When a Team is More Like a Group: Improving Individual Motivation by Managing Integrity Through Team Action Processes

Abstract

An important interdisciplinary opportunity to conduct field research examines how to improve an individual’s contribution on a team that requires little to no interaction in order to accomplish the team’s mission, goals, and objectives. This field study examined 308 volunteers organized into 78 membership recruitment teams. A specific planned team intervention was implemented which blended two approaches: integrity management and team action processes. The results of the intervention showed that even when a team is more like a group, individual effort improves. The intervention had a significant indirect effect on individual performance through individual effort. Results further demonstrate that the intervention is distinct from self-efficacy and team confidence. Identifiability of contributions and visibility of effort are discussed as mechanisms through which team interventions influence effort and performance within teams for which the task itself does not require higher levels of interdependent work.

Keywords:

• integrity management
• motivational outcomes
• self-efficacy
• team action processes
• team confidence

While team structure and processes are gaining prominence among the potential factors influencing team effectiveness (Courtright, Thurgood, Stewart, & Pierotti, 2015; Crawford & LePine, 2013; Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; Hollenbeck, Beersma, & Schouten, 2012), the topic remains largely unexplored (Crawford & LePine, 2013). In particular, there is limited to no field research examining how to improve an individual’s contribution in a team environment, when the team operates more like a group.

The distinction between what constitutes a team versus a group can be problematic because a group of individuals becomes a team when it shares a common goal or purpose (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Nouri, Erez, Rockstuhl, Ang, Leshem‐Calif, & Rafaeli, 2013). The cause for confusion lies in the concept of interdependence, as some teams are more interdependent while others are less so. For example, there are a variety of so-called teams, such as sales, management, track and field, and volunteer teams. Some people argue that these are not teams, because they do not require shared work or coordination, a quality which is referred to as low task interdependence (Mathieu, Hollenbeck, van Knippenberg, & Ilgen, 2017) or increased autonomy (Young-Hyman, 2017).

A review of teamwork literature reveals that teams with low task interdependence are infrequently researched because they may be removed from consideration due to how researchers define a team. For example, Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, and Mount (1998) intentionally removed teams with low task interdependence from study because those teams failed to meet their operationalization of “team.” In contrast, an established broader definition of team is adopted here, in which a shared goal in low task interdependent situations still signifies that the group is a team (Groves & Austin, 2017; Hackman & Wageman, 1995; Wageman, 2001).

The aim in this study is to expand teamwork literature by taking an interdisciplinary approach integrating both personal- and process-focused approaches in a planned team intervention. The personal perspective is derived from integrity management literature, while the process perspective comes from that of team action processes. The question posed here is whether an intervention that draws from these two approaches can be used in low task interdependent conditions to increase individual motivation. Identifiability of contributions and visibility of effort are discussed as mechanisms through which team action processes influence individual contributions, for which the task itself does not require higher levels of interdependent work.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

When a team is more like a group, opportunities to leverage resources and capabilities can be missed and learning diminished; if this happens, the organization’s competitive advantage may be lost. Further, it may be difficult to motivate individuals on a team with low interdependence. While the goal is shared, the need for coordination is less salient, the accountability of team members to each other is weak, and the desire to collaborate is viewed as unnecessary (Cnaan & Cascio, 1998; Liden, Wayne, Jaworski, & Bennett, 2004; Nouri et al., 2013; Šmite, Moe, Šāblis, & Wohlin, 2017). As a result, team members become less committed to the shared goal (Cnaan & Cascio, 1998), diminishing effort and performance (Davis, Fodor, Pfahl, & Stoner, 2014; Groves & Austin, 2017; Liden, Wayne, & Bradway, 1997).

Managing Integrity Through Team Action Processes

This study draws from integrity management literature on personal values, while incorporating teaming literature that draws on the concept of team action processes. These two perspectives are blended into a team intervention, defined as a planned change intended to improve the attitudes, behaviors, and performance of a team and its members in a particular situation (e.g., Le Blanc, Hox, Schaufeli, Taris, & Peeters, 2007).

Integrity management incorporates value-based practices into specific initiatives that emphasize ethical responsibilities among organizational members through the use of specific mechanisms. It is a widely recognized and advocated approach applied within the public and private sector (Brewer, Leung, & Scott, 2015; Tremblay, Martineau, & Pauchant, 2016). From an ethical and spiritual point of view (Fry, 2003; King, 2006), managers see improved results when they show that a person’s contribution matters. That is, individuals accept the responsibility for delivering high-quality work performance when it is understood how their unique contribution is connected to a shared goal (Verbos, Gerard, Forshey, Harding, & Miller, 2007).

Although well established, integrity management literature provides little discussion of specific precepts that can be used to create collective responsibility in teaming conditions (e.g., Abramson, 1984). Much of the literature addresses intraorganizational activities used to deal with scandal, reputation, media attention, and regulations (Hoekstra, Talsma, & Kaptein, 2016). However, if applied within the context of teams, integrity management offers an interdisciplinary opportunity to promote ethical behaviors that support a healthy, transparent working environment, which leads to more efficient and accountable behaviors. Consider, for example, the integrity of team members working with one another toward a mutually shared goal in a low task interdependent environment. There is an old saying, “when everyone is responsible, then no one is responsible.” This is the crux of the challenge managers face in preventing and combating low motivation and morale in teams.

In order to address this challenge, a specific approach was tested, referred to as team action processes, which complements integrity management principles (Chen, Kanfer, DeShon, Mathieu, & Kozlowski, 2009; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). For this approach, Chen and Kanfer (2006) proposed a team-focused, multilevel model of motivation and performance in which individual-level constructs are grounded in both cognitive and behavioral processes, which are then integrated with team-level social and interpersonal processes. Because these two levels of analysis share and relate to each other in a similar fashion, it is important to examine this phenomenon from both perspectives. This was accomplished in the field study conducted here through a specific analytical approach, explained in the method section.

Proposed Framework for an Integrity-Based Team Action Process

A core feature of team action processes is goal striving, characterized by the self-regulation of effort in the pursuit of task objectives. Interestingly, team action processes describe how team members go about doing work assigned to the team that both aligns with and complements integrity management literature. When applying integrity management principles (Hoekstra et al., 2016) to the team action process (Chen et al., 2009; Marks et al., 2001), the following characteristics of an integrity-based team action process emerge:

• Team monitoring and public reporting. (The monitoring and advancement of the team’s reputation through publicly reporting how the team performs relative to its mission, goals, and objectives.)

• System monitoring and transparent communication. (The tracking and transparent communication of macro- and micro-environmental conditions related to the team’s mission, goals, and objectives.)

• Sharing and supporting each other. (The assistance of one another on the team in performing tasks through providing support, openly sharing experience and knowledge, and exhibiting backup behaviors.)

• Coordinating and tracking accountability. (The coordination and tracking of interdependent actions in terms of sequence, timing, public commitments, and accountability.)

Team action processes have demonstrated consistent positive effects on performance at both the individual and team levels of analysis (Chen et al, 2009; LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul, 2008), suggesting that team action processes successfully emphasize the importance of individual contributions. In their meta-analysis, LePine et al., (2008) found that interdependence moderated the effect of team action processes such that it contributed more to the effective functioning of moderately to highly interdependent teams. In line with those conclusions, Chen et al., (2009) found that team action processes facilitated performance of teams of students; that is, teamwork activities that facilitated cooperation and coordination as measured by team action processes improved performance. As mentioned, there is limited to no research examining this phenomenon in low task interdependent settings (D’Silva, Ortega, & Sulaiman, 2016).

It is proposed in this study that an integrity-based team action process improves individual effort and performance because it promotes integrity through exposure to team action processes (i.e., goal identification and planning, resource monitoring, monitoring progress toward goals, coordination of team activities, conflict management, and affect management, Marks et al., 2001), which constitute the internal activities and measures of the teamwork (Fry, 2003; Hansen, Dunford, Alge, & Jackson, 2016; Hoekstra et al., 2016). From an interdisciplinary perspective, Hoekstra et al. (2016) describe integrity management as the sharing of instruments, capacity, knowledge, and influence. Consistent with team action processes, they note that it is the understanding of and connection to others that leads to improved motivational outcomes and higher performance.

HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

An integrity-based approach to team action processes can be helpful with a variety of performance issues, such as culture, decision making (Kurtz, 2016), diversity management (Guy, 2010), collaboration (Majka & Longazel, 2017), and ethical dilemmas (Wheeland, 2013). Given the prevalence of low-task interdependent teams across a variety of industries and settings, examining ways to increase individual performance with team interventions that promote integrity is instrumental.

Individual Effort and Performance

Although the degree of task interdependence provides insight into the requirements for team processes, scholars disagree about whether the degree of task interdependence enhances or reduces individual effort. Kidwell and Bennett (1993) argue that low-task interdependence enhances individual effort because individual contributions are easily distinguishable from group contributions creating greater expectations of individual evaluation (Jones, 1984; Kerr & Bruun, 1983). The notion is that individuals exert more effort to avoid an individual-focused, negative evaluation. However, later research (e.g., Liden et al., 2004; Stark, Shaw, & Duffy, 2007) found that low task interdependence can reduce individual effort (i.e., social loafing). Team members who complete an identifiable piece of work on their own (low task interdependence) need not interact with team members, rendering others less able to observe their individual work and to communicate expectations. In the face of this ambiguous situation, individual team members may “free ride” on the efforts of teammates (Stark et al., 2007). To counter this response, integrity-based team action processes are hypothesized to promote the identifiability of individuals’ contributions and the visibility of their behaviors which will positively impact individual effort (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1 Multi-level test of Hypothesis 1.

Self-Efficacy, Experience, and Team Confidence

Another concept that operates at an individual level is self-efficacy, an individual’s perception of his own ability with regard to a particular task accomplishment. It is well established in the research literature as having consistent, positive effects on individual effort and performance (Bandura, 1977; Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Kanfer, 1990). Other research has questioned the benefits of self-efficacy by showing that experience with a task may be more influential on outcomes (Vancouver, 2005; Vancouver & Kendall, 2006). Therefore, both self-efficacy and experience are included at the individual level of analysis to provide more information about how task-related ability, as perceived by the individual and as gained through experience, influences individual effort and performance.

A related team-level measure of perceived capability with regard to a task is referred to as team confidence. Researchers have found that greater team confidence improves performance (Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008). However, research suggests that the beneficial effects can be reduced due to team structure (Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, & Beaubien, 2002). Under conditions of low task interdependence, an individual’s contribution toward team goals is not limited by the team members’ abilities, potentially making the team’s perceived capability irrelevant to the individual’s performance. Therefore, the authors account for the influence of team confidence to broaden understanding of the role of integrity-based team action processes within low task interdependent teams.

Hypothesis 1:

Integrity-based team action processes will positively impact individual effort after accounting for the influence of self-efficacy, individual experience, and team confidence.

Pairing independent taskwork with team processes that emphasize cooperation and coordination (i.e., team action processes) could result in performance gains; that is, independent taskwork would maintain identifiability of individual contributions while interdependent team processes would enable monitoring of team members’ efforts and performance (Figure 2). In sum, team members would be accountable for their individual contributions due to low task interdependence, while high levels of integrity-based team action processes would ensure that members are familiar with each other’s work and communicate expectations. Coordination within the team ensures effective performance even when task interdependence is low. Hence, it is hypothesized that when task interdependence is low and integrity-based team action processes are used, team members will exhibit greater individual performance (Kanfer, 1990; Locke & Latham, 1990).

FIGURE 2 Multi-level test of Hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 2:

Integrity-based team action processes will positively influence individual performance after accounting for the influence of self-efficacy, individual experience, and team confidence.

However, the strong link between individual effort and individual performance (Kanfer, 1990; Locke & Latham, 1990) may reduce the effect of the intervention (Figure 3); that is, integrity-based team action processes may have only an indirect effect on individual performance after accounting for individual effort. To address this possibility, effort is acknowledged as an important predictor of performance.

FIGURE 3 Multi-level test of Hypothesis 3.

Hypothesis 3:

Integrity-based team action processes will have an indirect effect on individual performance when effort is included along with self-efficacy, individual experience, and team confidence.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were members of a political action organization focused on farming-related issues in a large U.S. Midwestern state. They were organized into teams by county to participate voluntarily in a membership drive, whose goal was to recruit members; each county had a membership campaign coordinator who was a paid employee.

During the two-month membership campaign, four team meetings were held to document results and share tips for recruiting new members. The questionnaire containing survey items was distributed to participants who attended the second meeting of the membership drive. Completed surveys were returned by 388 individuals, representing a 38% response rate. Participation in the membership program was defined as attending at least the first team meeting, excluding from analysis individuals who did not attend the first team meeting. In the first meeting, participants were trained as a team in order to enhance their identification with the team (Huang, Strawderman, Babski-Reeves, Ahmed, & Salehi, 2014); they also had the opportunity to interact with team members prior to completing the survey after the second team meeting. As a result, 308 of the 388 surveys were used in the analyses, with the 308 respondents representing 78 teams. The average participant age was 52.6 years old, 31% expressed female gender, and 47% achieved some college or a higher degree of education.

Context

The nature of the task, membership recruitment by individuals in geographic teams, evoked low task interdependence. Team members did not need to rely on other team members for materials, information, or expertise in their recruiting efforts. Each team member independently engaged in recruiting behavior, including making telephone calls and visiting prospective members’ homes. Finally, each team member was individually responsible for completing and submitting paperwork to the county campaign coordinator to enroll new members. Team-level recruitment results were reported publicly by the county coordinator, who knew, but did not publicly report, individual recruitment results.

Participants worked within a complex team structure. The task itself did not require participants to rely on their team members for successful performance, and participants had the potential to obtain both team and individual rewards. Therefore, participants could display a broad range of behavior, providing an interesting context to evaluate the effect of integrity-based team action processes on effort and performance.

Nonresponse and Data Imputation

Missing data due to nonresponse occurred at both the team and individual levels. Of 88 counties, 56 counties (64%) reported team size, yielding a mean team size of 30.5 (SD = 14.1) people. However, surveys were distributed to 1,033 volunteers, indicating the potential for individual-level nonresponse. Of the 88 participating counties, 78 provided survey data, and not all team members on those teams provided data. Therefore, the mean number of team members providing any survey data across teams was 4.1 (SD = 3.1). Although nonresponse may have affected the sample, the recommendations of Maloney, Johnson, and Zellmer-Bruhn (2010) were followed; their research demonstrates that more accurate results are obtained from multilevel analyses in which all available data are used. Hence, no cutoff criterion for the number of participating members of a team was invoked, and all available data at the individual and team levels were used.

Among the 308 participants that met the criteria for inclusion, 5% or fewer of survey data were missing, making it possible to impute missing values. Deleting individual-level cases with missing data would lead to biased parameter estimates in nested data structures (van Buuren, 2011). Therefore, multiple imputation was used in PRELIS to impute values at the individual level (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2001). There were no missing data from the variables of team action processes, individual effort, or individual performance.

Measures

Descriptive statistics and correlations for all variables are provided in Table 1. Two of the measures (team confidence and individual effort) were reported in Neubert, Taggar, and Cady (2006).

TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Correlations

Construct^a	M (SD)	1	2	3	4	5
Individual level (n = 308)
1. Individual performance	7.29 (8.67)	—
2. Individual effort	12.45 (12.25)	0.87**	—
3. Self­efficacy	5.23 (1.13)	0.24**	0.26**	—
4. Experience	9.99 (10.21)	0.15*	0.09	0.15*	—
Team level (n = 78)
5. Team action processes	3.21 (0.70)	0.23**	0.21**	0.07	0.12*	—
6. Team confidence	5.48 (0.70)	–0.14*	–0.08	0.10	–0.00	–0.00

Notes: ^aCorrelations between team­level and individual level variables were computed by assigning team­level means down to the individual level (n = 308). Team­level correlations used only team­level data (n = 78). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Performance

Membership recruitment numbers were compiled by the paid campaign coordinator assigned to each county. Memberships were turned in to the campaign coordinator by each team member who recruited a member. Therefore, memberships constitute an individual-level measure of performance reflecting the number of people who became members of the organization.

Individual Effort

Volunteers self-reported to the campaign coordinator in each county the number of telephone calls and home visits made to prospective members. These measures capture individual effort toward achieving the team goal because phone calls and home visits were the primary means of member recruitment. The number of calls and home visits were summed to form the measure of individual effort because they both constitute effort expended to obtain memberships.

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy was measured with four items created for the project: “I am very capable of performing membership related activities;” “I am particularly good with membership campaigns;” “I feel confident in my ability to perform membership related activities;” and “I have what it takes to be successful with membership campaigns.” Participants responded on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), such that higher scores indicated higher self-efficacy. Alpha for this scale was 0.93.

Experience

Participants’ experience with membership campaigns was measured using a single item. Participants wrote a number in response to the following statement: “I have been working with [organization name] membership campaigns for ______ year(s).”

Team Action Processes

The number of team meetings attended by each participant was tracked by each county membership campaign coordinator. The number of meetings to be held was determined by the organization, and the county campaign coordinator used the meetings to collect membership paperwork and recognize team performance. Hence, team meetings were for the purpose of reviewing membership recruitment, monitoring and publicly reporting on progress toward achieving team recruitment goals, transparently communicating system-wide performance, sharing tips among the team for recruiting members, providing backup behaviors to one another, and offering rewards for high performing individuals and teams. These types of behaviors represent team action processes as defined by Marks et al. (2001) and Chen and Kanfer (2006). The elements of integrity management can be seen in transparent communication, public reporting of the team’s progress, sharing knowledge and experiences, and backup behaviors (Hoekstra et al., 2016). For this reason, volunteers who attended more meetings would have engaged in more integrity-based team action processes than those who did not. Four meetings (approximately every two weeks) were held during the course of the two-month membership campaign. As a team-level variable, the number of meetings attended by team members was averaged within each team to compute the level of team action processes for each team. An ICC(1) value of 0.18 (F[77, 232] = 2.07, p < 0.01) provides justification for aggregating team action processes. Note that attendance was higher than expected with a team action process average of 3.21 (SD = 0.70; see Table 1).

Team Confidence

Team confidence was measured using four items created for the project: “My membership committee performs well compared to other committees;” “My membership committee is very effective;” “My membership committee is productive and performs at a high standard;” and “My membership committee is above average in ability.” Participants responded on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), such that higher scores indicated higher team confidence. Alpha for this scale was 0.91 at the individual level and 0.93 at the team level. Team confidence was averaged within each team. An ICC(1) value of 0.11 (F[77, 230] = 1.60, p < 0.01) provides further justification for aggregation.

Analysis Strategy

Given the multilevel nature of the data, hierarchical linear modeling was performed using HLM 7 (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon, & du Toit, 2011) to test the hypotheses. Specifically, a two-level, intercepts-only model was estimated with individuals at level 1 and teams at level 2. Individual performance and individual effort were operationalized as counts. Therefore, as described in Raudenbush and Bryk (2002), a Poisson distribution with a log link function was used to estimate hierarchical generalized linear models for individual effort and performance. Further, the individual effort and performance variables were overdispersed. That is, the estimated individual level residual variance (σ²) ranged from 1.74 to 7.50. Following Raudenbush et al. (2011), Poisson distributed data are overdispersed if individual level residual variance is greater than 1.0. Therefore, the adjustment provided in HLM was used for overdispersed Poisson distributed dependent variables. Individual and team level variables were grand mean centered in all HLM analyses.

RESULTS

Measurement Properties for Latent Variable Scales

Because the measures of self- and team confidence in the dataset were newly developed, the psychometric properties of the scales were analyzed. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood estimation in LISREL 8.72 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2001) was performed using individual-level data (n = 308). A model in which the eight items loaded on two factors was evaluated, and several fit statistics were used to determine the fit of the model to the data. Hu and Bentler (1999) recommend standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) values of about 0.08 or less, with a comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) of 0.95 or higher. Results were favorable regarding the measurement properties of the scales (χ²[19] = 41.03, p < 0.01, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.03, TLI = 0.99, and CFI = 0.99). In contrast, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed such that all items were specified as a single factor. Fit statistics were poor (χ²[20] = 1312.09, p < 0.01, RMSEA = 0.41, SRMR = 0.27, TLI = 0.45, and CFI = 0.61). Together these results provide evidence against common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003) and support the measurement properties of the self-report scales.

Analyses for Hypothesis Tests

Results of hypothesis tests are presented in Table 2. Pseudo-R² values are consistent with the methodology of Xu (2003). In this method, the effects at the individual and team levels are combined into an overall pseudo-R² value. All model coefficients were estimated with robust standard errors and variables were grand mean centered.

TABLE 2 Hierarchical Linear Modeling Tests of Hypotheses

	Dependent variable: Individual effort	Dependent variable: Individual performance
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Null model statistics
ICC(1)	0.15	0.17	0.17
Reliability	0.59	0.56	0.56
Individual­level predictors
Experience	–0.001 (0.004)	0.002 (0.005)	0.01 (0.003)**
Self­efficacy	0.28 (0.05)**	0.29 (0.06)**	0.16 (0.04)**
Individual effort	—	—	0.04 (0.004)**
Team­level predictors
Team confidence	–0.15 (0.10)	–0.28 (0.11)**	–0.17 (0.09)
Team action processes	0.28 (0.11)*	0.34 (0.13)**	0.16 (0.09)
Pseudo-R^2	0.07	0.06	0.68

Notes: Coefficients are presented with their standard errors in parentheses. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

In Hypothesis 1, it was posited that team action processes would positively influence individual effort after accounting for the influence of self-efficacy, individual experience, and team confidence. As shown in Table 2, individual effort was examined as the dependent variable in Model 1 (individual performance as the dependent variable was evaluated in Models 2 and 3). Considering Model 1, team action processes had a significant positive effect on individual effort, supporting the hypothesis. Self-efficacy also showed a positive relationship with individual effort while experience did not, supporting the importance of perceived individual ability.

Next, the effect of team action processes on individual performance was evaluated. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, team action processes demonstrated a significant positive effect on individual performance as shown in Model 2. Interestingly, team confidence showed a negative relation with performance while self-efficacy showed a positive relation with performance, indicating that greater team ability negatively impacted individual performance while greater individual ability enhanced performance. Individual experience had no effect on individual performance in Model 2.

To test Hypothesis 3, individual effort was added as a predictor of performance in Model 3. Note the large increase in pseudo-R², consistent with other research measuring the relationship between effort and performance (Kanfer, 1990). All individual-level variables were significantly related to individual performance, including experience, self-efficacy, and individual effort. However, team-level variables, including both team action processes and team confidence, did not have a direct effect on individual performance in Model 3. Tests were conducted for significant indirect effects following MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets (2002). A z’ statistical test was conducted to evaluate the indirect effect of team action processes on performance through individual effort. A Z-test assesses whether the indirect effect of an independent variable through a mediating variable is significantly related to the dependent variable. A significant indirect effect is evidence that the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable is influenced by the mediator(s). The Z statistic was significant (z = 2.43, p < 0.01), indicating that the effect of team action processes on performance is partially mediated by individual effort.

A test for an indirect relationship between team confidence and individual performance through individual effort was conducted, and the Z statistic was not significant (z = 0.99, ns), indicating no indirect effect of team confidence on performance and that the negative effect of team confidence on performance was fully mediated by adding individual effort as a predictor. Considering the results from Models 1, 2, and 3, team action processes were directly or indirectly related to effort and performance within low task interdependent teams, even when accounting for past experience, self-efficacy, and team confidence.

DISCUSSION

Integrity management aims to foster conditions where individuals are motivated to contribute their effort toward tangible results (Hoekstra et al., 2016). The results demonstrate the importance of team action processes in promoting greater integrity among the team members by making the taskwork more transparent and accountable, while fostering interactivity, public commitments, and support among team members.

Interpretation and Limitations

Coordinating efforts, sharing knowledge of effective techniques, and tracking progress toward goals, can effectively motivate teams of volunteers to exert individual effort even when the task assigned to the team does not require interdependent behaviors. The impact of team action processes on individual effort and performance was measured by team meeting attendance, since the meetings invoked effective team action processes. Meetings were used to review membership recruitment progress, track progress toward goals, and share tips for selling memberships, which, in addition to accomplishing those specific tasks, also served to highlight the importance of the team context (Hollenbeck et al., 2012). While the task itself did not require that team members work interdependently, those individuals who attended more team meetings experienced the integrity-based team action processes that allowed them to know what others were doing to sell memberships (sharing tips) and to evaluate the team’s progress toward its goal (team feedback); in that way, they directly enhanced individual effort and indirectly enhanced individual performance. When meetings are conducted such that task-relevant knowledge is shared, team members communicate, and goal progress is monitored, teams engage in effective team action processes regardless of the degree of task interdependence.

Consistent with integrity management, identifiability of contributions and visibility of individual effort are likely mechanisms through which team action processes stimulate individual effort among low task interdependent teams. Team-level recruitment progress was monitored and made known to team members, and individual recruitment data were also collected and recorded by the campaign coordinators. Although team members could choose to withhold individual recruitment data during team meetings, they knew that their level of effort was known by the campaign coordinator. Further, by sharing recruitment tips, participants also made their level of effort and recruitment behaviors known to team members. They may not have shared actual recruitment data, yet it is likely that task-relevant effort was shared publicly through supportive and backup behaviors, creating the means to communicate expectations and evaluate one’s efforts compared to teammates’ efforts (Liden et al., 2004; Wageman, 2001). Therefore, the visibility and identifiability of individual contributions could have been sufficient to motivate individual effort (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Future research could examine whether different degrees of visibility and identifiability influence the ability of team action processes to enhance individual effort and performance.

Another important finding is that team confidence had little effect on individual effort and performance in the sample. This research suggests that when an individual’s performance is not dependent on other team members’ performance, the team member is neither helped nor limited by the team’s ability. Therefore, the null effect of team confidence on individual effort in Models 1 and 3 is not surprising. Consistent with Gully et al. (2002), who found an attenuated impact of team confidence on performance collapsing across types of interdependence (including task, goal, and outcome interdependence), these data indicate that team confidence is less relevant to performance for teams with low task interdependence. In contrast, the strong and pervasive effect of self-efficacy on individual effort and performance indicates team members’ pursuit of team objectives; that is, capable individuals exerted more effort and achieved better performance regardless of the team’s ability. This finding is consistent with that of Lvina, Maher, and Harris (2017), who state that individuals with high political skills held higher team trust than low-skilled workers, independent of other team members’ skills.

Nevertheless, Model 2 demonstrates a negative impact of team confidence on individual performance, suggesting that highly capable teams may inhibit individual outcomes. The social loafing literature has documented similar effects and attributes them to perceived dispensability (Harkins & Petty, 1982; Kerr & Bruun, 1983). That is, members of highly capable teams may perceive that their individual contributions are unneeded by or inferior to others’ contributions leading them to withhold effort (Comer, 1995; Harkins & Petty, 1982; Kerr & Bruun, 1983). Such perceptions are unlikely in teams with high task interdependence, where members need others’ inputs to perform a task (Liden et al., 2004). Kozlowski and Bell (2003) point out that social loafing within work teams is an open question. The difference across Models 1, 2, and 3 further underscore the variability in findings that occurs when different research projects include different constructs in different contexts (Koole & Lakens, 2012). Hence, future research could replicate these findings and explore conditions under which team members may use team confidence to rationalize expending less individual effort.

Limitations of this research involve the sample. Response bias may have played a role in the findings. However, the methods employed recent research to ameliorate its effects. Specifically, all available data were used, with imputed missing values for individual-level survey responses. Correspondingly, the data are cross-sectional. Scholars acknowledge that time plays an important role in teams (Hollenbeck et al., 2012; Marks et al., 2001). Collecting longitudinal data may further clarify the role of team action processes. For example, changes in team action processes as a deadline approaches could affect outcomes differently within low versus high task interdependent teams.

Interdisciplinary Implications

An important contribution of this article relates to its interdisciplinary emphasis and implications. This study is one of a few that examines teams in low task interdependent situations, which is particularly important in organizations and communities. In addition, there are a host of disciplines from private and public perspectives that can benefit from the notions of integrity management; the research opportunities for applying integrity management are greater than currently explored. What follows are three examples of how this article demonstrates the importance of taking an interdisciplinary approach.

Consider the field of supply chain management. Across industries (from manufacturing to healthcare), supply chain concepts are being applied to improve teamwork (Dobrzykowski, 2012). However, one of the challenges this field faces is managing the implementation of complex processes that tend to operate within silos, particularly in a global context (Sarker, Engwall, Trucco, & Feldmann, 2016). A well-designed supply chain crosses these silos in order to align people with the organization’s mission, goals, and objectives (Hong, Yang, & Dobrzykowski, 2014). As a result, all who interact within a supply chain are one team. The challenges arise when the team acts more like a group, the result of which is that interdependent actors compete, opportunities to share capacity are missed, and inefficiencies are exacerbated with high error rates (Williams, Kennedy, Philipp, & Whiteman, 2017). When integrity-based team action processes are applied, the interconnectivity of the supply chain aligns the people with the processes in a healthy fashion. The likelihood of realizing high performance increases by emphasizing personal aspects of transparency, making public commitments, and ensuring clear accountabilities.

Second, the field of organization development and change is often plagued by challenges from managers with respect to the amount of time it takes to engage stakeholders and a focus on key performance indicators (Anderson & Tornberg, 2017; Baldwin & Von Hippel, 2011). Integrity management provides a compelling case to apply an interdisciplinary approach in private, public, and administrative sectors. The core values of organization development and change align with integrity management principles. These are engagement in order to generate better solutions with clear accountabilities, transparency in order to promote collective intelligence and organizational learning, and public commitments in order to align actions with the mission, vision, principles, goals, and objectives (Gilpin-Jackson, 2017). With this focus, the results are inclined to be more robust because the approach meaningfully integrates the human element.

Finally, the field of integrity and ethics benefits by removing the traditional “blinders” that prevent others from recognizing its practical and scientific importance to other disciplines (de Graaf & van der Wall, 2017). As scholars continue to advance their research agendas, new perspectives come from integrating across disciplines in order to create new ideas that build on the shoulders of those who have come before us (Cady, Jacobs, Koller, & Spalding, 2014). The approach demonstrated with this study gives new life to well established theories, provides fresh perspectives with research and practical implications, and supports consideration for the human element from intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal perspectives (Hawkins, 2017).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study support the hypothesis that integrity-based team action processes stimulate individual effort and indirectly benefit individual performance within teams of volunteers with low task interdependence. The context of the research revealed that factors such as identifiability of contributions and visibility of individual behaviors may play a role in how team action processes influence effort and performance. This underscores the importance of considering team structure when looking for factors that will facilitate individual performance. Team structure itself is likely to limit the importance of some variables (e.g., team confidence) while enhancing the importance of others (e.g., self-efficacy).

In conclusion, this research fits with and expands upon the role of ethically grounded approaches, particularly managing integrity, in improving organizational performance through teamwork activities. The research supports the idea that integrity management can promote conditions where individuals are motivated to contribute their effort toward tangible goals by employing team action processes. Team action processes promote greater integrity among the team members by making the taskwork more transparent while fostering interactivity among team members focused on measurable outcomes. Importantly, integrity-based team action processes can support individual effort and subsequent performance even when teams are in fact more like groups.