The Impact of Team Based Performance Management … Impact of Team Based Performance Management on Team Effectiveness in the Irish Health Service Assessing the Intervening Roles of

The impact of team based performance management on teameffectiveness in the Irish health service: assessing the interveningroles of team empowerment and time / [thesis] by John Brehony

Item type Thesis

Authors Brehony, John

Publisher University of Leicester

Downloaded 16-Jun-2018 13:30:17

Link to item http://hdl.handle.net/10147/71017

Find this and similar works at - http://www.lenus.ie/hse

http://hdl.handle.net/10147/71017

The Impact of Team Based Performance Management on

Team Effectiveness in the Irish Health Service

Assessing the Intervening Roles of Team Empowerment and

Time

MSc in HRD and Performance Management

August 2008

John Brehony – Ireland

(20,084 words)

M.Sc. in HRD and PM

John Brehony, Student No. 069016673 - i -

Abstract

The primary aim of this study is to gain a better understanding of the manner in

which team based performance management (TBPM) influences team effectiveness

by exploring the extent to, and the manner in, which team empowerment mediates

that relationship. It further seeks to examine whether team leaders and team

members hold different perceptions and what impact the passage of time might have

on those perceptions.

A sample of the population in the research organisation that was using TBPM was

surveyed by means of a self-completion postal questionnaire. A cross-sectional

research design was chosen and a quantitative methodology adopted. The survey

was conducted over a one-month period from 23rd

June to 23rd

July 2008.

The findings to the three research questions are as follows:

1. Team empowerment was found to partially mediate the relationship between

TBPM and team effectiveness, suggesting that other mediating forces may be at

play. Further analysis identified the process characteristics of TBPM as being

more influential than the design or contextual characteristics. The lack of a

statistically significant effect by the design characteristics was unexpected and

requires further study.

2. The study tested for differences in the perceptions of team leaders and team

members and found no statistically significant effects. The examination of

M.Sc. in HRD and PM

John Brehony, Student No. 069016673 - ii -

perceptions by persons occupying different roles in teams is an under-explored

area.

3. More attention is now being paid to the temporal dynamics of teams. This study

tested for differences in perceptions of respondents with different lengths of

experience in using TBPM. It did not find any statistically significant effects.

The headline findings of this research, consistent with the conceptual framework for

this study, show that TBPM is positively associated with both team effectiveness

and team empowerment, and the latter is the generative mechanism through which

TBPM largely affects team effectiveness. In doing so the study contributes to the

literature by linking not only performance management with team effectiveness, but

also team empowerment as an important mediating variable in that relationship.

Keywords: team based performance management; team empowerment; team

effectiveness.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM

John Brehony, Student No. 069016673 - iii -

Acknowledgements

In undertaking this programme of study, culminating in the production of this

dissertation, I have been supported by a number of people whose assistance I wish

to acknowledge here.

I am grateful to my employer, the Health Service Executive, for financially

supporting me to undertake this programme. I trust that this study repays that

support in a tangible way.

My line manager, Mr. Jim Fleming, Asst. National Director of HR, Performance

and Development, unreservedly supported my application to undertake this

programme and encouraged me throughout. I am obliged to him for that and to my

colleagues, Jackie, Declan, Tony and Rose, who encouraged me, particularly in the

early stages of the programme.

Eimer Sparham, Student Support Officer, provided tangible support and

encouragement to me in Module 1 of the programme. Her generosity is very much

appreciated.

I was a frequent correspondent with Mrs. Rita Denton in the CLMS, both as a

conduit for submission of papers and also in seeking answers to various questions. I

can say with all sincerity that it was always a pleasure and nothing was too much

trouble for her. That support is very important for one undertaking a programme by

distance education and I appreciate the human, fun, and always professional way

she provided that support.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM

John Brehony, Student No. 069016673 - iv -

In approaching the subject matter for my dissertation I was inspired by the work of

Dr. Caroline Whelan and by her enthusiasm and generous spirit. I discussed my

conceptual framework with her and her positive and enthusiastic reaction, along

with some very practical advice on keeping the project manageable, encouraged me

to take on the task. I am in her debt.

In approaching the empirical research I was fortunate to have the assistance of Ms.

Catherine Kavanagh, who, with great patience and determination, assisted me in

compiling the sampling frame. That key support made the subsequent survey

possible and I very much appreciate her efforts on my behalf.

Mr. Jeremy Turner, ICT Manager, CLMS, came to my assistance with the analysis

of the survey by making SPSS available to me. Having ready access to this made

such a difference to my preparation as I could experiment with the software to build

familiarity with it before having to do it for real. I am thankful to him for

addressing this issue so quickly and professionally.

I wish to express a special word of thanks to all those who took the time to complete

and return my questionnaire. I hope I have represented their views faithfully.

I would like to thank Dr. Johnny Sung, CLMS, for supervising this dissertation.

While I take full responsibility for what is contained in the dissertation, Dr. Sung set

a positive and encouraging tone in our initial communications that set a sound basis

for proceeding with the work.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM

John Brehony, Student No. 069016673 - v -

Finally, I would like to express my thanks and love to my wife, Breege, whose

support gave me the encouragement to persist when I doubted myself and the

motivation to press on when I felt things were going well. Undertaking this

programme of study would not have been possible without that support. Her love

and encouragement, and the encouragement and prayers of both of our families,

enabled me to bring this study to a conclusion. I will forever be grateful to them.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM

John Brehony, Student No. 069016673 - vi -

Contents

ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................................... I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ III

LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................ VIII

LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................................... VIII

CHAPTER 1 – SETTING THE SCENE...........................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................1 THE RESEARCH TOPIC .......................................................................................................................2 AIMS OF THE RESEARCH....................................................................................................................4 THE RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESES ....................................................................................4 OUTLINE OF CHAPTERS .....................................................................................................................6

CHAPTER 2 – PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT – CONTEXTUALISING TBPM..............7

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................7 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT DEFINED ...........................................................................................7 TBPM – CONTEXT AND APPROACH...................................................................................................8 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................10

CHAPTER 3 – EXPLORING THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .......................................12

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................12 TBPM.............................................................................................................................................12

Design .......................................................................................................................................12 Process ......................................................................................................................................15 Contextual .................................................................................................................................18 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................19

TEAM EMPOWERMENT ....................................................................................................................19 Definition and Elements ............................................................................................................20 Role as a mediating variable.....................................................................................................24 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................25

TEAM EFFECTIVENESS.....................................................................................................................25 Components...............................................................................................................................26 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................29

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TEAM LEADERS AND TEAM MEMBERS .......................................................29 TIME ...............................................................................................................................................30 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................31

CHAPTER 4 – THE APPROACH..................................................................................................32

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................32 RESEARCH ETHICS ..........................................................................................................................32

The Author.................................................................................................................................32 The Research Subjects...............................................................................................................33 The Employer ............................................................................................................................34 The Research Community..........................................................................................................35

PHILOSOPHY ...................................................................................................................................35 METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................................36 METHOD .........................................................................................................................................37 STAGES IN POSTAL QUESTIONNAIRE................................................................................................44

Sample selection........................................................................................................................44 Questionnaire design.................................................................................................................46 Content ......................................................................................................................................48 Reliability and validity ..............................................................................................................48 Pilot ...........................................................................................................................................49 Data collection ..........................................................................................................................50

M.Sc. in HRD and PM

John Brehony, Student No. 069016673 - vii -

Measures and data analysis .....................................................................................................51 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................54

CHAPTER 5 – RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................55

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................55 PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS ..............................................................................................................55 FIRST RESEARCH QUESTION ............................................................................................................58

Correlation analysis ..................................................................................................................59 Regression analysis ...................................................................................................................62 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................63

SECOND RESEARCH QUESTION ........................................................................................................64 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................66

THIRD RESEARCH QUESTION ...........................................................................................................66 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................67

CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................67

CHAPTER 6 – DISCUSSION..........................................................................................................69

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................69 PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS ..............................................................................................................69 FIRST RESEARCH QUESTION ............................................................................................................72 SECOND RESEARCH QUESTION ........................................................................................................81 THIRD RESEARCH QUESTION ...........................................................................................................82 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................83

CHAPTER 7 – CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................................85

CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................................................85 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................................87 FUTURE RESEARCH .........................................................................................................................90 CONCLUDING COMMENTS ...............................................................................................................91

BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................................................93

APPENDIX 1: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................116

APPENDIX 2 – COVER LETTER AND PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE FEEDBACK SHEET 117

APPENDIX 3 – COVER LETTER, PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET AND SURVEY

QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................................................................119

APPENDIX 4 – REMINDER LETTERS .....................................................................................131

APPENDIX 5 - CODEBOOK........................................................................................................133

APPENDIX 6 – RAW DATA.........................................................................................................136

APPENDIX 7 – MANN-WHITNEY U TEST RESULTS ...........................................................141

APPENDIX 8 – DONATION TO CONCERN .............................................................................145

M.Sc. in HRD and PM

John Brehony, Student No. 069016673 - viii -

List of Tables

TABLE 1 - DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE ..................................................................................................46 TABLE 2 - CRONBACH ALPHAS AND INTER-ITEM CORRELATIONS.........................................................49 TABLE 3: FINAL RESPONSE RATE ........................................................................................................51 TABLE 4 - BREAKDOWN OF RESPONSES FOR ANALYSIS ........................................................................55 TABLE 5 - TEAM ROLE .........................................................................................................................56 TABLE 6 - TEAM PROFILE.....................................................................................................................57 TABLE 7 - TIME USING TBPM .............................................................................................................57 TABLE 8 - MEETINGS PROFILE .............................................................................................................58 TABLE 9 - CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS: TBPM, TEAM EMPOWERMENT AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS ..59 TABLE 10 – CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS: TBPM DESIGN, PROCESS AND CONTEXTUAL WITH TEAM

EMPOWERMENT .........................................................................................................................61 TABLE 11 – CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS: TBPM CATEGORIES AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

CATEGORIES ...............................................................................................................................61 TABLE 12 – CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS: TEAM EMPOWERMENT AND EACH OF THE TEAM

EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA...........................................................................................................62 TABLE 13 - RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS (N=88): MEDIATION BY TEAM EMPOWERMENT OF THE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TBPM AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS......................................................63 TABLE 14 - KRUSKAL-WALLIS TEST - LENGTH TIME USING TBPM AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS..........66 TABLE 15 - TBPM CHARACTERISTICS: SCORES FOR MODERATELY TO VERY IMPORTANT ....................76 TABLE 16 - TBPM: AGGREGATE MANN-WHITNEY U TEST RESULTS FOR EACH CATEGORY ..............141 TABLE 17 - TEAM EFFECTIVENESS: AGGREGATE MANN-WHITNEY U TEST RESULTS FOR EACH

CATEGORY ...............................................................................................................................141 TABLE 18 – TBPM: MANN-WHITNEY U TEST RESULTS FOR EACH TBPM DESIGN FACTOR..............142 TABLE 19 – TBPM: MANN-WHITNEY U TEST RESULTS FOR EACH TBPM PROCESS FACTOR............142 TABLE 20 – TBPM: MANN-WHITNEY U TEST RESULTS FOR EACH TBPM CONTEXTUAL FACTOR ....142 TABLE 21 - TEAM EMPOWERMENT: MANN-WHITNEY U TEST RESULTS FOR EACH POTENCY FACTOR

.................................................................................................................................................143 TABLE 22 - TEAM EMPOWERMENT: MANN-WHITNEY U TEST RESULTS FOR EACH MEANINGFULNESS

FACTOR ....................................................................................................................................143 TABLE 23 - TEAM EMPOWERMENT: MANN-WHITNEY U TEST RESULTS FOR EACH AUTONOMY FACTOR

.................................................................................................................................................143 TABLE 24 - TEAM EMPOWERMENT: MANN-WHITNEY U TEST RESULTS FOR EACH IMPACT FACTOR..143 TABLE 25 - TEAM EFFECTIVENESS: MANN-WHITNEY U TEST RESULTS FOR EACH PERFORMANCE

FACTOR ....................................................................................................................................144 TABLE 26 - TEAM EFFECTIVENESS: MANN-WHITNEY U TEST RESULTS FOR EACH VIABILITY FACTOR

.................................................................................................................................................144 TABLE 27 - TEAM EFFECTIVENESS: MANN-WHITNEY U TEST RESULTS FOR EACH SATISFACTION

FACTOR ....................................................................................................................................144

List of Figures

FIGURE 1 - CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................116

M.Sc. in HRD and PM

John Brehony, Student No. 069016673 - 1 -

Chapter 1 – Setting the Scene

Introduction

“Despite the increase in experience gained, there is still little known about the

factors that influence the everyday use of performance management.”

(de Waal, 2004: 301)

Performance management is the holy grail of organisational effectiveness (Schay,

1993). However, what is meant by organisational performance is not always clear

(Houldsworth and Jirasinghe, 2006; Guest, 1997; Paauwe and Boselie, 2005;

Boselie et al, 2005; Meyer and Zucker, 1989). Corvellec (2001) addresses this

conundrum by suggesting that it depends on one’s standpoint, which may explain

the variability in approaches to managing performance and defining performance

management (Andersen et al, 2006). Waldman (1994: 531) argues that “both

person and system factors must be considered simultaneously when modelling the

determinants of performance.” Houldsworth and Jirasinghe (2006: 18) concur,

stating that performance “is not only a matter of results or outputs, but also of

behaviour and process”.

The context for, and dynamics of, performance management, then, provide fertile

ground for empirical research (Baker and Salas, 1997), where the role of

performance management as a strategic management tool in healthcare “is largely

untested” (Smith, 2002: 105).

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


The research topic

This study examines how team based performance management (TBPM) impacts on

team effectiveness in the Irish health service. A number of factors led to the

selection of this topic for research.

Firstly, the National Health Strategy (Department of Health and Children, 2001)

recognised that new approaches to people management were necessary to deliver on

its ambitious objectives, requiring a system of performance management; a view

reinforced by two key reports on the health service (Department of Health and

Children, 2003; Department of Finance, 2003). A team-based approach was agreed

and written into two national social partnership agreements (Department of the

Taoiseach, 2003; 2006).

The Author has a direct interest in this area as his role is to ensure the effective

implementation and development of TBPM in the research organisation.

Secondly, organisations are increasingly adopting self-managing teams as an

operating structure (Mendibil and MacBryde, 2006; Elmuti, 1997). However, there

is very little independent evaluative research on the impact of these structures on

team effectiveness (Elmuti, 1996a; Fleishman, 1997; MacBryde and Mendibil,

2003), despite the growing acceptance of team structures in healthcare (Lemieux-

Charles and McGuire, 2006; D’Aunno et al, 1996; Opie, 1997). What studies there

are are largely from managers or consultants (Sirkin, 1993; Bowen and Lawler,

1992; Grates, 1994; Overman, 1995).

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Thirdly, research suggests that there is a link between organisation context and team

effectiveness (Guzzo and Shea, 1992; Campion et al, 1993; Campion et al, 1996;

Hall and Bayerlein, 2000) but the types of organisational variables and how they

relate to team effectiveness are not well understood (Doolen et al, 2006).

Fourthly, performance management plays a key role in shaping the psychological

contract between the employer and employee (Stiles et al, 1997). An understanding

of the dynamics and effects of the performance management system is therefore

required to maintain relationships (Robinson and Rousseau, 1994) and optimise

effectiveness (Cheng et al, 2007).

Fifthly, the literature points to two factors warranting further investigation: the

relationship between empowerment and team performance (Kirkman and Rosen,

1999; Kirkman et al, 2004a), and the impact of team maturity on team effectiveness

(Elmuti, 1996a; Mendibil and MacBryde, 2006), represented in this study by how

long the team has been using TBPM.

Very little academic research has been undertaken on TBPM in the Irish health

service, (one notable exception being Whelan, 2007), and no research has examined

the factors that may operate between the system of TBPM and team effectiveness

which may “influence the everyday use of performance management” (de Waal,

2004: 301). This study seeks to better understand the dynamics of TBPM that may

impact on its effectiveness. It addresses gaps in the literature on team effectiveness

(Schofield and Amodeo, 1999), and, in particular, teams working within a TBPM

framework (Armstrong and Baron, 2005).

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Aims of the research

The primary aim of this study is to examine how team empowerment mediates the

relationship between TBPM and team effectiveness, in order to identify the factors

and interventions necessary to optimise its impact in the Irish health service (Baron

and Kenny, 1986; Proenca, 2007). It also examines if there are significant

differences between the perceptions of team members and team leaders, an issue

that is seldom evident in the literature (Whelan, 2007), and examines, in an

exploratory way, the effect of the passage of time on the perceived impact of TBPM

on team effectiveness (Elmuti, 1996a).

This empirical study builds on, and contributes to, the literature on performance

management systems, empowerment and team effectiveness.

The research question and hypotheses

Appendix 1 sets out the conceptual framework for this study. Arising from this, the

specific research questions and hypotheses that this study examines are:

First research question: To what extent and in what way does empowerment

mediate the influence of TBPM on the effectiveness of teams?

Hypothesis 1: Team empowerment mediates the relationship between the

characteristics of TBPM and team effectiveness, such that when team empowerment

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


is controlled, the effects of the characteristics of TBPM are reduced and may no

longer be significant.

Hypothesis 1a: The characteristics of TBPM are positively related to team

effectiveness.

Hypothesis 1b: The characteristics of TBPM are positively related to team

empowerment.

Hypothesis 1c: Team empowerment is positively related to team effectiveness.

Second research question: To what extent and in what way do the perceptions of

team leaders and team members differ on the impact of TBPM on team

effectiveness?

Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference between team leaders and team

members in their perceptions of the relationship between TBPM and team

effectiveness.

Third research question: To what extent and in what way does the passage of

time affect the impact of TBPM on team effectiveness?

Hypothesis 3: The passage of time does not have a significant effect on the impact

of TBPM on team effectiveness.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Outline of chapters

Chapter 2 defines performance management and the approach taken in the Irish

health service.

Chapter 3 reviews the literature on the variables that are used in this study and the

relationships between them that give rise to the hypotheses identified to address the

research questions.

Chapter 4 sets out the research strategy used.

Chapters 5 and 6 present the research findings and discuss these in the context of

the existing literature.

Chapter 7 articulates a number of conclusions from, and identifies the limitations of,

the study and provides recommendations for managerial action and further research.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Chapter 2 – Performance Management – Contextualising TBPM

Introduction

This chapter defines performance management and provides a context for TBPM in

the Irish health service that distinguishes it from other performance management

systems.

Performance management defined

Performance management has been described as a continuous, participatory process

to managing performance through people, so that there is a shared understanding of

what is to be achieved and the manner in which it is to be achieved (Armstrong and

Baron, 2005; Hartle, 1997). Fletcher (1997) emphasises the importance of creating

a shared vision.

The definition adopted by the Irish health service reflects this contemporary need

for an inclusive approach:

“Performance management is a strategic and integrated approach to

delivering sustained success to organisations by improving the

performance of the people who work in them and by developing the

capabilities of teams and individual contributors” (Armstrong and

Baron, 1998: 7).

The focus articulated in this definition reflects the nature of the modern health

service environment and the approach required to deliver effective services. This is

now briefly discussed.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


TBPM – context and approach

Public health services are not immune to the wider forces of change brought about

by globalisation, competitive challenge and stakeholder expectations (Holloway et

al, 1999). These challenges require adaptive and distributed leadership, which

significantly changes the nature of the engagement required with employees.

Organisations are increasingly recognising the value to them of committed and

motivated employees and the lessons from the failings of traditional approaches to

appraisal are being learned (Soltani et al, 2005), with a more ethical focus being

advocated (Levinson, 2003; Winstanley and Stuart-Smith, 1996). However, given

the trend to team-based organisational structures, individual appraisal systems have

become less relevant (Mendibil and MacBryde, 2006) and may inhibit the pursuit of

quality (Bowman, 1994), one of the pillars of the National Health Strategy

(Department of Health and Children, 2001).

Fisher (2000: 4) has described empowerment, in the form of team based

management, as the “second industrial revolution”. It logically follows that

performance management needs to evolve to a team construct to reflect this (Meyer,

1994).

Zigon (1999) and Jones and Schilling (2000) provide some guidance on developing

TBPM systems, while more recently MacBryde and Mendibil (2003), Mendibil and

MacBryde (2006) and Lemieux-Charles and McGuire (2006) have put forward

comprehensive models, echoes of which can be found in the design of TBPM

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


addressed in this study. However, none of these define the characteristics of a

specific TBPM system.

Meyer (1994) sets out four principles to address measures in team based

organisations. Firstly, the measurement system should assist the team to gauge its

progress rather than be a tool for senior management, as traditional measurement

systems may undermine teams. Secondly, truly empowered teams design their own

measurement systems. Thirdly, given the cross-functional nature of teams, they

must create process measures to ensure effectiveness. Finally, the number of

measures should be limited. These principles fit well with TBPM.

TBPM recognises the importance of effective team working in the delivery of health

services. It builds on this through ensuring effective and participative planning

processes, linking team actions into the service/operational plans of the organisation

and providing for regular review by the team of its performance, thereby enabling

the potential for adaptive and distributed leadership (Heifetz and Laurie, 1997;

Drath and Palus, 1994). It encourages good information flows and information

sharing and has potential to address issues where “knowledge is power” (Ashton

and Jones, 1997: 5). As a system it measures performance against agreed

objectives.

TBPM differs from other approaches and from self-managed teams: it is a

comprehensive team-based performance management system with a flexible and

minimal architecture, involving documentation, processes and training; it is not

limited to one type of team, nor is it linked to an employee’s pay, probation or

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


promotional opportunities; and the learning dimension is emphasised to enhance

team effectiveness (HSEA, 2003). It is a holistic process, which differs from the

traditional cybernetic view of performance management (Henri, 2004), and research

suggests that holistic approaches to performance management pay dividends in

terms of success and effectiveness, but what drives this success is not always clear

(Pock et al, 2004).

Bearing in mind that organisations must be concerned with achieving their goals,

how they seek to achieve them is pertinent to the question of sustainability. “From

an efficiency standpoint, an organisation with empowered employees capable of

business-oriented critical thinking is preferred while from an effectiveness

standpoint, control and unquestioned execution is more adequate… The

challenge…is to align these two objectives” (Dahlsten et al, 2005: 539).

The evaluation of TBPM points to its empowering effects and positive impacts on

effectiveness (Kearney et al, 2004). Research by Whelan (2005; 2006; 2007)

suggests that TBPM offers considerable potential for aiding effective performance

at organisational, team and individual level.

Conclusion

It is clear from this brief overview that the system of performance management

adopted in the Irish health services is different in significant ways. It is a team-

based approach that appears to fit the context of the health service environment,

empowering teams and having multi-level impacts.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


This study takes a closer look at the team level to better understand the relationships

giving rise to effective performance, as this is considered appropriate for examining

collective processes and their effects (Gully et al, 2002). Chapter 3 explores the

variables involved and the nature of the relationships between them in order to

position the empirical research that is reported on in the following chapters.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Chapter 3 – Exploring the Conceptual Framework

Introduction

This chapter reviews the literature on the elements of the conceptual framework set

out in Appendix 1, and the relationships between them.

TBPM

Guzzo and Dickson (1996) suggest three points of leverage for enhancing team

effectiveness: design, process and contextual. The characteristics of TBPM, drawn

from the performance management agreement (HSEA, 2003), are considered under

these headings.

Design

The design characteristics consist of the presence of a team leader, role clarity and

support from senior managers.

The distinctive nature of team leadership has long been recognised (Hackman and

Walton, 1986), with the team leader being seen as a key factor in team effectiveness

(Parker, 1990; Shonk, 1992; Kuo, 2004). Hackman (2002), however, cautions

against the team leader seeking to determine both the team means and ends. This

places particular demands on team leaders in moving from a transactional to a

transformational style (Caminiti and Sookdeo, 1995) as a means of improving

performance (Stewart, 2006), although its effect may be mediated by team potency

(Schaubroeck et al, 2007).

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Both theory and empirical research point to the link between leader behaviours and

team empowerment and effectiveness: the goal orientation (Sonnentag et al, 1997)

and emotional intelligence of the leader (Koman and Wolff, 2008); delegating

responsibility, seeking and using input when making decisions (Cummings, 1978;

Hackman, 1987); developing a sense of control among team members (Dennison,

1982); promoting goal-setting and self-evaluation (Manz and Sims, 1987); and

demonstrating trust (Culbert and McDonough, 1986). These behaviours are likely

to engender a sense of meaning, impact and autonomy (Thomas and Velthouse,

1990), leading to greater confidence or potency within teams (Guzzo et al, 1993).

The role played by team leaders in empowering teams can be significant, even after

controlling for other organisational supports (Chen et al, 2007).

Hackman and Wageman (2005), however, consider the influence of the team leader

on team effectiveness to be overstated due to contextual constraints. Nevertheless,

they acknowledge that the team leader can positively affect team effectiveness by

enhancing group effort, task performance strategies and making effective use of the

skills within the team.

A distinctive feature of the team leader in this system of TBPM is that they may not

be the line manager of all or any of the team members, and, as such, they play more

of a coordinating role than the traditional line manager (Elmuti, 1996a). This

further underscores the importance of leader behaviours in creating an appropriate

climate within the team, enabling the development of a feeling of shared leadership,

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


which can be empowering and can lead to team effectiveness (Angles, 2008; Carson

et al, 2007; Pearse and Sims, 2002).

Role clarity is crucial to effective performance. Individuals with high role clarity

have been found to operate with greater self-efficacy, resulting in greater

effectiveness (Bray and Brawley, 2002). It positively impacts perceptions of

personal influence and job satisfaction (Posner and Butterfield, 1978), and

employee satisfaction is related to effectiveness (Ostroff, 1992), customer

satisfaction and perceptions of quality (Schneider and Bowen, 1993; Sureshchandar

et al, 2001). Conversely, role ambiguity can be a significant source of job tension,

leading to job dissatisfaction and reduced motivation (Donnelly and Ivancevich,

1975), with negative effects on autonomy and impact (Sawyer, 1992), potency

(Conger and Kanungo, 1988), and performance (Tubre and Collins, 2000).

Hall (2008) found that role clarity and psychological empowerment mediated the

impact of a comprehensive performance measurement system on managerial

performance.

Senior management support is considered important to the design of TBPM systems

and to team effectiveness (Elmuti, 1996b; Hacker and Lang, 2000; Hyatt and

Ruddy, 1997). They create the strategic context (Meyer, 1994) and the necessary

drive and momentum that is critical to TBPM and team effectiveness (de Waal,

2004; Mendibil and MacBryde, 2006), and can engender a climate of trust, which

has been found to positively influence employee commitment, motivation, retention,

and performance (Fay and Luhrmann, 2004; Erdem and Ozen, 2003). By acting

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


with high ethical standards they can increase job commitment (Kane-Urrabazo,

2006), which benefits organisations through improved job satisfaction (Vandenberg

and Lance, 1992); improved performance (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990); and reduced

turnover and absenteeism (Cohen, 1991; 1993), important to team viability

(Phillips, 2001). Senior managers can empower teams and encourage individuals to

think and behave in a way that promotes team effectiveness (Kirkman and Rosen,

1999; Druskat and Wheeler, 2001; Hut and Molleman, 1998) and team autonomy

(Manz and Sims, 1987), which in turn leads to team potency (Guzzo et al, 1993). A

lack of senior management commitment and support, however, can be a significant

cause of failure in performance management systems (Elmuti, 1996a; Cheng et al,

2007) and can thwart attempts at increasing perceptions of empowerment (Logan

and Ganster, 2007).

Process

The process characteristics consist of the participative goal-setting, alignment to

organisational goals, regular performance feedback, and open communications.

Participation is a vehicle for empowering staff (Collins, 1996) and is at the heart of

TBPM, reflecting a trend in the organisation of work (Cressey et al, 2006). This

stimulates information exchange (Locke et al, 1997) and leads to higher satisfaction,

motivation, self-efficacy and improved performance (Latham et al, 1994; Collins

and Smith, 2006), but must be real and genuine to be effective (Manz and Sims,

1993; Leach et al, 2003).

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Participation leads to more challenging goals being set, resulting in greater

commitment and, hence, higher performance and team viability (Latham and Saari,

1979; Locke et al, 1981; Simonds and Bell, 1997; London et al, 2004).

Furthermore, clear, shared goals are positively related to feelings of potency,

meaningfulness, autonomy, morale and employee affect (Guzzo et al, 1993; Van der

Vegt et al, 2001; Morley and Heraty, 1995), although Akgün et al (2007) failed to

find an association between goal clarity and potency. Failure to promote

participation in goal-setting may negatively impact on team viability (Phillips,

2001) and the imposition of top-down goals may lead to the failure of performance

management systems (Weldon et al, 1991; Meyer, 1994).

Wagner (1994) suggests that, while participation in goal-setting is statistically

significantly related to performance, the effects are small. Ledford and Lawler

(1994), however, challenge these findings on the grounds of the narrowness of the

measures of performance used. Clearly defined goals help build employee

commitment (Hacker and Lang, 2000), which in turn is related to increased

productivity and cooperation within teams (Bishop and Scott, 1997). Goal

interdependence also creates co-operative conditions that facilitate newcomer

socialisation (Chen et al, 2008), which is important for team viability.

The alignment of team goals with organisational strategy is a feature of most

performance management systems (Storey and Sisson, 1993; Kaplan and Norton,

1996; de Waal, 2002). In TBPM, team goals are derived from the Service and

Operational Plans. Research by Fletcher and Williams (1996) found strong

relationships between goal specificity and the strategic relevance of goals, and job

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


satisfaction and organisational commitment. Similarly, strategic planning by teams

allied with focused team action positively affects team performance (DeShon et al,

2004).

Group goal-setting and feedback are inextricably linked in their combined impact on

performance (Locke and Latham, 2002). Timely feedback can lead to improved

performance and efficiency and to more challenging goals being set (Stansfield and

Longenecker, 2006), and can support other performance management characteristics

(Mohrman et al, 1995). For example, performance reviews can identify

development needs and, as in TBPM, operate as a planning tool (Shonk, 1992). The

lack of effective feedback processes has been identified as a critical failure factor

for TBPM systems (Elmuti, 1996a).

However, Kluger and DeNisi (1996), while finding that feedback does improve

performance, also found considerable variability in the literature; some studies

finding an improvement, others showing a disimprovement. While there may be

several reasons for this, how feedback is given may be important (Stansfield and

Longenecker, 2006), with constructive feedback having positive impacts on

performance and self-efficacy (Baron, 1988). This reflects the motivational

consequences of how feedback is given and received, and where it is addressed

positively it can lead to improvements (Hazucha et al, 1993; Atwater et al, 1995;

Smither et al, 1995; Walker and Smither, 1999).

The link between communications and team effectiveness is well established (Dyer,

1987). TBPM operates on the basis of open, inclusive and respectful

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


communication, which is essential to collaborative endeavour (Liedtka, 1996) and

effective performance (Brunetto and Farr-Wharton, 2008). Open lines of

communicative interaction that are credible and which invite diverse views support

an environment that is conducive to employee empowerment (Ford and

Angermeier, 2008). Inclusive communications enhance feelings of potency and

autonomy, leading to empowerment, which results in higher levels of performance

and innovation (Haskins, 1996; Corsun and Enz, 1999; Thomas and Velthouse,

1990), while poor communications lead to a lack of empowerment and reduced

commitment (Gorden and Infante, 1991).

Contextual

The contextual characteristics of TBPM consist of its linkage to personal

development planning but not linked to pay, probation or promotional opportunities,

and a minimum of policies, procedures or paper trails.

Staff development has implications for the long-term performance and viability of

teams (Mohrman et al, 1995), requiring attention be given to the skills necessary for

effective performance (Stevens and Campion, 1994). Support for employee

development is positively related to employee commitment, but this can be

moderated by individual learning orientation (Maurer and Lippstreu, 2008). TBPM

has a learning and development orientation and research suggests that where goal-

orientation has a learning focus, there are positive impacts on self-efficacy,

performance, knowledge and commitment (Bell and Kozlowski, 2002; Porter,

2005).

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


TBPM is a flexible system that can adapt to the needs of the many types of team

working in the health service, involving a minimum of paperwork, policies and

procedures, as the purpose is to improve performance, not create a bureaucratic

burden. This contrasts with the paper intensive nature of other performance

management systems (Schaffer, 1991; Gratton et al, 1999), where the paperwork

can become an end in itself (Harris, 2001). This uncomplicated design of TBPM

overcomes some of the implementation difficulties of more complex approaches

(Butterfield et al, 2004).

The absence of a link with pay, probation and promotional opportunities reflects the

discussions leading to the agreement on TBPM. Group rewards can lead to

increased motivation and effectiveness (Pearse and Ravlin, 1987) and can enhance

levels of self-efficacy and potency (Shea and Guzzo, 1987), but the most important

rewards in teams may be intrinsic, arising from a sense of achievement and

recognition (Shaw and Schneier, 1995).

Conclusion

The evidence from the literature suggests support for Hypotheses 1a and 1b that the

characteristics of TBPM are positively related to team empowerment and team

effectiveness (Kirkman and Rosen, 1999).

Team empowerment

There are two distinct but related aspects to empowerment: structural and

psychological (Leach et al, 2003; Menon, 2001). The structural dimensions concern

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


such things as organisational structures and policies (the characteristics of TBPM

fall into this category). Psychological empowerment is concerned with perceptions

and motivations that reflect an active orientation to one’s work role (Spreitzer,

1995). Organisational characteristics can increase the likelihood of empowerment,

but the state of empowerment is an intrinsic characteristic of the person (Quinn and

Spreitzer, 1997). The impact on effectiveness, then, depends on whether

individuals perceive they are empowered and are willing to accept being

empowered (Greasley et al, 2008; Forrester, 2000). This suggests that the impact of

organisational factors, such as TBPM, may be mediated by psychological

empowerment (Kirkman and Rosen, 2000). Empowerment in this study is

concerned with psychological empowerment and is examined at the team level.

Definition and Elements

Empowerment was originally treated as an individual construct (Conger and

Kanungo, 1988; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990; Spreitzer, 1995; 1996). With the

growing interest in teams, research has also found team empowerment, as a

collective construct, to be important (Burpitt, and Bigoness, 1997; Hyatt and Ruddy,

1997; Kirkman and Rosen, 1999).

Team empowerment is the increased task motivation arising from the collective

positive assessments by the team of its organisational tasks (Kirkman and Rosen,

2000). It is an emergent state reflecting the cognitive, motivational and affective

states of teams (Kirkman et al, 2004a). Teams are dynamic constructs (Marks et al,

2001) and socially construe their sense of empowerment (Gibson, 2001). Team

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


empowerment is therefore a dynamic motivational construct, which suggests it may

mediate the impact of TBPM on team effectiveness.

Team empowerment consists of four distinct, but related, and mutually reinforcing

dimensions: potency, meaningfulness, autonomy and impact (Kirkman and Rosen,

1999), which mirror the four cognitions of empowerment at the individual level

identified by Thomas and Velthouse (1990) and empirically validated by Spreitzer

(1995). They combine additively to form an overall construct of team

empowerment and, accordingly, team empowerment is treated as a single scale in

this study (Kirkman et al, 2004a).

Potency is the group-level construct that mirrors the individual construct of

competence (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990; Lee and Koh, 2001) or self-efficacy

(Conger and Kanungo, 1988). It represents the team’s generalised perception that it

can be effective (Guzzo et al, 1993). While self-efficacy refers to beliefs

concerning the performance of a specific task, potency is a generalised belief by the

team that it can be effective. It can be both an antecedent and outcome of team

effectiveness (Guzzo et al, 1993; Pearse et al, 2002).

Potency enhances motivation, resulting in higher levels of performance and

satisfaction (Lester et al, 2002), customer service (Shea and Guzzo, 1987; de Jong et

al, 2005), and promotes proactive behaviours in teams (Spreitzer, 1995; Crant,

2000). A meta-analysis by Gully et al (2002) found potency to be strongly related

to performance, particularly where team-tasks were interdependent, and to team

viability. However, while a level of potency is required for effective performance,

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


very high levels can create pressure within teams to conform, thereby suppressing

critical analysis and leading to poor decisions (Janis, 1972). Team potency has been

found to mediate the effects of champion behaviour on team performance (Howell

and Shea, 2006) and to moderate the effects of task conflict (Lira et al, 2007).

Meaningfulness concerns the belief by the team that what it does is important and

worthwhile (Hackman and Oldham, 1980; Hackman, 1987) and involves an

intrinsic caring about the tasks by the team that imbues it with a sense of purpose

(Kirkman and Rosen, 2000). Teams with a sense of meaningfulness experience

higher levels of motivation (Hackman and Oldham, 1980), fulfilment and

satisfaction (Thomas and Tymon, 1994), and resilience and persistence in pursuing

their goals (Gorn and Kanungo, 1980). They are more likely to be committed to

their goals, with positive impacts on team performance, satisfaction and viability

(Aubé and Rousseau, 2005). These qualities support sharing and learning within

teams, which in turn lead to improved outcomes (Zellmer-Bruhn and Gibson, 2006;

Edmondson, 1999; 2002).

Autonomy is analogous to the individual dimension of choice (Thomas and

Velthouse, 1990) and is the perception of the team that it has independence,

freedom and discretion in how it does its work (Hackman, 1987). Teams that have

a sense of autonomy are more responsive to customer needs, taking responsibility to

address performance and outcome issues directly (Wellins et al, 1991), and are more

proactive (Parker et al, 2006). Autonomy has been found to be positively associated

with team satisfaction and performance (Cohen and Ledford, 1994; Cohen et al,

1996), although further research is advocated in relation to the latter in project

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


teams (Cohen and Bailey, 1997). Some studies suggest that autonomy may not

always be desirable (Stewart and Barrick, 2000), but a meta-analysis by Stewart

(2006) found autonomy to have a moderately strong relationship with team

performance.

Autonomy is both an individual and team construct, with some writers seeing the

latter as involving low individual autonomy (Wellins et al, 1990), and others not

ruling out individual autonomy within teams (Cohen and Ledford, 1994). This can

result in tension within teams, creating a paradox (Manz, 1993) that requires a

balance to be struck (Neck et al, 1996) if team cohesiveness, important to team

effectiveness, is to be maintained (Langfred, 2000).

Impact is experienced when teams produce work that they feel is important and

significant for the organisation and when they see its effect on stakeholders

(Kirkman and Rosen, 2000). This collective understanding supports learning within

teams (Edmondson, 1999), leading to innovative solutions (Burpitt and Bigoness,

1997), and reduces perceptions of helplessness, leading to greater satisfaction and

potency (Thomas and Tymon, 1994).

TBPM calls for participation in setting and reviewing goals and making decisions,

collaboration and sharing of knowledge and expertise, and for team members to

support each other. These characteristics enhance feelings of empowerment in each

of its four dimensions in teams (Corsun and Enz, 1999; Thomas and Velthouse,

1990), supporting group learning (Beersma et al, 2003), increasing job satisfaction

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


and commitment (Koberg et al, 1999), and improving team performance (Srivastava

et al, 2006).

Role as a mediating variable

The nature of empowerment as an emergent construct points to the possibility that it

mediates the effects of contextual factors on team effectiveness. A number of

studies have considered this.

Kirkman and Rosen (1999) examined the relationship between a number of job and

organisational characteristics and their impact on team performance and attitudes.

They found that team empowerment mediated all relationships, with the exception

of the relationship between external leader behaviours and team performance.

Similarly, Proenca (2007) observed that team empowerment mediated the

relationship between team context and team atmosphere with job satisfaction and

commitment to the organisation. Team efficacy was found to mediate the effects of

empowering leadership on team performance (Srivastava et al, 2006).

Seibert et al (2004) demonstrated that an empowerment climate was different from

psychological empowerment, and that the latter mediated the effects of the former

on performance. Mathieu et al (2006) found that team processes further mediated

these relationships.

This study examines relationships at the team level, but Chen et al (2007) examined

the effects of leadership on performance by considering empowerment at the

individual and team level simultaneously. Again, the mediating role of

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


empowerment was observed at both levels, but, interestingly, team empowerment

was found to moderate the effect of individual empowerment on individual

effectiveness, such that when team empowerment is high, individuals perform at a

higher level regardless of the level of individual empowerment. This is consistent

with the suggestion by Spreitzer (1996) that the group level may provide greater

understanding of empowerment, and with the findings of Koberg et al (1999) that

group and organisational level variables accounted for more variance in

empowerment than individual variables. This would suggest that attention paid to

the team level in particular can pay dividends for organisational effectiveness.

Conclusion

Team empowerment is an affective, motivational state that has significant impacts

on team effectiveness. It is significantly influenced by organisational context and

would appear to mediate its influence on team effectiveness. The evidence suggests

support for Hypotheses 1 and 1c.

Team effectiveness

Within TBPM, to reflect all team types, a team is defined as “a group of people who

share common objectives and who work together to achieve them” (HSEA, 2003:

Section 2.4). Research indicates that clients experience a more effective delivery of

services where healthcare professionals work together in teams (Zwarenstein et al,

1997; Aiken et al, 1988; Rafferty et al, 2001). Teamwork enhances communication

(Swan et al, 2002) and motivation (Wood et al, 1994), and team collaboration, team

commitment and tolerance of diversity have been found to be positively related to

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


innovativeness (West and Wallace, 1991). Teams, then, are a means to an end

(Katzenbach and Smith, 1993).

While this study seeks to understand the factors influencing team effectiveness

(Aubé and Rousseau, 2005), to do so requires a perspective on what constitutes

team effectiveness.

Components

Notwithstanding the large volume of literature in this area, what constitutes team

effectiveness is not universally agreed (Guzzo and Dickson, 1996; Singh and

Muncherji, 2007) and “has become far more complex in recent years” (Mathieu et

al, 2008: 414). A number of models of team effectiveness have been proposed.

Steiner (1972) put forward a deceptively simple model that reflected the importance

of group process. In this model the difference between potential and actual

productivity arises from losses due to faulty group processes, both task and social-

psychological. The model, while important in stimulating subsequent research, is a

uni-dimensional measure of effectiveness, addressing the issue of productivity (Piña

et al, 2008).

The socio-technical perspective positions effectiveness in terms of both the task to

be achieved and the social factors involved (Singh and Muncherji, 2007). The

expression of this social and technical interface is found in the development of self-

regulating work groups (Cummings, 1978). Unlike Steiner’s model, where the task

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


determines the process, the emphasis in socio-technical theory is on the

determination of the process by the team to complete the task.

Shea and Guzzo (1987), reflecting a concern with performance, considered team

effectiveness in terms of services or goods provided. Not unexpectedly, this

concern is to be found as a key measure of team effectiveness in the literature (Kuo,

2004; Kirkman and Rosen, 1999; Kolodny and Kiggundu, 1980; Porter, 2005; Piña

et al, 2008).

It is now agreed, however, that task performance is a necessary but inadequate

measure of team effectiveness (Wong and Snell, 2003; Aubé and Rousseau, 2005),

as how goods and services are provided has implications for the viability of the

team (Hackman and Oldham, 1980).

Hackman’s (1987) seminal work on team effectiveness took the issue further,

suggesting how teams could be designed and managed to be more effective. In

particular, he highlighted the importance of examining team effectiveness using

multiple criteria, which can be encapsulated in terms of team performance, team

satisfaction and team viability. Hackman (1990) distinguished between these

ultimate indicators of performance and intermediate indicators involving the quality

of group interactions.

Wageman et al (2005), reflecting Hackman (1987), define performance in terms of

output that meets or exceeds the standards of quantity, quality, and timeliness of the

recipients of the team’s output. They also address the viability of the team by

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


considering its social processes and the nature of the group experience in terms of

their satisfaction and development.

Team effectiveness, then, is multi-faceted, consisting of internal and external

criteria (Kozlowski and Bell, 2003) and there may be reciprocal relationships

between the team and its environment (Ancona, 1990; Ancona and Cauldwell,

1992a). The literature on team effectiveness now tends to incorporate measures in

addition to performance, and, in particular, team satisfaction (Gladstein, 1984;

Hackman, 1987; Sundstrom et al, 1990; Wall et al, 1986; Doolen et al, 2006). Kuo

(2004) identified two index dimensions of team effectiveness from the literature:

performance (productivity, innovation, customer service, cost reduction and

organizational value) and attitude (work satisfaction, commitment to the team and

the organisation, and team unification). Similarly, Kirkman and Rosen (1999)

considered team effectiveness in these two index dimension, with performance

consisting of productivity, active behaviour, and customer service, while the attitude

dimension addressed work satisfaction, organisational and team commitment.

Cohen and Bailey (1997) added a behavioural index dimension.

Effectiveness that consists of performance and satisfaction measures may reflect a

short-term perspective and for sustained success a team needs to be viable. This

reflects the ability and capacity of the team to adapt to both internal and external

changes, in addition to the probability that the team members remain willing to

work together in the longer-term (Hackman, 1987; Sundstrom et al, 1990; Aubé and

Rousseau, 2005).

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


MacBryde and Mendibil (2003) developed a model of team performance

measurement and suggested team performance consists of effectiveness, efficiency,

learning and growth and team member satisfaction, although they did not address

these in a subsequent test of their model (Mendibil and MacBryde, 2006).

Nonetheless, the elements identified are not dissimilar to the three dimensions

proposed by Hackman (1987).

Conclusion

This review of the literature points to the durability of the model proposed by

Hackman (1987) and accordingly the three dimensions of team effectiveness used in

this study are team performance, team viability and team satisfaction.

Differences between team leaders and team members

There is a paucity of information in the performance management literature on

differences in perceptions between individuals occupying different roles on teams.

Whelan (2006; 2007) found statistically significant differences in perceptions

between team leaders and team members, but the context for her enquiry was the

perceived improvements following the introduction of TBPM. This study, however,

examines perceptions of the current use and experience of TBPM, as the focus is on

the factors impacting on team effectiveness as things currently operate. As TBPM

is intended to be an inclusive process that provides benefits for all involved,

Hypothesis 2 suggests that there are no significant differences in perceptions

between team leaders and team members.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Time

Drucker, once a strong advocate for self-managing teams, has cast doubt on their

durability as an organisational construct (Verespej, 1998; Panchak, 1998). Kirkman

and Rosen (2000) suggest that his disillusionment may be due to self-management

only addressing one aspect of empowerment: autonomy; to be truly empowered,

teams must experience autonomy and the other three elements (Kirkman and Rosen,

1999).

Nevertheless, the concerns expressed by Drucker find echoes in the literature where

the passage of time can have mixed results. In one of the few empirical studies on

team based management, Elmuti (1996a) examined the sustainability of teams and

their effectiveness over time. While the majority of organisations surveyed

disagreed with the statement that TBPM loses its momentum over time, a

significant minority said the contributions of the self-managed team programmes

were less significant after a few years of implementation, citing lack of “executive

leadership, support and participation” (Elmuti, 1996a: 16).

Although they did not empirically test this, Mendibil and MacBryde (2006) suggest

that team maturity is positively associated with performance. Similarly, Koberg et

al (1999) found that individuals with longer tenure feel more empowered, as they

have learned to adapt to the work situation. Conversely, Hut and Molleman (1998)

found only a moderate relationship between the extent to which teams feel

empowered and the length of time since they began the empowering programme.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


While one would expect teams to become more familiar with their work and TBPM

over time, and familiarity has been found to be positively associated with

performance (Goodman and Leyden, 1991), this can be a double-edged sword as it

may reduce the extent of explicit team communication, resulting in team

effectiveness diminishing over time (Katz, 1981).

While not the main focus of this study, the effects of time on the impact of TBPM

and team effectiveness will be examined in an exploratory way. Given the mixed

findings in the literature a neutral position has been adopted for Hypothesis 3.

Conclusion

As empowered teams are more effective, this presents challenges and opportunities

for organisations to improve their effectiveness (Kirkman and Rosen, 1999).

However, none of the studies identified examined the relationship between a

specific performance management system and team effectiveness and how, and to

what extent, team empowerment might mediate that relationship. This empirical

study addresses this and contributes to theory on empowerment by linking structural

empowerment (in the form of TBPM) and psychological empowerment and how,

and to what extent, the latter mediates the influence of the former on team

effectiveness (Seibert et al, 2004).

This review of the literature provides support for the hypotheses put forward to

address the research questions. In the next chapter the approach taken to examine

these issues is articulated.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Chapter 4 – The Approach

Introduction

What constitutes knowledge and how can we know it? That is the essence of the

philosophical debate on how to conduct research (Robson, 1993), and the dilemma

faced by researchers (Fisher, 2004). This chapter sets out the philosophical stance

and approach taken by the Author to address the research questions. Firstly,

however, the ethical issues involved are considered.

Research ethics

Ethical issues may be considered in terms of the obligations of the Author and the

constituencies to which he is accountable.

The Author

The Author, informed by the University of Leicester guidance on research ethics

(CLMS, 2007: M4 U2; Johnson, 2008), and by good ethical principles and practice

(Denscombe, 2002; Bryman, 2004), conducted the research to the best of his ability

and reported its findings in an accurate and truthful manner; failure to do so would

not only damage his professional reputation but also jeopardise future research.

Furthermore, the Author recognises that ethical research is more likely to yield

better results (Homan, 1991).

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


The Author is satisfied that the research has merit from an organisational and

academic perspective. The methodology and methods chosen are grounded in the

research literature and are appropriate for investigating the research questions.

While the conduct of the research in one’s own organisation can have its advantages

(Brannick and Coghlan, 2007), it also places ethical obligations on the Author to

declare his position to the research subjects and to take steps to avoid the potential

for bias. The former issue is addressed in the letter to the research subjects (see

Appendix 3). The latter requires the Author to display objectivity in the research

endeavour. This is addressed by using a random sample and adopting a self-

completion questionnaire method that places a degree of distance between the

Author and the respondents. The survey questions are derived from the literature

and existing questionnaires are used to the maximum extent possible. Data is

analysed using statistical techniques and discussion of the findings is grounded in

the research literature.

The Research Subjects

Ethics in research requires that the nature of the agreement between the researcher

and the research subjects is clear and that the latter have sufficient information to

give informed consent to participation (Blaxter et al, 1996). Once agreement has

been reached the researcher is obliged to honour that agreement. The researcher,

therefore, has a particular obligation to respect the rights of the research subjects,

and those who might be affected by the research, (Saunders et al, 2007), and to

faithfully represent their responses.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


To fulfil these ethical requirements, all appropriate details concerning the research

were set out to enable the respondents make an informed decision whether to

participate (Appendix 3). Anonymity and confidentiality were assured and

questionnaires do not contain anything that can identify them. Respondents were

offered a copy of the research findings if they so wished on the successful

completion of the MSc programme (Crow, 2002).

The Author committed to minimising the disturbance to the research subjects and to

informing them of the length of time it would take to complete the questionnaire.

The Employer

The Author’s employer financially supported his participation on the MSc

programme following a discussion on the potential benefit to the organisation in

terms of enhanced knowledge and the delivery of a piece of research on an issue of

some importance to it. This study satisfies the obligation of the Author to deliver on

the commitments made (Kane and O’Reilly-de Brún, 2001; Blumberg et al, 2005).

In agreeing participation on the programme and the focus of the research with the

employer, no conditions were placed on the Author in any form in terms of how the

research should be conducted or its outcome. This ensures that the objectivity of

the research is not compromised by any such contingencies. In turn, the Author

committed to ensuring a research design appropriate to the research questions and to

analysing the data faithfully using appropriate techniques (Blumberg et al, 2005).

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


The Research Community

Ethical research requires that the researcher avoids impropriety in the research

endeavour (Remenyi et al, 1998). The truthful, undistorted presentation of the

research findings in as an objective a manner as possible, setting out the methods

used and the data obtained, is required to enable the research community and others

assess the merits of the research (Kane and O’Reilly-de Brún, 2001).

All research by virtue of its limited scope is subject to some form of systematic bias

(Behling, 1980) and research methods, however appropriate to the research

endeavour, have their limitations (Rosnow, cited in Podsakoff and Dalton, 1987).

The Author is therefore committed to reporting the limitations of the research, its

methods and findings.

Philosophy

Each of the main philosophical approaches (positivism, post-positivism and

interpretivism) has considerable merit. However, the Author favours a critical

realist perspective. Situated within a post-positivist paradigm, critical realism

considers the generative mechanisms that form the social world (Bryman, 2004).

Unlike positivism, which holds that the scientific approach reflects reality, critical

realism considers this the means by which reality may come to be known.

Similarly, it considers interpretivism to be subject to epistemic fallacy, whereby

‘being’ is interpreted as ‘perceived being’ and therefore as knowledge. In doing so

interpretivism fails to address ‘being’ that may not be perceived or to understand the

factors giving rise to the meaning. Critical realism considers positivist and

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


interpretivist constructions of reality to be inadequate as one ignores important

aspects of the other (Hammer, 2007). Weber (2004: xi) suggests “it is time to

assign the rhetoric of positivism versus interpretivism to the scrap heap.”

Critical realism deals in probability, unlike the certainty of positivism (Crotty,

1998). It accepts that reality can be objective and also be informed by perceptions,

overcoming some of the problems of the purist epistemologies of positivism and

interpretivism (Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2005). Furthermore, if we could not

assess patterns at the collective level, then attempts to understand reality and gather

meaningful knowledge would be rendered impossible (Behling, 1980; Legge, 1984).

Accepting that reality may be understood in different ways, different

methodological approaches become available; methodology is not synonymous with

epistemology (Bryman, 1984).

Methodology

Trow (quoted in Bryman, 1984: 76) holds that “the problem under investigation

properly dictates the methods of investigation”, although actual practice would

appear to contradict this (Bryman, 2007a). Dreher (1994) makes the point that

rather than focus on the merits of phenomenology or positivism, the rationale for

using a specific research method should address its potential for answering the

specific research question. She suggests that this be grounded in “an analysis of the

existing research literature” (1994: 293).

Taking this advice, an examination of the literature on research in organisational

development highlights the predominance of quantitative methodology (Podsakoff

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


and Dalton, 1987). This study similarly suggests a quantitative approach for

understanding the generative mechanisms underpinning team effectiveness. A

qualitative approach would limit the generalisability of the findings. While a

mixed-methods approach could add to the overall findings (Thompson, 2004), this

does not automatically follow (Brannen, 2005), nor is such an approach

unproblematic (Bryman, 2007b). Furthermore, similar findings can emerge from

quantitative and qualitative studies of the same phenomenon (Campbell and

Martinko, 1998).

Given these considerations, and the limitations of time, skill and resources, this

study uses a quantitative approach. The Author considers this the most appropriate

approach to the objectives of this empirical study (Silverman, 2005),

notwithstanding criticisms of mono-method research (Onwuegbuzie and Leech,

2005).

Method

A research design is the approach taken to answer the research questions (Saunders

et al, 2007). There are a number of research designs that can be followed,

depending on the aims of the research, such as experimental, cross-sectional or

survey, longitudinal, case study, or comparative (Bryman, 2004). Each research

design was examined from a quantitative methodological perspective to assess its

suitability for this research.

The experimental design was rejected as the study requires the participants to be in

teams using TBPM, and therefore a comparison with non-TBPM teams would not

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


be appropriate. The longitudinal design was rejected on grounds of additional

complexity and time constraints. The case study was rejected as the focus of

interest is the TBPM system and not the organisation in which the research will be

conducted. The comparative design was rejected for similar reasons, in addition to

the added complexity of negotiating access to respondents.

Bryman (2004: 41) defines the cross-sectional design as involving “the collection of

data on more than one case…and at a single point in time in order to collect a body

of quantitative or quantifiable data in connection with two or more

variables…which are then examined to detect patterns of association.” This

approach, although not without its limitations, is eminently suitable to the objectives

of this study, which involves gathering data in a consistent format from a significant

number of respondents in order to develop an understanding of the association

between the variables of interest.

A survey has been described as a means by which up-to-date information in

empirical research is collected systematically and consistently, involving wide

coverage, to enable a phenomenon to be described and analysed (Kent, 2001;

Denscombe, 2007). A number of survey methods were examined for gathering

quantitative data on the variables of interest. These included face-to-face interviews

using a structured questionnaire, telephone interviews, documentary analysis,

observations, and self-completion questionnaires. These are now considered.

The face-to-face interview, using a structured questionnaire, involves the researcher

interacting directly with the respondent. This approach has a number of advantages.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Babbie (1990) points to very high completion rates from well-designed, well-

executed questionnaires. The structured questionnaire ensures a consistent

collection and coding of the data. However, there are a number of significant

drawbacks in using this method in this research. Firstly, the time taken to schedule

and conduct the interviews in the numbers required makes it unsuitable. Secondly,

the geographical spread of the respondents throughout Ireland makes this approach

unworkable. Thirdly, there is potential for bias arising from the social interaction

between the researcher and the respondent (CLMS, 2007, M4 U3), which the

Author, given his direct interest in the subject matter of this research, wished to

minimise.

Consideration was given to conducting telephone interviews using a structured

questionnaire. There is evidence that, in certain circumstances, this can be as

effective as face-to-face interviews (Sturges and Hanrahan, 2004). The advantage

of this approach is that geography becomes less of a constraint. However, the other

disadvantages of face-to-face interviews also render this approach unsuitable. From

a practical perspective there remains the difficulty of contacting the respondents by

telephone, given the nature of their, and the Author’s, various types of work-

patterns. Attempting to do so outside of working hours would be disruptive to them

and would be unacceptable. In addition, this approach may introduce an element of

unwelcome pressure in that respondents may wish to take time to consider their

responses having heard the questions or may be distracted due to preoccupations of

work.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


When one thinks of surveys one immediately thinks of people, yet a survey of

documents may also reveal the required information (Denscombe, 2007). However,

this is not a viable option for this research as the TBPM architecture involves

minimal paperwork, creating issues of availability, access, consistency and quality.

Furthermore, any available documentation is unlikely to enable the type of analysis

required.

An observational design was briefly considered. A benefit of this approach is that

not only can one ask the research subjects what they do and think, one can observe

what they actually do in practice (Denscombe, 2007). It is possible to formulate a

set of rules to guide the observation of the research subjects in their work setting

(Bryman and Bell, 2003). However, there are significant drawbacks to using this

approach. A considerable lead-in period would be required to establish the

framework and rules for the observation and how it would be recorded (Bryman,

2004). Even so, when observing and reflecting on the behaviour it may be difficult

or impossible to identify and understand the generative mechanisms that are of

interest to this study. Being so close to the observed behaviour may also obscure “a

different range or level of phenomena” (Bryman, 1984: 83). A further complicating

factor is that such intimate contact with the research subjects over a period of time

may raise issues about whose knowledge is in fact being assessed. This raises the

philosophical issue of “whether or not human beings can ever achieve any form of

knowledge that is independent of their own subjective construction, since they are

the agents through which knowledge is perceived or experienced" (Morgan and

Smircich, 1980: 493). Finally, at a more pragmatic level, given the geographical

spread of the research subjects, the number of observations that would be possible,

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


notwithstanding the difficulties referred to, would render this method unsuitable.

As a social research technique it is not widely used (Bryman, 2004).

Finally, there is the self-completion postal questionnaire. Podsakoff and Dalton

(1987: 436) capture the advantages of the survey questionnaire very well in terms of

the objectives and focus of this study, when they state:

“In addition to the fact that self-report questionnaires are, in many

cases, the most plausible alternative for measuring unobservable

constructs such as the attitudes, values, intentions, perceptions and

personalities of organizational participants, they also are (a) a

convenient data collection technique that can be used to gather a

relatively large sample with reasonable investment of time and trouble,

(b) relatively easy to use, (c) less expensive , and (d) faster than other

field methodologies available for use.”

Warwick and Lininger (quoted in Bryman, 1984: 80-81) suggest that “The sample

survey is an appropriate and useful means of gathering information under three

conditions: when the goals of the research call for quantitative data, when the

information sought is reasonably specific and familiar to the respondent, and when

the researcher himself has considerable prior knowledge of particular problems and

the range of responses likely to emerge.” Dillman (1991: 226-227) also

distinguishes the sample survey from other approaches in terms of “its ability to

estimate quantitatively the distribution of a characteristc in a population, and to

accomplish this by obtaining information…from only a small proportion of that

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


population…” These criteria are particularly relevant to this research.

Furthermore, it is highly appropriate for use with a geographically dispersed sample

(CLMS, 2007, M4 U3).

The advantages of the self-completion questionnaire, relative to other methods, can

be summarised as being inexpensive and quick to administer, providing a consistent

and objective approach, enabling the guarantee of confidentiality and anonymity to

be honoured, and a convenient approach for respondents, who can complete the

questionnaire at a time and place that suits them (Bryman and Bell, 2003). It also

allows respondents to reflect on the questions and give more considered responses

(Brook, 1978).

However no research method is perfect (Podsakoff and Dalton, 1987; Yanchar,

2006) and the disadvantages of the postal questionnaire are now considered.

Notwithstanding its apparent objectivity, the self-completion questionnaire still

involves an interaction between the Author and the respondents, which co-

constitutes and situates the research (Finlay, 2003). Furthermore, it is the Author

who sets the questions and ascribes meanings to the responses (Dzurec and

Abraham, 1993). The philosophical approach taken acknowledges these realities

and seeks to minimise any potential for bias arising.

The response rate for postal surveys can be low. However, when targeted at groups

with a particular interest in the subject matter, as in this case, response rates can be

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


as good as other methods (CLMS, 2007, M4 U3). Steps can be taken to improve

the response rate (Bryman and Bell, 2003).

The questionnaire design is critical to gathering appropriate data. Linked to the first

point, posing questions that are salient for the repondent are likely to motivate them

to complete the questionnaire (Bryman and Bell, 2003). However, the questionnaire

must, of necessity, be limited, not only in terms of how questions are asked and

responses gathered, but also in terms of overall length. There is no opportunity to

probe responses and this raises questions concerning the depth and detail of the data

collected (Denscombe, 2007).

The strength of the postal questionnaire in terms of anonymity is also a weakness as

one cannot be certain that the actual respondent is the intended respondent (Bryman,

2004). However, the completion of a questionnaire takes time and the interest of

the respondent and the likelihood of someone going to the trouble of completing the

questionnaire when they are not part of the survey is very low. Furthermore one

cannot be sure that the respondent has answered the question honestly as they may

be concerned to obtain social approval (Bryman and Bell, 2003). The guarantee of

confidentiality, as well as the anonymity of the questionnaire should overcome this.

Having reviewed the options the Author selected the self-completion postal

questionnaire as the method of choice for this research as it had considerable

advantages over the other methods and is particularly appropriate to a sample

survey design. The stages in the postal questionnaire are now reviewed.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Stages in postal questionnaire

The conduct of research by means of a postal questionnaire requires a number of

stages: select sample, develop questionnaire, pilot test questionnaire, collect data

and conduct the analysis (Murphy, 1997; Bryman and Bell, 2003). These are

considered in turn.

Sample selection

A proportionate stratified random sample was used, drawn from the population

within the research organisation using TBPM (1145 individuals in 140 teams1), to

reflect the time teams have been using TBPM. As the research design involves a

quantitative methodology, probability theory requires the use of random samples if

certain statistical tests are to be performed (Kumar, 2005). The use of a stratified

random sample, then, minimises bias (Pole and Lampard, 2002), sampling and non-

coverage errors (Dillman, 1991), and facilitates generalisation of the findings to the

wider population (Denscombe, 2007).

The sample size depends on the level of precision required rather than the size of the

population (van der Velde et al, 2004), so that it returns a mean close to the

population mean. Pole and Lampard, (2002) suggest the following formula to

estimate the required sample size:

1 Based on the latest returns on the uptake of TBPM

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


n = ((1.96)2σ

2) / δ

2, where

n = sample size

1.96 = confidence at the 95% level.

σ = population standard deviation

δ = the maximum acceptable difference between the sample and population

means

This requires that an estimate be given for σ and δ. Research, using a census, by

Whelan (2007) on TBPM estimated the population standard deviation for individual

empowerment at 0.52. As the four cognitions of empowerment (Thomas and

Velthouse, 1990; Kirkman and Rosen, 1999) apply at the team level also, this figure

represents the best estimate for σ in terms of the main variable of interest in this

research, i.e. team empowerment. The population mean for individual

empowerment in the study by Whelan (2007) was 3.8 (on a five-point Likert scale),

so using a figure of .01 for δ, this suggests a sample of 104. As this is less than 10%

of the population, a finite population correction factor was not be used. However,

to allow for a response rate of 70% the actual sample size was 151 (Saunders et al,

2007).

The 140 teams were grouped into four time bands for the purpose of determining

the numbers required to be sampled in each time band to ensure proportionality in

the sample selected. This is depicted in Table 1.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Time Band Teams Nos. % of total Sample

Less than 1 year 64 388 33.89 51

1<2 years 17 228 19.91 30

2<3 years 29 196 17.12 26

3 years and over 30 333 29.08 44

Totals 140 1145 100 151

Average team size 8.18

Min 2

Max 46

Sample required 151

Table 1 - Distribution of Sample

A sample frame of all of the individuals on TBPM teams (team leaders and team

members) was compiled and a number between 1 and 1145 assigned to each person.

These were grouped in the time bands as set out above. For each time band random

numbers were generated to the required amount using an online randomizing tool

(available at http://www.randomizer.org/index.htm). For example, 51 random

numbers were generated for the range 1 to 388 (covering teams using TBPM for

less than one year). The results of these random selections identified team leaders

and team members, broadly in proportion to their distribution in the population, and,

therefore, no further exercises were required to select proportional samples of team

leaders and team members.

Questionnaire design

There are differing views on the appropriate length of the questionnaire, with an

upper limit suggested of ten pages (Brook, 1978). The questionnaire used in this

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


study consists of seven pages, two of which are the front and back covers, and the

results from the pilot test show that the length is reasonable (Bryman and Bell,

2003).

The questionnaire should be attractive (Saunders et al, 2007; Fanning, 2005) to

maximise the response rate (Fisher, 2004) and reduce non-response error (Dillman,

1991). The questionnaire used in this study reflects these issues. It is printed on

pale sand-coloured paper, and includes an attractive front cover to appeal to the

motivation of the respondents, thereby seeking to maximise response rates (de

Rada, 2005).

Closed questions are used in this study as they present advantages for both the

Author, in terms of consistency and facility of analysis, and the respondents, in

terms of ease (and, therefore, likelihood) of completion (Bryman, 2004).

Instructions for completing the questionnaire appear on each page (Murphy, 1997),

with easy demographic questions at the start, proceeding to questions on the main

areas of interest with which the respondents would be familiar (Fisher, 2004; Brook,

1978).

Respondents were assured of anonymity and confidentiality and therefore nothing

on the survey can identify the respondents, particularly should the completed

questionnaire go missing in the post (Murphy, 1997).

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Content

The overall content is derived from the performance management agreement

(HSEA, 2003) in terms of TBPM, Kirkman et al (2004) in terms of team

empowerment, and Hackman (1987) in terms of team effectiveness. The specific

questions for TBPM and team effectiveness are adapted from Whelan (2007) and

those for team empowerment are adapted from Kirkman et al (2004a).

Reliability and validity

An instrument is reliable to the extent that it is free from random error and is

internally consistent, while it is valid if it measures what it purports to measure

(Pallant, 2007). The instruments from Kirkman et al (2004a) and Whelan (2007)

were tested by the researchers and were found to be reliable and valid. Only minor

changes were made to the wording of some of the questions for this study.

The Author, having reviewed the literature and piloted the instrument, is satisfied

that the questionnaire has both face and content validity. Reliability was tested

using Cronbach’s alpha. The alpha values are detailed in Table 2.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Scale Sub-scale Cronbach

alpha

Mean inter-item correlation

(where alpha less than 0.7)

TBPM 0.79

Design 0.63 0.37

Process 0.88

Contextual 0.60 0.35

Team Empowerment 0.92

Team Effectiveness 0.96

Performance 0.92

Viability 0.92

Satisfaction 0.93

Table 2 - Cronbach alphas and inter-item correlations

A Cronbach’s alpha of 1.00 would indicate perfect internal reliability, while a

score of 0.00 would indicate no internal reliability. The higher the score the more

reliable is the scale that is being used. Nunnaly (1978) suggests that a score of 0.70

and over is an acceptable reliability coefficient. Short scales may result in alpha

values below 0.70 and in such cases the mean inter-item correlation is a more

appropriate figure. According to Briggs and Cheek (1986), values in the range 0.20

to 0.40 are optimal. Accordingly, the reliability of the questionnaire is acceptable.

Pilot

Piloting is recommended to test the questionnaire among a small set of respondents

similar to, but not drawn from, the population to be sampled for the main study, as,

where probability sampling is used, the exclusion of these people from the

population to be sampled could compromise the representativeness of that sample

(Bryman, 2004). Accordingly, the questionnaire was piloted with twelve staff in

training for, but not yet using, TBPM. Each participant was given, in addition to the

questionnaire, a letter explaining the purpose of the study and pilot, and a feedback

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


sheet for completion (Bell, 2005) – see Appendix 2. No changes were required to

the questionnaire as a result of the pilot.

Data collection

The survey instrument was distributed by post to the respondents, together with a

covering letter and participant information sheet (Appendix 3). The importance of a

covering letter is stressed in the literature (Easterby-Smith et al, 1991) as it is a

means of appealing to the motivations of the respondents (Fisher, 2004) by seeking

to convince them to participate (Murphy, 1997). Confidentiality was assured

(Brook, 1978). By way of encouragement, respondents were advised that a

contribution to charity would be made for every questionnaire returned, and a

stamped-addressed envelope was supplied (Bryman and Bell, 2003). Respondents

were also thanked in anticipation of their participation (Murphy, 1997).

Of the 151 questionnaires issued, 15 respondents were found to be ineligible as they

were not using TBPM. This reduced the actual sample to 136. Of this number, 30

questionnaires were received by the due date.

The importance of follow up reminders is evident in the literature (Dillman, 1991;

Kane and O’Reilly-de Brun, 2001). A reminder letter and a further copy of the

questionnaire were issued two weeks after the initial mailing, with the urgency of

the matter emphasised (Brook, 1978) – see Appendix 4. This yielded a further 44

responses.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


A second reminder was issued ten days after the issue of the first reminder

(Appendix 4). A cut-off date of 23rd

July 2008 was set. The final position is set out

in Table 3.

Team

Members

Team

Leaders

Total

Sample

No. of questionnaires issued 131 20 151

Nos. excluded as ineligible 15

Revised actual sample 116 20 136

No. of questionnaires returned 71 20 91

Response rate 61.21% 100% 67%

Table 3: Final Response Rate

Mangione (1995) suggests that response rates in excess of 70% are very good, with

response rates between 60% and 70% being acceptable. Accordingly the response

to this study is acceptable. However, the actual sample allowed for the possibility

of a 70% response rate, so when compared with the estimated sample size of 104,

the response represents 87.5%.

Measures and data analysis

Data collected in this study is based on perceptions of respondents. Objective data

was not available, and had it been, issues of comparability would have arisen

(Campion et al, 1993). People perceive and interpret their environments (Thomas

and Velthouse, 1990), and their sense of empowerment rests on those perceptions

(Greasley et al, 2008). Accordingly, as with similar studies, subjective measures

were used (Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Kirkman et al, 2001; Doolen et al, 2006).

While this may give rise to common-method bias, that concern may be exaggerated

(Crampton and Wagner, 1994), to the extent of being a myth (Spector, 1987). The

use of perceptual measures is, therefore, a valid approach (Spreitzer, 1996).

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Rousseau (cited in Van der Vegt et al, 2001) held that items should be measured at

the lowest level possible when they mean the same thing at different levels, which

then allows for individual assessments to be aggregated to the team level.

Perceptions, even when socially constructed, are a property of the individual and

issues such as the dimensions of team empowerment may appropriately be captured

at the individual level and aggregated to the team level. However, there is some

disagreement about how to do so.

Guzzo et al (1993) argue that to measure a collective belief, a consensus method of

assessment should be employed. Bandura (1997) disagrees, arguing with respect to

collective efficacy that it is not a monolithic construct, but rather one where

individuals may vary in their assessments. Jung and Sosik (2003) found that the

individual assessment method of collective efficacy and group potency generally

produced a higher level of predictive validity than the group assessment method.

This contrasts with the findings of Gibson et al (2000), who found the group

discussion method had better predictive validity. Kirkman et al (2001) assessed

both approaches and concluded that the consensus method of assessing team

effectiveness was more effective than aggregation alone.

Given the lack of agreement on which approach to take, and the drawbacks of the

consensus approach in terms of potential for groupthink (Janis, 1972); dominance

by one or more individuals of the discussion (Anderson and Martin, 1999); potential

violation of independence of observations (Stevens, 2002); time constraints; and the

fact that this study does not examine or differentiate between teams, per se, but

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


rather individuals working in teams using TBPM, data in this study was collected

from individuals, with the team as referent.

Data was compiled and analysed using SPSS 14.0 for Windows. To analyse the

data a score was arbitrarily assigned to each possible response (see Appendix 5).

While team empowerment has four dimensions, this is treated as a single scale in

this study (Kirkman et al, 2004a). In addtion to descriptive statistics, a number of

statistical tests were conducted as follows.

The Mann-Whitney U Test, a non-parametric test, was used to assess if significant

differences exist between team members and team leaders by comparing the

distibution of their median scores.

Correlation analysis was used to examine the relationships between the explanatory,

response and mediating variables to assess if significant relationships exist (Baron

and Kenny, 1986). As the variables in this study are measured on an ordinal scale, a

non-parametric measure of the correlation is required. Spearman’s rho is a rank-

order correlation coefficient that measures association at the ordinal level.

However, correlation analysis will only point to the strength of a relationship.

Regression analysis is required to gather information on the way the variables are

related. Multiple regression analysis enables an assessment of the mediating effect

of team empowerment (Baron and Kenny, 1986).

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


The effect of time was assessed by grouping respondents by time and comparing the

resultant groups using the Kruskal-Wallis Test, which is a non-parametric

alternative to a one-way between-groups ANOVA.

Conclusion

Having considered the nature of the research questions and the research methods

literature, a quantitative methodology was adopted for this research. The next

chapter presents the findings from the empirical study.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Chapter 5 – Results and Analysis

Introduction

In this chapter the results of the responses to the survey are analysed in order to

address the research questions. The chapter begins with a description of the

respondents and then addresses each of the research questions in turn. A discussion

of the findings is set out in Chapter 6.

Profile of respondents

The profile of the respondents is drawn from an analysis of the responses to Section

1 of the questionnaire, involving 8 factor questions (see Appendix 6 for raw data).

The factor items are abbreviated for presentation and discussion purposes. For

example, question 2 reads as “Is the team leader of your team the line manager of all

team members?”. This is synopsised to “Team leader as manager?”.

As noted in Table 3 in the previous chapter, 61.21% of Team Members sampled and

100% of Team Leaders sampled responded to the survey. The responses to be

analysed are broken down into these two categories in Table 4.

Role No. of responses % of total responses

Team Member 71 78

Team Leader 20 22

Q1: Role?

Total 91 100

Table 4 - Breakdown of responses for analysis

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Almost 51% (N=46) of respondents reported that the Team Leader was the line

manager of the team. One of the features of the TBPM system is that the Team

Leader may not be the line manager of all or any of the team members, and while

the result shows that a significant number report that the Team Leader is not the line

manager, the result contrasts with the findings of Whelan (2007), who found that

85% of respondents (N=740) reported that the Team Leader was not the line

manager.

Role No. of responses % of total responses

Yes 46 50.55

No 43 47.25

Don’t know 2 2.20

Q2: Team

leader as

manager?

Total 91 100.00

Table 5 - Team role

63.7% of respondents stated that their teams consisted of 10 members or less. Of

those who reported that their teams were multidisciplinary (N=52), 78.8% consisted

of 6 or fewer disciplines (Table 5).

Category No. of responses % of total

responses

2 2 2.20

3 2 2.20

4 6 6.60

5 15 16.50

6 6 6.60

7 11 12.10

8 4 4.40

9 2 2.20

10 10 11.00

Greater than 10 33 36.30

Q3: No. on team?

Total 91 100.00

Yes 52 57.10

No 39 42.90

Q4: Team

multidisciplinary?

Total 91 100.00

M.Sc. in HRD and PM



responses

2 15 28.80

3 12 23.10

4 6 11.50

5 5 9.60

6 3 5.80


Q5: No. of

disciplines?

Total 52 100.00

Table 6 - Team profile

The mean length of time that teams of the respondents have been using TBPM was

22.15 months (N=89).

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Q6: Length of time

using TBPM?

89 3 54 22.15 15.68

Table 7 - Time using TBPM

Responses to the question concerning the number of meetings per year (N=90)

indicated that 34.40% (N=31) of respondents held four meetings per year. This is

the recommended number of meetings per annum in the performance management

agreement (HSEA, 2003). However, 24.40% (N=22) of respondents reported

holding more than 8 meeting per year. The results also indicate that for 50.60%

(N=45) of respondents the frequency of meetings has remained the same since the

introduction of TBPM.


responses

1 6 6.70

2 7 7.80

3 6 6.70

4 31 34.40

5 7 7.80

6 5 5.60

Q7: Frequency of

meetings?

7 2 2.20

M.Sc. in HRD and PM



responses

8 4 4.40


Total 90 100.00

Fewer 22 24.70

More 10 11.20

Same 45 50.60

Don’t know 12 13.50

Q8: Change in

meeting

frequency?

Total 89 100.00

Table 8 - Meetings profile

The remainder of the chapter addresses the findings in relation to research questions

posed in Chapter 1.

First research question

This research proceeded from the hypothesis that team empowerment is the

generative mechanism through which the characteristics of TBPM influence team

effectiveness (Baron and Kenny, 1986). In particular, the research question sought

to understand to what extent and in what way team empowerment might mediate

that relationship.

A variable is said to operate as a mediator to the extent that it may account for the

nature of the relationship between an explanatory and a response variable (Baron

and Kenny, 1986). Following Baron and Kenny (1986) a number of conditions

need to be satisfied before a variable may be said to be a mediator. Firstly, the

explanatory variable (TBPM) must significantly affect the response variable (team

effectiveness). Secondly, the explanatory variable must significantly affect the

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


mediator variable (team empowerment). Thirdly, the mediator variable must

significantly affect the response variable when the explanatory variable is controlled

for. Finally, when the mediator variable is controlled for, the effect of the

explanatory variable on the response variable is reduced and may no longer be

significant. In order to test for these conditions correlation analysis was conducted

in the first instance to check for statistically significant relationships between the

variables. Then, following Baron and Kenny (1986) standard multiple regression

analysis was conducted.

Correlation analysis

Correlation analysis is used to describe the direction and strength of the relationship

between two variables. Cohen (cited in Pallant, 2007) suggests that correlation

coefficients in the range .10 to .29, .30 to .49, and .50 to 1.0 represent small,

medium and large relationships respectively. As explained in the previous chapter,

the relationships between the variables were investigated using Spearman’s rank

order correlation coefficient (rho). The results are presented in Table 9.

1.000 .244* .345**

. .024 .001

88 86 85

.244* 1.000 .723**

.024 . .000

86 88 87

.345** .723** 1.000

.001 .000 .

85 87 88

Correlation

Coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Correlation

Coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Correlation

Coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Total TBPM

Total Team

Empowerment

Total Team Effectiveness

Spearman's

rho

Total TBPM

Total Team

Empowerment

Total Team

Effectiveness

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).*.

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).**.

Table 9 - Correlation coefficients: TBPM, team empowerment and team effectiveness

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Table 9 shows that there is a small positive relationship between TBPM and team

empowerment (rho=.24, N=86, p<.05), a medium positive relationship between

TBPM and team effectiveness (rho=.35, N=85, p<.01), and a large positive

relationship between team empowerment and team effectiveness (rho=.72, N=87,

p<.001). Accordingly, the first test that the variables are significantly related is

satisfied. Calculating the coefficients of determination for each of these

relationships shows that TBPM helps explain 6% and 12% respectively of the

variance in the respondents’ scores on the team empowerment and team

effectiveness scales. Team empowerment, however, explains 52% of the variance

on the team effectiveness scores.

Further analyses (see Tables 10 to 12) revealed that the design characteristics of

TBPM failed to show a significant relationship with team empowerment and each of

the team effectiveness categories and only the process characteristics were

moderately significantly related to team empowerment (rho=.38, N=88, p<.01).

The process characteristics showed a moderate significant relationship with team

performance (rho=.40, N=91, p<.001) and team viability (rho=.35, N=90, p<.01),

while showing a small relationship with team satisfaction (rho=.27, N=91, p<.01).

The contextual characteristics showed only a small significant relationship with

team performance (rho=.25, N=91, p<.05) and team viability (rho=.25, N=90,

p<.05). Team empowerment, however, demonstrated strong significant relationships

with each of the team effectiveness criteria. These matters will be discussed further

in Chapter 6.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


.073

.497

88

.337**

.001

88

.162

.131

88

Correlation

Coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Correlation

Coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Correlation

Coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Total TBPM Design

Total TBPM

Process

Total TBPM

Context

Spearman's

rho

Total Team

Empowerment


Table 10 – Correlation coefficients: TBPM Design, Process and Contextual with Team

Empowerment

.062 .125 .003

.557 .241 .981

91 90 91

.404** .351** .272**

.000 .001 .009

91 90 91

.246* .246* .176

.019 .019 .094

91 90 91

Correlation

Coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Correlation

Coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Correlation

Coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Total TBPM Design

Total TBPM

Process

Total TBPM

Context

Spearman's

rho

Total Team

Performance

Total Team

Viability

Total Team

Satisfaction


Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).*.

Table 11 – Correlation coefficients: TBPM categories and team effectiveness categories

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


1.000 .640** .686** .538**

. .000 .000 .000

88 88 87 88

.640** 1.000 .723** .577**

.000 . .000 .000

88 91 90 91

.686** .723** 1.000 .710**

.000 .000 . .000

87 90 90 90

.538** .577** .710** 1.000

.000 .000 .000 .

88 91 90 91

Correlation

Coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Correlation

Coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Correlation

Coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Correlation

Coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

N

Total Team

Empowerment

Total Team Performance

Total Team Viability

Total Team Satisfaction

Spearman's

rho

Total Team

Empowerment

Total Team

Performance

Total Team

Viability

Total Team

Satisfaction


Table 12 – Correlation coefficients: Team empowerment and each of the team effectiveness

criteria

Regression analysis

Baron and Kenny (1986) propose that three regression equations be calculated using

standard multiple regression. The first equation must show that the predictor

variable affects the mediator variable. The second equation must show that the

predictor variable affects the response variable. Finally, in the third equation the

mediator variable must affect the response variable. Where these requirements are

met, then the effect of the predictor variable on the response variable must be less in

the third equation than it was in the second equation. The data was checked to

ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity and

homoscedasticity. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 13.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Equation Response/Predictor β R2

F

1 Team Empowerment

TBPM

.27*

.07 6.41*

2 Team Effectiveness

TBPM

.35*

.121 11.38*

3 Team Effectiveness

Team Empowerment

TBPM

.69**

.16*

.56 52.02**

* p<.05 ** p<.01

Table 13 - Results of regression analysis (N=88): mediation by team empowerment of the

relationship between TBPM and team effectiveness

Table 13 confirms the significant positive relationships between all variables in the

model. It also demonstrates that the requirements for mediation as set out by Baron

and Kenny (1986) are satisfied. However, while the coefficient for TBPM has been

reduced in the third equation, the relationship between TBPM and team

effectiveness remains statistically significant (although the strength of the

relationship in practical terms has been considerably reduced), indicating the

mediation was partial.

Conclusion

The results of the correlation and regression analyses support each of the hypotheses

proposed to address the first research question. However, the mediating effect of

team empowerment, while considerable, is partial and TBPM still presents a

statistically significant relationship with team effectiveness.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Second research question

The difference in perceptions by persons occupying different roles in teams is an

under-researched area. Whelan (2007), in an assessment of the perceived

improvements arising from the introduction of TBPM, identified statistically

significant differences in perceptions between team members and team leaders, with

the latter, in general, being more positive in their perceptions. However, in the

absence of an r value being quoted in that study, it is not possible to determine the

effect size of that difference.

This present study sought to test this finding by examining any differences in

perceptions between team members and team leaders in the context of the current

use of TBPM without reference to any prior state. TBPM is designed as an

inclusive, participative model and it would be expected that both team members and

team leaders would be broadly comparable in their perceptions and any differences

in perception on the use of TBPM per se would not reach a statistically significant

level. Accordingly it is hypothesised in this study that no significant differences in

perceptions between team members and team leaders exist.

A number of Mann-Whitney U Tests were carried out to address the hypothesis.

This test compares the median scores (MD) of the groups in question. The first test

revealed no significant differences in relation to the perception of the characteristics

of TBPM of team members (MD=3.55, N=69) and team leaders (MD=3.64, N= 19),

U=570.5, z=-.869, p=.39, r=.09. The second test again revealed no significant

difference in relation to the perceptions of the impact of TBPM on team

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


empowerment of team members (MD=4.17, N=68) and team leaders (MD=4.25,

N=20), U=547, z=-1.327, p=.18, r=.14. Finally, the impact of TBPM on team

effectiveness was assessed and no significant differences in perceptions were found

between team members (MD=3.98, N=68) and team leaders (MD=3.98, N=20),

U=663, z=-.169, p=.87, r=.02.

Further tests were conducted on the aggregate scores for each of the three categories

within TBPM (design, process and contextual) and with team effectiveness

(performance, viability and satisfaction). No statistically significant differences

between the perceptions of team members or team leaders were found.

Finally, for the sake of completeness, each factor (questions 9 to 54 on the

questionnaire) was examined. No differences were found for the characteristics of

TBPM (questions 9 to 19) or for team effectiveness (questions 32 to 54). In relation

to team empowerment, statistical differences were observed between team members

(MD=4.0, N=71) and team leaders (MD=5.0, N=20), U=489.5, z=-2.174, p<.05,

r=.23 in respect of question 27 (determination by the team on how things are done

in the team) and between team members (MD=3.0, N=71) and team leaders

(MD=4.0, N=20), U=503.5, z=-2.027, p<.05, r=.21 in respect of question 28 (choice

by the team without being told by management). The effect size in each case is

small. The full results for each category within TBPM and team effectiveness, and

for each factor (questions 9 to 54) are detailed in Appendix 7.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Conclusion

The assessment of the results of the Mann-Whitney U Tests indicates that the

differences in the perceptions of team members and team leaders do not reach a

statistically significant level and, accordingly, Hypothesis 2 is supported.

Third research question

The influence of time on the impact of a performance management system on team

effectiveness is an under-researched area. As was noted in Chapter 3, there are

mixed views on the effects of time on the performance of teams (Elmuti, 1996a;

Mendibil and MacBryde, 2006; Goodman and Leyden, 1991; Katz, 1981). Calls

have been made for further research to better understand the temporal dynamics of

teams (Mathieu et al, 2008).

The approach taken in this study was to assess whether statistical differences in

perceptions could be observed over time and what effect, if any, these would have

on team effectiveness. The length of time that teams have been using TBPM, as

reported by the respondents, was transformed into three groups. An analysis of the

resulting groups was conducted on the scores on the team effectiveness scale using

the Kruskal-Wallis Test. The groupings and the median scores are presented in

Table 14.

Length of time using TBPM N Median

1. 12 months and under 37 3.87

2. 13 – 24 months 24 4.02

3. 25 months and over 25 4.09

Total 86 3.96

Table 14 - Kruskal-Wallis Test - Length time using TBPM and team effectiveness

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


There was a slight progression in the median scores, with the longer time period

recording the highest median score (MD=4.09). However, the Kruskal-Wallis Test

failed to find a statistically significant difference in the perceptions of respondents

on team effectiveness in the context of their use of TBPM across the three different

time periods, χ2 (2, N=86)=1.459, p=.482.

Conclusion

The assessment of the impact of time on the relationship between TBPM and team

effectiveness failed to find a statistically significant effect. Accordingly,

Hypothesis 3 is supported.

Conclusion

This chapter has presented an analysis of the findings from the responses to the

survey questionnaire. In relation to the main focus of the study, the mediating role

of empowerment in the relationship between TBPM and team effectiveness,

Hypotheses 1, 1a, 1b, and 1c were supported. However the mediating effect was

partial and the effects of TBPM on team effectiveness remained statistically

significant. The effect size was, however, considerably reduced.

In relation to the second research question, in contrast to the findings of Whelan

(2007), albeit with a somewhat different focus for the questions posed, the analysis

failed to find statistically significant differences in the perceptions of team leaders

and team members, with only two factor items on the team empowerment scale (out

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


of a total of 46 factor items over the TBPM, team empowerment and team

effectiveness scales) showing a statistically significant difference (see Appendix 8).

Accordingly, the Author concludes that any differences in perceptions that team

leaders may have (perhaps due to the nature of their specific team role) from team

members are not statistically significant and Hypothesis 2 is supported.

Finally, the effect of time on the influence of TBPM on team effectiveness was

assessed. While the results showed that the median scores on the team effectiveness

scale tended to increase with time, this increase did not achieve a statistically

significant result, and Hypothesis 3 is therefore supported.

Chapter 6 discusses these findings in more depth and relates the findings to the

research literature.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Chapter 6 – Discussion

Introduction

The previous chapter set out the results of the statistical analyses of the responses to

the survey questionnaire. This chapter considers the findings in the context of the

literature. It follows the same format as Chapter 5, beginning with some

commentary on the profile of the respondents and then proceeding to consider the

findings in relation to the research questions posed.

Profile of respondents

The intention of this section of the survey was to capture a range of data to profile

how TBPM is being organised in the research organisation. Apart from the data on

the length of time teams have been using TBPM, which was required to address the

third research question, the information is not central to the focus of this study and

accordingly the findings will only be discussed briefly.

Group or team composition has featured in much of the research literature on team

effectiveness, either by assessing effectiveness and then relating the findings to

aspects of group composition or by including group composition as one of a number

of possible design variables (Guzzo and Dickson, 1996). For example, Campion et

al (1993) in a study of work groups in a financial services firm found evidence of a

relationship between effectiveness (consisting of productivity, satisfaction and

manager judgements) and 19 design variables clustered into 5 themes. These were

job design (self-management, participation, task variety, task significance, and task

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


identity), interdependence (task interdependence, goal interdependence, and

interdependent feedback and rewards), composition (heterogeneity, flexibility,

relative size, preference for group work), context (training, management support,

communication/cooperation between groups), and process (potency, social support,

workload sharing, communication/cooperation within groups). As can be seen by

this list, some of the variables fit in with the characteristics of TBPM and others

with the team empowerment variables in this study.

Unlike other performance management designs, one of the features of TBPM is that

the team leader may not be the line manager of all or any members of the team.

This offers considerable potential for organisational development and flexibility

where many health care organisations may be characterised as bureaucratic and

hierarchical (Morrissey, 2003). Almost half of the respondents reported working in

teams where the team leader was not the line manager. This is considerably lower

than the 85% figure found by Whelan (2007). The system of TBPM is intended for

all team types; however, a trend away from team leaders not being the line manager

could have implications for flexibility in organisational design.

Team size has featured as a structural variable in much of the literature on team

effectiveness (e.g. Hackman, 1987), with its influence on such matters as team

collaboration (Hoegl, 2005). However, the research does not show an absolute

optimal team size in terms of a specific number, nor is there evidence of an absolute

optimal range; rather, much depends on the nature of the task and situational factors

(Hoegl, 2005). The results of this study show that some 63.70% of teams consist of

10 members or less, with the main concentration of these falling within the range 4

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


to 8 members. On balance, the majority of teams would appear to have a reasonable

number of members such that issues of collaboration, communication and member

effort may be optimised (Hoegl, 2005).

57.10% (N=52) of respondents indicated that their teams were multidisciplinary,

with 78.80% (N=41) of these consisting of between 2 and 6 disciplines. The

findings on team size and the multidisciplinary composition of a significant number

of teams covered by the research augurs well for the organisation, as research

suggests that larger team size and heterogeneity of team membership, along with

other factors, are significant predictors of effectiveness (Magjuka and Baldwin,

1991) and these are variables that an organisation can manipulate when seeking to

promote effectiveness. Furthermore, research shows that clients experience a more

effective delivery of service from healthcare professionals working in teams

(Zwarenstein et al, 1997; Aiken et al, 1988; Rafferty et al, 2001) and a teamwork

culture supports greater retention of clinical staff (Mohr et al, 2008).

34.40% (N=31) of respondents reported that their teams held 4 TBPM meetings per

year. This accords with the recommendation in the performance management

agreement (HSEA, 2003) that teams formally review their goals on a quarterly

basis. However, it is difficult to be definitive on the optimum number of formal

review meetings required and each team should aim for a minimum of quarterly

meetings and should also question what impact the frequency of meetings might

have on issues such as potency and autonomy and on its ability to ensure an

inclusive and participative process. For example, Kirkman et al (2004a), in a study

of virtual team performance, found that teams that lacked a sense of empowerment

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


required more frequent face-to-face meetings than teams that felt empowered. This

is something that could warrant further research. 50.60% (N=45) of respondents

report that the frequency of meetings has remained unchanged.

The issues arising from an analysis of the data in relation to the research questions

posed are now considered.

First research question

The traditional approach to examining the effectiveness of teams has been to follow

the input-process-output (IPO) model advanced by McGrath (1964). In more recent

times attention has shifted to other mediating variables as it has been recognised

that many of the mediating variables that intervene in the input-output relationship

are not processes (Ilgen et al, 2005). The separation of processes from the

psychological aspects of work is evident in the model proposed by Cohen and

Bailey (1997). This distinction has tended to feature in subsequent studies. For

example, Marks et al (2001) distinguished processes, which involved actions by

members of the team, from other mediating factors that were motivational, affective

or cognitive in nature. This study has concentrated on the latter factors identified by

Marks et al (2001).

The headline findings of this research show that TBPM does positively influence

the effectiveness of teams and that it does so through the process of empowerment.

The research further highlights the very strong association between the motivational

drivers of empowerment and team effectiveness. These findings provide valuable

insight for the research organisation as it continues to develop its performance

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


management system. They also contribute to the literature by linking not only

performance management with team effectiveness, something that has been called

for in the literature (Fleishman, 1997; Baker and Salas, 1997; Jones and Schilling,

2000), but also team empowerment as an important mediating variable in that

relationship (Kirkman and Rosen, 1999). Furthermore, it builds on the work of

Whelan (2007) by contributing to an understanding of “the factors that influence the

everyday use of performance management” in the Irish health service (de Waal,

2004: 301).

The very strong positive association between team empowerment and team

effectiveness presents significant potential for the organisation to improve team

effectiveness by tapping into the motivations of teams. This finding is consistent

with that of Kirkman and Rosen (1999), who concluded that teams are more

effective when they perceive themselves to be highly empowered. It demonstrates

the empowering nature of teams as an organisational construct (Bowen and Lawler,

1992), and further relates this to a team performance management system.

Perhaps the key lesson from the broad findings in relation to this research question

is that if organisations attend to the structural conditions within which teams

operate, as defined by the characteristics of TBPM in this study, the benefits of team

working will more likely be realised (Campbell and Martinko, 1998), with attendant

benefits in terms of improved delivery of services in a healthcare environment

(Zwarenstein et al, 1997). Moreover, the effect will be further enhanced by the

increased sense of empowerment that will arise from these efforts, and this study

has demonstrated the important mediating role played by team empowerment. For

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


example, the impact of a truly participative and inclusive approach to goal setting

can be seen to operate through the mediating effect of empowerment (Katzenbach

and Smith, 1993) and goal clarity focuses the effort of team members, thereby

enhancing a sense of empowerment and, consequently, effectiveness (Guzzo et al,

1993).

The organisation, however, must guard against a naïve approach to teams

(Dumaine, 1994) by adopting a purely mechanistic model and assuming that by

simply manipulating structures teams will suddenly feel empowered; empowerment

is not something that one does to another (Quinn and Spreitzer, 1997). Managers

may help by removing or lessening situational constraints (Cardy and Dobbins,

cited in Arvey and Murphy, 1998; Dobbins et al, 1993) and while issues such as

delegation and participation are important factors, they may “only create the

conditions necessary for empowerment to take place” (Rudolph and Peluchette,

1993: 15). Furthermore, attempts by the organisation to support teams must be

genuine, as teams may otherwise perceive such attempts, however empowering they

may appear on an objective assessment, as manipulative (Corsun and Enz, 1999).

As this study has found, team empowerment accounted for 52% of the variance on

the team effectiveness scale; attending to issues of team empowerment are,

therefore, of some importance.

The implementation of a team-based approach to the organisation of work is

dependent on the context within which it is being implemented (Tata and Prasad,

2004) and the coherence of the rhetoric and the reality of TBPM is considered in

this discussion of the findings of the research.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


As has been stated, the headline findings, consistent with the conceptual framework

for this study, show that TBPM is positively associated with both team effectiveness

and team empowerment, and the latter is the generative mechanism through which

TBPM largely affects team effectiveness. These findings are important as they

suggest that if the organisation addresses the issues arising from the experience of

TBPM (the reality as opposed to the rhetoric) by attending to the factors

characterising the performance management system, and by attending to the

psychological aspects of empowerment by creating the necessary conditions

wherein teams may feel supported and encouraged (Kirkman and Rosen, 2000),

then the results will be an increase in the effectiveness of teams.

However, the research question posed sought not only to determine if empowerment

played a mediating role, as the review of the literature would suggest it should

(Kirkman and Rosen, 1999; Seibert et al, 2004; Chen et al, 2007) and which this

study confirmed, but also sought to understand the way in which TBPM impacted

team effectiveness. The discussion now proceeds by reviewing the findings on the

characteristics of TBPM and relating these to the findings on team empowerment

and team effectiveness.

Section 2 of the survey questionnaire (Appendix 3) sought the views of respondents

on the importance of a range of characteristics of TBPM which they believed were

important to the success of the system in their team. In effect, these represent the

rhetoric of TBPM as they are features that ought to exist, as determined in the

performance management agreement (HSEA, 2003). Table 15 below summarises

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


the findings in terms of the responses that found the factors moderately to very

important. The questions on team empowerment and team effectiveness, however,

sought to elicit the perceptions of respondents on their actual experiences arising

from the use of TBPM.

Moderately to Very Important

Factor % N

Q9: Team has team leader 83.40 85

Q10: Leader not line manager 46.20 42

Q11: Role clarity 97.80 89

TB

PM

Des

ign

Q12: Senior management

support

97.80 89

Q13: Participative goal setting 96.70 88

Q14: Goals aligned to

service/operational plans

94.50 86

Q15: Regular feedback 96.70 88 TB

PM

Pro

cess

Q16: Open communications 96.70 88

Q17: System linked to personal

development planning

87.90 80

Q18: Minimum paperwork and

policies

84.60 77

TB

PM

Co

nte

xtu

al

Q19: Not linked to pay,

probation or promotion

64.90 59

Table 15 - TBPM characteristics: scores for moderately to very important

The literature is quite clear on the important role played by the team leader (Parker,

1990; Kuo, 2004). Given the nature of TBPM, and the fact that the team leader may

not be the line manager (which 47.25%, N=43, of respondents said was the case),

the role played by the team leader can be critical to team effectiveness. For

example, the team leader plays an important role in ensuring that the team is clear

on its purpose to keep it focused (Parker, 1990), that members participate fully by

adopting a transformational style (Caminiti and Sookdeo, 1995), and avoiding the

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


temptation to control both what needs to be done and how it should be done

(Hackman, 2002).

Given the importance of this role it is somewhat surprising that only 83.40% of

respondents considered the presence of a team leader important to any extent.

Furthermore the majority of respondents did not consider it important whether the

team leader was the line manager or not. TBPM is intended to be used with teams

where the line manager is the team leader and with teams where the team leader

may not be the line manager. Accordingly, on its own, the finding to this question

would not be of concern, but when allied to the fact that almost 17% of respondents

did not consider the presence of a team leader to be important, this could explain the

lack of correlation between the design characteristics of TBPM and team

effectiveness. For example, only 74.50% (N=67) of respondents to Q48 (under

team viability) believed that there was an effective and appropriate level of

leadership in the team. Attention paid to supporting and developing leaders for this

role could pay dividends in terms of improving team performance and developing

leadership that is adaptive and distributed (Heifetz and Laurie, 1997; Drath and

Palus, 1994), qualities required in a modern, large healthcare organisation.

There was virtual consensus concerning the importance of goal clarity and support

from senior management. This is a marked increase in the perceptions of the

importance of these factors since the study by Whelan (2007). The research

reviewed in Chapter 3 points to the importance of these factors for both creating and

supporting a sense of empowerment and for enhancing effectiveness and

respondents clearly agree on their importance. Yet, only 68.80% (N=65) of

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


respondents felt they could select different ways to do the team’s work (Q27) and,

more tellingly, only 48.80% (N=44) felt that the team could make its own choices

without being told by management (Q28). Interestingly, these are the only factors

where a statistically significant difference was found between the perceptions of

team members and team leaders. There would appear to be conflict here between

the rhetoric and the reality of TBPM in a significant number of cases. Dumaine

(1994) sounds a cautionary note in this regard, arguing that, while properly

constituted and supported teams can be very effective, a naïve approach to teams,

where support is missing and old forms of control continue, will not result in the

productivity gains expected. The importance of external leader behaviours (both

negative and positive) on team empowerment, and ultimately on team effectiveness,

should not be underestimated (Kirkman and Rosen, 1999).

The failure of the design characteristics of TBPM to correlate with team

empowerment and with team effectiveness is inconsistent with the research

literature and with the findings of Whelan (2007). For example, Elmuti (1996a)

clearly identified the critical role of senior management support as a determining

factor in the success or otherwise of a team-based approach to management.

Clearly, further research is required to understand what might be at work here.

However, the research literature is clear; attention paid to these factors is important

both to team effectiveness and team empowerment, particularly as the latter was

found to partially mediate the effects of TBPM on team effectiveness in this study.

Of the three TBPM characteristics, the process factors combined show the strongest

relationships with team empowerment and each of the team effectiveness categories.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


This is consistent with Whelan (2007). Respondents were very clear on the

importance of these factors to the success of TBPM in their teams (Table 15).

There is a considerable body of literature on the importance of participation in goal

setting as an empowering construct (Collins, 1996) and as a driver of performance

through more challenging goals being set (Latham and Saari, 1979; Locke et al,

1981). Similarly, where the team recognises the strategic importance of its work,

this translates into goals that are more specific and more aligned with the

organisational requirements, leading to greater satisfaction, commitment and

improved performance (Fletcher and Williams, 1996; DeShon et al, 2004). The top-

down imposition of goals, as opposed to their agreement through a participative

process, can undermine the viability of the team and lead to the failure of the

performance management system (Phillips, 2001; Meyer, 1994).

Goal setting on its own is inadequate; regular review of performance is required to

support improvements (Stansfield and Longenecker, 2006; Kluger and DeNisi,

1996). Similarly, an open and inclusive communicative process on goal setting and

evaluation within the team supports collaboration, effectiveness and empowerment

(Liedtka, 1996; Brunetto and Farr-Wharton, 2008; Ford and Angermeier, 2008).

This study has affirmed the importance of these process factors to both team

empowerment and team effectiveness. While the analyses in the previous chapter

clearly, by inference, shows that both team empowerment and team effectiveness

are influenced by other factors not examined in this study, nevertheless, TBPM does

explain 6% and 12% of the variance of the perceptions of the respondents on the

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


team empowerment and team effectiveness scales. Given the importance of the

process characteristics of TBPM, which perhaps are the aspects most within the

scope of action by the teams themselves, then attention paid by the organisation to

ensuring the rhetoric of these factors, which respondents clearly indicate as being

important, translates into the lived experience of teams can pay dividends in terms

of their direct impact on team effectiveness, and also indirectly through their

contribution to team empowerment.

The results for the contextual factors are quite strong, with the learning dimension

scoring highest in this category at 87.90% (N=80) and with the absence of a link to

pay, probation or promotion scoring lowest at 64.90% (N=59).

The reality in terms of the learning dimension may not be as positive as the

aspiration. For example, only 44.10% (N=40) of respondents perceived that the

development needs of the team and individual members is systematically attended

to (Q41), while 64.90% (N=59) and 68.20% (N=62) of respondents felt individuals

on the team were satisfied with the chances they had to learn something new, or to

accomplish new things (Q52 and Q53 respectively). These findings are of some

concern as the literature points to the importance of the learning dimension to the

long-term success and viability of teams (Mohrman et al, 1995; Stevens and

Campion, 1994). Furthermore, where teams adopt a learning focus there are

positive impacts on their sense of empowerment and effectiveness (Bell and

Kozlowski, 2002; Porter, 2005).

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


The results in relation to the separation of TBPM from issues such as pay and

promotion suggest that teams consider intrinsic motivations to be of greater

importance (Shaw and Schneier, 1995). This is evident in the generally strong

results across the empowerment dimensions and may reflect the strong ethic of

public service of staff in the research organisation.

In general terms, the experience of TBPM across the three team effectiveness

categories is quite positive, with team satisfaction showing the least, albeit still

strong, effect. By attending to the structural and psychological dimensions of the

context of teams that create the supportive environment necessary for teams to

flourish, the organisation can expect to reap the benefits of a better service to clients

(Kirkman and Rosen, 2000).

Second research question

The Author could find no examples in the research literature that differentiated

between the perceptions of individuals occupying different roles in teams. The only

study that the Author is aware of is that of Whelan (2007) who examined the impact

of TBPM at the level of the organisation, team and individual. In that study, she

sought the views of respondents on the perceived improvements across the factors

surveyed since the introduction of TBPM. She tested for differences in perceptions

between team leaders and team members and found statistically significant

differences in perception in each of the TBPM characteristics factors, all of the team

performance and viability factors, and two of the five team satisfaction factors.

Such differences could pose problems for the TBPM system, which is intended as

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


an inclusive system to which all members contribute and from which all members

benefit.

This study drew on the same platform as Whelan (2007) in terms of the

characteristics of TBPM and team effectiveness, and added the factors on team

empowerment based on Kirkman et al (2004a). The focus of the survey, however,

was the current experience of respondents, as opposed to perceptions of change

from some pre-TBPM state. The study found that while team leaders tended to

have more positive perceptions across the factors surveyed, the differences in

perceptions did not achieve a level of statistical significance. Accordingly, the

Author concludes that the potential offered by TBPM as an inclusive process owned

by all members remains. However, this is a matter that would warrant further

research, particularly in the case of the challenging role played by team leaders,

particularly, but not exclusively, where they are not the line manager.

Third research question

The Author acknowledges that teams are dynamic and complex constructs and that

the traditional IPO model is no longer adequate as it does not address other

mediating variables, such as team empowerment, nor does it reflect the cyclical

nature of teams where outputs from one period may be inputs for the next, and it

assumes that the process is linear (TBPM - Team Empowerment – Team

Effectiveness) in its main effects (Ilgen et al, 2005). For example, empowerment

may be an antecedent as well as an outcome of team effectiveness (Guzzo et al,

1993; Pearse et al, 2002). Newer models reflect this time sensitive approach

(Mathieu et al, 2008).

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


The focus of this study, however, was to assess the impact of TBPM across time as

the literature has mixed findings on this issue (Elmuti, 1996a; Mendibil and

MacBryde, 2006; Hut and Molleman, 1998; Katz, 1981). It found that while the

median scores on team effectiveness tended to improve with the passage of time,

perhaps reflecting a greater sense of empowerment through greater familiarity with

the work of the team and the TBPM system (Koberg et al, 1999; Goodman and

Leyden, 1991), the differences over time did not achieve a level of statistical

significance. Nevertheless, the organisation can take some comfort in the positive

direction of the scores.

Conclusion

This study has responded to calls to link performance management with team

effectiveness (Fleishman, 1997; Baker and Salas, 1997; Jones and Schilling, 2000).

Moreover, it has also highlighted the importance of team empowerment as a

mediating variable in that relationship (Kirkman and Rosen, 1999; Proenca, 2007).

Furthermore, it builds on the work of Whelan (2007) by contributing to an

understanding of “the factors that influence the everyday use of performance

management” in the Irish health service (de Waal, 2004: 301).

From an organisational perspective the study provides insights that will support

management in optimising the impact of TBPM. In particular, it offers a cautionary

note to avoid a naïve approach that fails to address old forms of control or to

provide the necessary supports to create an environment conducive to empowerment

and effectiveness (Dumaine, 1994; Kirkman and Rosen, 2000).

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


The study also found that the perceptions of team members and team leaders did not

differ to a statistically significant extent, and also that the influence of the passage

of time would not appear to be a significant factor. The lessons here, perhaps, are to

ensure a consistent focus on maintaining the conditions that will support success.

Chapter 7 draws together the conclusions from this study. It also addresses its

limitations and offers suggestions for further research and managerial action.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Chapter 7 – Conclusions

Introduction

This chapter presents the conclusions drawn from the empirical research. It also

sets out the limitations of the study and presents suggestions for further research in

this area.

Conclusions

The Irish health service has undergone a radical restructuring in recent years. This

has been undertaken in a context of rising expectations from the public and from the

political system, while at the same time seeking to address the challenges arising

from financial and staffing constraints, with the need for significant cost

containment measures and a focus on achieving value for money. A key element in

this approach is the need for an effective performance management system.

This study had the dual focus of contributing to efforts in integrating the literature

on performance management, team effectiveness and team empowerment, and also

providing insights for management on how efforts to enhance the benefits of TBPM

might be achieved. It did so by examining the perceptions of staff working in teams

using TBPM on the characteristics of TBPM and how they experience these in

terms of their perceptions of the empowerment and effectiveness of their teams.

The study demonstrated the positive impacts that TBPM has on both team

empowerment and team effectiveness, and found that team empowerment played a

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


significant, albeit partial, mediating role in the relationship between TBPM and

team effectiveness. Regression and correlation analysis demonstrated the very

strong positive association between team empowerment and team effectiveness,

supporting the conclusion by Kirkman and Rosen (1999) that without attention

being paid to the importance of empowerment in all of its dimensions, then the self-

managing aspect of teams using TBPM will fail to deliver the performance potential

that TBPM offers.

The process characteristics of TBPM, which largely reflect what is within the

control of the team, showed the strongest influence on both team empowerment and

team effectiveness. There is scope for this effect to be enhanced by meaningful

managerial intervention. That the design characteristics failed to achieve a

statistically significant effect runs contrary to the literature (Chen et al, 2007) and

further study is required on this aspect.

While the Author concurs with the views of Koberg et al (1999) of the potential for

managerial action to enhance empowerment (and thereby effectiveness), he also

agrees with Dumaine (1994) that a naïve approach to teams will fail to produce the

desired effects. Merely organising work around teams is insufficient; managers

must create a supportive and enabling context for teams (Kirkman and Rosen, 2000;

Proenca, 2007). Central to this must be development of empowering leadership

behaviours (Srivastava et al, 2006). However, the challenges posed by the

transition from traditional command and control to empowering behaviours should

not be underestimated or left to chance (Manz et al, 1990).

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


All research is limited and the limitations of this study are now considered.

Limitations

A cross-sectional study design was chosen for this research. While the theoretical

underpinnings for the research would suggest that TBPM exerts a causal influence

on team empowerment and team effectiveness, the cross-sectional design precludes

inferences of causal flow (Kirkman and Rosen, 1999; Chen et al, 2007).

Furthermore, developments in modelling the input-process-outcome dynamics

suggest that there are feedback loops, whereby outputs may input into future

processes and emergent states such as team empowerment (Ilgen et al, 2005), which

can be both an antecedent and outcome of team effectiveness (Guzzo et al, 1993;

Pearse et al, 2002; Kirkman et al, 2004a). Other research designs such as

experimental and/or longitudinal would add to understanding in this area.

A further possible limitation is the potential for common method bias arising from

the measurement of TBPM, team empowerment and team effectiveness through the

same survey. Method variance results from biases that may arise by exploring

relationships among different constructs measured by the same method. Crampton

and Wagner (1994) suggest that the problem of percept-percept inflation has not had

the broad effects suggested by critics, a view supported by Spector (1987).

Nevertheless, the potential exists and a research design that can accommodate

independent sources could alleviate this potential.

The study also used perceptual measures rather than independently verifiable

objective measures. The Author, following Spreitzer (1996) and Thomas and

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Velthouse (1990), favoured this approach as people react to their own perceptions

and by measuring these perceptions by means of a self-report process, insights can

be gained into how people relate to the constructs of interest. The approach taken

accords with similar studies (Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Kirkman et al, 2001; Doolen

et al, 2006), and can be considered valid (Spreitzer, 1996). However, the potential

to corroborate the perceptual measures with more objective measures would add to

the findings.

This study used individual perceptions of team variables, and the questions posed

used the team as referent. There are views that team constructs should be measured

at the collective level (Guzzo et al, 1993), while others favour aggregating

individual assessments (Bandura, 1997). However, this study is founded on the

belief that it is the perceptions held by individuals that drive their motivations and

hence their effectiveness. Nevertheless, it is possible that aspects of the team may

also help shape individual perceptions and therefore additional approaches to

measuring the effects could strengthen the findings.

This study examined the team level on the basis that the group level may provide

greater understanding of empowerment (Spreitzer, 1996). However, it has been

suggested that to obtain a true understanding of the dynamics within organisations,

a multi-level approach should be taken (Mohrman et al, 1992; Spreitzer, 1995).

Attending to these multiple levels would enable a fuller realisation of the benefits of

empowering teams (Campbell and Martinko, 1998). Whelan (2007) demonstrated

that TBPM had multi-level interaction effects, whereby effects at one level could

manifest in another. Extending the present study to a multi-level analysis could be

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


instructive and would add to understanding of the nature of empowerment at

different levels and their interaction effects (Chen et al, 2007).

The study was carried out in one organisation, albeit one that is distributed

throughout Ireland. This raises the potential for aspects peculiar to the organisation

that were not included in this research impacting on the findings. By extending the

study to other organisations, a more rounded view may be obtained on the impact of

TBPM on team empowerment and team effectiveness.

The definition of a team as “a group of people who share common objectives and

who work together to achieve them” (HSEA, 2003: Section 2.4) infers a high level

of interdependence within teams. Research by Chen et al (2007), for example,

suggests that the level of interdependence can be a factor in whether the construct of

empowerment operates as a mediator or predictor of effectiveness. The degree of

interdependence was not measured in this study and, therefore, the possible effects

on the findings cannot be assessed.

The role of time was explored by testing for differences in perceptions based on the

length of time the respondents’ teams had been using TBPM. No examination was

made (as data was not available) of teams that had ceased to use TBPM. It is

possible that a different result could have emerged had it been possible to compare

these two groupings.

Finally, this study sought to contribute to the extended model of input-process-

output by examining the mediating effects of team empowerment. Given that the

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


latter only partially mediated the influence of TBPM on team effectiveness, the

conceptual framework may need to be revised to accommodate other mediating

variables that could explain the relationship, such as the mediating role of team

processes (Mathieu et al, 2006).

Future research

The findings from this study give rise to possible further areas of research, given the

preference for a team-based approach to managing performance.

This study examined the characteristics of TBPM as the driver for team

effectiveness. Further research might explore how these link with other drivers,

such as the tasks that teams are responsible for and the team itself (MacBryde and

Mendibil, 2003; Stewart and Barrick, 2000).

Team forms of organisation are context-dependent, which require consideration of

the impact of organisational structures (and the need for changes in those structures)

on team effectiveness (Tata and Prasad, 2004). Further research on how current

organisational structures impact on teams and what changes might be required to

support team effectiveness would be valuable.

Notwithstanding the inconclusive findings in relation to the design characteristics of

TBPM, the role of the line manager in a TBPM system could warrant attention, as

they “have also been identified as the weak link in the application of performance

management systems” (Harris, 2001).

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Since the commencement of this study the research organisation has integrated an

individual performance management system with a team approach for the upper

echelons of the organisation, with the potential to cascade to staff at levels covered

by this study. Research might explore how these two constructs – team and

individual – can be harmonised to best effect (Brumback, 2003). This could also be

combined with a measurement of the effects of empowerment at the individual and

team level simultaneously (Kirkman and Rosen, 1999), where important effects

have been found elsewhere (Chen et al, 2007).

While TBPM is intended for use in all types of teams it would be helpful to examine

if team type moderates the influence of TBPM on team effectiveness (Lemieux-

Charles et al, 2006). Also, no test was offered in this research on team composition.

Future research might seek to differentiate between the perceptions of different

professional, administrative and support personnel on teams. It might also be useful

to examine team diversity (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992b; Kirkman et al, 2004b).

Concluding comments

This study has added to the understanding of the operation of TBPM in the Irish

health service, building on research by Whelan (2007), by demonstrating the

important role played by team empowerment in mediating the relationship between

TBPM and team effectiveness. By demonstrating the links between TBPM, team

empowerment and team effectiveness, it has affirmed the view that teams can be an

empowering organisational construct (Bowen and Lawler, 1992). The challenge

now is for the organisation to embrace the potential offered by TBPM and to

address those issues that might hinder that potential not only by removing

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


situational constraints (Dobbins et al, 1993), but by adopting a supportive and

enabling context for teams (Kirkman and Rosen, 2000).

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Bibliography

Aiken, L.H., Sloane, D.M. and Sochalski, J. (1988) ‘Hospital organization and

outcomes’, Quality in Health Care 7(4): 222-226.

Akgün, A.E., Keskin, H., Byrne, J. and Imamoglu, S.Z. (2007) ‘Antecedents and

consequences of team potency in software development projects’, Information &

Management 44(7): 646-656.

Ancona, D.G. (1990) ‘Outward Bound: Strategies for Team Survival in an

Organization’, Academy of Management Journal 33(2): 334-365.

Ancona, D.G. and Caldwell, D.F. (1992a) ‘Bridging the Boundary: External

Activity and Performance in Organizational Teams’, Administrative Science

Quarterly 37(4): 634-665.

Ancona, D.G. and Caldwell, D.F. (1992b) ‘Demography and Design: Predictors of

New Product Team Performance’, Organization Science 3(3): 321-341.

Andersen, B., Henriksen, B. and Aarseth, W. (2006) ‘Holistic performance

management: an integrated framework’, International Journal of Productivity and

Performance Management 55(1): 61-78.

Anderson, C.M. and Martin, M.M. (1999) ‘The Relationship of Argumentativeness

and Verbal Aggressiveness to Cohesion, Consensus, and Satisfaction in Small

Groups’, Communication Reports 12(1): 21-31.

Angles, J.M. (2008) ‘The impact of shared leadership on the effectiveness of self-

managed work teams: A phenomenological study’, Dissertation Abstracts

International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 68(7-A), pp. 3015.

Armstrong, M. and Baron, A. (1998) Performance Management – The New

Realities. London: Institute of Personnel and Development.

Armstrong, M. and Baron, A. (2005) Managing Performance: Performance

Management in Action. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Arvey, R.D. and Murphy, K.R. (1998) ‘Performance Evaluation in Work Settings’,

Annual Review of Psychology 49: 141- 168.

Ashton, D and Jones, L. (1997) ‘The Fragility of the Learning Process: The Impact

of Organisational Structure and Practices on Learning in the Workplace’.

Unpublished Paper.

Atwater, L., Roush, P. and Fischthal, A. (1995) ‘The Influence of Upward Feedback

on Self- And Follower Ratings of Leadership’, Personnel Psychology 48(1): 35-59.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Aubé, C. and Rousseau, V. (2005) ‘Team Goal Commitment and Team

Effectiveness: The Role of Task Interdependence and Supportive Behaviors’, Group

Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 9(3): 189-204.

Babbie, E. (1990) Survey Research Methods (2nd

edn). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Publishing Company.

Baker, T.L. (1994) Doing Social Research (2nd

edn). New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.

Baker, T.P. and Salas, E. (1997) ‘Principles for Measuring Teamwork: A Summary

and Look Toward the Future’, in M.T. Brannick, E. Salas and C. Prince (eds) Team

Performance Assessment and Measurement: Theory, Methods and Applications, pp.

331-355. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bandura, A. (1997) ‘Collective Efficacy’ in A. Bandura (ed) Self-Efficacy: The

Exercise of Control, pp. 477-525. New York: Freeman.

Baron, R.A. (1988) ‘Negative Effects of Destructive Criticism: Impact on Conflict,

Self-Efficacy, and Task Performance’, Journal of Applied Psychology 73(2): 199-

207.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986) ‘The Moderator-Mediator Variable

Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical

Considerations’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6): 1173-1182.

Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J.R., Humphrey, S.E., Moon, H., Conlon, D.E. and Ilgen,

D.R. (2003) ‘Cooperation, Competition, and Team Performance: Toward a

Contingency Approach’, Academy of Management Journal 46(5): 572-590.

Behling, O. (1980) ‘The Case for the Natural Science Model For Research in

Organizational Behavior and Organization Theory’, Academy of Management

Review 5(4): 483-490.

Bell, B.S. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (2002) ‘Goal Orientation and Ability: Interactive

Effects on Self-Efficacy, Performance, and Knowledge’, Journal of Applied

Psychology 87(3): 497-505.

Bell, J. (2005) Doing Your Research Project: A guide for first-time researchers in

education, health and social science (4th

edn). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Bishop, J.W. and Scott, K.D. (1997) ‘How Commitment Affects Team

Performance’, HRMagazine 42(2): 107-111.

Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. and Tight, M. (1996) How To Research. Buckingham: Open

University Press.

Blumberg, B., Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P.S. (2005) Business Research Methods.

London: McGraw-Hill.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Bolker, D. (1998) Writing Your Dissertation in Fifteen Minutes a Day. New York:

Henry Holt and Company.

Booth, W.C., Colomb, G.G. and Williams, J.M. (1995) The Craft of Research.

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Boselie, P., Dietz, C. and Boon, C. (2005) ‘Commonalities and Contradictions in

HRM and Performance Research’, Human Resource Management Journal 15(3):

67-94.

Bowen, D.E. and Lawler III, E.E. (1992) ‘The empowerment of service workers:

what, why, how, and when’, Sloan Management Review 33(3): 31-39.

Bowman, J.S. (1994) ‘At Last, an Alternative to Performance Appraisal: Total

Quality Management’, Public Administration Review 54(2): 129-136).

Brannen, J. (2005) ‘Mixing Methods: The Entry of Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches into the Research Process’, International Journal of Social Research

Methodology 8(3): 173-184.

Brannick, T. and Coghlan, D. (2007) ‘In Defence of Being “Native”: The Case for

Insider Academic Research’, Organizational Research Methods 10(1): 59-74.

Brannick, T. and Roche, W.K. (eds) (1997) Business Research Methods –

Strategies, Techniques and Sources. Dublin: Oak Tree Press.

Bray, S.R. and Brawley, L.R. (2002) ‘Role Efficacy, Role Clarity, and Role

Performance Effectiveness’, Small Group Research 33(2): 233-253.

Briggs, S.R. and Cheek, J.M. (1986) ‘The role of factor analysis in the development

and evaluation of personality scales’, Journal of Personality 54(1): 106-148.

Brook, L. (1978) ‘Chapter 7: Postal Survey Procedures’ in G. Hoinville and R.

Jowell & Associates Survey Research Practice pp. 124-143. London: Heinemann

Educational Books Ltd.

Brumback, G.B. (2003) ‘Blending “we/me” in performance management’, Team

Performance Management 9(7/8): 167-173.

Brunetto, Y. and Farr-Wharton, R. (2008) ‘Service delivery by local government

employees post- the implementation of NPM’, International Journal of Productivity

and Performance Management 57(1): 37-56.

Bryman, A. (1984) ‘The Debate about Quantitative and Qualitative Research: A

Question of Method or Epistemology?’, The British Journal of Sociology 35(1): 75-

92.

Bryman, A. (2004) Social Research Methods (2nd

edn). Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Bryman, A. (2007a) ‘The Research Question in Social Research: What is its Role?’,

International Journal of Social Research Methodology 10(1): 5-20.

Bryman, A. (2007b) ‘Barriers to Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research’,

Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(1): 8-22.

Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2003) Business Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Burpitt, W.J. and Bigoness, W.J. (1997) ‘Leadership and Innovation Among

Teams’, Small Group Research 28(3): 414-423.

Butterfield, R., Edwards, C. and Woodall, J. (2004) ‘The New Public Management

and the UK Police Service’, Public Management Review 6(3): 395-415

Caminiti, S. and Sookdeo, R. (1995) ‘What Team Leaders Need to Know’, Fortune

131(3): 93-100.

Campbell, C.R. and Martinko, M.J. (1998) ‘An Integrative Attributional Perspective

of Empowerment and Learned Helplessness: A Multimethod Field Study’, Journal

of Management 24(2): 173-200.

Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J. and Higgs, A.C. (1993) ‘Relations Between Work

Group Characteristics and Effectiveness: Implications for Designing Effective Work

Groups’, Personnel Psychology 46(4): 823-850.

Campion, M.A., Papper, E.M. and Medsker, G.J. (1996) ‘Relations Between Work

Group Characteristics and Effectiveness: A Replication and Extension’, Personnel

Psychology 49(2): 429-452.

Carson, J.B., Tesluk, P.E. and Marrone, J.A. (2007) ‘Shared Leadership in Teams:

An Investigation of Antecedent Conditions and Performance’, Academy of

Management Journal 50(5): 1217-1234.

Chen, G., Kirkman, B.L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D. and Rosen, B. (2007) ‘A Multilevel

Study of Leadership, Empowerment, and Performance in Teams’, Journal of

Applied Psychology 92(2): 331-346.

Chen, N.Y, Lu, J., Tjosvold, D. and Lin, C. (2008) ‘Effects of Team Goal

Interdependence on Newcomer Socialization: An Experiment in China’, Journal of

Applied Psychology 38(1): 198-214.

Cheng, M-I., Dainty, A. and Moore, D. (2007) ‘Implementing a new performance

management system within a project-based organisation – A case study’,

International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 56(1): 60-75.

CLMS (2007) MSc in Human Resource Development and Performance

Management, Module 4, Unit 2. Leicester: Centre for Labour Market Studies.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


CLMS (2007) MSc in Human Resource Development and Performance

Management, Module 4, Unit 3. Leicester: Centre for Labour Market Studies.

Cohen, A. (1991) ‘Career stage as a moderator of the relationship between

organizational commitment and its outcomes: A meta-analysis’, Journal of

Occupational Psychology 64(3): 253-268.

Cohen, A. (1993) ‘Age and Tenure in Relation to Organizational Commitment: A

Meta-Analysis’, Basic and Applied Social Psychology 14(2): 143-159.

Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E. (1997) ‘What Makes Teams Work: Group

Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite’, Journal of

Management 23(3): 239-290.

Cohen, S.G. and Ledford, G.E. (1994) ‘The Effectiveness of Self-Managing Teams:

A Quasi-Experiment’, Human Relation 47(1): 13-43.

Cohen, S.G., Ledford, G.E. and Spreitzer, G.M. (1996) ‘A Predictive Model of Self-

Managing Work Team Effectiveness’, Human Relations 49(5): 643-676.

Collins, C.J. and Smith, K.G. (2006) ‘Knowledge Exchange and Combination: the

Role of Human Resource Practices in the Performance of High Technology Firms’,

Academy of Management Journal 49(3): 544-560.

Collins, D. (1996) ‘Whither democracy? Lost debates in management

empowerment’, Empowerment in Organizations 4(1): 12-24.

Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1988) ‘The Empowerment Process: Integrating

Theory and Practice’, Academy of Management Review 13(3): 471-482.

Corsun, D.L. and Enz, C.A. (1999) ‘Predicting Psychological Empowerment

Among Service Workers: The Effect of Support-Based Relationships’, Human

Relations 52(2): 205-224.

Corvellec, H. (2001) ‘For a narrative criticism of organisational performance’,

Paper presented at the second New Directions in Organisational Performance

conference, March.

Crampton, S.M. and Wagner III, J.A. (1994) ‘Percept-Percept Inflation in

Microorganizational Research: An Investigation of Prevalence and Effect’, Journal

of Applied Psychology 79(1): 67-76.

Crant, J.M. (2000) ‘Proactive Behavior in Organizations’, Journal of Management

26(3): 435-462.

Cressey, P., Boud, D. and Docherty, P. (2006) ‘The Emergence of Productive

Reflection’, in Boud, D., Cressey, P. and Docherty, P. (eds) Productive Reflection at

Work: Learning in Changing Organizations, pp. 11-26.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Crotty, M. (1998) ‘Positivism: The March of Science’, in The Foundations of Social

Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process, pp. 18-41. London:

Sage.

Crow, I. (2002) ‘The Power of Research’, in D. Burton (ed.) Research Training for

Social Scientists: A Handbook for Postgraduate Researchers, pp. 68-80. London:

Sage.

Culbert, S.A. and McDonough, J.J. (1986) ‘The Politics of Trust and Organization

Empowerment’, Public Administration Quarterly 10(2): 171-188.

Cummings, T.G. (1978) ‘Self-Regulating Work Groups: A Socio-Technical

Synthesis’, Academy of Management Review 3(3): 625-634.

D’Aunno, T., Alexander, J. and Laughlin, C. (1996) ‘Business as usual? Changes in

health care’s workforce and organization of work’, Hospital and Health Service

Administration 41(1): 3-18.

Dahlsten, F., Styhre, A. and Williander, M. (2005) ‘The Unintended Consequences

of Management by Objectives: The Volume Growth Target at Volvo Cars’,

Leadership & Organisation Development Journal 26(7): 529-541.

de Jong, A., de Ruyter, K. and Wetzels, M. (2005) ‘Antecedents and Consequences

of Group Potency: A Study of Self-Managing Service Teams’, Management Science

51(11): 1610-1625.

de Rada, V.D. (2005) ‘Influence of Questionnaire Design on Response to Mail

Surveys’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(1): 61-78.

de Waal, A.A. (2002) Quest for Balance: The Human Element in Performance

Management Systems. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

de Waal, A.A. (2004) ‘Stimulating performance-driven behaviour to obtain better

results’, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 53(4):

301-316.

Denison, D.R. (1982) ‘Sociotechnical design and self-managing work groups: the

impact on control’, Journal of Occupational Behaviour 3(4): 297-314.

Denscombe, M. (2002) ‘Ethics’, in Ground Rules for Good Research: A 10 Point

Guide for Social Research, pp. 174-194. Buckingham: Open University.

Denscombe, M. (2007) The Good Research Guide for small-scale social research

projects (3rd

edn). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Department of Finance, (2003) Commission on Financial Management and Control

Systems in the Health Service. Dublin: Stationery Office.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Department of Health and Children (2001) Quality and Fairness: A Health

System for You. Dublin: Stationery Office.

Department of Health and Children, (2003) Audit of Structures and Functions in the

Health System. Dublin: Stationery Office

Department of the Taoiseach (2003) Sustaining Progress – Social Partnership

Agreement 2003 – 2005. Dublin: Stationery Office.

Department of the Taoiseach, (2006) Towards 2016 – Ten Year Framework Social

Partnership Agreement 2006 – 2015. Dublin: Stationery Office.

DeShon, R.P., Kozlowski, S.W.J., Schmidt, A.M., Milner, K.R. and Wiechmann, D.

(2004) ‘A Multiple-Goal, Multilevel Model of Feedback Effects on the Regulation

of Individual and Team Performance’, Journal of Applied Psychology 89(6): 1035-

1056.

Dillman, D.A. (1991) ‘The Design and Administration of Mail Surveys’, Annual

Review of Sociology 17(1): 225-249.

Dobbins, G.H., Cardy, R.L., Facteau, J.D. and Miller, J.S. (1993) ‘Implications of

Situational Constraints on Performance Evaluation and Performance Management’,

Human Resource Management Review 3(2): 105-128.

Donnelly, J.H. and Ivancevich, J.M. (1975) ‘Role Clarity and the Salesman’,

Journal of Marketing 39(1): 71-74.

Doolen, T.L., Hacker, M.E. and Van Aken, E. (2006) ‘Managing organizational

context for engineering team effectiveness’, Team Performance Management

12(5/6): 138-154.

Drath, W.H. and Palus, C.J. (1994) Making Common Sense: Leadership as

Meaning-Making in a Community of Practice. Greensboro, North Carolina: Center

for Creative Leadership.

Dreher, M. (1994) ‘Qualitative Research Methods From the Reviewer’s

Perspective’, in Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods, pp. 281-297.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Druskat, V.U. and Wheeler, J.V. (2001) ‘Managing from the Boundary: The

Effective Leadership of Self-Managing Work Teams’, Academy of Management

Proceedings pp. 1-6.

Dumaine, B. (1994) ‘The Trouble With Teams’, Fortune 130(5): 86-92.

Dyer, W. G. (1987) Teambuilding: Issues and alternatives. (2nd

edn) Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Dzurec, L.C. and Abraham, J.L. (1993) ‘The nature of inquiry: Linking quantitative

and qualitative research’, Advances in Nursing Science 16(1): 73-79.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (1991) Management Research: An

Introduction. London: Sage.

Edmondson, A. (1999) ‘Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work

Teams’, Administrative Science Quarterly 44(2): 350-383.

Edmondson, A.C. (2002) ‘The Local and Variegated Nature of Learning in

Organizations: A Group-Level Perspective’, Organization Science 13(2): 128-146.

Elmuti, D. (1996a) ‘The perceived impact of team-based management systems on

organizational effectiveness’, International Journal of Manpower 17(8): 4-17.

Elmuti, D. (1996b) ‘Sustaining High Performance Through Self-Managed Work

Teams’, Industrial Management 38(2): 4-9.

Elmuti, D. (1997) ‘Self-managed work teams approach: creative management tool

or a fad?’, Management Decision 35(3): 233-239.

Erdem, F. and Ozen, J. (2003) ‘Cognitive and affective dimensions of trust in

developing team performance’, Team Performance Management 9(5/6): 131-135.

Fanning, E. (2005) ‘Formatting a Paper-based Survey Questionnaire: Best Practice’,

Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 10(12): 1-14. [online]. Available:

http://pareonline.net/pdf/v10n12.pdf [2008, May 21st].

Fay, D. and Luhrmann, H. (2004) ‘Current Themes in Organizational Change’,

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 13(2): 113-119.

Finlay, L. (2003) ‘The reflexive journey: mapping multiple routes’, in L. Finlay and

B. Gough (eds) Reflexivity: A Practical Guide for Researchers in Health and Social

Sciences, pp. 3-20. Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Fisher, C. (2004) Researching and Writing a Dissertation for Business Students.

Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.

Fisher, K. (2000) Leading Self-Directed Work Teams – A Guide to Developing New

Team Leadership Skills. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fleishman, E.A. (1997) ‘Foreword’ in M.T. Brannick, E. Salas and C. Prince (eds)

Team Performance Assessment and Measurement – Theory, Methods, and

Applications, pp. ix-x. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Fletcher, C. (1997) Appraisal: Routes to Performance Management. (2nd

edn)

London: Institute of Personnel and Development.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Fletcher, C. and Williams, R. (1996) ‘Performance Management, Job Satisfaction

and Organizational Commitment’, British Journal of Management 7(2): 169-179.

Ford, R. and Angermeier, I. (2008) ‘Creating a learning health care organization for

participatory management: a case analysis’, Journal of Health Organization and

Management 22(3): 269-293.

Forrester, R. (2000) ‘Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea’, Academy of

Management Executive 14(3): 67-80.

Gibson, C.B. (2001) ‘From Knowledge Accumulation to Accommodation: Cycles

of Collective Cognition in Work Groups’, Journal of Organizational Behavior

22(2): 121-134.

Gibson, C.B., Randell, A.E. and Earley, P.C. (2000) ‘Understanding Group

Efficacy: An Empirical Test of Multiple Assessment Methods’, Group and

Organization Management 25(1): 67-97.

Gladstein, D.L. (1984) ‘Groups in Context: A Model of Task Group Effectiveness’,

Administrative Science Quarterly 29(4): 499-517.

Goodman, P.S. and Leyden, D.P. (1991) ‘Familiarity and Group Productivity’,

Journal of Applied Psychology 76(4): 578-586.

Gorden, W.I. and Infante, D.A. (1991) ‘Test of a communication model of

organizational commitment’, Communication Quarterly, 39(2): 144-155.

Gorn, G.J. and Kanungo, R.N. (1980) ‘Job involvement and motivation: Are

intrinsically motivated managers more job involved?’, Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance 26(2): 265-277.

Grates, G.F. (1994) ‘The Subtlety and Power of Communications in Corporate

Renewal Initiatives’, Public Relations Quarterly 39(1): 40-43.

Gratton, L., Hope Hailey, V., Stiles, P. and Truss, C. (1999) Strategic Human

Resource Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Greasley, K., Bryman, A., Dainty, A., Price, A., Naismith, N. and Soetanto, R.

(2008) ‘Understanding empowerment from an employee perspective – What does it

mean and do they want it?’, Team Performance Management 14(1/2): 39-55.

Guest, D.E. (1997) ‘Human resource management and performance: a review and

research agenda’, International Journal of Human Resource Management 8: 263-

276.

Gully, S.M., Incalcaterra, K.J., Joshi, A. and Beaubien, J.M. (2002) ‘A Meta-

Analysis of Team-Efficacy, Potency, and Performance: Interdependence and Level

of Analysis as Moderators of Observed Relationships’, Journal of Applied

Psychology 87(5): 819-832.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Guzzo, R.A. and Dickson, M.W. (1996) ‘Teams in Organizations: Recent Research

on Performance and Effectiveness’, Annual Review of Psychology 47(1): 307-338.

Guzzo, R.A. and Shea, G.P (1992) ‘Group performance and intergroup relations in

organizations’, in M.D. Dunnette and L.M. Hough (eds) Handbook of Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3, pp. 269-313. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Guzzo, R.A., Yost, P.R., Campbell, R.J. and Shea, G.P. (1993) ‘Potency in groups:

Articulating a construct’, British Journal of Social Psychology 32(1): 87-106.

Hacker, M.E. and Lang, J.D. (2000) ‘Designing a performance measurement system

for a high technology virtual engineering team – a case study’, International

Journal of Agile Management Systems 2(3): 225-232

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.

Hackman, J.R. (1990) Groups That Work (and Those That Don’t: Creating

Conditions for Effective Teamwork. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hackman, J.R. (2002) Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980) Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley.

Hackman, J.R. and Wageman, R. (2005) ‘When and How Team Leaders Matter’,

Research in Organizational Behavior 26(1): 37-74.

Hackman, J.R. and Walton, R.E. (1986) ‘Leading groups in organizations’, in P.S.

Goodman (ed) Designing effective work groups, pp. 72-119. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Hall, C.A. and Bayerlein, M.M. (2000) ‘Support systems for teams: a taxonomy’, in

M.M. Bayerlein, D.A. Johnson and S.T. Bayerlein (eds) Advances in

Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, Vol. 5, pp. 89-132. Stamford, CT: JAI

Press.

Hall, M. (2008) ‘The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems

on role clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance’,

Accounting, Organizations and Society 33(2/3): 141-163.

Hammer, N. (2007) ‘Critical Realism: An Outline’. Leicester: Centre for Labour

Market Studies, University of Leicester.

Harris, L. (2001) ‘Rewarding employee performance: line managers’ values, beliefs

and perspectives’, International Journal of Human Resource Management 12(7):

1182-1192.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Hart, C. (1998) Doing a Literature Review. London: Sage.

Hartle, F. (1997) Transforming The Performance Management Process. London:

Kogan Page.

Haskins, W.A. (1996) ‘Freedom of Speech: Construct for Creating a Culture Which

Empowers Organizational Members’, The Journal of Business Communication

33(1): 85-97.

Hazucha, J.F., Hezlett, S.A. and Schneider, R.J. (1993) ‘The Impact of 360-Degree

Feedback on Management Skills Development’, Human Resource Management

32(2/3): 325-351.

Heifetz, R. A. and Laurie, D. L. (1997) ‘The Work of Leadership’, Harvard

Business Review 75(1): 124-134.

Henri, J.F. (2004) ‘Performance Measurement and Organizational Effectiveness:

Bridging the Gap’, Managerial Finance 30(6): 93-123.

Hoegl, M. (2005) ‘Smaller teams – better teamwork: How to keep project teams

small’, Business Horizons 48(3): 209-214.

Holloway, J., Francis, G. and Hinton, M. (1999) ‘A vehicle for change? A case

study of performance improvement in the “new” public sector’, The International

Journal of Public Sector Management 12(4): 351-365.

Homan, R. (1991) The Ethics of Social Research. London: Longman.

Houldsworth, E. and Jirasinghe, D. (2006) Managing & Measuring Employee

Performance. London: Kogan Page.

Howell, J.M. and Shea, C.M. (2006) ‘Effects of Champion Behavior, Team

Potency, and External Communication Activities on Predicting Team Performance’,

Group & Organization Management 31(2): 180-211.

HSEA (2003) Performance Management – The Process and How It Will Work.

Dublin: HSEA. [online]. Available:

http://www.hsea.ie//Performance%20Mgt/Sept%2003%20-

%20Performance%20Management%20-

%20The%20Process%20and%20How%20it%20Will%20Work.pdf [2008, March

3rd

].

Hut, J. and Molleman, E. (1998) ‘Empowerment and team development’, Team

Performance Management 4(2): 53-66.

Hyatt, D.E. and Ruddy, T.M. (1997) ‘An Examination of the Relationship Between

Work Group Characteristics and Performance: Once More Into the Breech’,

Personnel Psychology 50(3): 553-583.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Ilgen, D.R., Hollenbeck, J.R., Johnson, M. and Jundt, D. (2005) ‘Teams in

Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models’, Annual

Review of Psychology 56(1): 517-543.

Janis, I.L. (1972) Victims of Groupthink: psychological study of foreign-policy

decisions and fiascoes (2nd edn). Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Jesson, J. and Lacey, F. (2006) ‘How to do (or not to do) a critical literature

review’, Pharmacy Education 6(2): 139-148.

Johnson, S. (2008) ‘Guidance on Research Ethics for Research Involving Human

Participants’. Leicester: University of Leicester. [online]. Available:

https://swww2.le.ac.uk/offices/ssds/slc/resources/research/ethics/ethics/document_v

iew [2008, March, 17th

].

Jones, S.D. and Schilling, D.J. (2000) Measuring Team Performance. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jung, D.I. and Sosik, J.J. (2003) ‘Group Potency and Collective Efficacy –

Examining Their Predictive Validity, Level of Analysis, and Effects of Performance

Feedback on Future Group Performance’, Group & Organization Management

28(3): 366-391.

Kane, E. and O’Reilly-de Brún, (2001) Doing Your Own Research (2nd

edn).

London: Marion Boyars.

Kane-Urrabazo, C. (2006) ‘Management’s Role in Shaping Organizational Culture’,

Journal of Nursing Management 14: 188-194.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996) ‘Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic

Management System’, Harvard Business Review 74(1): 75-85.

Katz, R. (1981) ‘The Effects of Group Longevity on Project Communication and

Performance’, Administrative Science Quarterly 27(1): 81-104.

Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (1993) The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High

Performance Organization. London: McGraw-Hill.

Kearney, D., Donohoe, G., Blennerhassett, E., Ward, T. and Brady, M. (2004)

Evaluation of the Health Service Performance Management System. Dublin: HSEA.

[online]. Available: http://www.hsea.ie//Performance%20Mgt/May%2004%20-

%20Report%20of%20the%20Evaluation%20of%20the%20Health%20Service%20

Performance%20Management%20System.pdf [2008, April 21st].

Kent, R. (2001) Data Construction and Data Analysis for Survey Research.

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Kirkman, B.L. and Rosen, B. (1999) ‘Beyond Self-Management: Antecedents and

Consequences of Team Empowerment’, Academy of Management Journal 42(1):

58-74.

Kirkman, B.L. and Rosen, B. (2000) ‘Powering Up Teams’ Organizational

Dynamics 28(3): 48-66.

Kirkman, B.L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P.E. and Gibson, C.B. (2004a) ‘The Impact of

Team Empowerment on Virtual Team Performance: The Moderator Role of Face-

to-Face Interaction’, Academy of Management Journal 47(2): 175-192.

Kirkman, B.L., Tesluk, P.E. and Rosen, B. (2001) ‘Assessing the Incremental

Validity of Team Consensus Ratings Over Aggregation of Individual-Level Data in

Predicting Team Effectiveness’, Personnel Psychology 54(3): 645-667.

Kirkman, B.L., Tesluk, P.E. and Rosen, B. (2004b) ‘The Impact of Demographic

Heterogeneity and Team Leader-Team Member Demographic Fit on Team

Empowerment and Effectiveness’, Group & Organization Management 29(3): 334-

368.

Kluger, A.N. and DeNisi, A. (1996) ‘The Effects of Feedback Interventions on

Performance: A Historical Review, a Meta-Analysis, and a Preliminary Feedback

Intervention Theory’, Psychological Bulletin 119(2): 254-284.

Koberg, C.S., Boss, R.W., Senjem, J.C. and Goodman, E.A. (1999) ‘Antecedents

and Outcomes of Empowerment: Empirical Evidence From the Health Care

Industry’, Group & Organization Management 24(1): 71-91.

Kolodny, H.F. and Kiggundu, M.N (1980) ‘Towards the Development of a

Sociotechnical Systems Model in Woodlands Mechanical Harvesting’, Human

Relations 33(9): 623-645.

Koman, E.S. and Wolff, S.B. (2008) ‘Emotional intelligence competencies in the

team and team leader: A multi-level examination of the impact of emotional

intelligence on team performance’, Journal of Management Development 27(1): 55-

75.

Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Bell, B.S. (2003) ‘Work Groups and Teams in

Organizations’, in W.C. Borman, D.R. Ilgen and R.J. Klimoski (eds) Handbook of

Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 12, pp. 333-375.

London: Wiley.

Kumar, R. (2005) Research Methodology: A Step-By-Step Guide for Beginners (2nd

edn). London: Sage.

Kuo, C.C. (2004) ‘Research on Impacts of Team Leadership on Team

Effectiveness’, Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge 5(1/2): 278-

284.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Langfred, C.W. (2000) ‘The paradox of self-management: individual and group

autonomy in work groups’, Journal of Organizational Behavior 21(5): 563-585.

Latham, G.P. and Saari, L.M. (1979) ‘Importance of Supportive Relationships in

Goal Setting’, Journal of Applied Psychology 64(2): 151-156.

Latham, G.P., Winters, D. and Locke, E. A. (1994) ‘Cognitive and motivational

effects of participation: A mediator study’, Journal of Organizational Behavior 15:

49-63.

Leach, D.J., Wall, T.D. and Jackson, P.R. (2003) ‘The effect of empowerment on

job knowledge: An empirical test involving operators of complex technology’,

Journal of Occupational Psychology 76(1): 27-52.

Ledford, G.E. and Lawler, E.E. (1994) ‘Research on Employee Participation:

Beating a Dead Horse?’, Academy of Management Review 19(4): 633-636.

Lee, M. and Koh, J. (2001) ‘Is empowerment really a new concept?’, International

Journal of Human Resource Management 12(4): 684-695.

Legge, K. (1984) Evaluating Planned Organizational Change. London: Academic

Press.

Lemieux-Charles, L. and McGuire, W.L. (2006) ‘What Do We Know about Health

Care Team Effectiveness? – A Review of the Literature’, Medical Care Research

and Review 63(3): 263-300.

Lester, S.W., Meglino, B.M. and Korsgaard, M.A. (2002) ‘The Antecedents and

Consequences of Group Potency: A Longitudinal Investigation of Newly Formed

Work Groups’, Academy of Management Journal 45(2): 352-368.

Levinson, H. (2003) ‘Management by Whose Objectives?’, Harvard Business

Review 81(1): 107-116.

Liedtka, J.M. (1996) ‘Collaborating across lines of business for competitive

advantage’, Academy of Management Executive 10(2): 20-34.

Lira, E.M., Ripoll, P., Peiró, J.M. and González, P. (2007) ‘The roles of group

potency and information and communication technologies in the relationship

between task conflict and team effectiveness: A longitudinal study’, Computers in

Human Behavior 23(6): 2888-2903.

Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (2002) ‘Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal

Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey’, American Psychologist 57(9):

705-717.

Locke, E.A., Alvi, M. and Wagner, J. (1997) ‘Participation in decision-making: An

information exchange perspective’, in Ferris, G. (ed) Research in personnel and

human resources management 15, pp. 293-331. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Locke, E.A., Shaw, K.N., Saari, L.M. and Latham, G.P. (1981) ‘Goal Setting and

Task Performance: 1969-1980’, Psychological Bulletin 90(1): 125-152.

Logan, M.S. and Ganster, D.C. (2007) ‘The Effects of Empowerment on Attitudes

and Performance: The Role of Social Support and Empowerment Beliefs’, Journal

of Management Studies 44(8): 1523-1550.

London, M., Mone, E.M. and Scott, J.C. (2004) ‘Performance Management and

Assessment: Methods for Improved Rater Accuracy and Employee Goal Setting’,

Human Resource Management 43(4): 319-336.

MacBryde, J. and Mendibil, K. (2003) ‘Designing performance measurement

systems for teams: theory and practice’, Management Decision 41(8): 722-733.

Magjuka, R.J. and Baldwin, T.T. (1991) ‘Team-Based Employee Involvement

Programs: Effects of Design and Administration’, Personnel Psychology 44(4):

793-812.

Mangione, T.W (1995) Mail Surveys: Improving the Quality. Thousand Oak, CA:

Sage.

Manz, C.C. (1993) ‘The Illusion of Self-Management: Using Teams to

Disempower, in C.C. Manz and H.P. Sims (1993) Business Without Bosses: How

Self-Managing Teams Are Building High-Performing Companies, pp. 115-130.

New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. (1987) ‘Leading Workers to Lead Themselves: The

External Leadership of Self-Managing Work Teams’, Administrative Science

Quarterly 32(1): 106-129.

Manz, C.C. and Sims, H.P. (1993) Business Without Bosses: How Self-Managing

Teams Are Building High-Performing Companies. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Manz, C.C., Keating, D.E. and Donnellon, A. (1990) ‘Preparing for an

Organizational Change to Employee Self-Management: The Managerial Transition’,

Organizational Dynamics 19(2): 15-26.

Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E. and Zaccaro, S.J. (2001) ‘A Temporally Based

Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes’, Academy of Management Review

26(3): 356-376.

Marshall, G. and Brennan, P. (2006) ‘The process of undertaking a quantitative

dissertation for a taught M.Sc: personal insights gained from supporting and

examining students in the UK and Ireland’, Radiography (2006) doi: 10.1016/ j.

radi.2006.06.003.

Mathieu, J., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T. and Gilson, L. (2008) ‘Team Effectiveness

1997-2007: A Review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse Into the Future’,

Journal of Management 34(3): 410-476.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990) ‘A Review and Meta-Analysis of the

Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences of Organizational Commitment’,

Psychological Bulletin 108(2): 171-194.

Mathieu, J.E., Gilson, L.L. and Ruddy, T.M. (2006) ‘Empowerment and Team

Effectiveness: An Empirical Test of an Integrated Model’, Journal of Applied

Psychology 91(1): 97-108.

Maurer, T.J. and Lippstreu, M. (2008) ‘Who will be committed to an organization

that provides support for employee development?’, Journal of Management

Development 27(3): 328-347.

McGrath, J.E. (1964) Social Psychology: A Brief Introduction. New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston.

Mendibil, K. and MacBryde, J. (2006) ‘Factors that affect the design and

implementation of team-based performance measurement systems’, International

Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 55(2): 118-142.

Menon, S.T. (2001) ‘Employee Empowerment: An Integrative Psychological

Approach’, Applied Psychology: An International Review 50(1): 153-180.

Meyer, C. (1994) ‘How the Right Measures Help Teams Excel’, Harvard Business

Review 72(3): 95-103.

Meyer, M.W. and Zucker, L.G. (1989) Permanently Failing Organizations.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Mohr, D.C., Burgess, J.F. and Young, G.J. (2008) ‘The influence of teamwork

culture on physician and nurse retention rates in hospitals’ Health Services

Management Research 21(1): 23-31.

Mohrman, A.M., Mohrman, S.A. and Lawler, E.E. (1992) ‘The performance

management of teams’, in W.J. Bruns (ed) Performance Measurement, Evaluation

and Incentives, pp. 217-241. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Mohrman, S.A., Cohen, S.G. and Mohrman, A.M. (1995) Designing Team-Based

Organizations: New Forms for Knowledge Work. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Morgan, G. and Smircich, L. (1980) ‘The Case for Qualitative Research’, Academy

of Management Review 5(4): 491-500.

Morley, M. and Heraty, N. (1995) ‘The high-performance organization: developing

teamwork where it counts’, Management Decision 33(2): 56-63.

Morrissey, J. (2003) ‘Quality vs. quantity’, Modern Healthcare 33(45): 8-9.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Murphy, M. (1997) ‘Conducting Survey Research’, in T. Brannick and W.K. Roche

(eds) Business Research Methods – Strategies, Techniques and Sources, pp. 31-59.

Dublin: Oak Tree Press.

Neck, C.P., Stewart, G.L. and Manz, C.C. (1996) ‘Self-leaders within self-leading

teams: toward an optimal equilibrium’, Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of

Work Teams 3(1): 43-65.

Nunnaly, J.C. (1978) Psychometric theory (2nd

edn). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Onwuegbuzie, A.J. and Leech, N.L. (2005) ‘On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher:

The Importance of Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Research

Methodologies’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(5): 375-

387.

Opie, A. (1997) ‘Effective Team Work in Health Care: A Review of Issues

Discussed in Recent Research Literature’, Health Care Analysis 5(1): 62-70.

Ostroff, C. (1992) ‘The Relationship Between Satisfaction, Attitudes, and

Performance: An Organizational Level Analysis’, Journal of Applied Psychology

77(6): 963-974.

Overman, S. (1995) ‘Saturn teams working and profiting’, HR Magazine 40(3): 72-

74.

Paauwe, J. and Boselie, P. (2005) ‘HRM and performance: what next?’, Human

Resource Management Journal 15(4): 68-83.

Pallant, J. (2007) SPSS Survival Manual (3rd

edn). Maidenhead: Open University

Press.

Panchak, P. (1998) ‘The Future of Manufacturing: An exclusive interview with

Peter Drucker’, Industry Week 247(17): 96-102.

Parker, G.M. (1990) Team Players and Teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Parker, S.K., Williams, H.M. and Turner, N. (2006) ‘Modeling the Antecedents of

Proactive Behavior at Work’, Journal of Applied Psychology 91(3): 636-652.

Pearse, C.L. and Sims, H.P. (2002) ‘Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors

of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive,

directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors’, Group

Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 6(2): 172-197.

Pearse, C.L., Gallagher, C.A. and Ensley, M.D. (2002) ‘Confidence at the group

level of analysis: A longitudinal investigation of the relationship between potency

and team effectiveness’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology

75(1): 115-119.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Pearse, J.A. and Ravlin, E.C. (1987) ‘The Design and Activation of Self-Regulating

Work Groups’, Human Relations 40(11): 751-782.

Phillips, J.M. (2001) ‘The Role of Decision Influence and Team Performance in

Member Self-Efficacy, Withdrawal, Satisfaction with the Leader, and Willingness

to Return’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 84(1): 122-

147.

Piña, M.I.D., Martínez, A.M.R. and Martínez, L.G. (2008) ‘Teams in organizations:

a review on team effectiveness’, Team Performance Management 14(1/2): 7-21.

Pock, T., Westlund, A. and Fahrni, F. (2004) ‘Gaining Bilateral Benefit through

Holistic Performance Management and Reporting’, Total Quality Management

15(5-6): 557-567.

Podsakoff, P.M. and Dalton, D.R. (1987) ‘Research Methodology in Organizational

Studies’, Journal of Management 13(2): 419-441.

Pole, C.J. and Lampard, R. (2002) ‘Suitable samples: selecting, obtaining and

profiting from them’, in Practical Social Investigation: Qualitative and Quantitative

Methods in Social Research, pp. 32-69. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Porter, C.O.L.H. (2005) ‘Goal Orientation: Effects of Backing Up Behavior,

Performance, Efficacy, and Commitment in Teams’, Journal of Applied Psychology

90(4): 811-818.

Posner, B.Z. and Butterfield, D.A. (1978) ‘Role Clarity and Organizational Level’,


Proenca, E.J. (2007) ‘Team dynamics and team empowerment in health care

organizations’, Health Care Management Review 32(4): 370-378.

Quinn, R.E. and Spreitzer, G.M. (1997) ‘The Road to Empowerment: Seven

Questions Every Leader Should Consider’, Organizational Dynamics 26(2): 37-49.

Rafferty, A.M., Ball, J. and Aiken, L.H. (2001) ‘Are teamwork and professional

autonomy compatible and do they result in improved hospital care?’, Quality in

Health Care 10(Supplement 2): 32-37.

Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A. and Swartz, E. (1998) Doing Research in

Business and Management. London: Sage.

Robinson, S.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994) ‘Violating the psychological contract:

not the exception but the norm’, Journal of Organizational Behavior 15(3): 245-

259.

Robson, C. (1993) ‘Developing a Proposal’, in Real World Research: A Resource

for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers, pp. 18-35. Oxford: Blackwell.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Rudolph, H.R. and Peluchette, J.V. (1993) ‘The power gap: Is sharing or

accumulating power the answer?’, Journal of Applied Business Research 9(3): 12-

20.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2007) Research Methods for Business

Students (4th

edn). London: Prentice Hall.

Sawyer, J.E. (1992) ‘Goal and Process Clarity: Specification of Multiple Constructs

of Role Ambiguity and a Structural Equation Model of Their Antecedents and

Consequences’, Journal of Applied Psychology 77(2): 130-142.

Schaffer, R.H. (1991) ‘Demand Better Results – And Get Them’, Harvard Business

Review 69(2): 142-149.

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S.S.K. and Cha, S.E. ‘Embracing Transformational

Leadership: Team Values and the Impact of Leader Behavior on Team

Performance’, Journal of Applied Psychology 92(4): 1020-1030.

Schay, B.W. (1993) ‘In Search of the Holy Grail: Lessons in Performance

Management’, Public Personnel Management 22(4): 649-668.

Schneider, B. and Bowen, D.E. (1993) ‘The Service Organization: Human

Resources Management Is Crucial’, Organizational Dynamics 21(4): 39-52.

Schofield, R.F. and Amodeo, M. (1999) ‘Interdisciplinary Teams in Health Care

and Human Services Settings: Are They Effective?’, Health & Social Work 24(3):

210-219.

Seibert, S.E., Silver, S.R. and Randolph, W.A. (2004) ‘Taking Empowerment to the

Next Level: A Multiple-Level Model of Empowerment, Performance, and

Satisfaction’, Academy of Management Journal 47(3): 332-349.

Shaw, D.G. and Schneier, C.E. (1995) ‘Team Measurement and Rewards: How

Some Companies Are Getting It Right’, Human Resource Planning 18(3): 34-49.

Shea, G.P. and Guzzo, R.A. (1987) ‘Group Effectiveness: What Really Matters?’,

Sloan Management Review 28(3): 25-31.

Shonk, J.H. (1992) Team Based Organizations: Developing a Successful Team

Environment. New York: Business One Irwin.

Silverman, D. (2005) Doing Qualitative Research – A Practical Handbook (2nd

edn). London: Sage.

Simonds, J.G. and Bell, R.C. (1997) ‘Creating Individual and Team Performance

Measurements’, Employment Relations Today 23(4): 27-35.

Singh, A.K. and Muncherji, N. (2007) ‘Team Effectiveness and Its Measurement: A

Framework’, Global Business Review 8(1): 119-133.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Sirkin, H.L. (1993) ‘The Employee Empowerment Scam’, Industry Week 242(20):

58.

Smith, P.C. (2002) ‘Performance Management In British Health Care: Will It

Deliver?’, 21(3): 103-115.

Smither, J.W., London, M., Vasilopoulos, N.L., Reilly, R.R., Millsap, R.E. and

Salvemini, N. (1995) ‘An Examination of the Effects of an Upward Feedback

Program Over Time’, Personnel Psychology 48(1): 1-34.

Soltani, E., van der Meer, R. and Williams, T.M. (2005) ‘A Contrast of HRM and

TQM Approached to Performance Management: Some Evidence’, British Journal

of Management 16(3): 211-230.

Sonnentag, S., Frese, M., Brodbeck, F.C. and Heinbokel, T. (1997) ‘Use of Design

Methods, Team Leaders’ Goal Orientation, and Team Effectivess: A Follow-Up

Study in Software Development Projects’, International Journal of Human-

Computer Interaction 9(4): 443-454.

Spector, P.E. (1987) ‘Method Variance as an Artifact in Self-Reported Affect and

Perceptions at Work: Myth or Significant Problem?’, Journal of Applied

Psychology 72(3): 438-443.

Spreitzer, G.M. (1995) ‘Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace:

Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation’, Academy of Management Journal

38(5): 1442-1465.

Spreitzer, G.M. (1996) ‘Social Structural Characteristics of Psychological

Empowerment’, Academy of Management Journal 39(2): 483-504.

Srivastava, A., Bartol, K.M. and Locke, E.A. (2006) ‘Empowering Leadership in

Management Teams: Effects on Knowledge Sharing, Efficacy, and Performance’,

Academy of Management Journal 49(6): 1239-1251.

Stansfield, T.C. and Longenecker, C.O. (2006) ‘The effects of goal setting and

feedback on manufacturing productivity: a field experiment’, International Journal

of Productivity and Performance Management 55(3/4): 346-358.

Steiner, I.D. (1972) Group Process and Productivity. New York: Academic Press.

Stevens, J.P. (2002) Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences (4th

edn).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stevens, M.J. and Campion, M.A. (1994) ‘The Knowledge, Skill, Ability

Requirements for Teamwork: Implications for Human Resource Management’,


Stewart, G.L. (2006) ‘A Meta-Analytic Review of Relationships Between Team

Design Features and Team Performance’, Journal of Management 32(1): 29-54.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Stewart, G.L. and Barrick, M.R. (2000) ‘Team Structure and Performance:

Assessing the Mediating Role of Intrateam Process and the Moderating Role of

Task Type’, Academy of Management Journal 43(2): 135-148.

Stiles, P., Gratton, L., Truss, C., Hope-Hailey, V. and McGovern, P. (1997)

‘Performance management and the psychological contract’, Human Resource


Storey, J. and Sisson, K. (1993) Managing Human Resources and Industrial

Relations. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Sturges, J.E. and Hanrahan, K.J. (2004) ‘Comparing telephone and face-to-face

qualitative interviewing: a research note’, Qualitative Research 4(1): 107-118.

Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K.P. and Futrell, D. (1990) ‘Work Teams: Applications

and Effectiveness’, American Psychologist 45(2): 120-133.

Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C. and Anantharaman, R.N. (2001) ‘A Conceptual

model for total quality management in service organizations’, Total Quality

Management 12(3): 343-363.

Swan, J., Scarbrough, H. and Robertson, M. (2002) ‘The Construction of

“Communities of Practice” in the Management of Innovation’, Management

Learning 33(4): 477-496.

Tata, J. and Prasad, S. (2004) ‘Team Self-management, Organizational Structure,

and Judgments of Team Effectiveness’, Journal of Managerial Issues 16(2): 248-

265.

Thomas, K.W. and Tymon, W.G. (1994) ‘Does empowerment always work:

Understanding the role of intrinsic motivation and personal interpretation’, Journal

of Management Systems 6(3): 39-54.

Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990) ‘Cognitive Elements of Empowerment:

An “Interpretive” Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation’, Academy of Management

Review 15(4): 666-681.

Thompson, P. (2004) ‘Researching family and social mobility with two eyes: some

experiences of the interaction between qualitative and quantitative data’,

International Journal of Social Research Methodology 7(3): 237-257.

Tubre, T.C. and Collins, J.M. (2000) ‘Jackson and Schuler (1985) Revisited: A

Meta-Analysis of the Relationships Between Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict and

Job Performance’, Journal of Management 26(1): 155-169.

Van der Vegt, G.S., Emans, B.J.M., and Van de Vliert, E. (2001) ‘Patterns of

Interdependence In Work Teams: A Two-Level Investigation of the Relations With

Job and Team Satisfaction’, Personnel Psychology 54(1): 51-69.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


van der Velde, M., Jansen, P. and Anderson, N. (2004) Guide to Management

Research Methods. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Limited.

Vandenberg, R.J. and Lance, C.E. (1992) ‘Examining the Causal Order of Job

Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment’, Journal of Management 18(1): 153-

167.

Verespej, M.A. (1998) ‘Drucker sours on teams’, Industry Week 247(7): 16.

Wageman, R., Hackman, J.R. and Lehman, E. (2005) ‘Team Diagnostic Survey:

Development of an Instrument’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 41(4):

373-398.

Wagner III, J.A. (1994) ‘Participation’s Effects on Performance and Satisfaction: A

Reconsideration of Research Evidence’, Academy of Management Review 19(2):

312-330.

Waldman, D.A. (1994) ‘The Contributions of Total Quality Management to a

Theory of Work Performance’, Academy of Management Review 19(3): 510-536.

Walker, A.G. and Smither, J.W. (1999) ‘A Five-Year Study of Upward Feedback:

What Managers Do With Their Results Matters’, Personnel Psychology 52(2): 393-

423.

Wall, T.D., Kemp, N.J., Jackson, P.R. and Clegg, C.W. (1986) ‘Outcomes of

Autonomous Workgroups: A Long-Term Field Experiment’, Academy of


Weber, R. (2004) ‘The Rhetoric of Positivism Versus Interpretivism: A Personal

View’, MIS Quarterly 28(1): iii-xii.

Weldon, E., Jehn, K.A. and Pradham, P. (1991) ‘Processes That Mediate the

Relationship Between a Group Goal and Improved Group Performance’, Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 61(4): 555-569.

Wellins, R.S., Byham, W.C. and Wilson, J.M. (1991) Empowered Teams: Creating

Self-Directed Work Groups That Improve Quality, Productivity, and Participation.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wellins, R.S., Wilson, R., Katz, A.J., Laughlin, P., Day, C.R. and Price, D. (1990)

Self-Directed Teams: A Study of Current Practice. Pittzburgh, PA: Development

Dimensions International.

West, M. and Wallace, M. (1991) ‘Innovation in health care teams’, European

Journal of Social Psychology 21:303-315.

Whelan, C. (2005) ‘Team Performance Management in the Irish Health Service’.

Unpublished Paper as part of Harvard Doctorate Programme, Nottingham

University Business School.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM








Winstanley, D. and Stuart-Smith, K. (1996) ‘Policing performance: the ethics of

performance management’, Personnel Review 25(6): 66-84.

Wong, Y.L. and Snell, R.S. (2003) ‘Employee Workplace Effectiveness:

Implications for Performance Management Practices and Research’, Journal of

General Management 29(2): 53-69.

Wood, N, Farrow, S. and Elliott, B. (1994), ‘A review of primary health care

organisation’, Journal of Clinical Nursing 3(4): 243-250.

Yanchar, S.C. (2006) ‘On the possibility of contextual-quantitative enquiry’, New

Ideas in Psychology 24(3): 212-228.

Zellmer-Bruhn, M. and Gibson, C. (2006) ‘Multinational Organization Context:

Implications for Team Learning and Performance’, Academy of Management

Journal 49(3): 501-518.

Zigon, J. (1997) ‘Team performance measurement: a process for creating team

performance standards’, Compensation and Benefits Review, 29(1): 38-47.

Zwarenstein M, Bryant W., Baillie, R. and Sibthorpe, B. (1997) ‘Interventions to

promote collaboration between nurses and doctors’, Cochrane Database of

Systematic Reviews 2000, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD000072. DOI:

10.1002/14651858.CD000072.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Appendix 1: Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 - Conceptual Framework

TBPM

Design Characteristics

Process Characteristics

Contextual Characteristics

Team Effectiveness

Team Performance

Team Viability

Team Satisfaction

Team

Empowerment

Team Potency

Team

Meaningfulness

Team Autonomy

Team Impact

Time

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Appendix 2 – Cover Letter and Pilot Questionnaire Feedback Sheet

Text of Cover Letter accompanying Pilot Questionnaire

2nd

June, 2008

Re: Research study to examine the process by which team based performance

management impacts on team effectiveness

Dear Colleague,

I am undertaking the above research study as part of a Masters Degree in Human

Resource Development and Performance Management with the University of

Leicester. This study is being supported by the Health Service Executive (HSE).

In my role in the (research organisation) I have a particular responsibility for team

based performance management (TBPM) and this study, apart from contributing to

academic knowledge on this matter, will also help inform policy in relation to the

further development of TBPM.

I now need to pilot the questionnaire that will be used and I would be very grateful

if you would take the time to complete the attached questionnaire and provide

feedback to me on the comment sheet supplied.

Please place the completed questionnaire and feedback sheet in the envelope

provided and hand back the sealed envelope to the trainer before you leave the

training session today.

I would like to thank you in advance for your help with this. I very much appreciate

you taking the time to do this in an already very busy schedule.

Yours sincerely,

John Brehony

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE - FEEDBACK SHEET

When completing the questionnaire please consider and respond to the following:

1. Do you understand the questions? If no, which ones and why?

2. Do the questions follow a logical sequence? If no, any suggestions?

3. Is the questionnaire attractive in its layout and design?

4. In your opinion, has any major topic been omitted? If yes, which topic?

5. Should any questions be omitted? If yes, which ones and why?

6. How long did it take you to complete the questionnaire?

7. Any other comments?

Thank you for taking the time to complete this work sheet. I would be grateful if

you would sign it, in case I need to clarify any issues you may have raised.

Best wishes,

John Brehony

Signed: ___________________ Contact details: ____________________

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Appendix 3 – Cover Letter, Participant Information Sheet and

Survey Questionnaire

Text of Letter of Invitation to participate in research

23rd

June 2008

Re: Research study to examine the process by which team based

performance management impacts on team effectiveness

Dear Colleague,

I am writing to you to invite you to participate in the above research study which I

am undertaking as part of a Masters Degree in Human Resource Development and

Performance Management with the University of Leicester. This study is being

supported by the Health Service Executive (HSE).

In my role in the (research organisation) I have a particular responsibility for team

based performance management (TBPM) and this study, apart from contributing to

academic knowledge on this matter, will also help inform policy in relation to the

further development of TBPM. I am a firm believer that policy development in this

area should be grounded in the knowledge and experience of those who are using

TBPM and I would therefore greatly appreciate your participation in this study

I am attaching an information sheet, which sets out the aims of the study and other

important information. I would be grateful if you would take a few moments to

read this.

This study will be conducted by means of an anonymous survey questionnaire.

Nothing in this questionnaire will identify you or your team. Furthermore the

responses received and how they are analysed will not in any way identify you or

your team and your privacy is absolutely protected. I personally guarantee this.

If you agree to take part in this study, I would be grateful if you would complete the

enclosed questionnaire and return it to me in the stamped addressed envelope

supplied by 4th

July, 2008. By completing this questionnaire it will be taken that

you have read and understood the attached information sheet and have consented to

participate in this study.

On completion of the study later this year, a copy of the results will be made

available, on request, to all who participated in it.

I would like to thank you in anticipation of your help and assistance. The quality of

the study will only be as good as the level of participation. I am conscious of the

demands on your time and appreciate you taking the time in your busy schedule to

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


facilitate me. As a token of appreciation a contribution of €1 will be made by me to

Concern in respect of each completed questionnaire received.

Yours sincerely,

John Brehony

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Participant Information Sheet

The Impact of Team Based Performance Management on Team

Effectiveness in the Irish Health Service: Assessing the Intervening

Roles of Team Empowerment and Time

This study is being undertaken as part of the MSc in Human Resource

Development and Performance Management programme at the University of

Leicester.

Ethical approval has been received for this study from the University of

Leicester and the study is being supported by the HSE.

The research is being carried out by John Brehony, Corporate Performance

and Development Manager (Performance Management)

Background and aims of the study

The implementation of team based performance management (TBPM) in the Irish

health service was agreed under the social partnership agreement Sustaining

Progress in 2003 and the commitment to roll out TBPM was reaffirmed in the most

recent social partnership agreement Towards 2016.

TBPM is a system that is uniquely suitable to the Irish health service and it applies

at all levels within the service. The information to date suggests that teams are

experiencing a number of benefits from using TBPM but the mechanisms by which

TBPM is conferring these benefits, such as more effective team working, are not

clearly understood. This is an under-researched area in both performance

management and team effectiveness and accordingly, this study aims to address this

by canvassing the views of team members and team leaders who have experience of

TBPM.

Participant selection

Participants for this study are members of teams using TBPM. Information on the

length of time that teams have been using TBPM was gathered and from this a

proportionate stratified random sample was chosen to participate.2 Team leaders

and team members from this sample are being invited to participate in this study.

2 A proportionate stratified random sample simply means that teams were grouped in terms of the

length of time they have been using TBPM and then, using the same proportions for each group that

apply to the full list of teams, a sample of team leaders and team members in each group was

selected by using a random number technique.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


How will the study be carried out?

The study will be conducted by means of a self-completion postal questionnaire.

This questionnaire has been piloted among a small number of staff who are

members of teams about to use TBPM and they advise that it should take no more

than 10 minutes to complete the questionnaire. For ease of completion, all

questions just require you to enter a ‘E” in the box with the exception of question 6

which requires you to state the length of time, in months, that your team has been

using TBPM. This will be the only demand made on your time. A stamped-

addressed envelope is supplied for the return of the completed questionnaire.

Benefits to participation

By participating in this study you will ensure that the voice of those with experience

of using TBPM will be heard. The study will help inform policy development as

well as contributing to academic knowledge, and the quality of the study will be in

direct proportion to the contribution of participants in the study.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

The survey questionnaire does not contain any element that could in any way

identify you or your team and will, therefore, remain unknown even to the

researcher. All responses will be aggregated for analysis and it will not be possible

to identify responses from any individual. Furthermore, the name of the

organisation will not be used in the study.

The information that was used to select participants will be retained by the

researcher in his private capacity and only for as long as may be required to satisfy

any requirements of the University of Leicester in terms of his participation on the

MSc in Human Resource Development and Performance Management programme.

This information will then be destroyed. On no account will this information be

disclosed to the (research organisation) or anyone else. The researcher personally

guarantees this.

To further ensure confidentiality, the completed questionnaires will be returned to

the researcher’s home address and not to his work address. All information

received will be stored securely and will not in any way be traceable back to the

participants.

Voluntary participation

Participation in this study is voluntary. You may refuse to participate or withdraw

from participation at any time. However, you are encouraged to participate (it will

take no more than 10 minutes to complete the questionnaire) as it is important that

you and your colleagues have a say in policy development. The final decision rests

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


with you. By completing and returning the questionnaire in the envelope provided

your consent to participation will be implied.

Acknowledgement

It is appreciated that this type of research is totally dependent on the goodwill of

those surveyed to participate and that participation does involve some time and

effort in an already busy schedule. The quality of the results, however, can only be

enhanced by the maximum participation of those surveyed. To acknowledge that

commitment, a contribution of €1 will be made by the researcher to Concern in

respect of each fully completed questionnaire returned. Furthermore, copies of the

study will be made available to participants, on request, when the study has been

completed and assessed by the University of Leicester.

Thank you for taking the time to participate.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


The Impact of Team Based Performance Management on Team

Effectiveness in the Irish Health Service: Assessing the Intervening

Roles of Team Empowerment and Time

This study is being undertaken through the University of Leicester and is

supported by the Health Service Executive

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. The questionnaire will

take about 10 minutes to complete. Please answer all questions by following

the instructions on each page.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Team Based Performance Management (TBPM) in the Irish Health Service

Please answer all questions by ticking the appropriate boxes and, for question 6, by stating the

number of months your team has been using TBPM.

Section 1 Profile of the Team

Q.1. Please indicate whether you are a team member or a team leader

Team Member Team Leader

Q.2. Is the team leader of your team the line manager of all team members?

Yes No Don’t Know

Q.3. What is the total number of individuals in your team i.e. team members and team leader?

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >10

Q.4. Is your team composed of members from more than one discipline? Yes No

Q5. If yes, how many disciplines are represented in your team?

2 3 4 5 6 > 6

Q.6. How many months has your team been using team based performance management?

________________months

Q.7. How many team based performance management meetings does your team have per year?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >8

Q.8. Has the number of team based performance management meetings per year changed since

your team started to use team based performance management?

Fewer meetings More meetings About the same Don’t know

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


SECTION 2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TBPM SYSTEM

The characteristics of the TBPM system, as defined by the HSEA (2003) are outlined below.

Please indicate the extent to which, in your opinion, the characteristics are important for the success

of the TBPM system in your team by ticking one box as appropriate for each statement.

Please use the scale below

SCALE

1 = Not at all important

2 = Of little importance

3 = Moderately important

4 = Very important


Factor 1 2 3 4

9 The team has a Team Leader

10 The team leader may not be the line manager of

all team members

11 Team members and leaders are clear about their

role in the team

12 There is support and commitment from senior

management in the area


Factor 1 2 3 4

13 Team members and team leaders participate in

agreeing team goals

14 Team goals are aligned to operational/service

plan goals

15 There is regular performance feedback regarding

achievement of outcomes for all team members

16 There is open communication in setting

goals/evaluating performance


Factor 1 2 3 4

17 The system is linked to personal development

planning

18 There is minimum paperwork, policies,

procedures in this system

19 This system is not linked to pay, probation or

promotional opportunities

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


SECTION 3 Measures of Team Empowerment

Team Empowerment is examined under four headings below.

Under each heading are listed a number of factors which are indicators of empowerment in each

area.

Please indicate, in your opinion, the extent to which you agree with each statement having regard to

your team’s experience of using team based performance management, by ticking one box as

appropriate for each statement.


SCALE 1 = strongly disagree

2 = tend to disagree

3 = neither disagree nor agree

4 = tend to agree

5 = strongly agree

Team Potency

Factor 1 2 3 4 5

20 My team has confidence in itself

21 My team can get a lot done when it works hard

22 My team believes it can be very productive

Team Meaningfulness

Factor 1 2 3 4 5

23 My team believes that its projects are significant

24 My team believes that its tasks are worthwhile

25 My team believes that its work is meaningful

Team Autonomy

Factor 1 2 3 4 5

26 My team can select different ways to do the team’s work

27 My team determines as a team how things are done in the

team

28 My team makes its own choices without being told by

management

Team Impact

Factor 1 2 3 4 5

29 My team has a positive impact on its clients

30 My team performs tasks that are important to the organisation

31 My team makes a difference in the organisation

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


SECTION 4 IMPACT OF TBPM SYSTEM ON TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

Team Effectiveness is examined under three headings below.

Under each heading are listed a number of factors which are indicators of effectiveness in each area.





SCALE

1 = strongly disagree

2 = tend to disagree

3 = neither disagree nor agree

4 = tend to agree

5 = strongly agree

Team Performance

Factor 1 2 3 4 5

32 All team members participate in the process of goal setting for

my team

33 My team is committed, when goal setting, to aligning team

goals to service/operational plan goals

34 My team meets its financial and work activity goals to deliver

value for money services

35 Team members are involved in the development of new work

methods or new services

36 Innovation is rewarded and acknowledged within my team

37 My team identifies and responds quickly to problems relating

to services or products

38 My team monitors/audits its working practices by using

evidence based standards, which are communicated within the

team

39 My team regularly reviews complaints and applies lessons

learned in a systematic way

40 Clients of my team are satisfied with the service provided by

team members

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Team Viability

Factor 1 2 3 4 5

41 Staff training and development needs are systematically

identified, resourced and made available to all members of the

team

42 Team members are willing to be flexible and perform other

roles and jobs within the team

43 My team values training and learning from each other through

our team meetings and team interactions

44 My team is willing to introduce better tools for organising

team work

45 My team seeks to make improvements in methods of

communication and co-ordination

46 Individuals feel proud to be part of the team

47 Morale is good within the team

48 There is an effective and appropriate level of leadership

within the team

49 All individuals perform to the best of their ability towards a

common purpose within the team

Team Satisfaction

Factor 1 2 3 4 5

50 Individuals on the team are satisfied with their jobs

51 Individuals on the team are generally satisfied to be working

in this team

52 Individuals on the team are satisfied with the chances they

have to learn new things as part of this team


have to accomplish new things working on this team


have to do something that makes them feel good about

themselves working on this team

NOTE: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = tend to disagree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree, 4 = tend to agree, 5 =

strongly agree

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.

Please return the completed questionnaire in the enclosed stamped

addressed envelope before July 4th

, 2008, to:

John Brehony,

160 Orlynn Park,

Lusk,

Co. Dublin.

Telephone: 087-6672697

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Appendix 4 – Reminder Letters

Text of First Reminder Letter

4th

July 2008



Dear Colleague,

You may recall that I wrote to you on 23rd

June requesting you to complete a

questionnaire on the above. This is a survey for my Masters research, and,

regrettably, I am under a time pressure to complete this work. I am writing to ask

you, if you have not already done so, to complete and return the questionnaire to me

without delay, if at all possible. If you have already returned the completed

questionnaire then I thank you for that and you may disregard this letter.

The purpose of this research is to gain your perspectives, as a participant in Team

Based Performance Management, with regard to the importance of the

characteristics of the team based performance management system, and to establish

the perceived impact of the performance management system on team

empowerment and team effectiveness. This research provides an opportunity for

you to influence the development of Team Based Performance Management in the

future

The questionnaire should take no more than 10 minutes to complete – all questions

require just a ‘tick in the box’, with the exception of question 6, which simply

requires you to state how long, in months, your team has been using TBPM.

All replies will be treated in the strictest confidence, individual views will not be

identified, and analyses will be based on aggregated anonymous views. I personally

guarantee this.

I enclose a further copy of the questionnaire along with a stamped addressed

envelope.

I am grateful to you for taking the time to assist me with my research and I look

forward to including your views in this study.

Yours sincerely,

John Brehony

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Text of Second Reminder Letter

16th

July 2008



Dear Colleague,

You may recall that I wrote to you on 23rd

June and 4th

July requesting you to

complete a questionnaire on the above. This is a survey for my Masters research,

which represents the culmination of two years’ work. I am now writing to make a

final appeal to everyone who has yet to return their completed questionnaire to me

to do so without delay and by 23rd

July at the very latest, as a considerable amount

of work will be required to analyse the data and complete my research report by the

deadline set, which is now fast approaching.

As the questionnaires are anonymous I have no way of knowing who has already

returned their questionnaire and accordingly I am obliged to write to all who were

invited to participate in the research. If you have already returned the completed

questionnaire then I thank you for that and I apologise for any disturbance caused to

you by writing to you once more. If you have yet to complete your questionnaire, I

would encourage you to do so. It should take no more than 10 minutes to complete

– all questions require just a ‘tick in the box’, with the exception of question 6,

which simply requires you to state how long, in months, your team has been using

TBPM.

I am grateful to you for taking the time to assist me with my research and I look

forward to including your views in this study.

Yours sincerely,

John Brehony

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Appendix 5 - Codebook

In order to analyse the data obtained in this study using SPSS, it is necessary to

convert the items in the questionnaire into a format that SPSS can understand

(Pallant, 2007). This Appendix documents the codebook used in this study.

Variable SPSS Variable Name Coding Instructions

Identification Number ID Number assigned to each

questionnaire

Role on Team – item 1 Teamrole 1 = Team Member

2 = Team Leader

Manager as Team Leader

– item 2

Manager 1 = Yes

2 = No

3 = Don’t know

Team size – item 3 Teamsize Enter actual number for 2

to 10. For greater than ten

enter 11.

Multidisciplinary – item 4 Multdisp 1 = Yes

2 = No

Number of disciplines –

item 5

Dispno Enter actual number for 2

to 6. For greater than 6

enter 7.

Length of time using

TBPM – item 6

Time Enter the number of

months stated – max value

should not exceed 54.

Number of meetings per

year – item 7

Meetfreq Enter actual number for 1

to 8. For more than 8

enter 9.

Change in frequency of

meetings over time – item

8

Meetchng 1 = Fewer meetings

2 = More meetings

3 = About the same

4 = Don’t know

TBPM Design scale –

items 9 to 12

Des1 to Des4 Enter number ticked from

1 (not at all important) to

4 (very important)

TBPM Process scale –

items 13 to 16

Pro1 to Pro4 Enter number ticked from


4 (very important)

TBPM Contextual scale –

items 17 to 19

Cont1 to Cont3 Enter number ticked from


4 (very important)

Team Empowerment

Potency scale – items 20

to 22

Pot1 to Pot3 Enter number ticked from

1 (strongly disagree) to 5

(strongly agree)

M.Sc. in HRD and PM



Team Empowerment

Meaningfulness scale –

items 23 to 25

Mean1 to Mean3 Enter number ticked from


(strongly agree)

Team Empowerment

Autonomy scale – items

26 to 28

Aut1 to Aut3 Enter number ticked from


(strongly agree)

Team Empowerment

Impact scale – items 29 to

31

Imp1 to Imp3 Enter number ticked from


(strongly agree)

Team Effectiveness

Performance scale – items

32 to 40

Perf1 to Perf9 Enter number ticked from


(strongly agree)

Team Effectiveness

Viability scale – items 41

to 49

Via1 to Via9 Enter number ticked from


(strongly agree)

Team Effectiveness

Satisfaction scale – items

50 to 54

Sat1 to Sat5 Enter number ticked from


(strongly agree)

Total TPBM Design Tdes Add items Des1 to Des 4

and divide by 4 to bring

score back to original

scale.

Range 1 to 4.

Total TBPM Process Tpro Add items Pro1 to Pro 4



scale.

Range 1 to 4.

Total TBPM Context Tcont Add items Cont1 to Cont3



scale.

Range 1 to 4.

Total TBPM Ttbpm Total of all items Des1 to

Des4, Pro1 to Pro4, and

Cont1 to Cont3.

Divide result by 11 to

bring score back to

original scale.

Range 1 to 4.

Total Team

Empowerment

Ttemp Total of all items Pot1 to

Pot3, Mean1 to Mean3,

Aut1 to Aut3 and Imp1 to

Imp3.


bring score back to

original scale.

Range 1 to 5.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM



Total Team Performance Tperf Add items Perf1 to Perf9



scale.

Range 1 to 5.

Total Team Viability Tvia Add items Via1 to Via9



scale.

Range 1 to 5.

Total Team Satisfaction Tsat Add items Sat1 to Sat5



scale.

Range 1 to 5.

Total Team Effectiveness Teff Total of all items Perf1 to

Perf9, Via1 to Via9, and

Sat1 to Sat5.


bring score back to

original scale.

Range 1 to 5.

Length of time using

TBPM – grouped into

three time bands

Time3 Transform scores for

question 6 into three time

bands:

1 = <= 12 months

2 = 13-24 months

3 = 25 months and over

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Appendix 6 – Raw Data

Team Based Performance Management (TBPM) in the Irish Health Service

M = Team Member

L = Team Leader

Section 1 Profile of the Team

Q.1. Please indicate whether you are a team member or a team leader

Team Member 71 Team Leader 20

Q.2. Is the team leader of your team the line manager of all team members?

Yes 46 No 43 Don’t Know 2

Q.3. What is the total number of individuals in your team i.e. team members and team leader?

2 (2) 3 (2) 4 (6) 5 (15) 6 (6) 7 (11) 8 (4) 9 (2) 10 (10) >10 (33)

Q.4. Is your team composed of members from more than one discipline? Yes 52 No 39

Q5. If yes, how many disciplines are represented in your team?

2 (15) 3 (12) 4 (6) 5 (5) 6 (3) > 6 (11)

Q.6. How many months has your team been using team based performance management?

3 (1) 4(1) 5(1) 6(10) 7(2) 8(3) 9(1) 10(1) 11(1) 12(18) 14(1) 15(3) 16(1) 18(7) 24(13) 28(1)

30(3) 36(6) 42(1) 48(4) 50(1) 52(1) 54(8) Missing (2)

Q.7. How many team based performance management meetings does your team have per year?

1 (6) 2 (7) 3 (6) 4 (30) 5 (8) 6 (5) 7 (2) 8 (4) >8 (22) Missing (1)

Q.8. Has the number of team based performance management meetings per year changed since

your team started to use team based performance management?

Fewer meetings (22) More meetings (10) About the same (45) Don’t know (12) Missing (2)

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


SECTION 2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TBPM SYSTEM

The characteristics of the TBPM system, as defined by the HSEA (2003) are outlined below.

Please indicate the extent to which, in your opinion, the characteristics are important for the success

of the TBPM system in your team by ticking one box as appropriate for each statement.


Factor 1

M

L

2

M

L

3

M

L

4

M

L

9 The team has a Team Leader 3

1

2

0

9

1

57

18

10 The team leader may not be the line manager of

all team members

11

2

29

7

17

8

14

3

11 Team members and leaders are clear about their

role in the team

1

1

0

0

8

1

62

18

12 There is support and commitment from senior

management in the area

1

1

0

0

7

2

63

17


Factor 1

M

L

2

M

L

3

M

L

4

M

L

13 Team members and team leaders participate in

agreeing team goals

0

1

2

0

9

0

60

19

14 Team goals are aligned to operational/service

plan goals

0

0

4

1

18

2

49

17

15 There is regular performance feedback regarding

achievement of outcomes for all team members

0

1

2

0

13

2

56

17

16 There is open communication in setting

goals/evaluating performance

0

0

2

1

10

19

59

0


Factor 1

M

L

2

M

L

3

M

L

4

M

L

17 The system is linked to personal development

planning

3

1

6

1

35

11

27

7

18 There is minimum paperwork, policies,

procedures in this system

1

0

12

1

38

11

20

8

19 This system is not linked to pay, probation or

promotional opportunities

6

3

17

6

18

5

30

6

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


SECTION 3 Measures of Team Empowerment

Team Empowerment is examined under four headings below.

Under each heading are listed a number of factors which are indicators of empowerment in each

area.




Team Potency

Factor 1

M

L

2

M

L

3

M

L

4

M

L

5

M

L

20 My team has confidence in itself 2

0

4

0

8

2

39

9

18

9

21 My team can get a lot done when it works hard 2

0

1

0

5

0

32

12

31

8

22 My team believes it can be very productive 2

0

1

0

4

0

36

14

28

6

Team Meaningfulness

Factor 1

M

L

2

M

L

3

M

L

4

M

L

5

M

L

23 My team believes that its projects are significant 2

0

1

0

5

3

32

9

31

8

24 My team believes that its tasks are worthwhile 2

0

3

0

5

3

31

11

30

6

25 My team believes that its work is meaningful 2

0

2

0

1

3

34

8

32

9

Team Autonomy

Factor 1

M

L

2

M

L

3

M

L

4

M

L

5

M

L

26 My team can select different ways to do the team’s work 6

0

4

2

14

0

25

10

22

8

27 My team determines as a team how things are done in the

team

4

0

3

0

11

0

27

9

26

11

28 My team makes its own choices without being told by

management

12

0

11

4

17

3

19

6

12

7

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Team Impact

Factor 1

M

L

2

M

L

3

M

L

4

M

L

5

M

L

29 My team has a positive impact on its clients 2

0

0

0

6

2

34

7

29

11

30 My team performs tasks that are important to the organisation 2

0

1

0

4

2

31

5

33

13

31 My team makes a difference in the organisation 3

0

1

1

10

1

25

7

32

11

SECTION 4 IMPACT OF TBPM SYSTEM ON TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

Team Effectiveness is examined under three headings below.

Under each heading are listed a number of factors which are indicators of effectiveness in each area.




Team Performance

Factor 1

M

L

2

M

L

3

M

L

4

M

L

5

M

L

32 All team members participate in the process of goal setting for

my team

4

0

6

0

8

3

29

6

24

11

33 My team is committed, when goal setting, to aligning team

goals to service/operational plan goals

2

0

4

1

7

3

31

8

27

8

34 My team meets its financial and work activity goals to deliver

value for money services

3

0

3

1

17

8

30

7

18

4

35 Team members are involved in the development of new work

methods or new services

4

0

2

2

6

4

29

8

30

6

36 Innovation is rewarded and acknowledged within my team 8

0

11

2

13

6

24

4

15

8

37 My team identifies and responds quickly to problems relating

to services or products

3

0

3

1

15

6

31

6

19

7

38 My team monitors/audits its working practices by using

evidence based standards, which are communicated within the

team

5

0

3

2

13

4

34

9

16

5

39 My team regularly reviews complaints and applies lessons

learned in a systematic way

5

0

4

1

15

4

24

8

23

7

40 Clients of my team are satisfied with the service provided by

team members

2

0

0

1

18

3

26

10

25

6

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Team Viability

Factor 1

M

L

2

M

L

3

M

L

4

M

L

5

M

L

41 Staff training and development needs are systematically

identified, resourced and made available to all members of the

team

9

0

9

6

21

5

17

4

14

5

42 Team members are willing to be flexible and perform other

roles and jobs within the team

6

0

4

3

8

7

35

7

17

3

43 My team values training and learning from each other through

our team meetings and team interactions

3

0

3

0

4

2

36

11

24

7

44 My team is willing to introduce better tools for organising

team work

3

0

2

0

10

2

30

11

25

7

45 My team seeks to make improvements in methods of

communication and co-ordination

2

0

2

1

9

0

30

8

27

11

46 Individuals feel proud to be part of the team 2

0

4

0

12

6

33

10

19

4

47 Morale is good within the team 4

0

8

1

12

6

31

9

15

4

48 There is an effective and appropriate level of leadership

within the team

7

0

4

1

8

3

32

10

19

6

49 All individuals perform to the best of their ability towards a

common purpose within the team

4

0

0

0

11

5

29

9

26

6

Team Satisfaction

Factor 1

M

L

2

M

L

3

M

L

4

M

L

5

M

L

50 Individuals on the team are satisfied with their jobs 3

0

8

1

16

8

31

7

13

4

51 Individuals on the team are generally satisfied to be working

in this team

2

0

1

0

14

5

38

10

16

5


have to learn new things as part of this team

4

0

5

0

16

7

32

9

14

4


have to accomplish new things working on this team

4

0

4

2

16

3

33

11

14

4


have to do something that makes them feel good about

themselves working on this team

3

0

4

1

23

4

25

10

16

5

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Appendix 7 – Mann-Whitney U Test Results

This Appendix presents the data from the Mann-Whitney U Tests for the aggregate

values of the three categories of the TBPM scale and the three categories of the

team effectiveness scale. It also presents the results for the analyis on each of the

factor questions in the TBPM, team empowerment and team effectiveness scales. N

refers to the number of responses and MD to the median scores.

Category Design Process Contextual

N 71 71 71 Team Member

MD 3.50 4.00 3.00

N 20 20 20 Team Leader

MD 3.50 4.00 3.00

Mann-Whitney U 639 559 691

Z -.699 -1.686 -.185

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .485 .092 .853

Table 16 - TBPM: aggregate Mann-Whitney U Test results for each category

Category Performance Viability Satisfaction


MD 4.00 4.00 3.80


MD 4.00 3.89 3.80

Mann-Whitney U 656 682.50 676.50

Z -.519 -.170 -.323

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .604 .865 .747

Table 17 - Team effectiveness: aggregate Mann-Whitney U Test results for each category

The titles for each factor are taken from the codebook in Appendix 6.

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Category Des1 Des2 Des3 Des4

N 71 71 71 71 Team Member

MD 4.00 2.00 4.00 4.00

N 20 20 20 20 Team Leader

MD 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00

Mann-Whitney U 644 650.50 694.50 681

Z -.955 -.598 -.263 -.492

Asymp. Sig. (2-

tailed)

.340 .550 .793 .623

Table 18 – TBPM: Mann-Whitney U Test results for each TBPM Design factor

Category Pro1 Pro2 Pro3 Pro4

N 71 71 71 71 Team Member

MD 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

N 20 20 20 20 Team Leader

MD 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Mann-Whitney U 641 601.50 672 630.50

Z -1.126 -1.334 -.526 -1.254

Asymp. Sig. (2-

tailed)

.260 .182 .599 .210

Table 19 – TBPM: Mann-Whitney U Test results for each TBPM Process factor

Category Cont1 Cont2 Cont3


MD 3.00 3.00 3.00


MD 3.00 3.00 3.00

Mann-Whitney U 701.50 573 592

Z -.090 -1.457 -1.189

Asymp. Sig. (2-

tailed)

.928 .145 .235

Table 20 – TBPM: Mann-Whitney U Test results for each TBPM Contextual factor

Category Pot1 Pot2 Pot3


MD 4.00 4.00 4.00


MD 4.00 4.00 4.00


Z -1.788 -.235 -.195

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .074 .815 .845

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Table 21 - Team empowerment: Mann-Whitney U Test results for each Potency factor

Category Mean1 Mean2 Mean3


MD 4.00 4.00 4.00


MD 4.00 4.00 4.00

Mann-Whitney U 676.50 639 684.50

Z -.353 -.743 -.272

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .724 .458 .786

Table 22 - Team empowerment: Mann-Whitney U Test results for each Meaningfulness factor

Category Aut1 Aut2 Aut3


MD 4.00 4.00 3.00


MD 4.00 5.00 4.00

Mann-Whitney U 559 498.50 503.50

Z -1.523 -2.174 -2.027

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .128 .030 .043

Table 23 - Team empowerment: Mann-Whitney U Test results for each Autonomy factor

Category Imp1 Imp2 Imp3


MD 4.00 4.00 3.00


MD 5.00 5.00 5.00


Z -1.019 -1.290 -.967

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .308 .197 .333

Table 24 - Team empowerment: Mann-Whitney U Test results for each Impact factor

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Category Perf1 Perf2 Perf3 Perf4 Perf5 Perf6 Perf7 Perf8 Perf9

N 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 Team

Member MD 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Team

Leader MD 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Mann-

Whitney

U

534 699.50 634.50 594 556 685 692 642.50 704

Z -1.794 -.108 -.764 -1.192 -1.521 -.253 -.184 -.678 -.061

Asymp.

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.073 .914 .445 .233 .128 .800 .854 .498 .951

Table 25 - Team effectiveness: Mann-Whitney U Test results for each Performance factor

Category Via1 Via2 Via3 Via4 Via5 Via6 Via7 Via8 Via9

N 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 Team

Member MD 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Team

Leader MD 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Mann-

Whitney

U

671.50 555 670 647.50 551.50 659 678.50 633 655

Z -.284 -1.498 -.322 -.550 -1.565 -.428 -.221 -.695 -.467

Asymp.

Sig. (2-

tailed)

.776 .134 .747 .582 .118 .669 .825 .487 .640

Table 26 - Team effectiveness: Mann-Whitney U Test results for each Viability factor

Category Sat1 Sat2 Sat3 Sat4 Sat5

N 71 71 71 71 71 Team

Member MD 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

N 20 20 20 20 20 Team Leader

MD 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Mann-

Whitney U

705.50 695 676 658.50 601

Z -.045 -.158 -.346 -.529 -1.098

Asymp. Sig.

(2-tailed)

.964 .875 .729 .597 .272

Table 27 - Team effectiveness: Mann-Whitney U Test results for each Satisfaction factor

M.Sc. in HRD and PM


Appendix 8 – Donation to Concern

Documents

The Impact of Team Based Performance Management … Impact of Team Based Performance Management on Team Effectiveness in the Irish Health Service Assessing the Intervening Roles of