Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Despite growing interest in the concept of team work engagement (TWE), relatively little is known about the conditions that allow it to emerge. Based on the literature on work engagement and team climate, this study introduces the concept of TWE climate and examines its conceptual attributes. Based on a one-and-a-half-year qualitative investigation of eight Dutch self-steering project teams, we discovered that TWE climate comprises eight attributes, both (a) personal and (b) shared. Personal attributes include team members' commitment and drive toward the team and a personal feeling of being respected within the team. Shared attributes include a shared ability to overcome challenges and a shared sense of accomplishment, community, drive, and focus. Our findings indicate that personal and shared attributes are both critical elements of a team climate conducive to team work engagement. We conclude this paper by discussing what these findings mean for the concept of TWE climate in light of future research and practice.

Keywords

team work engagement climate team work engagement work engagement teamwork team climate qualitative research

Engaged employees are central to successful performance and teamwork realization (Lesener et al., 2020; Robijn et al., 2020). Accordingly, research continues to focus on work engagement, defined as "a positive affective-motivational and work-related psychological state, characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption" (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74). However, as teamwork becomes an increasingly predominant form of working and collaborating in contemporary organizations, this individual-level focus has become too narrow. In line with this development, recently, a team-level phenomenon, referred to as team work engagement (TWE) (Costa et al., 2014b), has been developed. Defined as "a shared, positive, and fulfilling emergent motivational state of work-related well-being" (Costa et al., 2014b, p. 418), it captures a collective phenomenon of engagement in teams relevant to how work is done in many contemporary organizations today. While still a relatively nascent concept, TWE is already found to positively affect teams' productivity (Karatepe & Olugabe, 2016; Torrente et al., 2012; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009), their customer service (García-Buades et al., 2016a; Van Bogaert et al., 2013), the dissemination of knowledge (Cao et al., 2012; Tomieto et al., 2016), and the health and well-being of individual team members (Boermans et al., 2014; Haslam et al., 2014; Khosa & Volet, 2014).

However, compared to what we know about the positive effects of TWE, relatively little is known about the specific conditions that foster TWE. Costa et al.’s model (2014b) offers an initial idea about predictors of TWE. For example, it argues individual characteristics, team characteristics, tasks characteristics, and work structure can predict TWE. Their research offers a good starting point to understand the work environments that might allow TWE to develop. Yet, more empirical and conceptual studies are needed that probe why, how, and under which conditions the relationships between different sets of predictors and TWE work (Campbell, 1990; Costa et al., 2014b).

With this study, we aim to contribute to further developing the understanding of TWE. Specifically, we seek to illuminate the conditions for TWE development, using a qualitative research design to explore the elements that constitute a conducive environment for TWE. Drawing on research on team climate, defined as "the manner of working together that the team has evolved" (Anderson & West, 1994, p. 3), we propose that TWE can emerge from a supportive team climate. Recent studies on the relationship between team climate and team performance showed that a) positive team mood (Gonzalez-Roma & Gamero, 2012), b) group social resources (i.e., cohesion, coordination, and teamwork) (Peñalver et al., 2019), and c) collective well-being (Garcia-Baudes et al., 2020) are essential mechanisms. This research provides some indication that team climate might be a relevant lens for our study. However, to our knowledge, studies have not yet explained which attributes characterize a team climate supportive of TWE. Considering the importance of the work engagement concept to applied psychology literature in general (Lesener et al., 2020), and teamwork in particular, it is crucial to engage in this investigation.

Consequently, in this paper, we aim to answer the question: "What attributes constitute a team work engagement climate?" To answer this question, we conducted a one-and-a-half-year qualitative investigation of eight Dutch self-steering project teams to uncover the attributes that constitute a climate conducive to TWE. In this study, we make several valuable contributions to the literature on TWE. First, our research responds to Costa et al.'s (2014b) call to uncover the “black box” of factors that lead to a state of team work engagement. Specifically, our empirical investigation of teamwork in eight teams defines conditions that allow TWE to occur. Second, we draw attention to the team climate phenomenon that has, until now, been overlooked by TWE literature. The team climate literature has proliferated over the past decade, highlighting the importance of team climate attributes to team behaviors (Anderson & West, 1994; Gonzalez-Roma et al., 1999; 2009). Contributing to this scholarly conversation, we argue that both individual and shared attributes of the TWE climate are central to the development of TWE. Finally, the TWE climate attributes we explore might serve as a precursor to more focused and quantitative studies of the relation between climate attributes and TWE. This is considered one of the critical empirical areas for future research on TWE (Robijn et al., 2020).

From a practical perspective, the study sheds more light on the complex interplay of personal and shared attributes in understanding the dynamics of the emergence and disappearance of TWE. Such insights could help to better understand the team climate elements that make teams flourish or wither.

Theoretical Background

In the first part of this section, we present a brief overview of the literature on team work engagement and its outcomes. Subsequently, we review relevant theory on team climate to shed more light on the complex shared attributes of people working together. Finally, we will conclude by introducing the concept of TWE climate in the context of TWE emergence.

Team work engagement and its outcomes

Although research on work engagement has primarily focused on the individual level (Torrente et al., 2012; Bakker & Albrecht, 2018), there is recent scholarly work on TWE. The definition of TWE, as “a shared, positive, and fulfilling, motivational emergent state of work-related well-being” (Costa et al., 2014b), implies its functional equivalence to individual work engagement, though it, instead, works at a collective level (cf. Tims et al., 2013). Among other things, empirical studies have established that engaged work teams are generally more productive (Torrente et al., 2012), perform better (Salanova et al., 2003), and report higher levels of health and well-being among team members (Boermans et al., 2014). Some conceptual questions remain of whether team work engagement is the sum or average level of individual engagement or something different that happens at the collective level. We see both views represented in the literature. In studies that have researched this area, TWE is either defined as (a) the team member-level work engagement (Costa et al., 2015; Mc Clelland et al., 2014; Tims et al., 2013; Tyler & Blader, 2003; Vera et al., 2014) or (b) the reflection of processes of team-level engagement (Gilson & Shally, 2004; Hermansen & Nerland, 2014; Järvelä et al., 2016; Metiu & Rothbard, 2013).

The first perspective uses definitions and measures of engagement at the individual-level work engagement to describe and define team work engagement. These studies have focused on TWE in terms of how team members contribute their vigor, dedication, and absorption to the team (Costa et al. 2017; Fülleman et al. 2016; Salanova et al., 2011; Van Bogaert et al., 2013). These studies’ underlying assumption is that TWE is present when individual team members have high energy levels (i.e., vigor), involvement in teamwork (i.e., dedication), and when they are focused and engrossed in teamwork (i.e., absorption). In other words, according to this view, individual-level predictors of work engagement can accumulate to shape engagement at the team level.

Second, from a process perspective, studies have suggested that group engagement is not just a sum or average of individual states. It is also "the process by which interdependent individuals enact with each other around work tasks to develop and maintain a mutual focus of attention in an interaction episode, enabling more effective problem solving" (Metiu & Rothbard, 2013, p. 456). According to this perspective, the essence of the group engagement process is shared attention and an intensity of focus. Group engagement means having team members who are “fully there” and can connect on cognitive, affective, and physical levels (Kahn, 1990, 1992). In short, according to this definition, TWE is a characteristic of the team.

Reconciling these two streams of literature, we conclude that a work environment conducive to TWE likely consists of both personal and shared attributes.

A Climate Perspective of TWE

Several scholars (e.g., Hajro et al., 2015; Idris et al., 2015) have argued that the overall set of personal and shared attributes facilitating the development of TWE is likely to manifest in the form of a favorable team climate. For this reason, we introduce a team climate perspective to the TWE literature in our search for the attributes that enhance TWE. As previously mentioned, team climate refers to "the manner of working together that the team has evolved" (Anderson and West, 1994, p. 3). It provides a shared representation of the work team that enables team members to assign shared meaning to events important for the team and determine the actions that will lead to desired outcomes (Parker et al., 2003). Based on these descriptions and other literature on team climate (e.g., Edmonson, 1999; González-Romá et al., 2009), we define TWE climate as a shared belief in the motivational potential of the team work environment that enables work teams to experience high levels of work engagement.

Research shows that team climate plays a critical role in team performance. For example, González-Romá et al. (2009) demonstrated that several types of team climate, such as a perceived climate of innovation and organizational support, were at the foundation of team performance. Similarly, Eisenbeiss et al. (2008) found that in the context of research and development teams, transformational leadership leads to team innovation only when the climate for excellence is high. Other empirical research in this area has indicated that climates characterized by positivity (Geue, 2018) and cooperation (Hajro et al., 2015) are conducive to the emergence of teams' engagement. These studies signal the importance of a team climate as the foundation for effective team functioning. We believe a similar phenomenon is associated with TWE. However, the specific attributes associated with such a TWE climate are still unknown. For this reason, we explore the attributes of TWE climate in this study.

When reviewing the literature on (team) work engagement, there are already some indications that a TWE climate consisting of personal and shared attributes would be an important foundation for TWE. Indeed, Costa et al. (2014b) already argued that TWE depends on personal actions and shared patterns in a team. Empirical studies have offered some support for this assertion. For example, Ellemers et al. (2013) found that team engagement is more likely to develop when individuals feel included in a team and valued by their team members. Similarly, Tyler and Blader (2003) argued that individual identity judgments are key factors in the emergence of team engagement. Specifically, individual team members would be more likely to invest resources and demonstrate cooperative behaviors when their individual attitudes and values fit with the team. Studies regarding collective processes identified attributes such as knowledge exchange (Hajro et al., 2015), emotion regulation (Menges & Kilduff, 2015), positivity in team interactions (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2017; Torrente et al., 2013), creativity (Gilson & Shally, 2004), and shared vision (Eldor, 2020) as examples of important processes that facilitate TWE’s emergence and can be interpreted as collective attributes of a team work climate. Therefore, based on the available literature on team climate and team engagement, it is likely that a TWE climate consists of personal and shared elements that, together, create a work environment conducive to TWE.

Method

The data used in this research were part of a qualitative case study following eight self-steering project teams for more than a year. In this study, we focus on data in which participants describe their experiences of TWE and their attempts to outline the attributes of the situations in which it would emerge. We build upon the assumption that TWE climate is a theoretical concept and its attributes are social constructs extracted from the team members' shared perceptions (Costa et al., 2014a, 2014b). As such, the subjective interpretation of experiences by individual team members constitutes the basis of this study, and shared patterns are drawn from sensemaking processes in the teams (Weick, 1995). The interpretive epistemology helped us better understand the research subjects' experiences (Saunders et al., 2007).

Participants and Study Context

The eight teams that participated in this study were formed as part of a post-graduate program for senior leadership in service of the Dutch government. Four of these teams (A–D) started in January 2017 and completed the course in April 2018. The other four teams (E–H) started in October 2017 and completed the course in March 2019. The teams had all been created before the course began. The guiding principle behind the composition was to create a diverse learning environment where participants could get to know other parts of the government through their teammates' experiences. This principle resulted in mixed teams of men and women between 35 and 50 years of age. Participants were all senior governmental managers with different educational backgrounds and work experience, employed at different Dutch government organizations. Participants were often highly motivated to participate for various reasons. Their main reasons for participating were to deepen their public administration knowledge, strengthen their personal leadership qualities, and broaden their network in preparation for the next step in their career. An important advantage of this sample is the initial similarity in task and context, which makes the team comparable and implies that individual and team characteristics are relatively large sources of variance within and between the teams.

The program consisted of three main elements: (1) a cognitive learning pathway in which current scientific insights about public administration were shared, (2) a reflective learning pathway in which each team, under the guidance of a coach, reflected on their leadership style and work dilemmas, and (3) an action-learning pathway consisting of a challenging team assignment. The formal education program took place during work hours and required approximately four to six hours per week from participants for self-study and assignments.

In this study, we focused on the experiences of the teams working together on their team assignment (third learning path). The team assignment was linked to a topical public administration issue, such as evaluating the implementation of new legislation or the government’s actions on a given social issue. While the teams received the same research topic and questions, each team was assigned its own public field of inquiry, for instance, health care, education, or agriculture. This ensured enough room for each team to determine their own focus. Each team was expected to complete a (re-)definition of the problem; set up, approach, and collect relevant data; analyze and assess the data; formulate a joint vision on the issue; and, finally, present their analysis and insights in a report to a jury at the course’s completion. Each team was assigned to a topic outside of their expertise to offer a challenging learning environment. Furthermore, team members did not know one another in advance. Under these conditions, they were challenged to explain their principles, generate knowledge, and develop a shared vision on the topic. During their work on this project, each team could discuss their approach, progress, and results with an experienced director from one of the governmental organizations (Table 2).

Data Collection and Data Collection Process

Our data collection included multiple sources of information: (1) observations, (2) semi-structured individual interviews with team members (see Table 1), (3) semi-structured interviews with team coaches and directors who acted as sparring partners for the teams (see Table 2), and (4) input from an open-ended survey question asked to team members (see Appendix A). Below, we describe each approach to data collection.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the participating project teams. The first course started in January 2017 to April 2018 (team A–D). The second course started October 2017 to March 2019 (team E–H).

Team	Member	Gender	Organization
A	1	M	Ministry of Defense
	2	F	Ministry of Safety & Justice
	3	M	Ministry of Foreign Affairs
	4	F	Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science
	5	M	Ministry of Safety and Justice
	6	F	Ministry of Public Health, Welfare, and Sport
B	1	M	Ministry of Public Health, Welfare, and Sport
	2	F	Ministry of Safety and Justice
	3	F	Ministry of Public Health, Welfare, and Sport
	4	M	Ministry of Public Health, Welfare, and Sport
	5	F	Governmental IT Shared Service Organization
	6	F	Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science
	7	M	Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management
C	1	M	Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment
	2	F	Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science
	3	F	Ministry of Foreign Affairs
	4	F	National Research Institute
	5	M	Ministry of the Interior Affairs and Kingdom Relations
	6	M	Ministry of Safety and Justice
D	1	F	Governmental Monitoring Organization
	2	M	National Research Institute
	3	M	Ministry of the Interior Affairs and Kingdom Relations
	4	M	Ministry of Safety and Justice
	5	F	Ministry of Public Health, Welfare, and Sport
	6	F	Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science
E	1	F	National Research Institute
	2	M	Ministry of Public Health, Welfare, and Sport
	3	F	Ministry of Safety and Justice
	4	M	Ministry of the Interior Affairs and Kingdom Relations
	5	M	Association of the Dutch Muncipalities
F	1	M	Ministry of Public Health, Welfare, and Sport
	2	F	Ministry of Safety and Justice
	3	F	Ministry of Safety and Justice
	4	M	Ministry of the Interior Affairs and Kingdom Relations
	5	M	Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science
G	1	M	Ministry of Public Health, Welfare, and Sport
	2	M	Ministry of Defense
	3	F	Ministry Infrastructure & Environment
	4	F	Ministry of General Affairs
	5	M	Ministry Infrastructure and Environment
	6	M	National Research Institute
H	1	M	Ministry of Defense
	2	M	Ministry of the Interior Affairs and Kingdom Relations
	3	F	Ministry of Safety and Justice
	4	M	Ministry of Public Health, Welfare, and Sport
	5	M	Dutch Forensic Institute
	6	F	Ministry of Public Health, Welfare, and Sport

Note. all partcipants were occupied as manager in their organization.

Table 2.

Characteristics of the participating coaches.

Coaches	Gender	Organization
Co-1	F	Consultancy firm
Co-2	F	Consultancy firm
Co-3	F	Ministry of the Interior Affairs and Kingdom Relations
Co-4	M	General Administration
Co-5	M	Inspection for Environment and Transport
Co-6	M	Ministry of Safety and Justice
Co-7	M	Consultancy firm
Role description
Coach	The coach is formally part of the program and gives substance to the reflective learning line during the course. The coach is committed to one or two teams during the course. During the course, they meet 5 days in a formal learning setting.The coach stimulates participants to reflect on their personal leadership, their work dilemmas and how to handle them. The coach is psychologically trained.The coach does not take part in the action-learning line where the teams focus on their assignment.Co-1, Co-2, and Co-7 were coaches for the teams during the research.
Director	The director has no formal role in the program.The directors are dedicated, like the coaches, to one of the teams. The director takes part based on his or her in-depth knowledge and experience with the government, its functioning, and challenges.The director is a substantive sparring partner for the teams during their assignment. Each team could ask for their support when needed. The initiative to organize these meetings with the director lies with the team.Co-3, Co-4, Co-5, and Co-6 were directors for these teams during the research.

First, we started our data collection by observing teams during their teamwork because we aimed to deepen our insight into the climate attributes fostering TWE. The rationale behind this approach was to develop our understanding of the situations in which engaged team behavior would occur. Because the first author of this article was professionally involved as the coach of four participating teams (only in the reflective learning pathway of the course), a second researcher took part in the study to substantiate observations, prevent potential bias, and ensure the results' reliability. This researcher was independent of the focal organization and the research team. To rule out role mixing as much as possible, the teams were divided between the two researchers so that the first author did not observe teams that she supervised in her role as a coach. Since we aimed to explore the climate which enhances TWE, we started by observing team meetings to examine which dynamics or gestures were expressions of joint dedication, absorption, and vigor. Both researchers took notes on gestures, dynamics, time, and topics. After the observed meetings, each team—with the researcher present—briefly reflected on how the meeting had been experienced. This yielded the following valuable insights: (1) the reflections showed that the experiences of team members in the same situation differed and (2) the outside standpoint of the researchers resulted in a description of discussed topics and behavior like “listening,” “questioning,” “laughing,” “arguing,” and “summarizing.” Without the participants’ interpretations, it would have been impossible to make sense of the situations observed from an outside standpoint. The observations and reflections were discussed and evaluated by the two researchers. Interviews were then added to our research design to gain more insight into the personal experiences of team members.

Since we added in-depth individual interviews during our research, team members of the first four teams (A–D) were interviewed for the first time when they had been working on their project for 7 months (October 2017). The last four teams (E–H), who started in the second course, were interviewed 2 months after they began their team project (April 2018). All members of teams A–D were interviewed twice (October 2017, March 2018), and the members of teams E–F were interviewed three times (April, September 2018, February 2018). In total, we conducted 110 semi-structured interviews lasting between 40 and 65 minutes. The interviews were divided randomly between the two researchers. The interview protocol was discussed beforehand and was improved based on the experiences of the first few interviews.

The main topics that the interviews focused on were as follows: (1) participants' definitions and experiences of TWE and (2) the attributes (i.e., climate attributes) of situations in which they perceived the existence of TWE. The main questions were as follows: “What do you mean by TWE?” “How do you rate the work engagement of your team?” “What are the situations or experiences which are top of mind when you think of the moments of engaged teamwork within your team?” and “What characterizes these situations?” Participants were asked to evaluate their own TWE with a rating from zero to ten, explain their assessment, and indicate what it would take to give a higher or a lower grade. The interviews' semi-structured character allowed participants to add examples and experiences and the interviewers to probe them for further details. The questions focused on the presence of TWE and the attributes that enhance it. Consequently, we did not elaborate on the negative aspects of teamwork, such as power struggles, shirking, or free-riding. Such phenomena may have been present in the teams, but respondents still had to answer in positive terms. All interviews were administered in Dutch to allow participants to articulate and elaborate their views in their native language.

For our third data source, we triangulated the observations and participant interviews with the team coaches and directors' interview data, using the same semi-structured interview protocol. This third source offered an additional perspective on the phenomenon of TWE and how directors and coaches perceived it in the teams they guided. As a fourth data source, during the course’s regular digital evaluations, on five occasions, four questions were posed about the experience of TWE while working together. Participants were asked to assess their own TWE in comparison with their assessment of the overall TWE-team score. Their explanations were included in the data of this study (see Appendix A).

We ended our data collection process after eight teams because the final few teams had similar impressions and experiences as the previous teams. Because their experiences confirmed the insights of the first four teams, we concluded that we had reached saturation (Acquinis & Solarino; 2019). The research context featured comparable teams in size, team constellation, assignment, work conditions, duration, and context. These conditions allowed us to research the similarities and differences in the situations that foster and sustain TWE. The participating teams did not know each other before the program and had not worked together before. Therefore, starting conditions were the same for each team. Furthermore, due to the program’s duration, in which a long-term team assignment of more than one year was carried out, each team’s assignment was substantial and, therefore, comparable to project teams in other working environments. This offered a favorable context in which we could study the situational attributes that might foster TWE emergence.

Data Analysis

The primary data for our qualitative analysis was the semi-structured interviews with team members. All interviews were transcribed and uploaded into NVivo 12. The Gioia method was used to structure and analyze the data (Gioia et al., 2012), separating the coding process into three stages: first-order concepts, second-order themes, and aggregate dimensions. Throughout the analysis process, we used the interviews with team coaches, the observations, and the data from evaluation questions to triangulate the findings, aiming to offset researcher bias and enhance the findings' validity (Jonsen & Jehn, 2009). These additional data sources and the scholarly literature on TWE served to test and further refine our coding framework.

To illustrate the analysis process, we began with open coding by identifying first-order concepts in the data. On a line-by-line basis, the interviewees' main statements were identified and compared with other interviewees' accounts to identify common suggestions. For example, sentences or parts of sentences, like "everyone contributes to this according to their own ability," "…. each takes a share in the activities," and "An equal or equivalent contribution is not always possible, so you look at what is feasible," were grouped based on corresponding terms like “contributes” or “takes a share” and the meaning of these sentences. This is an example of a second-order theme “contributing on behalf of the team.” Our second-order coding reflected themes such as “intrinsic motivation,” “dealing with stress,” “collective empowerment,” “experiencing energy,” “goal,” and “collective organizing.” Subsequently, we analyzed the second-order themes for similarities by going back and forth between our data, the literature (cf. Gioia et al., 2012), and the other three data sources. This resulted in a set of codes that we discuss in detail in the findings section. In our example, “contributing on behalf of the team,” these findings correspond to previous research (Blader & Tyler, 2009; MacGowan, 1997; Tyler and Blader, 2003), demonstrating that this type of behavior can be considered a sign of the individual’s contributions to the team. In triangulation with the findings of the evaluation data (Appendix A), substantive descriptions of their concrete contribution, like “interviewing, writing, analyzing results,” and more evaluative reflections on their contribution, like “I think it (my contribution) should be more, I’m catching up,” were given by participants. An aggregate dimension was accomplished, similarly to second-order themes, by searching for correspondence between these themes. In this example, we found “involvement” corresponded to “contributing on behalf of a team.” The personal commitment demonstrated by a team member, evidenced by their identification with and willingness to invest in the team, was formulated as an aggregate dimension. These findings corresponded with previous research on commitment (Mowday et al., 1979; Neininger et al., 2010). In this example, our coding process resulted in “Personal Commitment” as one of the aggregated personal dimensions.

The coding process was identical for the other dimensions. In total, we found eight attributes of a TWE climate. Three were personal attributes, and five were shared attributes. The personal attributes which came out of our coding process were (1) personal commitment, (2) personal respect, and (3) personal drive. The shared attributes we found were (4) shared ability to overcome challenges, (5) a shared sense of accomplishment, (6) shared sense of community, (7) shared drive, and (8) shared focus. The result of this process is visualized in a coding tree in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Coding framework of TWE attributes.

Since all coding involves perception and interpretation of what is happening in the data and is, therefore, a selective and (inter)subjective process, we elaborated our open coding in a team of three researchers multiple times. This team consisted of the first three authors of this study. To reinforce this study’s rigor and test our second-order themes and aggregated dimensions (Figure 1), the research team individually and independently coded as final check of their coding process, a random sample of 100 first-order concepts on second-order themes and aggregated dimensions and then discussed their findings. There was immediate agreement on the majority of the first-order concepts linking them to second-order themes (61%). An additional 15% of the first-order concepts were assessed as “close,” denoting “close in meaning.” In these cases, first-order concepts were linked to different second-order themes which both contribute to the same aggregated dimension. For example, a first-order concept like “we have the same sense of humor” has been assessed as “Joy” and “Team feeling,” which were finally grouped in an aggregated code of “a Shared Sense of Community.” Regarding the remaining 24%, the interpretations were further apart, resulting in the same concept being linked to three different second-order themes. For example, “Take each other into account,” “Being valued,” and “Personal Interest” resulted in three different aggregated dimensions. Disagreements were resolved by discussing underlying considerations, which subsequently led to more stability and further refinement in coding the data and ultimately contributed to this study’s rigor. All disagreements between the three researchers were eventually resolved.

Findings

In line with the two literature streams on TWE emergence, our data revealed that a TWE climate consists of both personal and shared attributes. An overview of our findings is visualized in the coding tree in Figure 1. Below, we describe all eight attributes in more detail.

Personal Commitment

Personal commitment is characterized by the degree to which individuals contribute on behalf of the team and by their involvement within the team. This attribute focuses on individuals' urge to participate and to make a personal contribution to their team. Participants typically emphasized that having an active contribution is more or less expected from every team member, making everyone’s commitment to the team a valuable attribute of the TWE climate. This sense of commitment was often described in terms like “being co-responsible,” “dedicating oneself to the team,” “delivering efforts and results,” and “not postponing or passing on work to others (i.e., other team members).” The survey evaluation data revealed that the contribution of team members is a recurring point. The interpretation of contribution varies per team member and over time. Respondent F-2 (evaluation data module 2 and module 5) formulates her contribution to the team as such: "Stimulating a creative approach, bringing in broad experience and network" and "Work out a case, write conclusions and encourage others to keep up the courage." These statements illustrate that personal commitment to the team not only encompasses contributions to the work itself (e.g., writing conclusions) but also to the team process (e.g., encouraging others).

While each team member’s commitment to the team is crucial, respondents emphasized that not every member has to make an equal contribution as this can vary in time, effort, and capability. Specifically, participants emphasized that an unequal contribution does not have to be a problem as long as individual team members make contributions relative to their capabilities. This condition is apparent in the following quote:

"That everyone contributes to their own abilities. I think that is very important, it is possible that one contributes more than the other but that everyone does justice to what he is good at." (Respondent B-5; interview).

At the same time, a lack of perceived personal commitment to the team, in terms of lower or less valuable contributions, can be detrimental to the TWE climate and the subsequent emergence of TWE. For example, as one respondent indicated:

"It costs me energy when people don't do that much." (Respondent E−4; evaluation data)

Another important element of personal commitment was that team members show active involvement in the team. Participants mostly described this in terms of active participation in and taking responsibility for the achievement of team goals:

"I feel very committed to bringing our project to a successful conclusion." (Respondent A-1, evaluation data).

This quote illustrates that TWE is more likely to emerge when team members show personal commitment to the team and its goal. Overall, personal team commitment encompasses individual contributions to and involvement in team processes and objectives as an important attribute of TWE climate.

Personal Respect

Personal respect is characterized by individual team members' experiences of being valued, safe, and trusted in the team. As the following quote shows, if team members feel valued for their input, are aware of one another’s qualities, and are deployed accordingly, it benefits the entire team:

"Enthusiasm, respect, but even more so the appreciation for other people’s expertise and wanting to use it." (Respondent F-3, interview).

Recognition and appreciation of team members' individual qualities and experience, as a characteristic of the TWE climate, are rewarding and can act as a catalyst for TWE to emerge. In particular, feelings of psychological safety and trust turned out to be fundamental attributes, creating conditions for teams to become engaged. Participants referred to every team member being equal, feeling comfortable with each other, and being assured of the support of their teammates:

"What, of course, is related to this, to me, is at least a very high degree of trust and confidentiality – that you can be very yourself and say the most bizarre wild things without disturbing the group process." (Respondent G-1, interview).

This quote shows that personal respect in a team, that is, feeling safe and trusted, is an important aspect of a TWE climate because it facilitates effective cooperation. Personal respect is about individual perceptions and experiences of being valued, safe, and trusted. It is the foundation for an inclusive team environment conducive to the emergence of TWE.

Personal Drive

Personal drive is about individual motivation and the importance of fostering personal interests within the team context. Personal commitment focuses on team members' contributions and involvement, whereas personal drive refers to their motivation and will to be part of the team process. Participants mentioned that motivated team members could have a stimulating effect on themselves and the team as a whole, serving as a mechanism that signals team members' willingness to go the extra mile. One participant formulates this as follows:

"Yes, you know … Sigh … minimal motivation. Because if you don’t like what you have to do with that team, then it just stops. There is no engagement." (Respondent A-3, interview).

This quote shows that individual motivation to the team is a critical aspect of a TWE climate. The absence of motivated team members essentially prevents TWE from emerging in a team. Indeed, when team members lack motivation, this can drain the remaining energy from a team. In the survey evaluation after 6 months, one participant describes it as follows:

"Collaboration is difficult due to the negative attitude of one of the participants about the course as a whole but certainly, also, with regard to the team assignment gets the energy out of the rest." (Respondent C-1, evaluation data)

Closely related to being motivated is the recognition of team members' personal interests. Personal drive is a significant propellant. Room for team members' own interests within their team was considered a binding factor:

"If you know where to find each other, or a middle ground that you can handle both and still feel that you can put your own in it and that it fits in with how you like to work together." (Respondent F-3, interview).

Though somewhat similar to the attribute of personal respect, in the sense that it is about feeling included in a team, this particular element of recognizing personal interest was primarily aligned with motivational issues. That is, participants mostly talked about the motivation and energy they would feel if they could "do what they wanted to do." Overall, personal drive is about team members being motivated and able to satisfy their interests within a team. When this is assured, TWE is more likely to emerge.

Shared Ability to Overcome Challenges

“Overcoming challenges” is characterized by the team’s shared ability to deal with challenges related to dealing with conflicts, managing stress, and collective organizing. Participants indicated that effective conflict management is critical for a team and that team-related conflicts can be productive when things can be made negotiable when differences of opinion are clarified and when shared understanding arises from listening to one another’s perspectives. As the participants experienced, if a team can adequately handle such situations, it allows TWE to develop more easily:

"It certainly leads to recognition from both sides that you understand each other better. That does not mean that the middle ground or something must be chosen, but that at least – it leads to a better understanding, and that makes it easier for you to work together." (Respondent G-4, interview).

Conversely, a lack of shared ability to overcome challenges, in this case, conflict management, can have a detrimental effect on TWE emergence:

"It costs energy because one person in the team wants a different working method and approach than the other four and the same conversation about it takes place for a long time. As a result, the energy drained completely, and the presentation was not what it could have been." (Respondent F-3, evaluation data module 3)

Dealing with stress was another indicator of overcoming team-related challenges. This indicator is characterized by attributes such as dealing with performance feedback, time pressure, and dealing with “dips and obstacles.” Participants emphasized that overcoming these challenging situations contributed to a TWE climate defined by a feeling of collective efficacy, enhancing the emergence of TWE:

"After a difficult period in which our collaboration went badly, we expressed mutual irritation. After we talked about it, a new positive dynamic had emerged." (Respondent F-5 – evaluation data).

Another element of the capacity to overcome challenges—one closely related to managing conflicts and stress—is the complex process of formulating a clear role and task division that contributes to the coordination of the work and planning issues. Overcoming the challenge of collective organizing can lead to a smooth team process, resulting in team members experiencing pleasure, helping them persevere. The importance of collective organizing became especially apparent when team members experienced a conflict of interest between the current project and their other work or family obligations, typically making it difficult to schedule team meetings. Participants mainly mentioned collective organizing when they felt it was lacking and the team process needed adjustments. The following quote demonstrates this:

"If you want to build a house and one person thinks of electricity and the other one about the gas pipeline or something, then that can be done very nicely next to each other. But somewhere it comes together in the boiler, which works on both electricity and gas, and if this is not aligned, then you have a problem." (Respondent F-5 - interview).

The findings showed that overcoming challenges related to conflicts, stress, and organizing was possible when there were open discussions, room for everyone’s input and challenges, and an understanding that team members' contributions might vary somewhat over time due to other responsibilities (e.g., in their private life).

Shared Sense of Accomplishment

Shared accomplishment is characterized by a sense of synergy and progress and collective empowerment. Experiencing the synergy across other team members was mentioned by all participating teams. Participants often used language, such as chemistry, organic, magic, and elusive, to describe what was happening in the teams. Synergy was consistently put forward as something positive and a sign of optimal teamwork. Participants emphasized the importance of complementarity between team members and of productive interactions:

"I think of those almost magical moments of being able to reinforce each other in a group and achieve a better product than if you had done that separately. That, I think, is really magic.” (Respondent G-3, interview).

Participants also stressed that a lack of synergy and progress could evoke friction and feelings of guilt when team members cannot deliver the same efforts and results. Consequently, the synergy and sense of progress can fluctuate over time and between team members. The participants often reported this as a key factor that persisted over time. For example, in one of the participating teams, team members shared the following quotes: "Everyone is busy, has a new job, is tired and just wants to take 'time off'"; "I miss mutual inspiration, and I don't see everyone’s contribution"; "A number of members of the group show little effort." However, although this particular team reported differences in alignment between team members over time, another team barely experienced any such changes. For example, they mentioned: "The dynamics in the group are very nice. Everyone does what they have to do, and it produces the desired result" and "Motivated, but busy schedule, yet there is momentum." Therefore, although the development may differ across teams and over time, a shared sense of synergy and progress are important foundations for TWE’s emergence.

The third aspect of a shared sense of accomplishment is collective empowerment. Respondents mainly talked about complimenting and encouraging each other and believing in the team’s potential. Therefore, this capacity for collective empowerment becomes an important source of reinforcement of the team’s belief in its potential. Collective empowerment is primarily about making each other better when working in a team:

"From the very first moment that we sat together as a team, when we didn't know each other at all, that E was, in my opinion, super positive. That he was really like, "Nice! We are a team together!" and I thought, "How so, nice together?" We can make it nice, but you cannot already say that we have the best team. But later I realized that it had a tremendous effect when someone speaks so enthusiastically." (Respondent D-6, interview)

Overall, shared accomplishment is about team processes characterized by synergy, mutual empowerment between team members, and a sense of progress toward team goals. A common denominator is an awareness that nobody could have accomplished the desired result alone. Together, these constitute another attribute of a TWE climate.

Shared Sense of Community

A shared sense of community refers to taking others into account, having a team feeling, and experiencing joy. Taking other team members into account can be explained as being sensitive towards other team members' opinions, needs, and feelings. This means that there is room for everyone’s input and everyone’s personal needs. Participants reported this happening when team members listen to each other, pay attention to each other, and treat each other with respect and understanding. A shared sense of community relates to the personal respect attribute insofar as there is respect and appreciation for everyone’s input. The key difference lies in the orientation of each attribute. Personal respect is about each team member’s perception of being respected and valued in the team. A shared sense of community is about the process in which this evolves in the team. A tangible manifestation of this shared attribute of TWE climate is the experience of listening and paying attention to each other during meetings.

"There is also a dynamic for me, sometimes it happens that you feel less comfortable or that you are sick or that you have no time or that you are completely in the drive, that there is also room in such a group for those dynamics per person and people that understand each other and accept each other and also find a way together to benefit from it." (Respondent G-1, interview).

This attribute is closely related to a shared team feeling or the feeling that “we are a team.” Participants indicated that such a team feeling could arise when results are achieved together, emphasizing “doing together.” Like taking other team members into account, the team feeling is the experience of actually doing things together and feeling like “one.” This togetherness characterizes the TWE climate attribute of a shared sense of community.

"Yes, exactly .... for the project or subject you are working on together - to make it happen, to do it together! Not as pawns that are separate from each other." (Respondent H-2, interview).

The third aspect of a shared sense of community is the experience of joy. Investing in informal relations by going out to eat or undertaking fun activities emerged as an important foundation for creating a positive team atmosphere and contributed to the joy of working together as a team. Joy was mentioned as a critical community-building element by all of the participating teams. It makes team members happy, motivates them to contribute, and puts the team demands in perspective. The following quote underlines this:

"We all have busy jobs - we do it next to it - so everyone has to struggle with their time, and then you see that when you are working together, we have fun doing it together." (Respondent B-4, interview).

Taken together, teams' experience of respect, a “team feeling,” and joy while working as a team constitute the TWE climate attribute of a shared sense of community.

Shared Drive

Shared drive focuses on a shared ambition, often expressed in active verbs such as doing, wanting, going for it, standing for it together, and achieving. Shared drive mirrors personal drive. A personal drive revolves around each member’s individual motivations and interests. A shared drive is a team-level phenomenon in which sharing ambitions and aligning motivation is key. In other words, a personal drive could be described as “one for all,” whereas a shared drive would be “all for one.” A shared drive is an ambition that team members recognize together, thereby reinforcing it.

"Well, don't see it as an obligation, as something that should be - we want this too! We can do something with this, we achieve something with this, we show something with this." (Respondent C-6).

Or, as one of the team members indicated in her evaluation survey after 6 months:

"We are all very driven to achieve a nice (or the best) result and to make it a beautiful experience, open to each other’s styles and content. Therefore, we are very complementary." (Respondent D-6, evaluation).

Together, a shared drive encourages a team to reach higher standards, fostering a desire to excel or go the extra mile. There is a collective sense of shared ownership of the work that is being done, as is clear from the following quote:

"That you feel you are the owner of a subject, task and from that felt ownership show the drive to achieve the best possible result. For me, this also includes ambition and the drive to excel and achieve visible results." (Respondent B-2, interview).

Teams’ experience of a process where they actively share, exchange, and align their motivations can be a key attribute of a climate that fosters TWE emergence.

Shared Focus

Shared focus is another process-oriented attribute of a TWE climate. It is characterized by having a common goal, experiencing purpose, and focusing attention. Every team emphasized the importance of having a common goal, reflecting the results they want to achieve. Having a shared goal connects individual team members and distinguishes them from people outside the team. In other words, it is what team members have in common, creating a connection based on interdependency on a task or a shared responsibility. A common goal creates joint pressure to get started and to achieve something. This is reflected in the following quote:

"The enthusiasm is more about the goal than the team effort, but where team effort is necessary to achieve the goal." (Respondent F-5, interview).

Like having shared goals, participants also emphasized the importance of sharing a purpose. Participants viewed the shared purpose as their collective “higher goal,” indicating an emotional connection with the team. Contributing to a purpose creates additional energy and fulfillment:

"You often hear that these teams who perform such an essential task together, like saving people or lives … erm … that there is also a kind of extra enthusiasm in such a team." (Respondent Coach-7, interview).

Therefore, a sense of overarching purpose in a team binds team members together and can help TWE emerge. Significantly, the lack of a purpose can also undermine the emergence of TWE, for instance, when the work felt less meaningful, almost like an obligation. One evaluation response clearly illustrates this:

"Feels more like a necessary evil than an inspiring challenge." (Respondent C-3, evaluation).

Next to having a shared goal and purpose, a shared focus of attention was a critical aspect of the shared focus attribute. Focused attention also has a binding effect on the team because everyone is actively part of the process and acting toward the same outcomes. The following quote illustrates these moments of focused attention by all team members:

"That you forget the time and environment around you…. And you are only concerned with what happens in the group with which you are together." (Respondent E-5, interview).

Taken together, a shared sense of focus in a team, characterized by having an overarching goal and purpose, and the shared focus to work toward those outputs is the final attribute of a TWE climate that we uncovered.

Discussion

Main Findings and Research Implications

The purpose of this study was to explore the climate in which team work engagement (TWE) develops. Guided by the research question "What attributes constitute a team work engagement climate?" we performed a qualitative study among eight Dutch self-steering project teams over one and a half years. We discovered that TWE climate comprises eight attributes, consisting of both (a) personal and (b) shared attributes. Consequently, our study shows that personal and shared attributes are both critical elements of a team climate conducive to team work engagement. With these findings, we make several significant contributions to the literature on TWE.

First, answering the call of Costa et al. (2014b), we illuminate the “black box” of interpersonal team processes that can contribute to the emergence of TWE. Complementing Costa et al.'s (2014a, b) research, which defines TWE as “a shared, positive, and fulfilling emergent motivational state of work-related well-being,” our study offers a set of critical attributes forming a climate conducive to TWE. Specifically, our study sheds more light on the individual and team characteristics that Costa et al. (2014b) describe in their conceptual model. On the individual level, we discovered that personal commitment, respect, and drive are essential personal attributes that team members bring into the team. On the team level, we uncovered five critical shared attributes of a TWE climate: ability, accomplishment, community, drive, and focus. Our findings align with Costa et al.’s (2014b) model that already emphasized the importance of motivational and affective processes in TWE emergence. For example, motivational processes were represented in terms of being driven to perform and a willingness to contribute to team progress. Affective processes were expressed as gestures such as listening and looking after one another and having fun together.

Second, we introduce the new concept of TWE climate, which we define as “a shared belief in the motivational potential of the team work environment, enabling them to experience high levels of work engagement.” Our study uncovered the eight attributes of TWE climate, comprising both personal and shared attributes. Although the team climate literature had previously been applied to teamwork engagement, these studies never focused on a climate specifically oriented toward TWE enhancement. For example, researchers showed that innovative climate (García-Buades et al., 2016a) and positive service climate (Geue, 2018) could enhance team engagement. Our unique contribution is that we uncovered the specific climate attributes conducive to TWE emergence. Our conceptualization of a TWE climate could serve as the foundation for future measurement development. Specifically, TWE climate attributes, as delineated in this study, could serve as dimensions in a scale that assesses such a team climate. A reliable and valid instrument to measure this TWE stimulating team climate would open up all kinds of exciting possibilities for future studies that could add to the currently underdeveloped research in this area.

Third, our qualitative exploration of a TWE climate highlights the value of including both personal and shared attributes. Given the two lenses in the existing literature on TWE, which typically focus on either of the two types of climate attributes, rather than both simultaneously, our study, therefore, offers an essential step in bringing together these disparate literature streams and moving toward a comprehensive understanding of TWE emergence (Boermans et al., 2014; Füllemann, et al., 2016; Metiu & Rothbard, 2013; Van Mierlo & Bakker, 2017; Rahman et al., 2016). In terms of personal attributes, we found that being committed to the team, experiencing respect from other team members, and having a strong personal drive are essential climate characteristics for TWE to develop in a team. These attributes align with prior research that emphasizes the importance of personal feelings of respect and individual contributions to the team (e.g., Ellemers et al., 2013; Macgowan & Levenson, 2003; Tyler & Blader, 2003). Furthermore, the shared attributes we uncovered emphasize the value of experiencing high energy levels and the feeling of being connected and productive as a team. These findings corroborate the literature on group engagement, emphasizing the importance of interactions between team members, looking, for example, at shared processes of focus and progress (Metiu & Rothbard, 2013). In sum, our study emphasizes that a climate that enhances TWE goes beyond the aggregation of individual states, yet it does encompass those states. In other words, TWE is greater than the sum of its parts, but those parts are still critical components for TWE to develop.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Although we were careful to ensure the study reflected the criteria for rigor in qualitative research (Sandberg, 2005), triangulating our interview data with observations, coach interviews, and survey evaluations, it is important to acknowledge its limitations. First, our sample of eight self-steering project teams of Dutch governmental managers represents a rather specific selection of team work environments. Considering the sample consisted of senior civil servants deemed ready for promotion to higher ranks within the government, caution is warranted when generalizing the identified attributes of a TWE climate. Moreover, the teams were designed specifically for a training program. This differs to more commonly occurring situations where team members are selected for their complementary experiences and competencies, rather than their shared need for development. This team-specific environment and team constellation could have impacted our results. More research is needed to examine whether our conceptualization of TWE climate, consisting of eight conceptual attributes, is also associated with TWE in teams that vary more widely in task complexity, size, or other team and task characteristics. In other words, more research is necessary to assess the strength of the association between a climate for TWE and TWE in various work contexts.

A second limitation is the proximity of the first author to the participants. Though we took significant measures to ensure objectivity, such as establishing interrater reliability of the coding and using two separate interviewers and multiple sources of data, being the teams’ coach may have influenced the research relationship and increased the possibility of social desirability. At the same time, it could also have contributed to our research since deep knowledge of the working environment of the teams enriched our insight on the challenges and possible bottlenecks that the teams faced.

A third limitation of the current study is that, due to the refinement of our data collection process, the first four teams were interviewed twice and the last four teams were interviewed three times. Any intervention in a relational process, such as conducting interviews, can influence that process (Mc Grath et al., 2019). It is possible that interviewing half of the examined teams earlier and more often may have affected their experience of their team process because we drew their attention to it. For example, these teams might have been more preoccupied with their experiences as a team.

A fourth and final limitation is that we asked for attributes in a positive frame. We did not ask for negatives. It is easy to imagine that the TWE climate can become cloudy by a lack of commitment, contribution delivered, respect or drive shown by any member, or the collective failure to overcome an important challenge and ongoing differences of opinion on accomplishment, community, ambition, and focus. It is possible that in this research, some of the attributes mentioned by any individual respondent stem from negative experiences. For example, an answer like “Everybody is contributing to the team” may result from satisfaction with the performance of all team members, as well as annoyance about a free-rider on the team. People may have also avoided mentioning specific problems within the teams out of loyalty or reciprocal altruism. An alternative explanation could be that they perceived their coaches as part of the program leadership and therefore feared repercussions for their team, other team members, or themselves.

Practical Implications

This study offers implications that team managers and leaders can use to promote the enhancement of team work engagement in their teams by presenting a set of eight attributes of a TWE climate. To create such a TWE climate, they need to foster personal elements—specifically, personal commitment and drive and feelings of being respected—and shared elements—specifically, a shared ability to overcome challenges, a sense of community and collective accomplishment, and a shared drive and focus. These insights can inspire organizations to support team leaders and their teams to improve a climate that supports team work engagement. Previous research showed that team leaders could have an important role in creating an open dialogue about the organization and division of work within teams (Allen & Rogelberg, 2013; Breevaart et al., 2014). A dialogue that pays attention to team members’ personal interests will contribute to the team functioning as a whole (Tyler & Blader, 2003; Ellemers et al., 2013). Personal commitment to the team is vital but will be strengthened when a team takes an interest in its individuals (Yalabik et al., 2014). With our findings, we support team leaders to guide teams in their development toward a team engagement climate that contributes to teams being productive and constructive (cf. Garcia-Buades et al., 2016b; Sharma & Bhatnagar, 2016).

Human resource professionals can also benefit from our findings. Since finding and retaining good personnel is a continuous challenge for many organizations, HR can contribute with a solid HR policy that contributes to creating a fruitful and attractive work settings (Deloitte, 2021). Working together and feeling connections with others are valuable and energizing experiences for all employees (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Therefore, organizing climates for inspiring teamwork can become an important asset for organizations to retain personnel. The attributes delineated in this study can serve as a starting point for designing HR practices that allow employees working within teams to thrive and the team as a whole to be motivated and high performing, that is, to nourish a TWE climate.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Marieke E. Gersdorf-Van den Berg

Associate Editor: Sarah Bankins

Author Biographies

Marieke Gersdorf-van den Berg is parttime PhD candidate at the Amsterdam Business Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and sr. Managing consultant at Berenschot, a Dutch consultancy firm. Marieke’s consulting and coaching practice focuses on team development, action research in organizations into collaboration and working conditions and coaching of management teams.

Jos Akkermans is an Associate Professor of Careers and Organizational Behavior at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He is the current Division Chair for the Academy of Management Careers Division and an Associate Editor for the Journal of Vocational Behavior. Jos’ research focuses on issues related to career shocks, career sustainability, and career success among various target groups. His research has been published, among others, in Human Resource Management Journal, Applied Psychology, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, and Journal of Vocational Behavior.

Ludwig Hoeksema is a partner at Strategic Management Centre and parttime lecturer at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Ludwig’s research and consulting practice focuses on corporate governance, boardroom dynamics and strategy. He is member of the Supervisory Board of Rabobank Noord Veluwe, General Member Council of Rabobank and chairman of the Supervisory Board of Stichting CED Groep. He recently published on the corporate governance of subsidiaries of large multinational companies in the Netherlands Poldering on a world stage.

Svetlana N. Khapova is Professor of Careers and Organization Studies at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands. She is Past Division Chair of the Careers Division of the Academy of Management. Her research focuses on contemporary issues related to individuals’ career and work. Her research has been published among others in the Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Vocation Behavior, International Journal of Management Reviews, Human Relations, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Career Development International. She is an author (together with M. B. Arthur and J. Richardson) of the book “An Intelligent Career: Taking Ownership of Your Work and Your Life” published by Oxford University Press in 2017.

Appendix

Open-ended questions added to every evaluation of a Module of the program.

1. How engaged do you feel about working on the application assignment at the moment? Please give a number from 0 to 10 and an explanation.

2. How engaged does your learning group work on the application assignment at the moment? Please give a number from 0 to 10 and an explanation.

3. What gives you energy/pleasure in working together on the application assignment at the moment?

4. What is currently demanding extra energy in working together on the application assignment?

Note: For the teams who participated in course 30, the evaluations were in April 2017, July 2017, October 2017, December 2017, and February 2018. For the teams who participated in course 31, the evaluations were in January 2018, April 2018, June 2018, September 2018, and November 2018.

References

Aguinis

Solarino

A.M.

(2019). Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants. Strategic Management Journal, 40, 1291-1315. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3015.

Allen

J. A

Rogelberg

S. G.

(2013). Manager-led group meetings: A context for promoting employee engagement. Group & Organization Management, 38(5), 543-569. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113503040.

Anderson

N. R.

West

M. A.

(1994). Team climate inventory: Manual and user's guide. Windsor, UK: NFER.

Bakker

A. B

Albrecht

(2018). Work engagement: current trends. Career Development International, 23(1), 4-11. https://doi-org.vu-nl.idm.oclc.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2017-0207.

Bakker

A. B

Emmerik Van

Euwema

M. C.

(2006). Crossover of burnout and engagement in work teams. Work and Occupations, 43(4), 464-489. https://doi:10.1177/0730888406291310.

Blader

S. L.

Tyler

T. R.

(2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extra role behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 445-464. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013935.

Boermans

S. M.

Kamphuis

Delahaij

Berg

van den C.

Euweman

M.C.

(2014). Team spirit makes the difference: the interactive effects of TWE and organizational constraints during a military operation on psychological outcomes afterwards. Stress and Health, 30, 386-396. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2621.

Breevaart

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Heuvel van den

(2014). Leader-member exchange, work engagement, and job performance (2014). Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(7), 754-770. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-03-2013-0088.

Campbell

(1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In Dunnette

Hough

(Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 686-707). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

10.

Cao

Liang

Chaudhry

S. S.

(2012). The impact of team task and job engagement on the transfer of tacit knowledge in e-business virtual teams. Inf Technology Management, 13, 333-340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-012-0129-6.

11.

Christian

M. S.

Garza

A. S.

Slaughter

J. E.

(2011). Work engagement- a quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance.

12.

Costa

P. L.

Passos

A. M.

Bakker

A. B.

(2014a). Empirical validation of the team work engagement construct. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 13(1), 34-45. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000102.

13.

Costa

P. L.

Passos

A. M.

Bakker

A.B.

(2014b). Team work engagement: A model of emergence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 414-436. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12057.

14.

Costa

P. L.

Passos

A. M.

Bakker

A. B.

(2015). Direct and contextual influence of team conflict on team resources, team work engagement, and team performance. International Association for Conflict Management and Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 8(4), 211-227. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12061.

15.

Costa

P. L.

Passos

A. M.

Bakker

A. B.

Romana

Ferrao

(2017). Interactions in engaged work teams: a qualitative study. Team Performance Management, 23(5/6), 206-226. https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-12-2016-0054.

16.

Deci

E.L.

Ryan

R.M.

(2000). The 'What' and 'Why' of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.

17.

Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends (2021). Deloitte Development LLC. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/human-capital-trends/2021/the-evolving-employer-employee-relationship.html.

18.

Edmonson

(1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2666999

19.

Eisenbeiss

S. A.

Van Knippenberg

Boerner

(2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1438-1446. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012716.

20.

Eldor

(2020). How collective engagement creates competitive advantage for organizations: A business‐level model of shared vision, competitive intensity, and service performance. Journal of Management Studies, 57(2), 177-209. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12438.

21.

Ellemers

Sleebos

Stam

De Gilder

(2013). Feeling included and valued- How perceived respect affects positive team identity and willingness to invest in the team. British Journal of Management, 24, 21-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00784.x.

22.

Füllemann

Brauchli

Jenny

G. J.

Bauer

G. F.

(2016). Individual and group-level job resources and their relationships with individual work engagement. Journal of Occupational Health, 58, 255-268. https://doi.org/10.1539/joh.15-0044-OA.

23.

García-Buades

Martínez-Tur

Ortiz-Bonnín

Peiró

J. M.

(2016a). Engaged teams deliver better service performance in innovation climates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(4), 597-612. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1171752.

24.

García-Buades

M. E.

Peiró

J. M.

Montañez-Juan

M. I.

Kozusznik

M. W.

Ortiz-Bonnín

(2020). Happy-productive teams and work units: A systematic review of the ‘happy-productive worker thesis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(1), 69.

25.

García-Buades

Salanova

Breso

& E.

Cifre

(2016b). The role of organizational facilitators in promoting job-related mental health and group service effectiveness: A two-wave analysis. Work & Stress, 30(3), 262-277. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2016.1200157.

26.

Geue

P. E.

(2018). Positive practices in the workplace: Impact on team climate, work engagement, and task performance. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(3), 272-301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886318773459.

27.

Gilson

L. L.

Shalley

C. E.

(2004). A little creativity goes a long way- An examination of teams engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30(4), 453-470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.07.001.

28.

Gioia

D. A.

Corley

K. G.

Hamilton

A. L.

(2012). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151.

29.

Gonzalez-Roma

Fortes-Ferreira

Peiró

J. M.

(2009). Team climate, climate strength and team performance. A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 511-536. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317908X370025.

30.

Gonzalez-Roma

Gamero

(2012). Does positive team mood mediate the relationship between team climate and team performance? Psicothema, 24(1), 94-99. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22269370.

31.

Gonzalez-Roma

Peiró

J. M.

Lloret

Zornoza

(1999). The validity of collective climates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 25-40. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317999166473.

32.

Harjo

Gibson

C. B.

Pudelko

(2017). Knowledge exchange processes in multicultural teams-linking organizational diversity climate to team effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1), 345-372. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0442

33.

Haslam

Cruwys

Haslam

(2014). The we's have it": Evidence for the distinctive benefits of group engagement in enhancing cognitive health in aging. Social Science & Medicine, 120, 57-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.08.037.

34.

Hermansen

Nerland

(2014). Reworking practice through an AfL project: An analysis of teachers’ collaborative engagement with new assessment guidelines. British Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 187-206. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3037.

35.

Idris

M. A.

Dollard

M. F.

Tuckey

M. R.

(2015). Psychosocial safety climate as a management tool for employee engagement and performance: A multilevel analysis. International Journal of Stress Management, 22(2), 183-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038986.

36.

Järvalä

Järvenoja

Malmberg

Isohätälä

Sobocinski

(2016). How do types of interaction and phases of self-regulated learning set a stage for collaborative engagement? Learning and Instruction, 43, 39-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.005.

37.

Jonsen

Jehn

K. A.

(2009). Using triangulation to validate themes in qualitative studies. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 4(2), 123-150. https://doi-org/10.1108/17465640910978391.

38.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287.

39.

Kahn

W. A.

(1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45(4), 321-349. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679204500402.

40.

Karatepe

O. M.

Olugabe

O. A.

(2016). The mediating role of work engagement in the relationship between high-performance work practices and job outcomes of employees in Nigeria. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(10), 2350-2371. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-03-2015-0145.

41.

Khosa

D. K.

Volet

S. E.

(2014). Productive group engagement in cognitive activity and metacognitive regulation during collaborative learning: can it explain differences in students' conceptual understanding? Metacognition Learning, 9, 287-307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-014-9117-z.

42.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Chiu

M. M.

Lei

Kauffeld

(2017). Understanding positivity within dynamic team interactions: A statistical discourse analysis. Group & Organization Management, 42(1), 39-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116628720.

43.

Lesener

Gusy

Jochmann

Wolter

(2020). The drivers of work engagement: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal evidence. Work & Stress, 34(3), 259-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2019.1686440.

44.

Macgowan

M. J.

(1997). A measure of engagement for social group work. Journal of Social Service Research, 23(2), 17-37. https://doi.org/10.1300/J079v23n02_02.

45.

Macgowan

M. J.

Levenson

J. S.

(2003). Psychometrics of the group engagement measure with male sex offenders. Small Group Research, 34(2), 155-169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496402250498.

46.

McClelland

G. P.

Leach

D. J.

Clegg

C. W.

McGowan

(2014). Collaborative crafting in call centre teams. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 464-486. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12058

47.

McGrath

Palmgren

P.J.

Liljedahl

(2019). Twelve tips for conducting qualitative research interviews. Medical Teacher, 41(9), 1002-1006. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1497149.

48.

Menges

J. I.

Kilduff

(2015). Group emotions: Cutting the gordian knots concerning terms, levels of analysis, and processes. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 845-928. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2015.1033148.

49.

Metiu

Rothbard

N. P.

(2013). Task bubbles, artefacts, shared emotion and mutual focus of attention: A comparative study of the microprocesses of group engagement. Organization Science, 24, 455-475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0738.

50.

Mowday

R. T.

Steers

R. M.

Porter

L. W.

(1979). The Measurement of Organizational Commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1

51.

Neininger

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Kauffeld

Henschel

(2010). Effects of team and organizational commitment - A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.01.009

52.

Parker

C. P.

Baltes

B. B.

Young

S. A.

Huff

J. W.

Altmann

R. A.

Lacost

H. A.

Roberts

J. E.

(2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(4), 389-416. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4093715.

53.

Peñalver

Salanova

Martínez

I. M.

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2019). Happy-productive groups: How positive affect links to performance through social resources. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 14(3), 377-392.

54.

Rahman

U.U.

Rehman

Ch. A.

Kashif Imran

Aslam

(2016). Does team orientation matter? Linking work engagement and relational psychological contract with performance. Journal of Management Development, 36(9), 1102-1113. www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm.

55.

Robijn

Euwema

M. C.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Deprez

(2020). Leaders, teams and work engagement: a basic needs perspective. Career Development International, 25(4), 373-388. https://www.emerald.com/insight/1362-0436.htm.

56.

Salanova

Llorens

Cifre

Martínez

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2003). Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being and task performance among electronic work groups, An experimental study. Small Group Research, 34(1), 43-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496402239577.

57.

Salanova

Susana

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2011). Yes, I Can, I Feel Good, and I Just Do It!" On gain cycles and spirals of efficacy beliefs, affect, and engagement. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60(2), 255-285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00435.x.

58.

Sandberg

(2005). How do we justify knowledge produced within interpretive approaches? Organizational Research Methods, 8(1), 41-68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104272000.

59.

Saunders

Lewis

Thornhill

(2007). Research methods. England, UK: Business Students 4th edition Pearson Education Limited.

60.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Salanova

González-Romá

Bakker

A. B.

(2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71-92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326.

61.

Sharma

Bhatnagar

(2016). Emergence of team engagement under time pressure: Role of team leader and team climate. Team Performance Management, 23(3/4), 171-185. https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-06-2016-0031.

62.

Tims

Bakker

A. B.

Derks

Van Rhenen

(2013). Job crafting at the team and individual level: Implications for work engagement and performance. Group & Organization Management, 38(4), 427-454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113492421.

63.

Tomieto

Comparcini

Simonetti

Pelusi

Troiani

Saarikoski

Cicolini

(2016). Work-engaged nurses for a better clinical learning environment: A ward-level analysis. Journal of Nursing Management, 24, 475-482. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12346.

64.

Torrente

Salanova

Llorens

(2013). Spreading engagement: On the role of similarity in the positive contagion of teamwork engagement. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(3), 153-159. https://doi.org/10.5093/tr2013a21.

65.

Torrente

Salanova

Llorens

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2012). Teams make it work: How team work engagement mediates between social resources and performance in teams. Psicothema, 24(1), 106-112. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=727/72723431017.

66.

Tyler

T. R.

Blader

S. L.

(2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349-361. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07.

67.

Van Bogaert

WoutersWillems

K.R

Mondelaers

Clarke

(2013). Work engagement supports nurse workforce stability and quality of care: nursing team-level analysis in psychiatric hospitals. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 20, 679-686. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12004.

68.

Van Mierlo

Bakker

A. B.

(2017). Crossover of engagement in groups. Career Development International, 23(1), 106-118. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-03-2017-0060

69.

Vera

Le Blanc

P.M.

Taris

T.W.

Salanova

(2014). Patterns of engagement: the relationship between efficacy beliefs and task engagement at the individual versus collective level. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 44, 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12219

70.

Weick

K. E.

(1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

71.

Yalabik

Z. Y.

Van Rossenberg

Kinnie

Swart

(2014). Engaged and committed? The relationship between work engagement and commitment in professional service firms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 26(12), 1602-1621. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.953972

72.

Xanthopoulou

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 183-200. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317908X285633.

The Whole Is Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts: Exploring Attributes of Team Work Engagement Climate

Abstract

Keywords

Theoretical Background

Team work engagement and its outcomes

A Climate Perspective of TWE

Method

Participants and Study Context

Data Collection and Data Collection Process

Data Analysis

Findings

Personal Commitment

Personal Respect

Personal Drive

Shared Ability to Overcome Challenges

Shared Sense of Accomplishment

Shared Sense of Community

Shared Drive

Shared Focus

Discussion

Main Findings and Research Implications

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Practical Implications

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

Appendix

References