Despite an increasing number of studies on teamwork, no unifying work is focused on the measurement of the degree of difference in teamwork in a public sector organization and a private sector organization in the Indian context. Teamwork decreases job satisfaction, motivation and performance, and increases absenteeism and turnover intensions. We hypothesized that there is a significant difference in the degree of teamwork in public sector and private sector organization. Data were collected from 250 employees consisting of managerial and non-managerial staff from both public sector and private sector organizations. The results showed that employees in public sector organizations have a greater degree of teamwork in comparison to private sector employees. In addition job satisfaction increases or decreases with the increase or decrease in teamwork. The purpose of this study is to invoke teamwork in private sector organizations. Obtained results were in the line of the hypotheses. In terms of teamwork, a significant difference is noticed between public sector and private sector organizations. As expected, public sector employees have exhibited a higher degree of teamwork as compared to private sector employees. Most importantly, salary satisfaction is being proven as the catalyst for enhancing the job satisfaction level of employees.
AlcoverC. M.GilF. (2000). Potencia en grupos: Un constructo entre la autoeficacia y la motivación colectiva (Potency in groups: A construct between self-efficacy and collective motivation). Apuntes de Psicología, 18(1), 123–143.
2.
AnalouiF. (1997). How effective are senior managers in the Romanian public sector?. Journal of Management Development, 16(7), 502–516.
3.
AndersonN. R.WestM. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 235–258.
4.
AritzetaA. (2003). Compromise organizational en los equipos de trabajo: un análisis multinivel (Organizational commitment and work teams: A multilevel analysis). Encuentros en Psicología Social, 1(2), 114–119.
5.
BeekumR. I. (1989). Assessing the effectiveness of socio-technical interventions: Anecdote or fact. Human Relations, 47(10), 877–897.
6.
BelbinR. M. (1993). Team roles at work: A strategy for human resource management. Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann.
7.
BishopJ. W.ScottD. K. (2000). An examination of organizational and team commitment in a self-directed team environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 439–450.
8.
CampionM. A.MedskerG. J.HiggsC. A. (1993). Relations between group characteristics and effectiveness: Implication for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46(4), 823–850.
9.
CampionM. A.PapperE. A.MedskerG. J. (1996). Relations between team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49(2), 429–452.
10.
CohenS. G.BaileyD. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290.
11.
CronbachL. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
12.
CummingsT. G. (1978). Self-regulating work groups: A socio-technical synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 625–634.
13.
DruckerP. (1998). Managing in a time of great change. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
14.
ElloyD.RandolphA. (1997). The effect of superleader behavior on autonomous work groups in a government railway service. Public Personnel Management, 26(2), 257–272.
15.
EmeryF. E.TristE. L. (1969). Socio-technical systems. In EmeryF. E. (Ed.), Systems thinking (pp. 281–296). London: Penguin Books.
16.
FerrisG. R.RussG. S.FandtP. M. (1989). Politics in organizations. In GiacaloneR. A.RosenfieldP. (Eds), Impression management in the organization (pp. 143–170). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17.
FisherK. (1993). Leading self-directed work teams: A guide to developing new team leadership skills. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
18.
GilF.AlcoverC. M. (2002). Work teams as complex social systems: Temporal factors, sociocognitive processes and work team empowerment as basis of group dynamics at work (pp. 153–154). 13th General Meeting of European Association of Experimental Social Psychology, San Sebastian.
19.
GladsteinD. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 499–517.
20.
GullyS. M.JoshiA.IncalcaterraK. A.BeaubienJ. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 819–832.
21.
GuzzoR. A.SheaG. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In DunnetteM. D.HoughL. M. (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 3, 269–313). Palo Alto, CA, USA: Consulting Psychologists Press: Bergman Mindy.
22.
GuzzoR. A.DicksonM. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47(1), 307–338.
23.
GuzzoR. A.YostP. R.CampbellR. J.SheaG. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 87–106.
24.
HackmanJ. K., & Oldham G.R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159–170.
25.
Homer-DixonT. (1991). On the threshold: Environmental changes as causes of acute conflict. International Security, 16(2), 76–116. Retrieved from http://www.library.utoronto.ca/pcs/thresh1.htm
26.
HornerM. (1997). Leadership theory: Past, present and future. Team Performance Management, 3(4), 270–282.
27.
JaimeHerrera S. (2001). Participatory management, teamwork and leadership: Key requirements for the success of organizations in the twenty-first century. Human-resource development and organizational development, San José, Costa Rica, October.
28.
KacmarK. M.BozemanD. P.CarlsonD. S.AnthonyW. P. (1999). An examination of the perceptions of organizational politics model: Replication and extension. Human Relations, 52(3), 383–416.
29.
KatzenbachJ. R. (1997). Teams at top: Unleashing the potential of both teams and individual leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
30.
KaurGurjeetGuptaShruti. (2012). Business orientation of Indian consumer banking. Global Business Review, 13(3), 481–507.
31.
KozlowskiS. W. J.BellB. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In BormanW.C.IlgenD. R.KlimoskiR. J. (Eds), Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333–375). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
32.
ManzC. E.SimsH. P. (1986). Leading self-managed groups: A conceptual analysis of a paradox. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 7(2), 141–165.
33.
ManzC. E.SimsH. P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managed work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(1), 106–128.
34.
ManzC. E.SimsH. P. (1990). Super leadership: Leading others to lead themselves. New York, NY: Berkely.
35.
ManzC. E.SimsH. P. (2001). The new superleadership. San Francisco, CA: Koehler Publishers Inc.
36.
MarquardtM. J. (1996). Building the learning organization: A systems approach to quantum improvement and global success. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
37.
MedinaF. J.MunduateL.MartínezI.DoradoM. A.MañasM. A. (2003). Una perspectiva contingente en el estudio de la efectividad de los tipos de conflicto organizacional. El rol moderador del clima de los equipos de trabajo (A contingent perspective in the study of organizational conflict types effectiveness. The moderational role of work group climate). Encuentros en Psicología Social, 1(3), 341–346.
38.
MedinaF. J.MunduateL.MartínezI.DoradoM. A.MañasM. A. (2004). Positive effects of task–conflict stimulation on work-team climate. International Journal of Social Psychology, 19(1), 3–15.
39.
MillikenJ. P. (1994). The role of self-leadership in empowered work teams. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
40.
PassosA. M.CaetanoA. (n.d.). Tipos de conflito intragrupal: um modelo tridimensional (Intergroup conflict types: A tridimensional model). In ValaJ.GarridoM. (Eds), Percursos de investigação em psicologia social e organizacional. Lisboa: Colibri (in press).
41.
ReoyoA. M.López CanasR. (2003). Efectividad de la intervención psicosocial en los equipos de trabajo: comparación de muestras universitarias y de empresa (Psychosocial intervention effectiveness in work teams: Comparison between university students and company workers samples). Encuentros en Psicología Social, 1(4), 113–118.
42.
SabelC. F. (1993). Studied trust: Building new forms of cooperation in a volatile economy. American Psychologist, 46(9), 1133–1170.
43.
SeersA.PettyM. M.CashmanJ. F. (1995). Team-member exchange under team and traditional management: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Group & Organization Management, 20(1), 18–38.
44.
SharmaParulSharmaJyoti (2013). A confirmatory factor analysis of Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS). Global Business Review, 14(2), 211–223.
45.
ShonkJames H. (1992). Team based organizations: Developing a successful team environmental. Home wood III, USA: Business One Irwin.
46.
SmithJ. B.BarclayW. B. (1997). The effects of organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of selling partner relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(3), 3–21.
47.
ThomasK. W.KilmannR. H. (1974). Five modes for reacting to conflict: Thomas–Kilmann conflict mode instrument. Tuxedo, NY: Xicom.
48.
UnsworthK. L.WestM. A. (2000). Teams: The challenges of cooperative work. In ChmielN. (Ed.), Introduction to work and organizational psychology: A European perspective (pp. 327–346). Oxford: Blackwell.
49.
WallT.KempN.JacksonP.CleggC. (1986). Outcomes of autonomous work groups: A long term field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 280–304.
50.
WellinsRichard S.ByhamW. C.WilsonJ. M. (1991). Empowered teams: Creating self-directed work groups that improve quality, productivity, and participation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers,.
51.
WestM. A. (2001). The human team: Basic motivations and innovations. In AndersonN.OnesD. S.SinangilH.ViswesvaranC. (Eds), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (pp. 270–288), London: Sage.
52.
WhitfieldJ. M.AnthonyW.KacmarK. (1995). Evaluation of team-based management: A case study. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 8(2), 17–28.
53.
WoodmanR.SherwoodJ. (1980). Effects of team development intervention: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 16(2), 211–223.
