job characteristics and team environment

8/8/2019 Job Characteristics and Team Environment

1/24

Does Type of Team Matter?An Investigation of the Relationships

Between Job Characteristics and OutcomesWithin a Team-Based Environment

JOHN B. ABBOTTNANCY G. BOYD

GRANT MILESDepartment of Management

University of North Texas, Denton

ABSTRACT. The authors examined the relationship between team type (consultative orsubstantive); job characteristics; and the outcome variables of job satisfaction, satisfactionwith team processes and activities, and team commitment. The present results supportedthe hypothesis that job characteristics mediate the relationship between team type and teamcommitment and partially mediate the relationship between team type and job satisfactionand satisfaction with team processes and activities. However, contrary to the hypothesis,consultative team members perceived the content of their jobs to be more enriched andreported higher levels of satisfaction and commitment than did substantive team members.

Key words: attitudes, commitment, job characteristics model, satisfaction, teams

THE USE OF EMPLOYEE TEAMS is one popular method for increasing workerproductivity and flexibility (Bishop, Scott, & Burroughs, 2000). Many organiza-

tions today use different forms of employee involvement programs to improve qual-

ity, productivity, employee motivation, and morale and to reduce costs and adapt to

environmental changes (Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1992). Employee involve-

ment efforts differ in their degree of sophistication and the commitment that they

require from both the company and its employees (Belcher, 1987). One of the most

common organizational changes in the past 20 years has been the implementation

of teams (Allen & Hecht, 2004; Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995). Teams gen-

erally consist of a group of individuals who work together to produce products or

The Journal of Social Psychology, 2006, 146(4), 485507

Copyright 2006 Heldref Publications


2/24

deliver services for which they are mutually accountable (Mohrman et al., 1995,

p. 39). Further, teams have both a history and a future and consist of team mem-

bers who work together to achieve shared, specified goals (Brannick & Prince,1997). According to recent surveys, U.S. firms involved significant numbers of

employees in some type of team activity (e.g., Osterman, 2000).

Because of the increasing implementation of employee involvement pro-

grams, researchers might assume that employees are working in more enriched

jobs that lead to higher levels of employee-level outcomes such as satisfaction

and commitment. However, the evidence for such an increase is mixed. Although

some researchers have found significant relationships between team type and

employee attitudes (e.g., Cohen & Ledford, 1994; Pearson, 1992), others have

found no difference in work-related attitudes between employees in self-managedteams versus traditionally managed groups (e.g., Batt & Applebaum, 1995). In a

field experiment, Workman and Bommer (2004) found that employees whom

employers had assigned to autonomous work teams failed to show improved job

satisfaction or organizational commitment. Two underlying issues may help

explain these mixed findings. First, most previous researchers have looked at only

one aspect of work-related attitudes, such as job satisfaction, although factors

such as satisfaction and commitment are multidimensional with sub-components

or facets that are not always in alignment. Second, many of these researchers

looked at only one type of team, although teams are likely to vary significantlyin such things as autonomy and job characteristics.

Consequently, the purpose of the present study was to enhance the under-

standing of how the use of different types of teams is related to employee attitudes.

In particular, we examined the relationship between team type and job content,

using the dimensions of the Job Characteristics Model (JCM; Hackman & Old-

ham, 1975, 1976), as well as the relationships between team type; the job content;

and employee attitudes such as job satisfaction, satisfaction with team processes

and activities, and team commitment. In so doing, we examined the attitudes of

team members on team projects in more detail than in previous studies.

Literature Review and Hypotheses

A wide range of team processes is available to companies, although much of

the research lacks an explicit classification scheme (Devine, Clayton, Philips,

Dunford, & Melner, 1999). Belcher (1987) suggested that firms adoption of

employee involvement programs is an evolutionary process that consists of three

stages. The first stage of employee involvement consists of nominal efforts such

as the use of safety and suggestion committees. In this stage, management retainsthe responsibility to evaluate and implement ideas (Belcher; Bowen & Lawler,

486 The Journal of Social Psychology


3/24

forces, corrective action teams, and total quality management teamsin which

members function in a democratic and collaborative manner on team projects.

But members return to traditional employeesupervisor working relationships toaccomplish work outside of team activities. These small groups of employees

meet on company time to resolve problems that concern the group members,

using basic problem-solving techniques that come from group process analysis

and statistical process control (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). Often a department

supervisor heads parallel teams, and generally team members have no authority

to implement their own ideas.

The third phase of employee involvement, requiring the greatest organiza-

tional commitment, institutionalizes employee involvement processes and uses

teams as replacement initiatives to change the way work is accomplished (Belch-er, 1987; VanAken, Monetta, & Sink, 1994). The employer gives self-directed

teams autonomy over how to perform work, including autonomy over allocation

of tasks, procedures, schedule and speed of work, quality review, and the selec-

tion and training of group members (Campion & Higgs, 1995; Wall, Kemp, Jack-

son, & Clegg, 1986). Members are highly interdependent, and the role of the

supervisor shifts from directing and controlling to supporting and facilitating

operations (Bowen & Lawler, 1992). Further, such teams are characterized by a

task interdependency that requires coordination in such a way that team members

must adjust to one another to meet team goals (Baker & Salas, 1997).Building on the classification of parallel structures (suggestion involvement)

and institutionalized work design (job involvement), Levine and Tyson (1990) dis-

tinguished between two broad categories of teams, consultative (parallel) teams and

substantive (institutionalized replacement initiative) teams. The critical difference

between these two types of team processes is the members authority to implement

proposed solutions. Consultative team members do not have the authority to imple-

ment the solutions that they develop. Teams make presentations to management by

which members request authorization to implement their solutions. On the other

hand, substantive team members have the authority to implement the solutions thatthey develop, although this authority may have specified limits.

The distinction between consultative and substantive teams indicates the pos-

sibility that members of substantive teams experience a greater degree of discre-

tion to perform their jobs than do members of consultative teams. If so, then the

logic of the Job Characteristics Model (JCM; Hackman & Oldham, 1975, 1976)

indicates that there are differences between substantive and consultative team

members on a variety of individual and organizational outcomes. According to

the JCM, the motivating potential of a job increases as the levels of skill variety,

task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback increase. The model fur-ther indicates the possibility that these five core job dimensionswhen present

Abbott, Boyd, & Miles 487


4/24

vious researchers have applied that model to team-based job designs (e.g., Batt

& Applebaum, 1995; Drach-Zahavy, 2004; Glisson & Durick, 1988; Pearson,

1992; Spreitzer, Cohen, & Ledford, 1999).Some evidence from team-based research using the JCM has indicated the

possibility that members of substantive teams may experience greater degrees of

the five core job dimensions than do members of consultative teams. For exam-

ple, Morley and Heraty (1995) examined 50 teams in a high-technology manu-

facturing facility undergoing an organizational redesign involving the formation

of empowered teams. Postintervention results revealed that the team members

reported significant increases in work (skill) variety and autonomy. Batt and

Applebaum (1995) found that workers who were organized into self-managed

teams experienced significantly greater autonomy, task identity, and task signif-icance than did traditionally managed employees. On the other hand, using a lon-

gitudinal design, Pearson (1992) found that although autonomous (substantive)

work teams reported nonsignificant increases in skill variety, job feedback, and

autonomy, nonautonomous (consultative) work teams experienced significant lin-

ear declines in task identity, task significance, feedback, and autonomy. Similar-

ly, in a study of newly formed quality circles (consultative teams), team members

did not experience increases in any of the job dimensions (Head, Molleston,

Sorensen, & Gargano, 1986).

Although inconclusive, the aforementioned findings do indicate the possi-bility that substantive teams inherently should have a greater breadth of respon-

sibility and autonomy that should be reflected in their scores on the core job

dimensions of the JCM. However, researchers must also examine whether

increased levels of the core job dimensions will lead to better outcomes.

Researchers who have applied the JCM to team-based job designs have investi-

gated the relationship between the core job dimensions and various individual and

organizational outcomes. For example, in a study of 80 newly formed work teams,

Campion, Medskar, and Higgs (1993) found that task variety, task significance,

and participation in decision making were significantly related to employee sat-isfaction. Also using work teams, Batt and Applebaum (1995), Glisson and

Durick (1988), and Van Der Vegt, Emans, and Van De Vliert (2000) have found

that task identity, skill variety, task significance, and job complexity (consisting

of skill variety, task significance, task identity, and autonomy) were significant-

ly related to satisfaction. In addition, in a study of self-managing work teams,

Spreitzer et al. (1999) found that the design of work was related to both employ-

ee job satisfaction and satisfaction with the organization for those employees who

considered the design of their work to be motivating.

However, a global measure of job satisfaction may not capture the attitudesof team members as they work together on team projects. Scarpello and Camp-



5/24

may not be satisfied with their jobsor vice versa. For example, in a study of

148 employees participating in 23 temporary groups, Van Der Vegt et al. (2000)

found that employee perceptions of task interdependence among group memberswere related to team satisfaction rather than job satisfaction. In addition, although

research generally supports the notion that members of substantive teams expe-

rience higher levels of job satisfaction than do members of consultative teams

(Cohen & Ledford, 1994; Cordery, Mueller, & Smith, 1991; Pearson, 1992), some

evidence supports the possibility that this may not always be the case (Batt &

Applebaum, 1995). Examining facets of satisfaction may clarify this relationship.

Thus, in a team-based environment, researchers may also find it useful to exam-

ine members satisfaction with team processes, the interaction of team members,

actual results achieved, and whether there is any return to the team members(Nerkar, McGrath, & MacMillan, 1996).

Similarly, employees have multiple levels of commitment to the organization.

Employees may be committed to the organization as a whole or to specific foci of

commitment, including to the goals, objectives, and values of multiple groups

(Bettenhausen, 1991; Reichers, 1985). There is no requirement that employees

embrace the organizations aggregate values and beliefs (Pfeffer & Salancik,

1978), but employees may share values and beliefs with members of various sub-

groups. Team-oriented commitment is distinct from organizational commitment in

that team members feel a commitment both to their group of coworkers and to thegoals of the team (Ellemers, de Gilder, & Van den Heuvel, 1998). For example,

Zaccaro and Dobbins (1989) found a difference between organizational and group

commitment in that group commitment is related to task-based group liking, per-

ceptions of task-related group processes, satisfaction with group members, and

group cohesion. In addition, Becker (1992) found a significant relationship

between team commitment and prosocial behavior. That is, team members high in

team commitment often have stronger interpersonal and collaborative skills than

do employees low in team commitment (Becker). Finally, Van Der Vegt et al.

(2000) found that task interdependence was significantly related to team commit-ment but not to job commitment. Van Der Vegt et al. suggested that task interde-

pendence might satisfy the social needs of individual team members and thus influ-

ence their satisfaction and commitment to the group.

Although mixed, the thrust of the aforementioned research indicates the pos-

sibility that substantive team members will report higher levels of outcomes than

will consultative team members. However, that research also suggests that it is

important that researchers include both organizational and team level outcomes

when examining the influence of team type on employee attitude. Therefore, in

the present study, we made the following formal hypothesis:



6/24

However, this hypothesis and much of the work that supports it is based on

the assumption that substantive team members view their jobs as more enriched

than do consultative team members. In other words, more enriched jobs lead tohigher levels of employee attitudes, and substantive team members have more

enriched jobs. Rather than merely accepting this assumption researchers should

test it directly by untangling the various influences.

As Figure 1 shows, the effect of team type is likely to be most directly felt

in the perceptions of the characteristics of the jobs held by team members. That

is, substantive team members are likely to view their jobs as more enriched in

terms of job content as reflected by the various dimensions of the JCM. In turn,

higher levels of the JCM dimensions are likely to be associated with increased

levels of outcomes such as satisfaction and commitment. However, it is possiblethat the type of team will somewhat influence the outcomes independently from

the traditional job characteristics. Figure 1 shows this circumstance by the thin-

ner line connecting team type to outcomes.

We formalized this relationship in the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: The job characteristics of skill variety, task identity, task signifi-cance, autonomy, and job feedback will mediate the relationship between team typeand outcomes.

Method

Participants

We collected the data from four organizations that sponsor structured

employee involvement teams of a consultative or substantive nature. These com-

panies all had their corporate offices in a large metropolitan area in the south-

western United States. We collected data from one of the companies from four

autonomous sites within a 50-mile radius of one another. We collected data from


Team Type

Job Characteristics Outcomes


7/24

another company from two plants near the U.S.Mexico border. We collected data

from the other two companies from a single site. To assure a high degree of par-

ticipation, we asked participants to complete the questionnaires on company timeand had the support of a representative of each company. All of the 188 partici-

pants who agreed to participate completed a questionnaire. We subsequently

eliminated three participants questionnaires because they were incomplete and

eliminated two because of a consistency motif in responses.

Participants were ultimately 183 employees who belonged to 35 teams. Of

all participants, 78 (approximately 43%) participated in consultative teams, and

105 (approximately 57%) participated in substantive teams. There were slightly

more female (97; 54.5%) than male (81; 45.5%) participants. The majority of

respondents (149; 81.4%) were 2049 years old. Of all the respondents, 167(approximately 91%) had completed at least a high school education, and 115

(approximately 63%) of these respondents had also completed educational levels

beyond high school.

Measures

We used the following measures to operationalize the hypothesized constructs.

Type of team. We measured the independent variable of type of team membershipby using two methods. First, we asked a representative of the human resources

department to categorize the teams participating in the present study as either con-

sultative or substantive on the basis of definitions that we provided. Second, we

asked participants the following two questions: (a) After your team has studied

a problem and developed a recommendation, can your team implement the solu-

tion without first asking for management approval?; and (b) Which classifica-

tion most closely identifies the type of team in which you participate? Responses

to the second question included suggestion team, quality circle, value analy-

sis team, total quality management team, special task force, self-directedteam, and other. We compared the information from the human resources

department with that from the participants for consistency. In all cases, there was

agreement in classification both (a) within each team of participants and (b)

between the participants and the human resources department.

Job characteristics. To assess the nature of the job content of individual team

members, we assessed the job characteristics of skill variety, task identity, task

significance, autonomy, and feedback by using relevant items from the Job

Diagnostic Survey (JDS; Hackman & Oldham, 1975). We identified and select-ed this portion of the overall JDS for its ability to assess job content. The instru-



8/24

scales. We obtained a Cronbachs alpha of .80 for the overall JDS, and the alphas

of the subscales ranged from .50 to .62. Although these coefficients are lower

than the recommended level of .70 (Nunnally, 1978), they are consistent withthose of past researchers who used the subscales (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Tiegs,

Tetrick, & Fried, 1992). Furthermore, early researchers using the five core job

characteristics of the JCM yielded coefficient alphas ranging from .59 to .71

(Hackman & Oldham, 1975). Although researchers have used the JDS several

times with teams, it is possible that the items for each dimension do not trans-

late perfectly to a team setting. To be cautious, in all analyses we looked first at

the overall JDS and only included specific dimensions when the overall JDS was

found to be significant.

Satisfaction with team processes and activities. We used the Nerkar et al. (1996)

scale to measure employees affective responses to participating in a structured

team. The scale consists of 18 items related to satisfaction with current team pro-

jects (e.g., how the project is moving forward, support for leadership at different

levels of the organization). Respondents evaluated each item on a 7-point Likert-

type scale ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 7 (very satisfied). We obtained a

Cronbachs alpha of .93 for the scale.

Job satisfaction. We obtained a global measure of job satisfaction using the

General Job Satisfaction scale (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). This scale is part of

the JDS and consists of five items (Cronbachs = .73). We used a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very great) to assess respondent agree-

ment with such questions as Generally speaking, I am quite satisfied with this

job and I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do in this job.

Team commitment. We used two scales to measure team commitment. First, we

used a revised version of the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ;Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) to assess team commitment. Following the prac-

tice of Zaccaro and Dobbins (1989), we modified the OCQ by referring to the

team instead of the organization. In addition, we removed items referencing

participants intentions to quit or stay (Reichers, 1985; Zaccaro & Dobbins,

1989). The instrument consisted of 13 items that were measured on a 7-point

Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very great). We obtained a

Cronbachs alpha of .85 for the revised scale.

In addition to the revised OCQ, we included a relatively new five-item team

commitment scale developed by Ellemers et al. (1998; Cronbachs = .77). Wemeasured items such as I feel at home among my colleagues at work and I try



9/24

Results

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations,Cronbachs alphas, and intercorrelations. We examined the correlation matrix for

evidence of multicollinearity among the independent variables. Among the inde-

pendent variables, there were significant correlations between the core job dimen-

sions of the JCM, although this circumstance is consistent with past research in

which the five core job dimensions were moderately correlated (Oldham, Hack-

man, & Stepina, 1979). In addition, there were significant negative correlations

between team type (which we scored as 1 for consultative and 2 for substantive)

and the overall JDS and between team type and three of the five core job dimen-

sions: skill variety, task significance, and feedback. Finally, there were signifi-cant and negative correlations between team type and job satisfaction, satisfac-

tion with team activities and processes, and team commitment. Thus, the direction

of the relationships was opposite of what we hypothesized in that participants in

consultative teams reported higher levels of job enrichment, job satisfaction, and

team commitment than did participants in substantive teams.

We tested Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 by using the procedures outlined

by Baron and Kenney (1986) to identify the presence of an intervening variable.

This analysis consists of three steps. In Step 1, the researcher establishes the rela-

tionship between the predictor variable and the intervening variable. If a rela-tionship cannot be established, the analysis would stop at this point. In Step 2,

the researcher regresses the criterion variable on the predictor. In Step 3, the

researcher regresses the criterion variable on both the predictor variable and the

proposed intervening variable. The researcher confirms a mediating influence if

the effect (beta) of the predictor variable on the criterion variable is less when the

intervening variable is included (Step 3) than when it is not (Step 2). Thus, we

tested Hypothesis 1, the relationship between team type and outcome variables,

in Step 2. We tested Hypothesis 2, which predicted that job characteristics would

mediate the relationship between team type and the outcome variables, in Step 3.Step 1 began with analysis of the correlation matrix. As Table 1 shows, team

type was significantly correlated with overall JDS and with three of its five dimen-

sions. We confirmed this pattern of results through regression analysis that also

included the control variables.1 Consequently, we excluded task identity and

autonomy, the two dimensions of the JDS that were not significantly related to

team type, from further analysis.

Hypothesis 1 predicted that substantive team members would report higher

scores than would consultative team members on job satisfaction, satisfaction

with team processes and activities, and team commitment. Step 2, in which weregressed the outcome variables on team type after first entering the control vari-

ables served as the test of Hypothesis 1 Table 2 Table 3 and Table 4 show results



10/24

type was a significant predictor, explaining 7.5% of the variance in overall job

satisfaction, 11.5% of the variance in satisfaction with team processes and activ-

ities, and 2.5% of the variance in team commitment. Examination of the betas in

all three equations, however, showed that although this relationship was signifi-

cant, it was in the direction that was opposite from that which was predicted, indi-

cating the possibility that substantive team members had lower values on theseoutcomes than did consultative team members. Thus, the present results did not


TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix (N= 183) of the Study Variables

1 2 3Variable M SD Age Edu Gen

Demographic

1. Age 3.0670 1.1974 2. Education (Edu) 3.2682 1.4005 .199**3. Gender (Gen) 1.5449 0.4994 .006 .304**

Independent

4. Team type (TT) 1.5738 0.4959 .368* .037 .264**5. Job diagnostic survey 5.1434 0.8720 .7972 .166* .001 .056

(JDS)6. Skill variety (SV) 4.9017 1.3408 .5928 .218* .238** .237**7. Task identity (TI) 4.8339 1.2664 .5075 .000 .051 .0858. Task significance (TS) 5.5542 1.1744 .5014 .211* .107 .0239. Autonomy (Aut) 5.3364 1.1935 .5854 .112 .023 .030

10. Feedback (Fdbk) 5.0907 1.2598 .6207 .030 .130 .098

Dependent

11. Sat w/ team pro & act 3.8283 0.6375 .9324 .052 .025 .154*(STPA)

12. Overall job satisfaction 4.9400 1.1135 .7343 .063 .013 .098(OJS)

13. Team commitment 1 5.5770 0.9961 .7699 .028 .194** .163*(TC1)

14. Team commitment 2 5.0986 0.9969 .8480 .135 .158* .196**(TC2)

Note. We coded gender as a dummy variable with 1 = male and 2 =female. We coded team type

as a dummy variable with 1 = consultative and 2 = substantive. Sat w/ team pro & act = Satis-faction with team processes and activities.*p .05. **p .001.


11/24

job characteristics would mediate the relationship between team type and the out-

come variable. Accordingly, in Step 3 we performed a series of hierarchical regres-

sions in which the control variables were entered first, one of the proposed media-

tors was entered second, and team type was entered third. The subtables of Table

2, Table 3, and Table 4 show results of this analysis as Equation 2. In line with the

predictions of Hypothesis 2, the analysis confirms the role of the job characteris-tics construct as a mediator between team type and each of the outcome variables.


4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13TT JDS SV TI TS Aut Fdbk STPA OJS TC(1)

Demographic

Independent

.211

.206** .633**.051 .689** .254**.228** .691** .309** .315**.080 .757** .350** .480** .355*.170* .733** .251** .361** .478** .486**

Dependent

.348** .501** .160* .324** .401** .414** .473**

.307** .495** .248** .297** .322** .396** .476** .657**

.178* .412 .080 .301** .323** .347** .407** .616** .496**

.289** .502** .230** .275** .467** .340** .458** .651** .564**.669**


12/24


TABLE 2. Regression and Meditation Analysis for Overall Job Satisfaction

Predictor variable for TT R2 F

Overall JDS as mediator

Equation 1Controla .017 0.983Control + Team type (TT) .702 .075 14.039**

Equation 2Control .017 0.983Control +MJDS .221 49.573**

Control + JDS + TT .517 .039 9.268**

Task significance as mediator

Equation 1Controla .017 0.983Control + TT .702 .075 14.039**

Equation 2Control .017 0.983Control + Task significance

(TS) .105 20.439**

Control + TS + TT .560 .046 9.344**

Skill variety as mediator


Equation 2Control .017 0.983Control + Skill variety (SV) .066 12.322**Control + SV + TT .603 .053 10.492**

Feedback as mediator


Equation 2Control .017 0.983Control + Feedback (FB) .196 42.600**Control + FB + TT .560 .047 10.728**

Note. Because no pattern of significant results was found in the control variables, betas foreach of the variables have been omitted from the table. Criterion variable = Job satisfaction.JDS = Job diagnostic survey.


13/24


TABLE 3. Regression and Meditation Analysis for Satisfaction With TeamProcesses and Activities



Equation 1Controla .028 1.629Control + Team type (TT) .487 .115 22.928**

Equation 2Control .028 1.629

Control +MJDS .227 52.114**Control + JDS + TT .385 .070 17.579**



Equation 2Control .028 1.629Control + Task significance

(TS) .160 33.633**Control + TS + TT .390 .071 16.220**



Equation 2Control .028 1.629Control + Skill variety (SV) .025 4.565*

Control + SV + TT .461 .100 19.977**



Equation 2Control .028 1.629Control + Feedback (FB) .200 44.300**Control + FB + TT .409 .080 19.527**

Note. Because no pattern of significant results was found in the control variables, betas foreach of the variables have been omitted from the table Criterion variable = Satisfaction with


14/24


TABLE 4. Regression and Meditation Analysis for Team Commitment



Equation 1Controla .055 3.305*Control + Team type (TT) .368 .025 4.648*

Equation 2Control .055 3.305*Control +MJDS .153 33.082**

Control + JDS + TT .224 .009 1.962


Equation 1Controla .055 3.305*Control + TT .368 .025 4.648*

Equation 2Control .055 3.305*Control + Task significance

(TS) .096 19.416**

Control + TS + TT .236 .010 2.001



Equation 2Control .055 3.305*Control + Skill variety (SV) .014 2.606Control + SV + TT 3.29 .019 3.608



Equation 2Control .055 3.305*Control + Feedback (FB) .123 25.643**Control + FB + TT .264 .013 2.657

Note. Because no pattern of significant results was found in the control variables, betas foreach of the variables have been omitted from the table. Criterion variable = Team com-mitment JDS = Job diagnostic survey


15/24

However, the strength of the mediation varied to some degree depending on

the outcome variable. The strongest impact occurred in the case of team com-

mitment, in which team type was nonsignificant when the job dimensions wereincluded in the equation. This impact indicated the possibility of a complete medi-

ation role for the job dimensions. For overall satisfaction and satisfaction with

team processes and activities, the effect of team type was less but still significant.

This finding indicated the possibility of only partial mediation for the job dimen-

sions. As might be expected, use of the overall measure of the JDS tended to

reduce the apparent impact of team type to a greater degree than did use of any

single job dimension within the JDS. Taken together, these results support

Hypothesis 2.

Discussion

In the present study, our purpose was to examine how the use of different

types of teams is related to employee attitudes as mediated by factors related to

job content. Thus, the present study was not a test of the JCM but rather an appli-

cation of the job-related dimensions of the JCM to the content of jobs that are

organized around teams. Along this line, we selected outcome variables to reflect

the attitudes of individual employees that are relevant to team participation.

A basic assumption was that empowered employees want to be meaningful-ly involved in their companys decision-making process. Companies enable

employee empowerment by designing jobs and creating a supportive organiza-

tional environment that nurtures employee involvement. Companies can sponsor

employee involvement by encouraging employees to participate in structured

teams that are either consultative or substantive in design. By definition, jobs per-

formed by members of substantive teams should have higher levels of some or all

of the core job dimensions reflected in the JCM than jobs performed by members

of consultative teams. In turn, these higher levels should result in substantive team

members having more positive attitudes than consultative team members.Contrary to these views, the present results did not support Hypothesis 1,

which proposed that substantive team members would experience higher levels

of job satisfaction, satisfaction with team processes and activities, and team com-

mitment than members of consultative teams. In fact, the present results revealed

that consultative team members reported significantly greater levels of overall job

satisfaction, satisfaction with team processes and activities, and team commit-

ment, than did substantive team members. To examine this surprising result fur-

ther, we turned attention to Hypothesis 2.

The present results supported Hypothesis 2, which proposed that the rela-tionship between team type and outcomes would be mediated by the job charac-



16/24

mitment) or was much lower (in the cases of overall job satisfaction and satis-

faction with team processes and activities). However, contrary to our expecta-

tions, consultative team members perceived the content of their jobs to be moreenriched than did substantive team members. The data indicated the possibility

that the members of consultative team saw their jobs as having higher levels of

skill variety, task significance, and feedback than did the members of the sub-

stantive teams (and task identity and autonomy were not significantly related to

team type).

The anomalous findings that consultative team members viewed their jobs

as more enriched and reported higher levels of the affective outcomes than did

substantive team members require further analysis. In his review of Poppers

(1959, 1983) position on falsification, Caldwell (1991) noted that negative testresults do not necessarily prove that a theory is false. Yet, falsifications are

always more interesting than corroborations, for they force scientists to reexam-

ine the theory and test situation to see what went wrong (p. 4). Similarly, Weick

(1989, p. 525) suggested that disconfirmed assumptions provide an opportunity

for a theorist to learn something new, to discover something unexpected, to gen-

erate renewed interest in an old question, to mystify something that had previ-

ously seemed settled, to heighten intellectual stimulation, to get recognition, and

to alleviate boredom.

Thus, rather than discard the anomalous results of the present study becausethey are inconsistent with past research, researchers should further examine factors

in the present study that may contribute to the anomalies. Because in the present

study, we used data from four companies in nine locations, it was important to

ensure that company specific results did not skew the overall analysis. However, an

analysis by company revealed that the present results held across all companies.

Thus, the data from any one company did not unduly influence the overall present

results. Similarly, team size may have played a role in generating the present results.

In research using samples of student groups, researchers examining the relationship

between team size and such outcomes as performance and satisfaction have foundmixed results, with the optimum size varying by study (Coss, Ashworth, &

Weisenberger, 1999; Stoneman & Dickinson, 1989). In a study of top management

teams in the computer industry, performance was better among large teams with

less dominant CEOs, although the mean team size was 3.39 members (Haleblian

& Finkelstein, 1993). Thompson (2004) recommended an optimum team size of

10. However, the present analysis indicated that consultative and substantive teams

were fairly evenly divided among small (35 members), medium (610 members),

and large (1115 members) sizes and that those results held across the different

sizes. Further, participants in all locations consisted of line employees with com-parable levels of responsibilities. Therefore, it is unlikely that differing job levels



17/24

sions of the JDS (and the individual core job dimensions) and (b) the outcome

variables of job satisfaction, satisfaction with team processes and activities, and

team commitment. That is, enriched jobs did lead to more positive affective out-comes. Therefore, the anomalous findings came from the circumstance that par-

ticipants viewed the consultative teamsrather than the substantive teams as we

expectedas having more enriched jobs. Although the present data cannot defin-

itively explain this outcome, researchers can derive the following explanations

from the literature on teams.

Several authors have noted that an organizations successful implementation

of teams is not simply a matter of placing employees into an appropriate group-

ing (Caudron, 1994; Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; Thompson, 2004; Zemke, 1993).

Instead, such implementation requires adjustment of numerous other organiza-tional factors (e.g., managerial practices, employee desire to participate, organi-

zational structure and process) so as to align the use of teams and the underlying

culture and philosophy of the organization and its managers (Miles, Miles, &

Snow, 1998). Consequently, it is possible for firms to overinvest in team

approaches and empowerment programs that go beyond the ability of the firm to

effectively use them.

Many managers or the organization as a whole may not philosophically or

operationally accept the notion of collaboration that is at the heart of the use of

empowered teams (Miles & Miles, 1999; Miles, Snow, & Miles, 2000). As notedby Kirkman, Jones, and Shapiro (2000), this circumstance is not surprising

because participation in empowered teams often involves change, and both orga-

nizations and employeesincluding managersoften resist change. Such resis-

tance is more likely with substantive teams, whose official authorization to make

and implement decisions is apt to challenge the traditional hierarchy, than with

consultative teams, which make suggestions rather than decisions. Resulting con-

flicts between the substantive teams and the more traditional structures and

processes of the organization may lead to frustration on the part of team mem-

bers who might then see their jobs as less enriched than the team initiators orig-inally intended. Indeed, in her study of lean production teams, Parker (2003)

noted that an organizations attention to work characteristics is critical to devel-

oping proactive and self-directed employees. In this context, employees in sub-

stantive teams may view teams as simply intensified mass production that may

not lead to the employees desired outcomes (Parker).

At the individual level of analysis, researchers might consider the influence

of the team-based structure itself on job-related employee attitudes. Barker (1993)

suggested that an unintended consequence of participative and team-based struc-

tures is the replacement of bureaucratic control with what he called concertive con-trol, which grows out of self-management. It is ironic that rule-based, rational con-



18/24

& Cheney, 2001, p. 385). This paradox offers an additional perspective on why

participative job structures could actually contribute to the perception of less sat-

isfying outcomes. In some cases, team members may resent the inflexibility in theinterpretation of rules and the pressure that the team-based job design inadver-

tently creates (Stohl & Cheney, 2001; Stohl & Sotirin, 1989). In addition, from a

job design perspective, management may more closely monitor work than before.

Thus, workers may begin to withdraw from the participatory mechanisms as they

experience loss of control rather than the empowered position that was promised

at the outset (Stohl & Cheney, 2001, p. 387). Further, Workman and Bommer

(2004, p. 334) suggested that the iron cage phenomenon, resulting from con-

certive group control, results in more pressure for employees to solve problems on

their own because of co-worker pressure to share the load. Finally, the empow-erment process itself may create ever increasing entitlement beliefs that become

difficult to satisfy, eventually leading to a breach of the psychological contract

between employees and their employer (Paul, Niehoff, & Turnley, 2000, p. 483).

On the other hand, the present results do suggest that at least some of the

benefits that organizations get from employees participation in empowerment

programs may be gained through the less organizationally demanding use of con-

sultative teams. Both (a) employee participation in consultative teams such as

quality circles and (b) the design of jobs that are traditionally structured but pro-

vide elements of the core job dimensions described in the JCM may yield at leastsome of the results desired by organizations. Although not likely to provide the

full range of benefits that fully empowered teams might provide, consultative

teams do not require a commitment to the total restructuring of jobs and other

organizational factors required by substantive teams.

Limitations

It is also important to consider the limitations of the present study in evalu-

ating the implications of its results. We obtained the present data through a fieldstudy that yielded self-report data. As with other studies of this nature, the pos-

sibility of common method variance exists. We took steps to minimize the effects

of common method variance through the ordering of scale items on the ques-

tionnaire (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Also, we carefully examined each returned

questionnaire to determine if the respondent read and understood the items. When

we observed a consistency motif in an individuals responses, we discarded the

questionnaire. However, we eliminated only two questionnaires for this reason.

Further, to limit socially desirable responses, we informed participants that their

participation was voluntary and their responses would be confidential. Finally, toassure that team members were properly classified, we used both participant input



19/24

organization produced results that were consistent with the overall analysis and

across different sizes of teams. Further, because all employees in the present study

were line employees with comparable levels of responsibility, the likelihood thatjob type might account for the results was less. Still, we might not have account-

ed for other factors that produced the present results.

The finding that consultative team members reported greater job satisfaction,

satisfaction with team activities, and team commitment than did substantive team

members is inconsistent with much of the research on teams. Greenwald, Pratka-

nis, Leippe, and Baumgardner (1986, p. 217) noted that theory can dominate

research in such a way that it blinds the researcher to potentially informative

observations. Confirmation bias, the tendency for researchers to make judgments

on the basis of new data that are overly consistent with their hypotheses, oftenmanifests itself through the researchers reluctance to publish disconfirming

results. As a result, confirmation bias upholds the status quo by delaying expo-

sure to and support for beliefs that do not conform to those presently held. Fur-

thermore, the present results do not stand alone. Researchers should reexamine

them through both replication and the extension of existing theory.

Future Directions

Recently, Allen and Hecht (2004, p. 440) examined the romance of teams,which they defined as a faith in the effectiveness of team-based work that is not

supported by, or is even inconsistent with, relevant empirical evidence. Citing

an in-depth analysis by Hackman (1990), Allen and Hecht noted that there are

often rather large variations in team performance, tensions among team goals, and

a downward spiral in team performance. Consistent with this view, Glassop

(2002) also noted that time may be a factor in the decline of team efficacy. On

the other hand, employeesmembership in teams is generally associated with pos-

itive attitudes toward work, such as job satisfaction (Allen & Hecht, 2004). How-

ever, the present results indicate the possibility that many of the benefits of teamsmay be accomplished without a total redesign of work processes.

Researchers need to explore many issues to enable employee involvement

efforts to achieve their potential. Among the potential issues for future study are

the extent of the companys readiness for and managements support of teams and

self-governance programs, comparing the level of trust and management support

that is perceived by team members with the level of trust and support perceived

by management, and the consistency or fit of employee involvement programs

with organizational structure and process variables. Further, Allen and Hecht

(2004) noted that researchers rarely consider issues that pertain to the organiza-tional context in which teams operate and whether teams are the best approach



20/24

Finally, past researchers have generally presumed that the most appropriate

work design is the team design. Thus, Allen and Hecht (2004, p. 453) called for

research that begins with the assumption that teams might or might not work,and then searches for conditions under which one or the other of these two out-

comes will occur. Thus, results-centered research strategies, such as the method

of condition seeking, may help researchers avoid overgeneralized findings

(Greenwald et al., 1986). In the condition-seeking approach, where R is the pre-

dicted result, the researcher asks the question Under what conditions does R

occur? rather than Does R occur? According to this method of research,

researchers would seek both conditions under which teams would be effective and

those under which teams would be ineffective. For example, because of the find-

ings of the present study, a researcher might well examine under what conditionsconsultative team members experience higher levels of job enrichment, satisfac-

tion, and commitment than do substantive team members. The researcher might

consider such factors as the level and degree of participation in decision making,

the existing reward systems, and the levels of training and development that team

members get (Allen & Hecht). Thus, the overriding question is whether team-

work would yield psychological benefits to the employee that also would improve

the performances of both the employee and the organization in the long run

(Meindl, 2004).

NOTE

1. We omitted details of this analysis here to preserve space, but they are availablefrom the authors by request.

REFERENCES

Allen, N. J., & Hecht, T. D. (2004). The romance of teams: Toward an understanding ofits psychological underpinnings and implications.Journal of Occupational and Orga-nizational Psychology, 77,

439461.Baker, D. P., & Salas, E. (1997). Principles for measuring teamwork:A summary and looktoward the future. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performanceassessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 331356). Mah-wah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams.Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408437.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction insocial psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations.Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182.

Batt, R., & Applebaum, E. (1995). Worker participation in diverse settings: Does the form

affect the outcome, and if so, who benefits?British Journal of Industrial Relations, 33,353378.

Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making?



21/24

Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991). Five years of group research: What we have learned and whatneeds to be addressed.Journal of Management, 17, 345381.

Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., & Burroughs, S. M. (2000). Support, commitment, and employ-ee outcomes in a team environment. Journal of Management, 26, 11131132.Bowen, D. E., & Lawler, E. E. (1992). The empowerment of service workers: What, why,

how, and when. Sloan Management Review, 33, 3139.Brannick, M. T., & Prince, C. (1997). An overview of team performance measurement. In

M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and mea-surement: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 316). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Caldwell, B. J. (1991). Clarifying Popper.Journal of Economic Literature, 29, 133.Campion, M. A., & Higgs, C. A. (1995). Design work teams to increase productivity and

satisfaction.HRMagazine, 40, 101107.Campion, M. A., Medskar, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group

characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Per-sonnel Psychology, 46, 823850.

Caudron, S. (1994). Teamwork takes work. Personnel Journal, 49, 4146.Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E. (1994). The effectiveness of self-managed teams: A quasi-

experiment.Human Relations, 47, 1343.Cordery, J. L., Mueller, W. S., & Smith, L. M. (1991). Attitudinal and behavioral effects

of autonomous group working: A longitudinal field study. Academy of ManagementJournal, 34, 464476.

Coss, T. J., Ashworth, D. N., & Weisenberger, T. M. (1999). The effects of team size ina marketing simulation.Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7, 98106.

Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S. B. (1999). Teams

in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics and effectiveness. Small Group Research,30, 678711.

Drach-Zahavy, A. (2004). The proficiency trap: How to balance enriched job designs andthe teams need for support.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 979996.

Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & Van den Heuvel, H. (1998). Career-oriented versus team-oriented commitment and behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,717730.

Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A reviewand meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287322.

Glassop, L. I. (2002). The organizational benefits of teams. Human Relations, 55,225249.

Glisson, C., & Durick, M. (1988). Predictors of job satisfaction and commitment in humanservice organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 6181.

Greenwald, A. G., Pratkanis, A. R., Leippe, M. R., & Baumgardner, M. H. (1986). Underwhat conditions does theory obstruct research progress? Psychological Review, 93,216229.

Guzzo, R. A. & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on per-formance and effectiveness.Annual Review Psychology, 47, 307338.

Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those than dont). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159170.Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work. Orga-nizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 250279.



22/24

Head, T. C., Molleston, J. L., Sorensen, P. F., & Gargano, J. (1986). The impact of imple-menting a quality circle intervention on employee task perceptions. Group & Organi- zation Studies, 11, 360373.

Kirkman, B. L., Jones, R. G., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). Why do employees resist teams?Examining the resistance barrier to work team effectiveness.International Journal ofConflict Management, 11, 7492.

Lawler, E. E. (1988). Choosing an involvement strategy.Academy of Management Exec-utive, 2, 197204.

Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E., Jr. (1992).Employee involvement andtotal quality management: Practices and results in Fortune 1000 companies. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Levine, D. I., & Tyson, L. D. (1990). Participation, productivity, and the firms environ-ment. In A. S. Blinder, (Ed.), Paying for productivity (pp. 183243). Washington, DC:

Brookings Institution.Meindl, J. R. (2004). The romance of teams: Is the honeymoon over?Journal of Occupa-

tional and Organizational Psychology, 77, 463466.Miles, R. E., & Miles, G. (1999). Leadership and collaboration. In J. Conger, G. Spreitzer,

& E. Lawler (Eds.),Leaders change handbook(pp. 321343). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, R. E., Miles, G., & Snow, C. C. (1998). Good for practice: An integrated theory ofthe value of organizational form. In G. Hamel, C. K. Prahalad, H. Thomas, & D. ONeal(Eds.), Strategic flexibility: Managing in a turbulent environment. Sussex, England:Wiley.

Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., & Miles, G. (2000). The future.org.Long Range Planning, 33,

300312.Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M., Jr. (1995).Designing team-based orga-

nizations: New forms for knowledge work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Morley, M., & Heraty, N. (1995). The high-performance organization: Developing team-

work where it counts.Management Decision, 33, 5563.Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). Measurement of organization com-

mitment.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224247.Nerkar, A., McGrath, R., & MacMillan, I. (1996). Three facets of satisfaction and their

influence on the performance of innovation teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 11,167188.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Oldham, G. R., Hackman, J. R., & Stepina, L. P. (1979). Norms for the Job Diagnostic

Survey.JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 9, 14 (Ms. No. 1819).Osterman, P. (2000). Work reorganization in an era of restructuring: Trends in diffusions

and effects on employee morale.Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 53, 179196.Parker, S. K. (2003). Longitudinal effects of lean production on employee outcomes and

the mediating role of work characteristics.Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 620634.Paul, R. J., Niehoff, B. P., & Turnley, W. H. (2000). Empowerment, expectations, and the

psychological contract. Managing the dilemmas and gaining the advantages.Journal ofSocio-Economics, 29, 471485.

Pearson, C. A. L. (1992). Autonomous workgroups: An evaluation at an industrial site.

Human Relations, 45, 905936.Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978).External control of organizations. New York: Harp-er & Row.



23/24

Popper, K. (1983). Realism and the aim of science. In W. W. Bartley III (Ed.), Postscriptto the logic of scientific discovery. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.

Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment.Academy of Management Review, 10, 465476.

Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there? Person-nel Psychology, 36, 577600.

Spreitzer, G. M., Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E. (1999). Developing effective self-man-aging work teams in service organizations. Group and Organization Management, 24,340366.

Stohl, C., & Cheney, G. (2001). Participatory processes/paradoxical practices: Communi-cation and the dilemmas of organizational democracy. Management CommunicationQuarterly, 14, 349407.

Stohl, C., & Sotirin, P. (1989). Absence as a workplace control: A critical inquiry. In J.

Andersen (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 12 (pp. 5968). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Stoneman, K. G., & Dickinson, A. M. (1989). Individual performance as a function ofgroup contingencies and group size.Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,10, 131150.

Tata, J., & Prasad, S. (2004). Team self-management, organizational structure, and judg-ments of team effectiveness.Journal of Managerial Issues, 16, 248265.

Thompson, L. (2004).Making the team: A guide for managers (2nd ed.). Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Tiegs, R B., Tetrick, L. E., & Fried, Y. (1992). Growth need strength and context satisfac-tions as moderators of the relations of the Job Characteristics Model. Journal of Man-agement, 18, 575593.

Van Der Vegt, G., Emans, B., & Van De Vliert, E. (2000). Team members affectiveresponses to patterns of intragroup interdependence and job complexity. Journal ofManagement, 26, 633655.

VanAken, E. M., Monetta, D. J., & Sink, D. S. (1994). Affinity groups: The missing linkin employee involvement. Organizational Dynamics, 22, 3854.

Wall, T. D., Kemp, N. J., Jackson, P. R., & Clegg, C. W. (1986). Outcomes of autonomousworkgroups: A long-term field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 29,280304.

Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination.Academy of Man-agement Review, 14, 516531.

Workman, M., & Bommer, W. (2004). Redesigning computer call center work: A longi-

tudinal field experiment.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 317337.Zaccaro, S. J., & Dobbins, G. H. (1989). Contrasting group and organizational commit-

ment: Evidence for differences among multilevel attachments. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 10, 267273.

Zemke, R. (1993). Rethinking the rush to team up. Training, 30, 5561.

Received February 18, 2005

Accepted October 17, 2005



24/24