This study focuses on team members' perceptions of organizational support as antecedents of team processes and potency. Potency is team members' collective belief that the team can be effective. In a field study of 39 work teams in six organizations, the authors find a positive relationship between organizational support and potency that is mediated by effective team processes. The authors also find a positive relationship between team processes and managers' ratings of team performance that is mediated by potency. Understanding how organizational support affects potency is important because research has consistently found that potency is strongly associated with team performance, yet little is known about how organizational context affects potency. Therefore, this research has practical as well as theoretical implications.
Alderfer, C.P. (1987). An intergroup perspective on group dynamics. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 19-122). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2.
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. (1998). Interdependence and controversy in group decision making: Antecedents to effective self-managing teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74(1), 33-52.
3.
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53, 625-642.
4.
Amabile, T.M., Schatzel, E.A., Moneta, G.B., & Kramer, S.J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly , 15, 5-32.
5.
Ancona, D.G. (1990). Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 334-365.
6.
Ancona, D., & Caldwell, D. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly , 37, 634-666.
7.
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin , 103, 411-423.
8.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9.
Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
10.
Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminate validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
11.
Campion, M., Medsker, G., & Higgs, C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.
12.
Cannon-Bowers, S., Tannenbaum, E., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. (1995). Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. Guzzo, E. Salas, & Associates (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 333-380). San Francisco,: Jossey-Bass.
13.
Cohen, S., & Bailey, D. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management , 23, 239-290.
14.
Cohen, S., Ledford, G., & Spreitzer, G. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49, 643-676.
15.
Denison, D.R., Hart, S.L., & Kahn, J.A. (1996). From chimneys to cross-functional teams: Developing and validating a diagnostic model. Academy of Management Journal , 39, 1005-1023.
16.
Druskat, V.U., & Wheeler, J.V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management, 46, 435-457.
17.
Duffy, M.K., & Shaw, J.D. (2000). The Salieri syndrome: Consequences of envy in groups. Small Group Research, 31, 3-23.
18.
Gibson, C.B. (1996). Collective cognition in action: The formation, operation, and transformation of group-efficacy beliefs in the work place . Paper presented at the 1996 Academy of Management Meetings, Cincinnati, OH.
19.
Gladstein, D. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness . Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.
20.
Gully, S.M., Incalcaterra, K.A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J.J. (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, 819-832.
21.
Guzzo, R., & Dickson, M. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-338.
22.
Guzzo, R., Yost, P., Campbell, T., & Shea, G. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87-106.
23.
Hall, C. (1998). Organizational support for team-based organizations: Employee collaboration through organizational structures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas, Denton.
24.
Hecht, D.D., Allen, J.J., Klammer, J.D., & Kelly, E.C. (2002). Group beliefs, ability, and performance: The potency of group potency. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice , 6, 143-152.
25.
Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H.G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence . Organization Science, 12, 435-449.
26.
Houston, M., Parks, K., & Talbott, J. (1997). Why teams work. The CPA Journal , 67, 55-58.
27.
Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.
28.
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309.
29.
Jordan, M., Field, H., & Armenakis, A. (2002). The relationship of group process variables and team performance: A team-level analysis in a field setting. Small Group Research, 33, 121-150.
30.
Jung, D.I., & Sosik, J.J. (2003). Group potency and collective efficacy: Examining their predictive validity, level of analysis, and effects of performance feedback on future group performance. Group & Organization Management , 28, 366-391.
31.
Katzenbach, J.J., & Smith, D.K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. New York: McKinsey .
32.
Kirkman, B.L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58-74.
33.
Klein, K.J., Bliese, P.D., Kozlowski, S.W.J., Dansereau, F., Gavin, M.B., Griffin, M.A., et al. (2000). Multilevel analytical techniques: Commonalties, differences, and continuing questions. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 512-556). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
34.
Lawler, E.E. (1992). The ultimate advantage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
35.
Lawler, E.E., & Cohen, S.G. (1992). Designing pay systems for teams. American Compensation Association Journal, 1, 6-19.
36.
Lawler, E.E., Mohrman, S.A., & Benson, G. (2001). Organizing for high performance: Employee involvement, TQM, reengineering, and knowledge management in the Fortune 1000. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
37.
Lawshe, C.H. (1975). Principles of personnel testing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
38.
Lee, C., Tinsley, C.H., & Bobko, P. (2002). An investigation of the antecedents and consequences of group-level confidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 1628-1652.
39.
Lester, S., Meglino, B., & Korsgaard, M. (2002). The antecedents and consequences of group potency: A longitudinal investigation of newly formed work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 352-368.
40.
Levine, J.M., & Moreland, R. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585-634.
41.
Manz, C.C., & Sims, J.P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106-128.
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M.H. (1990). Applied linear statistical models: Regression, analysis of variance, and experimental designs. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
44.
Rentsch, J.R., & Klimoski, R.J. (2001). Why do "great minds" think alike?: Antecedents of team member schema agreement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 107-120.
45.
Salas, E., Dickinson, T.L., Converse, S.A., & Tannenbaum, S.I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In R. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 3-29). Noorwood, NJ: Ablex.
46.
Shea, G., & Guzzo, R. (1987). Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review, 28(3), 25-31.
47.
Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W.D., Avolio, B.J., & Jung, D.I. (2002). A longitudinal model of the effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance. Group & Organization Management, 27, 66-96.
48.
Smith-Jentsch, K., Campbell, G., Milanovich, D., & Reynolds, A. (2001). Measuring teamwork mental models to support training needs assessment, development, and evaluation: Two empirical studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 179-194.
49.
Stevens, M.J., & Campion, M.A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20, 503-530.
50.
Stocks, M., & Harrell, A. (1995). The impact of an increase in accounting information level on the judgment quality of individuals and groups. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20, 685-700.
51.
Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams. American Psychologist , 45(2), 120-133.
52.
Sundstrom, E., McIntyre, M., Halfhill, T., & Richards, H. (2000). Work groups: From the Hawthorne studies to work teams of the 1990s and beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 44-67.
53.
Tata, J., & Prasad, S. (2004). Team self-management, organizational structure, and judgments of team effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 248-265.
54.
Wageman, R. (1997). Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams. Organizational Dynamics, 26(1), 49-61.
