical research and the power of the a priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 447-470. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024276

46.

Richter

A. W.

Dawson

J. F.

West

M. A.

(2011). The effectiveness of teams in organizations: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(13), 2749-2769. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.573971

47.

Rico

Alcover de la Hera

C. M.

Tabernero

(2010). Efectividad de los equipos de trabajo: Una revisión de la última década de investigación (1999-2009) [Effectiveness of work teams: A review of the last decade of research (1999-2009)]. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 26(1), 47-71. https://doi.org/10.5093/tr2010v26n1a4

48.

Rousseau

Aubé

(2014). The reward–performance relationship in work teams: The role of leader behaviors and team commitment. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(5), 645-662. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214529465

49.

Schwartz

S. H.

Rubel

(2005). Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 1010-1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.1010

50.

Shaffer

J. A.

DeGeest

(2016). Tackling the problem of construct proliferation: A guide to assessing the discriminant validity of conceptually related constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 19(1), 80-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115598239

51.

Wageman

(2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organization Science, 12(5), 559-577. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.5.559.10094

52.

Wageman

Hackman

J. R.

Lehman

(2005). Team diagnostic survey development of an instrument. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(4), 373-398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886305281984

53.

Weiss

Hoegl

Gibbert

(2013). The influence of material resources on innovation projects: The role of resource elasticity. R&D Management, 43(2), 151-161. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12007

54.

Yukl

Gordon

Taber

(2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(1), 15-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900102

Supportive Organizational Context for Teams: A Study of Construct Validity

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References