Advertisement

Motivation and Emotion

, Volume 42, Issue 6, pp 804–815 | Cite as

The relevance of being “on the same page” to succeed as a project team: A moderated mediation model

  • Caroline Aubé
  • Vincent Rousseau
  • Eric Brunelle
  • Dominic Marques
Original Paper

Abstract

Taking a motivational approach, this study deepens the role of team members’ shared understanding of the work to be done in a project team setting. More specifically, the goal of this study is to test a second stage moderated mediation model in which the mediating role of team members’ proactive behavior in the relationship between perceived shared understanding and team performance is moderated by team adaptability. Based on a multisource and multimethod approach, data were collected from 111 teams of undergraduate and graduate students (521 participants) participating in a project management simulation. Results support the hypothesized moderated mediation model. Indeed, the results indicate that the relationship between perceived shared understanding and team performance is mediated by proactive behavior. The results also show that the relationship between proactive behavior and team performance is moderated by team adaptability. Overall, results reveal that the indirect effect of perceived shared understanding on team performance is moderated by team adaptability, such that this indirect effect is stronger when the level of team adaptability is high. In terms of practical implications, the study highlights the importance of fostering the perception of being “on the same page” in order to motivate members to be proactive and to enhance project team performance.

Keywords

Perceived shared understanding Team proactive behavior Team adaptability Project teams 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research was supported by grants from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the HEC Montreal Foundation.

References

  1. Aubé, C., Brunelle, E., & Rousseau, V. (2014). Flow experience and team performance: The role of team goal commitment and information exchange. Motivation and Emotion, 38(1), 120–130.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9365-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aubé, C., Rousseau, V., & Brunelle, E. (2018). Flow experience in teams: The role of shared leadership. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(2), 198–206.  https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000071.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Aubé, C., Rousseau, V., & Tremblay, S. (2015). Perceived shared understanding in teams: The motivational effect of being ‘on the same page’. British Journal of Psychology, 106(3), 468–486.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12099.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2017). Foci of proactive behavior. In S. K. Parker & U. K. Bindl (Eds.), Proactivity at work: Making things happen in organization (Chap. 7, pp. 169–189). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  5. Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2011). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 567–598). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  6. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Breuer, C., Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2016). Does trust matter more in virtual teams? A meta-analysis of trust and team effectiveness considering virtuality and documentation as moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1151–1177.  https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1189–1207.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1189.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2007). Fostering mental model convergence through training. In F. Dansereau & F. Yammarino (Eds.), Multi-level issues in organizations and time (pp. 149–157). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Curral, L. A., Forrester, R. H., Dawson, J. F., & West, M. A. (2001). It’s what you do and the way that you do it: Team task, team size, and innovation-related group processes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(2), 187–204.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320143000627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 32–53.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017328.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. DeFranco, J. F., Neill, C. J., & Clariana, R. B. (2011). A cognitive collaborative model to improve performance in engineering teams: A study of team outcomes and mental model sharing. Systems Engineering, 14(3), 267–278.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.20178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DiazGranados, D., Shuffler, M. L., Wingate, J. A., & Salas, E. (2017). Team development interventions. In E. Salas, R. Rico & J. Passmore (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of team working and collaborative processes (Chap 24, pp. 555–586). Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Druskat, V. U., & Kayes, D. C. (2000). Learning versus performance in short-term project teams. Small Group Research, 31(3), 328–353.  https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Erkutlu, H., & Chafra, J. (2012). The impact of team empowerment on proactivity: The moderating roles of leader’s emotional intelligence and proactive personality. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 26(5), 560–577.  https://doi.org/10.1108/14777261211256918.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Espinosa, J. A., Slaughter, S. A., Kraut, R. E., & Herbsleb, J. D. (2007). Familiarity, complexity and team performance in geographically distributed software development. Organization Science, 18(4), 613–630.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Faria, A. J. (2001). The changing nature of business simulation/gaming research: A brief history. Simulation & Gaming, 32(1), 97–110.  https://doi.org/10.1177/104687810103200108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fuller, J. B., Marler, L. E., & Hester, K. (2012). Bridge building within the province of proactivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1053–1070.  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gällstedt, M. (2003). Working conditions in projects: Perceptions of stress and motivation among project team members and project managers. International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 449–455.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00098-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 107–116.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Pyschology, 86, 513–524.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Geraldi, J. G., Lee-Kelley, L., & Kutsch, E. (2010). The Titanic sunk, so what? Project manager response to unexpected events. International Journal of Project Management, 28(6), 547–558.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.10.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 601–616.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1985.4279045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327–347.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harris, T. B., & Kirkman, B. L. (2017). Team and proactivity. In S. K. Parker & U. K. Bindl (Eds.), Proactivity at work: Making things happen in organization (Chap. 19, pp. 530–558). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  28. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  29. He, J., Butler, B. S., & King, W. R. (2007). Team cognition: Development and evolution in software project teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(2), 261–292.  https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hinds, P. J., & Weisband, S. P. (2003). Knowledge sharing and shared understanding in virtual teams. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen. Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 21–36). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  31. Hoeft, R. M., Jentsch, F., Smith-Jentsch, K., & Bowers, C. (2005). Exploring the role of shared mental models for implicit coordination in teams. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society 49th Annual Meeting, 49(20), 1863–1867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hsu, J. S., Chang, J. Y., Klein, G., & Jiang, J. J. (2011). Exploring the impact of team mental models on information utilization and project performance in system development. International Journal of Project Management, 29(1), 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hyatt, D. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (1997). An examination of the relationship between work group characteristics and performance: Once more into the breech. Personnel Psychology, 50(3), 553–585.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00703.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 306–309.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jassawalla, A. R., & Sashittal, H. C. (1999). Building collaborative cross-functional new product teams. The Academy of Management Executive, 13(3), 50–63.Google Scholar
  36. Johnson, T. E., Lee, Y., Lee, M., O’Connor, D. L., Khalil, M., & Huang, X. (2007). Measuring sharedness of team-related knowledge: Design and validation of a shared mental model instrument. Human Resource Development International, 10(4), 437–454.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860701723802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kim, T. Y., Cable, D. M., Kim, S. P., & Wang, J. (2009). Emotional competence and work performance: The mediating effect of proactivity and the moderating effect of job autonomy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), 983–1000.  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58–74.  https://doi.org/10.2307/256874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kirkman, B. L., Tesluk, P. E., & Rosen, B. (2001). Assessing the incremental validity of team consensus ratings over aggregation of individual-level data in predicting team effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 54(3), 645–667.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00226.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20(2), 403–437.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-2063(94)90021-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kozlowski, S. W. (2015). Advancing research on team process dynamics: Theoretical, methodological, and measurement considerations. Organizational Psychology Review, 5(4), 270–299.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386614533586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., & Smith, E. M. (1999). Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 240–292). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  43. Lantz, A., Hansen, N., & Antoni, C. (2015). Participative work design in lean production: A strategy for dissolving the paradox between standardized work and team proactivity by stimulating team learning? Journal of Workplace Learning, 27(1), 19–33.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-03-2014-0026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Levesque, L. L., Wilson, J. M., & Wholey, D. R. (2001). Cognitive divergence and shared mental models in software development project teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 135–144.  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Li, Y., Chang, K. C., Chen, H. G., & Jiang, J. J. (2010). Software development team flexibility antecedents. Journal of Systems and Software, 83(10), 1726–1734.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2010.04.077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., Paoletti, J., Burke, C. S., & Salas, E. (2018). Does team communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach?: A meta-analysis of team communication and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144, 145–170.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moe, N. B., Dingsøyr, T., & Dybå, T. (2010). A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: A case study of a Scrum project. Information and Software Technology, 52(5), 480–491.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2009.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B. C. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 89–106.  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L., & Hamilton, K. (2010). Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model. Journal of Management, 36(4), 876–910.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309356804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. O’Rourke, N., & Hatcher, L. (2013). A step-by-step approach to using SAS for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
  52. Parker, S. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 447–469.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36(4), 827–856.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rentsch, J. R., Small, E. E., & Hanges, P. J. (2008). Cognitions in organizations and teams: What is the meaning of cognitive similarity? In B. Smith (Ed.), The people make the place: Exploring dynamic linkages between individuals and organizations (Chap. 7, pp. 127–155). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  59. Rouse, W. B., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1992). The role of mental models in team performance in complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 22(6), 1296–1308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rousseau, V., & Aubé, C. (2016). When leaders stifle innovation in work teams: The role of abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3258-81-14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rousseau, V., Aubé, C., & Savoie, A. (2006). Teamwork behaviors a review and an integration of frameworks. Small Group Research, 37(5), 540–570.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Salas, E., Fiore, S. M., & Letsky, M. P. (2012). Why cross-disciplinary theories of team cognition? In E. Salas, S. M. Fiore & M. P. Letsky (Eds.), Theories of team cognition: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 3–18). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Snow, S. C., Gehlen, F. L., & Green, J. C. (2002). Different ways to introduce a business simulation: The effect on student performance. Simulation & Gaming, 33(4), 526–532.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878102238617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Söderlund, J. (2015). Project-based organizations: What are they? In F. Chiocchio, E. K. Kelloway & B. Hobbs (Eds.), The psychology and management of project teams (Chap. 4, pp. 74–100). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Strauss, K., Griffin, M. A., & Rafferty, A. E. (2009). Proactivity directed toward the team and organization: The role of leadership, commitment and role-breadth self-efficacy. British Journal of Management, 20(3), 279–291.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00590.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tesluk, P. E., & Mathieu, J. E. (1999). Overcoming roadblocks to effectiveness: Incorporating management of performance barriers into models of work group effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 200–217.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tornau, K., & Frese, M. (2013). Construct clean-up in proactivity research: A meta-analysis on the nomological net of work-related proactivity concepts and their incremental validities. Applied Psychology, 62(1), 44–96.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00514.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wageman, R. (1997). Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams. Organizational Dynamics, 26(1), 49–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(97)90027-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 181–198.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034531.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Wu, C.-H., Parker, S., Wu, L.-Z., & Lee, C. (2018). When and why people engage in different forms of proactive behavior: Interactive effects of self-construals and work characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 293–323.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yen, J., Fan, X., Sun, S., Hanratty, T., & Dumer, J. (2006). Agents with shared mental models for enhancing team decision makings. Decision Support Systems, 41(3), 634–653.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2004.06.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zhu, J., Frese, M., & Li, W.-D. (2014). Proactivity and adaptability. In D. Chan (Ed.), Individual adaptability to changes at work: New directions in research (Chap. 3, pp. 36–51). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ManagementHEC MontréalMontrealCanada
  2. 2.School of Industrial RelationsUniversity of MontrealMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations