The objective of this research is to investigate the link between team cohesion and team adaptive performance (TAP) directly and via team ambidexterity. This research also examines the moderating effect of team empowerment climate on the link between team cohesion and TAP. Data were collected through a time-lagged design (two waves) from a sample of 62 teams consisting of 296 software developers working in the software development industry in Pakistan. The team-level hypothesised framework was analysed through Hayes’ PROCESS Macro using SPSS. The results revealed that team cohesion positively influences TAP directly, as well as via team ambidexterity. Moreover, the results also reveal that team empowerment climate positively moderates the direct association between team cohesion and TAP. This study implies that the managers of software houses should enable software developers to address challenging and uncertain situations by promoting high-quality relationships among team members and by supporting a perception of an empowered climate within teams. This study makes an important contribution to the nascent literature on TAP by highlighting team cohesion as a predecessor of TAP and by examining employee ambidexterity as a mechanism in this relationship.
AhmedaU., AlzyoudbA. A. Y., ShahcS. A., & FatidM. (2020). Intervening role of ambidexterity in the HR practices-innovation performance nexus. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity Change, 12(6), 537–558.
2.
AhujaM. K., & ThatcherJ. B. (2005). Moving beyond intentions and toward the theory of trying: Effects of work environment and gender on post-adoption information technology use. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 427–459.
3.
AinfowoseS. O., AfolayanM. A., & AlabiJ. T. (2021). Teamwork and organizational performance of manufacturing companies in Lagos Nigeria. Hallmark University Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 2(3), 157–167.
4.
AkbarW., IsmawatiN., & MohezarS. (2021). Psychosocial work environment and burnout among knowledge workers in the information technology (IT) industry. Journal of Technology Management and Technopreneurship, 9(2), 71–83.
5.
AlexievA., VolberdaH., JansenJ., & Van Den BoschF. (2020). Contextualizing senior executive advice seeking: The role of decision process comprehensiveness and empowerment climate. Organization Studies, 41(4), 471–497.
6.
AloO. (2023). The role of ambidextrous leadership in developing team-level ambidexterity: Exploring the supporting roles of reflective conversations and ambidextrous HRM. Africa Journal of Management, 9(1), 70–96.
7.
AminA., RehmanM., BasriS., CapretzL. F., GorayaM. A. S., & AkbarR. (2023). The impact of stressors on the relationship between personality traits, knowledge collection behaviour and programmer creativity intention in software engineering. Information Software Technology, 163, 107288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2023.107288
8.
AntonioT., IndriantoA. T. L., & PadmawidjajaL. (2022). In search of mediators of leadership behavior to team creativity in team Start-ups. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 951603. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.951603
9.
AntonioT., MurwaniF. D., BernartoI., & SudibyoN. (2021). Fostering team innovation in tech start-ups: the role of team ambidexterity as mediator between servant leadership behaviour and team innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 25(08). https://doi.org/10.1142/s1363919621500912
10.
AppelbaumN. P., LockemanK. S., OrrS., HuffT. A., HoganC. J., QueenB. A., & DowA. W. J. J. o. i. c. (2020). Perceived influence of power distance, psychological safety, and team cohesion on team effectiveness. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 34(1), 20–26.
11.
AwahC. I., BasseyO. E., EtengJ. U., EniN. I., TakonS. M., EmefieleC. C., NkamareS. E., & ArreyM.-E. V. (2021). Effect of monitoring and evaluation strategies on project completion in Cross River University of Technology (Crutech), Cross River State, Nigeria. IIARD International Journal of Economics and Business Management, 7(1). https://www.iiardjournals.org/get/IJEBM/VOL.%207%20NO.%201%202021/EFFECT%20OF%20MONITORING%20AND.pdf
12.
BanduraA. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.
13.
BarrickM. R., BradleyB. H., Kristof-BrownA. L., & ColbertA. E. (2007). The moderating role of top management team interdependence: Implications for real teams and working groups. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 544–557.
14.
BarrickM. R., StewartG. L., NeubertM. J., & MountM. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377.
15.
BatainehM. S. E., ZainalS.-R. M., MuthuvelooR., YasinR., Al WaliJ., & MugablehM. I. (2022). Impact of inclusive leadership on adaptive performance: The role of innovative work behaviour. International Journal of Business Science & Applied Management, 17(1), 28–43.
16.
BlackJ., KimK., RheeS., WangK., & SakchutchawanS. (2018). Self-efficacy and emotional intelligence Influencing team cohesion to enhance team performance. Team Performance Management, 25(1/2), 100–119.
17.
BraunM. T., KozlowskiS. W. J., BrownT. A. R., & DeShonR. P. (2020). Exploring the dynamic team cohesion–performance and coordination–performance relationships of newly formed teams. Small Group Research, 51(5), 551–580.
18.
BurkeC. S., StaglK. C., SalasE., PierceL., & KendallD. (2006). Understanding team adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1189.
19.
BurrellA. A. (2018). Perceptions of developing cohort cohesiveness within an interprofessional distance learning doctoral program. William Carey University.
20.
ChenZ., LamW., & ZhongJ. A. (2007). Leader-member exchange and member performance: A new look at individual-level negative feedback-seeking behavior and team-level empowerment climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 202–212.
21.
ChristianJ. S., ChristianM. S., PearsallM. J., & LongE. C. (2017). Team adaptation in context: An integrated conceptual model and meta-analytic review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 140, 62–89.
22.
ChristofiM., VrontisD., & CadoganJ. W. (2021). Micro-foundational ambidexterity and multinational enterprises: A systematic review and a conceptual framework. International Business Review, 30(1), 101625.
23.
CostaP., HandkeL., KönigM., & ThiemeO. (2023). Team perceived virtuality: Empirical exploration of its two dimensions. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, Practice, 28(2), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000202
24.
DeanB. P. (2022a). Antecedents enabling team ambidexterity: Moving beyond mere microfoundation. International Journal of Productivity Performance Management, 71(6), 2432–2458.
25.
DeanB. P. (2022b). Developing and leading ambidextrous teams: A team-centric framework of ambidexterity in volatile environments. Journal of Change Management, 22(2), 120–146.
26.
DedeoğluB. B., Van NiekerkM., KüçükerginK. G., De MartinoM., & OkumuşF. J. J. o. V. M. (2020). Effect of social media sharing on destination brand awareness and destination quality. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 26(1), 33–56.
27.
DoblingerM. (2022). Individual competencies for self-managing team performance: A systematic literature review. Small Group Research, 53(1), 128–180.
28.
EdmondsonA. J. A. s. q. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
29.
EjazH., ShafiqueI., & QammarA. (2024). The role of team cohesion and ambidexterity in enhancing employee adaptive performance: An examination of a multilevel model. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 37(5), 1082–1101. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-09-2023-0367
30.
EvansC. R., & DionK. L. (2012). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 43(6), 690–701.
31.
FornellC., & LarckerD. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Sage Publications.
32.
GeorgievR., & PuertasE. (2019). Success factors and pitfalls in organizational change: A case study(Master’s thesis). Chalmers University of Technology.
33.
GhermanM. A., ArhiriL., HolmanA. C., & SoponaruC. (2022). The moral impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on nurses’ burnout, work satisfaction and adaptive work performance: The role of autobiographical memories of potentially morally injurious events and basic psychological needs. International Journal of Environmental Research Public Health, 19(13), 7645.
34.
GibsonC. B., & BirkinshawJ. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.
35.
GilsonL. L., & ShalleyC. E. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’ engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30(4), 453–470.
36.
GriffinB., & HeskethB. (2003). Adaptable behaviours for successful work and career adjustment. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55(2), 65–73.
37.
GrossmanR., NolanK., RoschZ., MazerD., & SalasE. J. O. P. R. (2022). The team cohesion-performance relationship: A meta-analysis exploring measurement approaches and the changing team landscape. Organizational Psychology Review, 12(2), 181–238.
38.
GuoY., & JinK. (2019). How empowerment and innovation climates influence employees’ innovative IS use: The mediating role of thriving. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, 15(4), 26–42.
39.
HanG., BaiY., & PengG. (2022). Creating team ambidexterity: The effects of leader dialectical thinking and collective team identification. European Management Journal, 40(2), 175–181.
40.
HengstlerS., PryazhnykovaN., & KühnelS. (2022). How employees learn information security policy compliance behavior: Toward a social learning perspective[Paper presentation]. Paper presented at the 13th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2022), Timi-oara, Romania.
41.
HoandrăM. G. (2017). The mediating role of task conflict and cross-understanding in the relation between transactional leadership and team adaptive performance. Psihologia Resurselor Umane, 15(1), 56–68.
42.
HofstedeG., HofstedeG. J., & MinkovM. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (Vol. 2). McGraw Hill.
43.
HuangL. (2015). The impact of team diversity and leadership on innovative behavior in R&D teams of Chinese industrial firms. University of Twente.
44.
HunterS. T., CushenberyL. D., & JayneB. (2017). Why dual leaders will drive innovation: Resolving the exploration and exploitation dilemma with a conservation of resources solution. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(8), 1183–1195.
45.
HuntsmanD., GreerA., MurphyH., & HaynesS. J. S. s. (2021). Enhancing adaptive performance in emergency response: Empowerment practices and the moderating role of tempo balance. Safety Science, 134, 105060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105060
46.
JacobG. H., LiangX., GielnikM. M., KaurA., AntonioT., MurwaniF. D., HendrasmoroH., HasanJ., WaneyG., ChristianiN., LamS.-S., & SeahD. J. (2020). Team ambidexterity: Investigating its antecedent and consequence of innovation success. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2015.14573
47.
JansenJ. J., KostopoulosK. C., MihalacheO. R., & PapalexandrisA. (2016). A socio-psychological perspective on team ambidexterity: The contingency role of supportive leadership behaviours. Journal of Management Studies, 53(6), 939–965.
48.
JooB. K., SongJ. H., LimD. H., & YoonS. W. (2012). Team creativity: The effects of perceived learning culture, developmental feedback and team cohesion. International Journal of Training and Development, 16(2), 77–91.
49.
KaradumanC., MeslecN., & OerlemansL. (2020). Team adaptation under inconsistent team rewards: The mediating role of fairness and team efficacy perceptions[Conference session]. 80th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver, Cananda. http://aom.org/annualmeeting/
50.
KazemitabarM. A., LajoieS. P., & LiT. (2022). A classification of Challenges encountered in complex teamwork settings. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 17(2), 225–247.
51.
KeithM., AndersonG., DeanD. L., & GaskinJ. E. (2014). The effects of team flow on performance: A video game experiment[Conference session]. Special Interest Groups on Human-Computer Interaction (SIGHCI) 2014 Proceedings. http://aisel.aisnet.org/sighci2014/13
52.
KockN. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10.
53.
KönigM. (2021). Leader personality and team adaptive performance in virtuality contexts: How extraversion and openness to experience impact virtual teams. ISCTE Business School.
54.
KozlowskiS., & BellB. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333–375). Wiley.
55.
LiY.-H., & HuangJ.-W. (2013). Exploitative and exploratory learning in transactive memory systems and project performance. Information & Management, 50(6), 304–313.
56.
LuX. (2021). Heterogeneity vs homogeneity: Which is compatible with team agency vs communion?University of Illinois at Chicago.
57.
LuoC.-Y., TsaiC.-H. K., ChenM.-H., & GaoJ.-L. (2021). The effects of psychological capital and internal social capital on frontline hotel employees’ adaptive performance. Sustainability, 13(10), 5430.
58.
MagpiliN. C., & PazosP. J. S. G. R. (2018). Self-managing team performance: A systematic review of multilevel input factors. Small Group Research, 49(1), 3–33.
59.
MarcumC. D., HigginsG. E., RickettsM. L., & WolfeS. E. J. D. B. (2014). Hacking in high school: Cybercrime perpetration by juveniles. Deviant Behavior, 35(7), 581–591.
60.
Marques-QuinteiroP., Ramos-VillagrasaP. J., PassosA. M., & CurralL. (2015). Measuring adaptive performance in individuals and teams. Team Performance Management, 21(7), 339–360.
61.
Martins, P., Picoto, W. N., & Bélanger, F. (2016). IS continuance, team ambidexterity and team performance: A multilevel approach[Conference session]. 37th International Conference on Information Systems, Dublin.
62.
MarupingL. M., & MagniM. (2012). What’s the weather like? The effect of team learning climate, empowerment climate, and gender on individuals’ technology exploration and use. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(1), 79–114.
63.
MaynardM. T., KennedyD. M., & SommerS. A. (2015a). Team adaptation: A fifteen-year synthesis (1998–2013) and framework for how this literature needs to “adapt” going forward. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(5), 652–677.
64.
MaynardM. T., KennedyD. M., SommerS. A., & PassosA. M. (2015b). Team cohesion: A theoretical consideration of its reciprocal relationships within the team adaptation nomological network. In E. Salas, W. B. Vessey, & A. X. Estrada (Eds.), Team cohesion: Advances in psychological theory, methods and practice: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
65.
MehmoodM. S., JianZ., AkramU., & TariqA. (2021). Entrepreneurial leadership: The key to develop creativity in organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(3), 434–452.
66.
MoboladeG. O., & AkinadeM. E. (2021). Team building and teamwork in organizations: Implications to managers and employees in work places. International Journal of Management, Social Sciences, Peace Conflict Studies, 11(4), 261–274.
67.
MomT. J., Van Den BoschF. A., & VolberdaH. W. (2007). Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 910–931.
68.
NakataC., & ImS. (2010). Spurring cross-functional integration for higher new product performance: A group effectiveness perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(4), 554–571.
69.
ObiekweO., Zeb-ObipiI., & Ejo-OrusaH. (2019). Organizational family culture and employee involvement in Nigeria workplaces: An empirical analysis. IIARD International Journal of Economics and Business Management, 5(1), 23–39.
70.
Ohriİ., Ögeİ., OrkunB., YilmazM., TuzunE., ClarkeP., & O’ConnorR. V. (2018). Adopting augmented reality for the purpose of software development process training and improvement: An exploration[Paper presentation]. Paper presented at the Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement: 25th European Conference, EuroSPI 2018, Bilbao, Spain, 5–7 September.
71.
PasarakondaS. (2020). Team adaptation in high-performance teams: How teams adapt to changes arising from their work environment and team composition. ETH Zurich.
72.
PengH. (2013). Why and when do people hide knowledge? Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(3), 398–415.
73.
PiikT. (2021). Software production in remote working environments: Agile methods and challenges to adapt to the COVID-19 era. University of Helsinki Open Repository. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/337732
74.
PodsakoffP. M., NiehoffB. P., MacKenzieS. B., & WilliamsM. L. (1993). Do substitutes for leadership really substitute for leadership? An empirical examination of Kerr and Jermier’s situational leadership model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54(1), 1–44.
75.
RappT. L., GilsonL. L., MathieuJ. E., & RuddyT. (2016). Leading empowered teams: An examination of the role of external team leaders and team coaches. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 109–123.
76.
ReizerA., HarelT., & Ben-ShalomU. (2023). Helping others results in helping yourself: How well-being is shaped by agreeableness and perceived team cohesion. Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 150.
77.
RosenM. A., BedwellW. L., WildmanJ. L., FritzscheB. A., SalasE., & BurkeC. S. (2011). Managing adaptive performance in teams: Guiding principles and behavioral markers for measurement. Human Resource Management Review, 21(2), 107–122.
78.
RousseauV., & AubéC. (2020). Disentangling the relationship between empowering leader behaviors and adaptive performance in work teams. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 23(5), 761–777.
79.
Salas-VallinaA., Moreno-LuzonM. D., & Gil-MarquesM. P. (2023). From individual to team ambidexterity: The moderating role of collaborative behavior and international experience. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 21(1), 77–91.
80.
Sanchez-ManzanaresM., RicoR., AntinoM., & UitdewilligenS. (2020). The joint effects of leadership style and magnitude of the disruption on team adaptation: A longitudinal experiment. Group & Organization Management, 45(6), 836–864.
81.
SaundersM., LewisP., ThornhillA., & BristowA. (2019). Research methods for business students. Pearson Education.
82.
Sederevičiūtė-PačiauskienėŽ., ValantinaitėI., & AsakavičiūtėV. J. E. (2022). ‘Should I turn on my video camera?’ The students’ perceptions of the use of video cameras in synchronous distant learning. Electronics, 11(5), 813. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11050813
83.
SeibertS. E., SilverS. R., & RandolphW. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 332–349.
84.
ShangJ. (2023). Transformational leadership influences employee performance: A review and directions for future research. Highlights in Business, Economics Management, 10, 291–312. https://doi.org/10.54097/hbem.v10i.8113
85.
ShinS. J., & ZhouJ. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1709–1721.
86.
SiS., & WeiF. (2012). Transformational and transactional leaderships, empowerment climate, and innovation performance: A multilevel analysis in the Chinese context. European Journal of Work Organizational Psychology, 21(2), 299–320.
87.
SinghN. S., & MitraS. (2020). Cohesiveness among national level women soccer players: A comparative study. International Journal for Innovative Research in Multidisciplinary Field, 6(6), 126–129.
88.
SomechA., DesivilyaH. S., & LidogosterH. (2009). Team conflict management and team effectiveness: The effects of task interdependence and team identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 359–378.
89.
TayseerN., BatainehA., & IdrisM. (2021). The effect of psychological capital on team performance: The moderating role of leadership behavior in advertising agencies in Amman City. Management Science Letters, 11(5), 1573–1582.
90.
TekleabA. G., QuigleyN. R., & TeslukP. E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 34(2), 170–205.
91.
TschanF., SemmerN. K., NägeleC., & GurtnerA. (2000). Task adaptive behavior and performance in groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(4), 367–386.
92.
Van Der VegtG. S., & BundersonJ. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 532–547.
93.
WangL., WuY., LiuC., & WanY. (2021). Leaders’ positive and implicit followership theory and team creativity in a university scientific research team. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 49(4), 1–14.
94.
WongS.-S. (2004). Distal and local group learning: Performance trade-offs and tensions. Organization Science, 15(6), 645–656.
95.
WuS., & LinC. Y.-Y. (Eds.) (2019). Educational entrepreneurs. In Innovation entrepreneurship in an educational ecosystem (pp. 273–308). Springer.
96.
YueC. (2020). Helping teams to adapt: An investigation of the intentional team adaptation process(PhD thesis). Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
97.
ZacherH., RobinsonA. J., & RosingK. (2016). Ambidextrous leadership and employees’ self-reported innovative performance: The role of exploration and exploitation behaviors. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(1), 24–46.
98.
ZhangJ. A., ChenG., O’KaneC., XiangS., & WangJ. (2022). How employee exploration and exploitation affect task performance: The influence of organizational competitive orientation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(5), 930–964.
99.
ZhangR., LiA., & GongY. (2021). Too much of a good thing: Examining the curvilinear relationship between team-level proactive personality and team performance. Personnel Psychology, 74(2), 295–321.
100.
ZhangX., & BartolK. M. (2015). Empowerment and employee creativity: A cross-level integrative model. In C. E. Shalley, M. A. Hitt, & J. Zhou (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship (Chapter 2). Oxford Library of Psychology.
101.
ZhaoK., ZongB., & ZhangL. (2020). Explorative and exploitative learning in teams: Unpacking the antecedents and consequences. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 498916. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02041
102.
ZhaxylykS. (2023). Organizational ambidexterity and resilience: Moderating effect of transformational leadership. Eurasian Journal of Economic Business Studies, 67(4), 63–73.
103.
ZhouZ., & PazosP. (2020). Empirical perspectives of transactive memory systems: A meta-analysis. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 26(7/8), 409–427.
