Testing relations between group cohesion and satisfaction in project teams: A cross-level and cross-lagged approach 

REFERENCES

• Adams, A., & Bon, S. (2000). Hospital nurses’ job satisfaction, individual and organizational characteristics. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32, 536–543. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01513.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahronson, A., & Cameron, J. E. (2007). The nature and consequences of group cohesion in a military sample. Military Psychology, 19, 9–25. doi:10.1080/08995600701323277
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antoni, C., & Hertel, G. (2009). Team processes, their antecedents and consequences: Implications for different types of teamwork. European Journal of Work Organizational Psychology, 18, 253–266. doi:10.1080/13594320802095502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989–1004. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burke, M. J., & Dunlap, W. P. (2002). Estimating interrater agreement with the average deviation index: A user’s guide. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 159–172. doi:10.1177/1094428102005002002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burke, M. J., Finkelstein, L. M., & Dusig, M. S. (1999). On average deviation indices for estimating interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 49–68. doi:10.1177/109442819921004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–847. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb01571.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carless, S. A., & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31, 71–88. doi:10.1177/104649640003100104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research, 31, 89–106. doi:10.1177/104649640003100105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carron, A. V., Brawley, R. L., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1998). The measurement of cohesiveness in sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213–226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Casey-Campbell, M., & Martens, M. L. (2009). Sticking it all together: A critical assessment of the group cohesion-performance literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11, 223–246. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00239.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiocchio, F., & Essiembre, H. (2007). An exploratory meta-analysis of cohesion and performance in project teams. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Society for Industrial and organizational psychology conference, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Chiocchio, F., & Essiembre, H. (2009). Cohesion and performance: A meta-analytic review of disparities between project teams, production teams, and service teams. Small Group Research, 40, 382–420. doi:10.1177/1046496409335103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, S., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290. doi:10.1177/014920639702300303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crossan, M., & Berdrow, I. (2003). Organizational learning and strategic renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 1087–1105. doi:10.1002/smj.342
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Jonge, J., Janseen, P. P. M., & van Breukelen, G. J. P. (1996). Testing the demand-control-support model among health care professionals: A structural equation model. Work and Stress, 10, 209–224. doi:10.1080/02678379608256801
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dion, K. R. (2000). Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 4, 7–26. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.7
   Google Scholar
• Dunlap, W. P., Burke, M. J., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2003). Accurate tests of statistical significance for rwg and average deviation interrater agreement indexes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 356–362. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.356
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–282. doi:10.1037/h0056932
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fichter, C., & Cipolla, J. (2010). Role conflict, role ambiguity, job satisfaction, and burnout among financial advisors. Journal of American Academy of Business Cambridge, 15, 256–261.
   Google Scholar
• Finkel, S. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07–105. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, C., & Sullivan, D. M. (2004). A time for everything: How the timing of novel contributions influences project team outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 279–292. doi:10.1002/job.241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedkin, N. E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 409–425. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110625
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gevers, J., Van Eerde, W., & Rutte, C. G. (2001). Time pressure, potency and progress in project groups. European Journal of Work Organizational Psychology, 10, 205–221. doi:10.1080/13594320143000636
   Google Scholar
• Gollob, H. F., & Reichardt, C. S. (1991). Interpreting and estimating indirect effects assuming time lags really matter. In L. M. Collins & J. L. Horn (Eds.), Best methods for the analysis of change: Recent advances, unanswered questions, future directions (pp. 243–259). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• González-Romá, V., Peiró, J. M., & Tordera, N. (2002). An examination of the antecedents and moderator influences of climate strength. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 465–473. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.465
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M. D. Dunnete & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 269–313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Hoegl, M., & Parboteeah, K. P. (2006). Team reflexivity in innovative projects. R&D Management, 36, 113–125. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00420.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2004). Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15, 38–55. doi:10.1287/orsc.1030.0053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogg, M. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. New York, NY: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Hyatt, D. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (1997). An examination of the relationship between work group characteristics and performance: Once more into the breech. Personnel Psychology, 50, 553–585. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00703.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, L., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 451–477). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keyton, J. (2000). Introduction: The relational side of groups. Small Group Research, 31, 387–396. doi:10.1177/104649640003100401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58–74. doi:10.2307/256874
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., Smith, D. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Is everyone in agreement? An exploration of within-group agreement in employee perceptions of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 3–16. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 211–236. doi:10.1177/109442810033001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333–375). London: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Chao, G. T. (2012). Macrocognition, team learning, and team knowledge: Origins, emergence, and measurement. In E. Salas, S. Fiore, & M. Letsky (Eds.), Theories of team cognition: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 19–48). New York, NY: Routledge Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• LeBreton, J. M., Burgess, J. R. D., Kaiser, R. B., Atchley, E. K., & James, L. R. (2003). The restriction of variance hypothesis and interrater reliability and agreement: Are ratings from multiple sources really dissimilar? Organizational Research Methods, 6, 80–128. doi:10.1177/1094428102239427
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852. doi:10.1177/1094428106296642
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindell, M. K., Brandt, C. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1999). A revised index of inter-rater agreement for multi-item ratings of a single target. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 127–135. doi:10.1177/01466219922031257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loo, R. (2003). Assessing “team climate” in project teams. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 511–517. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00058-3
   Google Scholar
• Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376. doi:10.5465/AMR.2001.4845785
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2002). Group task satisfaction: Applying the construct of job satisfaction to groups. Small Group Research, 33, 271–312. doi:10.1177/10496402033003001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–476. doi:10.1177/0149206308316061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nonaka, I., & Takeychi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209–233. doi:10.1037/a0020141
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spink, K. S., Nickel, D., Wilson, K., & Odnokon, P. (2005). Using a multilevel approach to examine the relationship between task cohesion and team task satisfaction in elite ice hockey players. Small Group Research, 36, 539–554. doi:10.1177/1046496405275229
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120–133. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.120
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundstrom, E., McIntyre, M., Halfhill, T. R., & Richards, H. (2000). Work groups: From the Hawthorne studies to work teams of the 1990s and beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 44–67. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.44
   Google Scholar
• Tesluk, P. E., & Mathieu, J. E. (1999). Overcoming roadblocks to effectiveness: Incorporating management of performance barriers into models of work group effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 200–217. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.200
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Testa, M. R., & Mueller, S. L. (2009). Demographic and cultural predictors of international service worker job satisfaction. Managing Service Quality, 19, 195–210. doi:10.1108/09604520910943189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399. doi:10.1037/h0022100
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Vianen, A. E. M., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2001). Personality in teams: Its relationship to social cohesion, task cohesion, and team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 97–120. doi:10.1080/13594320143000573
   Google Scholar
• Widmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (1985). The measurement of cohesion in sport teams: The group environment questionnaire. London: Sports Dynamics.
   Google Scholar
• Zaccaro, S., & Lowe, C. (1988). Cohesiveness and performance on an additive task: Evidence for multidimensionality. The Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 547–558. doi:10.1080/00224545.1988.9713774
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaccaro, S. J. (1991). Nonequivalent associations between forms of cohesiveness and group-related outcomes: Evidence for multidimensionality. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 387–399. doi:10.1080/00224545.1991.9713865
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar