Advertisement

Dyadic Viability in Project Teams: the Impact of Liking, Competence, and Task Interdependence

  • Jane Shumski ThomasEmail author
  • Andrew C. Loignon
  • David J. Woehr
  • Misty L. Loughry
  • Matthew W. Ohland
Original Paper
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

Drawing from social exchange theory and the relational approach to social exchange relationships, we examine liking and competence judgments as predictors of dyadic viability, a new, complementary, operationalization of team viability. We also consider team-level task interdependence as a moderator of these dyadic relationships. Based on data from dyads nested within project teams, we found that both liking and competence significantly relate to teammates’ dyadic viability. Additionally, task interdependence at the team level significantly moderates the dyadic-level effects of liking and competence on dyadic viability, such that the effect of liking judgments is stronger when team task interdependence is high, and the effect of competence judgments is stronger when team task interdependence is low. We also show that aggregated (across team members) measures of dyadic viability are highly similar to proxies that have been classified as team viability in the past—team satisfaction and cohesion. However, the moderating effect of task interdependence was not found with these team-level measures.

Keywords

Liking Competence Viability Dyads Task interdependence Teams Social relations model 

Notes

Funding

This material is based upon the work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. 0243254, 0817403, and 1431694.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

10869_2019_9647_MOESM1_ESM.docx (37 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 37.3 kb)

References

  1. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41(3), 258–290.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055756.Google Scholar
  3. Balkundi, P., & Harrison, D. A. (2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inference about network structure’s effects on team viability and performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 49–68.  https://doi.org/10.2307/20159745.Google Scholar
  4. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377–391.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.377.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 595–615.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595.Google Scholar
  6. Bell, S. T., & Marentette, B. J. (2011). Team viability for long-term and ongoing organizational teams. Organizational Psychology Review, 1(4), 275–292.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386611405876.Google Scholar
  7. Bertalanffy, L. V. (1973). The meaning of general system theory. General system theory: Foundations, development, applications (pp. 30–53).Google Scholar
  8. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within group agreement, non-independence and reliability: Implications for data and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–850.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb01571.x.Google Scholar
  11. Carless, S. A., & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31(1), 71–88.  https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100104.Google Scholar
  12. Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M. S. (2005). Competent jerks, lovable fools, and the formation of social networks. Harvard Business Review, 83(6), 92–99.Google Scholar
  13. Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M. S. (2008). When competence is irrelevant: The role of interpersonal affect in task-related ties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 655–684.  https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.53.4.655.Google Scholar
  14. Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M. S. (2014). Affective primacy in intraorganizational task networks. Organization Science, 26(2), 373–389.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0939.Google Scholar
  15. Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234–246.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234.Google Scholar
  16. Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self- and collective efficacy: Evidence of discontiniuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 549–556.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.549.Google Scholar
  17. Chen, Z., Takeuchi, R., & Shum, C. (2013). A social information processing perspective of coworker influence on a focal employee. Organization Science, 24(6), 1618–1639.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0820.Google Scholar
  18. Cook, K. S., & Rice, E. (2006). Social exchange theory. In J. Delamatter (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 53–76). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar
  19. Courtright, S. H., Thurgood, G. R., Stewart, G. L., & Pierotti, A. J. (2015). Structural interdependence in teams: An integrative framework and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1825–1846.  https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000027.Google Scholar
  20. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602.Google Scholar
  21. Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0.Google Scholar
  22. Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. (2011). The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 73–98.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.004.Google Scholar
  23. De Cooman, R., Vantilborgh, T., Bal, M., & Lub, X. (2016). Creating inclusive teams through perceptions of supplementary and complementary person-team fit: Examining the relationship between person-team fit and team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 41(3), 310–342.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115586910.Google Scholar
  24. de Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024844.Google Scholar
  25. Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Phillips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S. B. (1999). Teams in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30, 678–711.  https://doi.org/10.1177/104649649903000602.Google Scholar
  26. Drigotas, S. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1992). Should I stay or should I go? A dependence model of breakups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(1), 62–87.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.1.62.Google Scholar
  27. Emerson, R. (1972). Exchange theory, part 1: A psychological basis for social exchange. In J. Berger & M. Z. B. Anderson (Eds.), Sociological theories in progress (pp. 58–87). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  28. Ferguson, A. J., & Peterson, R. S. (2015). Sinking slowly: Diversity in propensity to trust predicts downward trust spirals in small groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1012–1024.  https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000007.Google Scholar
  29. Ferris, G. R., Liden, R. C., Munyon, T. P., Summers, J. K., Basik, K. J., & Buckley, M. R. (2009). Relationships at work: Toward a multidimensional conceptualization of dyadic work relationships. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1379–1403.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309344741.Google Scholar
  30. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005.Google Scholar
  31. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104.Google Scholar
  32. Hackman, R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  33. Hackman, R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Hollenbeck, J. R., Beersma, B., & Schouten, M. E. (2012). Beyond team types and taxonomies: A dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 82–106.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0181.Google Scholar
  35. Homans, G. C. (1961). Human behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  36. House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 71–114.Google Scholar
  37. Humphrey, S. E., Morgeson, F. P., & Mannor, M. J. (2009). Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: A role composition model of team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 48–61.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012997.Google Scholar
  38. Jehn, K. A., Greer, L., Levine, S., & Szulanski, G. (2008). The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(6), 465–495.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9107-0.Google Scholar
  39. Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3069453.Google Scholar
  40. Judd, C. M., James-Hawkins, L., Yzerbyt, V., & Kashima, Y. (2005). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 899–913.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.899.Google Scholar
  41. Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  42. Kenny, D. A. (1994a). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  43. Kenny, D. A. (1994b). Using the social relations model to understand relationships. In R. Erber & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Theoretical frameworks for personal relationships (pp. 111–127). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  44. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  45. Kenny, D. A., Mohr, C. D., & Levesque, M. J. (2001). A social relations variance partitioning of dyadic behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 128–141.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.128.Google Scholar
  46. Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (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). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  47. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  48. Krasikova, D. V., & LeBreton, J. M. (2012). Just the two of us: Misalignment of theory and methods in examining dyadic phenomena. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 739–757.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027962.Google Scholar
  49. Lawler, E. J. (2001). An affect theory of social exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 321–352.  https://doi.org/10.1086/324071.Google Scholar
  50. Lawler, E. J. (2006). The affect theory of social exchange. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychology theories (pp. 244–267). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Lawler, E. J., Thye, S. R., & Yoon, J. (2000). Emotion and group cohesion in productive exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 106(3), 616–657.  https://doi.org/10.1086/318965.Google Scholar
  52. Lawler, E. J., & Yoon, J. (1993). Power and the emergence of commitment behavior in negotiated exchange. American Sociological Review, 58, 465–481.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2096071.Google Scholar
  53. Lawler, E. J., & Yoon, J. (1996). Commitment in exchange relations: Test of a theory of relational cohesion. American Sociological Review, 61, 89–108.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2096408.Google Scholar
  54. Lawler, E. J., & Yoon, J. (1998). Network structure and emotion in exchange relations. American Sociological Review, 63, 871–894.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2657506.Google Scholar
  55. LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642.Google Scholar
  56. LePine, J. A., & Dyne, L. v. (2001). Peer responses to low performers: An attributional model of helping in the context of groups. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 67–84.  https://doi.org/10.2307/259395.Google Scholar
  57. LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 273–307.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00114.x.Google Scholar
  58. Livi, S., & Kenny, D. A. (2009). Thoughts on studying leadership in natural contexts. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Multi-level issues in organizational behavior and leadership (Vol. 8, pp. 215–224). Chichester: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  59. Livi, S., Kenny, D. A., Albright, L., & Pierro, A. (2008). A social relations analysis of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 235–248.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.003.Google Scholar
  60. Loughry, M.L. & Tosi, H.L. (2008) Performance implications of peer monitoring. Organization Science, 19, 876-890Google Scholar
  61. Loughry, M. L., Ohland, M. W., & Moore, D. D. (2007). Development of a theory-based assessment of team member effectiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(3), 505–524.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406292085.Google Scholar
  62. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.  https://doi.org/10.2307/258792.Google Scholar
  63. Molm, L. D. (1994). Dependence and risk: Transforming the structure of social exchange. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 163–176.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2786874.Google Scholar
  64. Molm, L. D. (2006). The social exchange framework. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychology theories (pp. 24–45). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Molm, L. D. (2010). The structure of reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73, 119–131.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272510369079.Google Scholar
  66. Molm, L. D., Takahashi, N., & Peterson, G. (2000). Risk and trust in social exchange: An experimental test of a classical proposition. American Journal of Sociology, 105(5), 1396–1427.  https://doi.org/10.1086/210434.Google Scholar
  67. Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998-2012). MPlus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.Google Scholar
  68. Ohland, M. W., Loughry, M. L., Woehr, D. J., Finelli, C. J., Bullard, L. G., Felder, R. M., … Schmucker, D. G. (2012). The comprehensive assessment of team member effectiveness: Development of a behaviorally anchored rating scale for self- and peer evaluation. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11(4), 609–630.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0177.
  69. Phillips, J. M. (2001). The role of decision influence and team performance in member self-efficacy, withdrawal, satisfaction with the leader, and willingness to return. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84(1), 122–147.  https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2922.Google Scholar
  70. Resick, C. J., Dickson, M. W., Mitchelson, J. K., Allison, L. K., & Clark, M. A. (2010). Team composition, cognition, and effectiveness: Examining mental model similarity and accuracy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14(2), 174.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018444.Google Scholar
  71. Rivera, L. A. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching the case of elite professional service firms. American Sociological Review, 77(6), 999–1022.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412463213.Google Scholar
  72. Rockett, T. L., & Okhuysen, G. A. (2002). Familiarity in groups: Exploring the relationship between inter-member familiarity and group behavior. In H. Sondak (Ed.), Toward phenomenology of groups and group membership (pp. 173–201). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  73. Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 61–72.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.61.Google Scholar
  74. Salas, E., Burke, C. S., & Fowlkes, J. E. (2006). Measuring team performance “in the wild”: Challenges and tips. In W. Bennett, C. E. Lance, & D. J. Woehr (Eds.), Performance measurement: Current perspectives and future challenges (pp. 245–272). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  75. Schonbrodt, F. D., Back, M. D., & Schmukle, S. C. (2012). TripleR: An R package for social relations analyses based on round-robin designs. Behavioral Research, 44, 455–470.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0150-4.Google Scholar
  76. Snijders, T. A. B., & Kenny, D. A. (1999). The social relations model for family data: A multilevel approach. Personal Relationships, 6, 471–486.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00204.x.Google Scholar
  77. Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120–133.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.120.Google Scholar
  78. Takeuchi, R., Yun, S., & Wong, K. F. E. (2011). Social influence of a coworker: A test of the effect of employee and coworker exchange ideologies on employees’ exchange qualities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 226–237.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.02.004.Google Scholar
  79. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  80. Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011). Relative importance analysis: A useful supplement to regression analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9204-3.Google Scholar
  81. van der Vegt, G. S., Bunderson, S., & Kuipers, B. (2010). Why turnover matters in self-managing work teams: Learning, social integration, and task flexibility. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1168–1191.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309344117.Google Scholar
  82. van der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J. M., & Van de Vuert, E. (2001). Patterns of interdependence in work teams: A two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 54, 51–69.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00085.x.Google Scholar
  83. Van Lange, P. A., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., Arriaga, X. B., Witcher, B. S., & Cox, C. L. (1997). Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1373–1395.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1373.Google Scholar
  84. Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 145–180.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2393703.Google Scholar
  85. Wageman, R. (2001). The meaning of interdependence. In M. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research (pp. 197–218). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  86. Wageman, R., & Baker, G. (1997). Incentives and cooperation: The joint effects of task and reward interdependence on group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(2), 139–158.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199703)18:2%3C139::AID-JOB791%3E3.0.CO;2-R.Google Scholar
  87. West, M. A., Borrill, C. S., & Unsworth, K. L. (1998). Team effectiveness in organizations. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 1–48). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  88. Wildman, J. L., Thayer, A. L., Rosen, M. A., Salas, E., Mathieu, J. E., & Rayne, S. R. (2012). Task types and team-level attributes: Synthesis of team classification literature. Human Resource Development Review, 11(1), 97–129.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484311417561.Google Scholar
  89. Woehr, D. J., Loignon, A. C., Schmidt, P., Loughry, M. L., & Ohland, M. W. (2015). Justifying aggregation with consensus-based constructs: A review and examination of cutoff values for common aggregation indices. Organizational Research Methods, 18(4), 704–737.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115582090.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jane Shumski Thomas
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andrew C. Loignon
    • 2
  • David J. Woehr
    • 3
  • Misty L. Loughry
    • 4
  • Matthew W. Ohland
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Managerial StudiesPurdue University NorthwestHammondUSA
  2. 2.Rucks Department of ManagementLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA
  3. 3.Department of ManagementUniversity of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA
  4. 4.Crummer Graduate School of BusinessRollins CollegeWinter ParkUSA
  5. 5.School of Engineering EducationPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations