Influence of Task Interdependence on Teamwork Quality and Project Performance

  • Kondwani F. Kuthyola
  • Julie Yu-Chih LiuEmail author
  • Gary Klein
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 288)


Although task interdependence is regarded as a key factor in determining individual performance, empirical evidence on the relation between interdependence and project performance is limited. This work investigates how task interdependence influences project performance. Specifically, we empirically examine the relationship between task interdependence, teamwork quality, and project management performance using a questionnaire survey of 300 software personnel. The analysis results show the mediating effects of different aspects of teamwork quality on the relationship between task interdependence and project performance. Therefore, when assigning tasks with high interdependence for an agile process, managers shall provide team members the platform for facilitating their teamwork behaviors.


Teamwork quality Interdependence Task interdependence Project performance 


  1. 1.
    Van Der Vegt, G., Emans, B., Van De Vliert, E.: Effects of interdependencies in project teams. J. Soc. Psychol. 139(2), 202–214 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stewart, G.L., Barrick, M.R.: Team structure and performance: assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Acad. Manage. J. 43(2), 135–148 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vegt, G.S., Emans, B.J., Vliert, E.: Patterns of interdependence in work teams: a two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction. Pers. Psychol. 54(1), 51–69 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J., Higgs, A.C.: Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups. Pers. Psychol. 46(4), 823–850 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Courtright, S.H., Thurgood, G.R., Stewart, G.L., Pierotti, A.J.: Structural interdependence in teams: an integrative framework and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 100(6), 1825–1846 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dayan, M., Di Benedetto, C.A.: Antecedents and consequences of teamwork quality in new product development projects: an empirical investigation. Eur. J. Innov. Manage. 12(1), 129–155 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E., Zaccaro, S.J.: A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad. Manage. Rev. 26(3), 356–376 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wageman, R., Gordon, F.M.: As the twig is bent: how group values shape emergent task interdependence in groups. Organ. Sci. 16(6), 687–700 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pinjani, P., Palvia, P.: Trust and knowledge sharing in diverse global virtual teams. Inf. Manage. 50(4), 144–153 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van der Vegt, G., Van de Vliert, E.: Intragroup interdependence and effectiveness: review and proposed directions for theory and practice. J. Manag. Psychol. 17(1), 50–67 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wageman, R.: Interdependence and group effectiveness. Adm. Sci. Q. 40, 145–180 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sharma, R., Yetton, P.: The contingent effects of management support and task interdependence on successful information systems implementation. MIS Q. 27, 533–556 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suprapto, M., Bakker, H.L., Mooi, H.G.: Relational factors in owner–contractor collaboration: the mediating role of teamworking. Int. J. Proj. Manage. 33(6), 1347–1363 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Akgün, A.E., Lynn, G.S., Keskin, H., Dogan, D.: Team learning in IT implementation projects: antecedents and consequences. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 34(1), 37–47 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hsu, J.S.-C., Shih, S.-P., Chiang, J.C., Liu, J.Y.-C.: The impact of transactive memory systems on IS development teams’ coordination, communication, and performance. Int. J. Proj. Manage. 30(3), 329–340 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Faraj, S., Sproull, L.: Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Manage. Sci. 46(12), 1554–1568 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Espinosa, J.A., Slaughter, S.A., Kraut, R.E., Herbsleb, J.D.: Team knowledge and coordination in geographically distributed software development. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 24(1), 135–169 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kraut, R.E., Streeter, L.A.: Coordination in software development. Commun. ACM 38(3), 69–81 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Friedkin, N.E.: Social cohesion. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 30, 409–425 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kozlowski, S.W., Ilgen, D.R.: Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 7(3), 77–124 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Carron, A.V., Brawley, L.R.: Cohesion conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Res. 31(1), 89–106 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gully, S.M., Devine, D.J., Whitney, D.J.: A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Res. 43(6), 702–725 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Aubé, C., Rousseau, V.: Team goal commitment and team effectiveness: the role of task interdependence and supportive behaviors. Group Dyn. Theor. Res. Pract. 9(3), 189 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cha, J., Kim, Y., Lee, J.-Y., Bachrach, D.G.: Transformational leadership and inter-team collaboration exploring the mediating role of teamwork quality and moderating role of team size. Group Organ. Manage. 40, 715–743 (2015). doi: 10.1177/1059601114568244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hoegl, M., Gemuenden, H.G.: Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: a theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organ. Sci. 12(4), 435–449 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rousseau, V., Aubé, C., Savoie, A.: Teamwork behaviors a review and an integration of frameworks. Small Group Res. 37(5), 540–570 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van Der Vegt, G.S., Bunderson, J.S.: Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: the importance of collective team identification. Acad. Manage. J. 48(3), 532–547 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Edmondson, A.: Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 44(2), 350–383 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hirst, G., Mann, L.: A model of R&D leadership and team communication: the relationship with project performance. R&D Manage. 34(2), 147–160 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rico, R., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F., Gibson, C.: Team implicit coordination processes: a team knowledge–based approach. Acad. Manage. Rev. 33(1), 163–184 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Swaab, R.I., Schaerer, M., Anicich, E.M., Ronay, R., Galinsky, A.D.: The too-much-talent effect team interdependence determines when more talent is too much or not enough. Psychol. Sci. 25(8), 1581–1591 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sherman, J.D., Keller, R.T.: Suboptimal assessment of interunit task interdependence: modes of integration and information processing for coordination performance. Organ. Sci. 22(1), 245–261 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Huang, C.-C.: Knowledge sharing and group cohesiveness on performance: an empirical study of technology R&D teams in Taiwan. Technovation 29(11), 786–797 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Keller, R.T.: Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development: diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes. Acad. Manage. J. 44(3), 547–555 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zaccaro, S.J., Rittman, A.L., Marks, M.A.: Team leadership. Leadersh. Q. 12(4), 451–483 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jones, M.C., Harrison, A.W.: IS project team performance: an empirical assessment. Inf. Manage. 31(2), 57–65 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L., Neubert, M.J., Mount, M.K.: Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. J. Appl. Psychol. 83(3), 377 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pinto, M.B., Pinto, J.K., Prescott, J.E.: Antecedents and consequences of project team cross-functional cooperation. Manage. Sci. 39(10), 1281–1297 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ng, K.Y., Van Dyne, L.: Antecedents and performance consequences of helping behavior in work groups a multilevel analysis. Group Organ. Manage. 30(5), 514–540 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Maton, K.I.: Social support, organizational characteristics, psychological well-being, and group appraisal in three self-help group populations. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 16(1), 53–77 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sheng, C.-W., Tian, Y.-F., Chen, M.-C.: Relationships among teamwork behavior, trust, perceived team support, and team commitment. Soc. Behav. Pers. Int. J. 38(10), 1297–1305 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bachrach, D.G., Powell, B.C., Collins, B.J., Richey, R.G.: Effects of task interdependence on the relationship between helping behavior and group performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 91(6), 1396 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zellmer-Bruhn, M., Gibson, C.: Multinational organization context: implications for team learning and performance. Acad. Manage. J. 49(3), 501–518 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Armstrong, J.S., Overton, T.S.: Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J. Mark. Res. 14, 396–402 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Van Der Vegt, G., Emans, B., Van De Vliert, E.: Team members’ affective responses to patterns of intragroup interdependence and job complexity. J. Manage. 26(4), 633–655 (2000)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Parolia, N., Jiang, J.J., Klein, G., Sheu, T.S.: The contribution of resource interdependence to IT program performance: a social interdependence perspective. Int. J. Proj. Manage. 29(3), 313–324 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Barrick, M.R., Bradley, B.H., Kristof-Brown, A.L., Colbert, A.E.: The moderating role of top management team interdependence: implications for real teams and working groups. Acad. Manage. J. 50(3), 544–557 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Liang, T.-P., Jiang, J., Klein, G.S., Liu, J.Y.-C.: Software quality as influenced by informational diversity, task conflict, and learning in project teams. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 57(3), 477–487 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Henderson, J.C., Lee, S.: Managing I/S design teams: a control theories perspective. Manage. Sci. 38(6), 757–777 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L., Newsted, P.R.: A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Inf. Syst. Res. 14(2), 189–217 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F.: Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 39–50 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C.: Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th edn. Prentice Hall International, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Chun-Yu, T.: The Effects of the Task Interdependence and Team Work Quality on Project Performance. Yuan Ze University, pp. 1–51 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kondwani F. Kuthyola
    • 1
  • Julie Yu-Chih Liu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gary Klein
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information ManagementYuan Ze UniversityChung-LiTaiwan
  2. 2.College of Business and AdministrationUniversity of ColoradoColorado SpringsUSA

Personalised recommendations