The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
RELATIONS BETWEEN WORK TEAM CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTIVENESS: A REPLICATION AND EXTENSION
Abstract
Previous research has demonstrated that work team characteristics can be related to effectiveness (Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993). This study provides a replication with professional knowledge worker jobs, different measures of effectiveness, and work units that varied in the degree to which members identified as a team. Data were collected from 357 employees, 93 managers, and archival records for 60 teams in a financial services organization. Team characteristics were measured with questionnaires completed by employees and managers. Effectiveness measures included immediate manager judgments at two points in time, senior and peer manager judgments, employee judgments, and archival records of employee satisfaction and performance appraisals. Results were similar to previous findings in that most team characteristics were related to most effectiveness criteria. Relationships were strongest for process characteristics, followed by job design, context, interdependence, and other characteristics. Further, work units higher on single‐team identity were higher on many team characteristics and effectiveness measures.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 · Cited by 4,774
A disagreement about within-group agreement: disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus
Kozlowski, S. W., & Hattrup, K. (1992) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.2.161 · Cited by 514
Cited by
Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x · Cited by 2,623
Teams in Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250 · Cited by 2,273
Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.12.4.435.10635 · Cited by 1,671
The Role Of Context In Work Team Diversity Research: A Meta-Analytic Review
Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2009.41331491 · Cited by 1,362
Barrick, M. R., Thurgood, G. R., Smith, T. A., & Courtright, S. H. (2015) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2013.0227 · Cited by 544
Metadata
- Authors
- CAMPION, M. A., PAPPER, E. M., & MEDSKER, G. J.
- Venue
- Personnel Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1996-06
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 429-452
- ISSN
- 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-6570
- OpenAlex
- W2086588250
- Cited by
- 754
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 17.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
