Advertisement

Wir mögen uns nicht und arbeiten trotzdem zusammen – wie Aufgabeninterdependenzen den Zusammenhang zwischen interpersonellen Teamprozessen und Zufriedenheit beeinflussen

  • Juliane FriedrichsEmail author
  • Sandra Ohly
Hauptbeiträge - Thementeil
  • 7 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Der vorliegende Beitrag der Zeitschrift Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation befasst sich mit den Zusammenhängen von interpersonellen Teamprozessen und der wahrgenommenen Zufriedenheit auf Teamebene. Interpersonelle Prozesse umfassen Konflikt- und Affektmanagement sowie motivationale Teamprozesse. In dieser Studie wird die Rolle von Aufgabeninterdependenzen näher untersucht. Mittels einer quantitativen Befragung von studentischen Teams (n = 25) wurde überprüft, ob der Grad der Aufgabeninterdependenz den Zusammenhang von interpersonellen Prozessen und Zufriedenheit auf Teamebene positiv beeinflusst. Die Ergebnisse zeigen einerseits, dass interpersonelle Teamprozesse positiv mit wahrgenommener Zufriedenheit auf Teamebene zusammenhängen und andererseits, dass der Grad der Aufgabeninterdependenz eine Moderatorvariable darstellt. Entgegen der Annahme, dass Aufgabeninterdependenzen die Beziehung zwischen interpersonellen Prozessen und Zufriedenheit verstärken, konnte gezeigt werden, dass interpersonelle Prozesse eine kompensatorische Wirkung bei niedriger Aufgabeninterdependenz haben. Teams, die ein gutes Konflikt‑, Affekt- und Motivationsmanagement haben, sind fast genauso zufrieden mit ihrem Team bei niedriger Aufgabeninterdependenz wie bei hoher Aufgabeninterdependenz. Implikationen werden abschließend diskutiert.

Schlüsselwörter

Aufgabeninterderpendenzen Teamprozesse Interpersonelle Prozesse Teamarbeit 

We don’t like each other but still work together—how task interdependencies influence the relationship between interpersonal team processes and team satisfaction

Abstract

This article in the journal Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation focusses on the relationship between interpersonal team processes and team satisfaction. Interpersonal team processes include conflict- and affectmanagement as well as motivational team processes. In this context, the role of task interdependence is examined. Student teams (n = 25) were interviewed to examine if the degree of task interdependence positively influences the relationship of interpersonal processes and team satisfaction. The results show on the one hand, that interpersonal team processes are positively related to perceived satisfaction at the team level and, on the other hand, that task interdependence is a moderator variable. Contrary to the assumption that task interdependencies reinforce the relationship between interpersonal processes and team satisfaction, it was shown that there is a compensatory effect in the low interdependence condition. Teams with lower task interdependence and good conflict-, affect- and motivation management are almost as satisfied with their team as teams with higher task interdependence and good conflict-, affect- and motivation management. Implications are discussed.

Keywords

Task interdependence Team processes Interpersonal processes Teamwork 

Literatur

  1. Amos, M. A., Hu, J., & Herrick, C. A. (2005). The impact of team building on communication and job satisfaction of nursing staff. Journal for Nurses in Professional Development, 21(1), 10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bachrach, D. G., Powell, B. C., Collins, B. J., & Richey, R. G. (2006). Effects of task interdependence on the relationship between helping behavior and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1396–1405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of applied psychology, 88(6), 989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied psychology, 93(1), 170–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertucci, A., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Conte, S. (2011). The effects of task and resource interdependence on achievement and social support: An exploratory study of Italian children. The Journal of psychology, 145(4), 343–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, G., Mathieu, J. E., & Bliese, P. D. (2004). Research in multi-level issues: The many faces of multi-level issues. Multi-level issues in organizational behavior and leadership, 8, 273–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Costa, A. C., Fulmer, C. A., & Anderson, N. R. (2017). Trust in work teams: An integrative review, multilevel model, and future directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(2), 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Van Der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J., & Van De Vliert, E. (2001). Patterns of interdependence in work teams: A two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans, M. B., & Eys, M. A. (2015). Collective goals and shared tasks: Interdependence structure and perceptions of individual sport team environments. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 25(1), e139–e148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gil, F., Rico, R., Alcover, C. M., & Barrasa, A. (2005). Change-oriented leadership, satisfaction and performance in work groups: Effects of team climate and group potency. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3/4), 312–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Hrsg.), Handbook of organizational behaviour (S. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Hayes, A. F. (Hrsg.). (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  14. Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Orlikowski, B. (2004). Managing distance by interdependence: Goal setting, task interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams. European Journal of work and organizational psychology, 13(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. James, L., Demaree, R., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness: The role of autonomy, interdependence, team development, and contextual support variables. Personnel psychology, 50(4), 877–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological bulletin, 127(3), 376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal of management, 32(6), 991–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of management review, 26(3), 356–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mathieu, J. E., & Marks, M. A. (2006). Team process items. Storrs: University of Connecticut. Unpublished manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  22. Mathieu, J. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., van Knippenberg, D., & Ilgen, D. R. (2017). A century of work teams in the journal of applied psychology. Journal of Applied psychology, 102(3), 452–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mathieu, J. E., Luciano, M. M., D’Innocenzo, L., LePine, J. A., & Klock, E. A. (2018). The development and construct validity of a survey measure of team processes. In C. S. Burke & E. Georganta (Hrsg.), Measurement advances in assessing team processes. Annual SIOP Conference, Chicago, April.Google Scholar
  24. Schoenherr, T., Bendoly, E., Bachrach, D. G., & Hood, A. C. (2017). Task interdependence impacts on reciprocity in IT implementation teams: Bringing out the worst in us, or driving responsibility? Production and Operations Management, 26(4), 667–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sharma, R., & Yetton, P. (2003). The contingent effects of management support and task interdependence on successful information systems implementation. MIS quarterly, 27(4), 533–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shaw, J. D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shih, H. A., & Susanto, E. (2011). A contingency model of conflict and team effectiveness. Journal of applied psychology, 96(2), 391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Somech, A., Desivilya, H. S., & Lidogoster, H. (2009). Team conflict management and team effectiveness: The effects of task interdependence and team identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 359–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of management, 32(1), 29–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tenhiälä, A. (2011). Contingency theory of capacity planning: The link between process types and planning methods. Journal of Operations Management, 29(1), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tse, H. H., & Dasborough, M. T. (2008). A study of exchange and emotions in team member relationships. Group & Organization Management, 33(2), 194–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van der Vegt, G. S., & Janssen, O. (2003). Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal of management, 29(5), 729–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van der Vegt, G. S., & Van de Vliert, E. (2005). Effects of perceived skill dissimilarity and task interdependence on helping in work teams. Journal of management, 31(1), 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Whitman, D. S., Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Satisfaction, citizenship behaviors, and performance in work units: A meta-analysis of collective construct relations. Personnel psychology, 63(1), 41–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2001). Interpersonal conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  35. Zimmermann, A. (2011). Interpersonal relationships in transnational, virtual teams: Towards a configurational perspective. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fachgebiet WirtschaftspsychologieUniversität KasselKasselDeutschland

Personalised recommendations