Global team properties
39
Does Dynamic Composition Mean the
Demise of Shared Team Properties and
the Rise of Global Team Properties?
SUZANNE T. BELL AND DAVID M. FISHER
DePaul University
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Suzanne T. Bell.
E-mail: [email protected]
Address: DePaul University, 2219 N. Kenmore
Ave., Chicago, IL 60614
Beyond the issues raised by Tannenbaum,
Mathieu, Salas, and Cohen (2012), dynamic
composition in organizational teams may
have profound implications for the way
we conceptualize and measure team-level
variables. Many team constructs (e.g., team
40
efficacy, team cohesion, team satisfaction, and shared team mental models) are
conceptualized as shared team properties.
Shared team properties are based on experiences, attitudes, perceptions, values, cognitions, or behaviors held in common by
team members (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000).
Shared team properties are usually measured via individual team members’ perceptions that are aggregated to the team level.
For example, measures of team satisfaction are typically based on individual team
members’ perceptions (e.g., ‘‘All in all, I am
satisfied with my team’’; Shaw et al., 2011)
aggregated to the team level. Sometimes,
the extent that these perceptions are shared
is supported empirically through the reporting of intraclass correlations (e.g., ICC[1],
ICC[2]) or other agreement indices (De
Dreu & Weingart, 2003; LePine, Piccolo,
Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul, 2008).
Given that membership change is the
reality for most organizational teams, the
influence of dynamic composition on
shared team properties must be considered.
Can constructs fundamentally rooted in perceptions of individuals that may no longer
be team members provide relevant information about the ongoing team? Researchers
need to investigate the extent to which
constructs measured as shared team properties can adequately represent teams with
dynamic composition and potential solutions for the challenges associated with
measuring constructs in such teams.
It could be that specific agreement
indices such as ICC(1) become even more
important for justifying that a team-level
variable exists. ICC(1) may be interpreted
as the extent to which an individual team
member’s rating may represent all the
raters within the group or the extent to
which raters are interchangeable (Klein &
Kozlowski, 2000). As such, ICC(1) could
have increased importance in teams with
membership change as it may capture the
extent to which a construct really exists
at the team level apart from or beyond a
specific team membership. It could be the
case, however, that shared team properties
can only adequately reflect the current and
S.T. Bell and D.M. Fisher
specific team membership, in which case
team-level constructs must be developed,
that capture the team as a unit that exists
beyond its current membership.
The dynamic composition of teams might
decrease the importance of shared team
properties in team research and increase
the importance of constructs conceptualized as global team properties. Global team
properties are constructs that characterize
a team as a whole and do not necessarily
originate from the characteristics of individual team members, as a shared construct
such as team satisfaction would (Klein &
Kozlowski, 2000). A single expert individual (e.g., supervisor or team lead) can assess
a global team property, and it is not necessary to collect data from all the members of
a team (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Accordingly, it is also unnecessary to demonstrate
sharedness or agreement of the construct
between team members (Klein & Kozlowski,
2000). Variables conceptualized as global
team properties may have the ability to
exist beyond the team’s current membership. Although a complete turnover of team
membership may also greatly affect global
team properties, the more general fluidity
of team members, particularly turnover of
members in noncore roles, might have little impact on variables conceptualized as
global team properties.
Although constructs conceptualized as
global team properties have traditionally
been limited to team function or location
of operation, it could be that we revisit and
reconceptualize variables to account for the
changes that teams typically encounter with
dynamic composition. For example, Bell
and Marentette (2011) recently offered a
reconceptualization of team viability where
they conceptualize team viability as a
holistic property of a dynamic system rather
than a property of specific individuals. Their
conceptualization of team viability as a
global team property gives organizations a
tool for understanding the team’s readiness
for the future in a manner consistent with the
dynamic nature of teams and distinguishes
team viability from shared team properties
such as team satisfaction. Certainly, it may
Teams are changing
not be appropriate to reconceptualize every
team construct as global team property, but
one thing is certain: Dynamic composition
requires us to reconsider the utility of shared
team constructs for real-world teams.
References
Bell , S. T., & Marentette, B. J. (2011). Team viability
for long-term and ongoing organizational teams.
Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 275–292.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task
versus relationship conflict, team performance, and
team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–749.
41
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.
LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu,
J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of
teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional
model and relationships with team effectiveness
criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273–307.
Shaw, J. D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L.,
Shih, H., & Susanto, E. (2011). A contingency
model of conflict and team effectiveness. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 96, 391–400.
Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen,
D. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research
and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial
and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on
Science and Practice, 5, 2–24.