Effects of Team Size and Work Team Perception on ... - CiteSeerX

376306

SGR

Effects of Team Size and Work Team Perception on Workplace Commitment: Evidence From 23 Production Teams

Small Group Research 41(6) 725–745 © The Author(s) 2010 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1046496410376306 http://sgr.sagepub.com

Bolanle Ogungbamila1, Adepeju Ogungbamila1, and Gabriel Agboola Adetula1

Abstract This study investigated the influence of production team size (small vs. large) and employees’ perceptions of their production work teams (negative, neutral, and positive) on their level of workplace commitment.Twenty-three production work teams composed of 205 employees (105 males, 100 females), drawn from two team-based private manufacturing organizations, participated in the study. They responded to the workgroup functioning scale and Buchanan’s organizational commitment scale. Team size had no significant correlation with how employees perceived their production work team and their levels of workplace commitment. The results of the 2 × 3 analysis of variance indicated that production team size had no significant influence on workplace commitment. However, employees who had positive perceptions of their production work teams were significantly more committed to the workplace than were those who held either neutral or negative perceptions. Keywords team size, work team, workplace commitment 1

Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba-Akoko, Nigeria

Corresponding Author: Bolanle Ogungbamila, Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba-Akoko, Nigeria Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2016

726

Small Group Research 41(6)

Work teams have generally been associated with enhanced organizational, group, and individual outcomes (Hamilton, Nickerson, & Owan, 2003; Kerr & Tindale, 2004; Laughlin, Hatch, Silver, & Boh, 2006). A work team has the potential of raising its members’ morale and job satisfaction (Stewart, Manz, & Sims, 2000) as well as employees’ job performance (Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001). However, Stewart et al. (2000) opined that the evidence for a productivity link between teams and firms remains inconclusive. Scholars have theorized that though work teams might be beneficial to the workplace and the employees, no consistent evidence supports their large-scale adoption (Glassop, 2002; Knights & McCabe, 2000; Pruljt, 2003). This study answered the call for more empirical evidence on the advantages of work teams for the workplace. Most studies on work team, workplace commitment, and work team performance focus on team design features (Scheepers, Spears, Doosje, & Manstead, 2006; Stewart, 2006), team experience, team task, and team effectiveness (Greenberg, Sikora, Grunberg, & Moore, 2006). Less emphasis is placed on how team members perceive their work team vis-à-vis their level of workplace commitment. This perception can be influenced by team size, team cohesiveness, team structure, and members’ participation in decision making (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Furthermore, employee’s perceptions of his or her work team in terms of cohesiveness and effectiveness might be influenced by the size of the work team. Together, these factors may determine the employee’s level of commitment to the workplace. The present study was interested in influences on commitment to the workplace, with an emphasis on viewing these aspects through the eyes of individual team members. Furthermore, this study also considered the influence of the size of a work team on employees’ commitment to the workplace. The study is grounded within the framework of entitativity, which is explained next.

Entitativity Theory of Group Perception The theory of entitativity was developed by Campbell (1958) to describe and explain the processes by which a collection of individuals come to be perceived as a team. Perceived entitativity is “the perception of a team as a real entity rather than an aggregate of individuals” (Ip, Chiu, & Wan, 2006, p. 369). There are two major routes to perceived entitativity: essentialism and agency (Brewer, Hong, & Li, 2004; Yzerbyt, Corneille, Seron, & Demoulin, 2004); Figure 1 provides a graphical representation of these routes. The first route is essentialism, in which, because a work team has certain essential properties, perceivers see the team as a real entity and expect that team


727

Ogungbamila et al.

Perceptual Cue Physical Traits Concerted Collective Behavior

Team Inference

Work team Perception

Common Psychological Traits

Perceived Homogeneity (Essentialism)

Common Goals

Perceived Cohesiveness (Agency)

Perceived Entitativity

Workplace Commitment

Figure 1. A dual model of entitativity perception Source: Adapted from Ip et al. (2006).

members are similar with respect to those essential properties. In the second route, agency, the team is seen as a route to a common goal. The work team is, therefore, expected to carry out actions in pursuit of the common goals and assume responsibility for its actions (Kashima et al., 2005). In other words, perceived entitativity arises from attribution of essential properties or agency to a collection of employees. Essentialism views perceived entitativity from the physical and physiological factors (e.g., group homogeneity, skin color, and team size) whereas agency covers psychological factors such as team cohesiveness, common goals, and interdependence among team members (Jackson, Colquitt, Wesson, & Zapata-Phelan, 2006). Perceived entitativity is associated with various outcomes in the workplace. For example, Gaertner, Iuzzini, Witt, and Orina (2006) found that perceived entitativity increased in-group social attraction and also mediated the association between in-group interdependence and social attraction. High psychological collectivism has also been associated with increased task performance and organizational citizenship behavior but with low counterproductive work behavior and withdrawal behavior (Jackson et al., 2006). Therefore, because the affective attachment may be extended to the workplace, members of a highly entitative work team would, in theory, be more committed to the workplace than would members of a less entitative work team. Such extension might result from the fact that the employee would feel that the workplace provided the opportunity for him or her to belong to the efficient and effective work team.

Work Teams A work team is a structured set of employees who require coordinated interactions to pursue collective performance objectives within the larger


728


organizational system and successfully accomplish relevant tasks; such employees possess complementary skills. Work teams, with their structure and coordination, are more useful when accomplishing tasks than individuals in several cases. First, a work team is more relevant than an aggregate of employees when problems and decisions in the workplace involve a relatively uncertain, complex problem, and have the potential for conflict. Second, teams are relevant when solving a problem requires interdepartmental or intergroup cooperation and coordination. Third, work teams are relevant when a problem and its solution have important personal and organizational consequences. Fourth, work teams may be particularly relevant when there is significant, but not immediate, deadline pressure. Finally, a work team is important when widespread acceptance and commitment are crucial to successful implementation of an organizational program. Work teams are viewed from two perspectives: task and social. The task perspective of work teams focuses on the task-defined interdependence and collective responsibility of team members (Devine, 2002; Glassop, 2002). The social perspective of work teams, on the other hand, theorizes that a team enhances social identity (Nadler & Halabi, 2006), serves as the foundation for an employee’s evaluation of his or her relationship with the workplace (Scheepers et al., 2006), and is connected with positive affect toward the work or organization (Carron et al., 2003; Jackson et al., 2006; Mason & Griffin, 2003). Although a variety of team characteristics and team outcomes could be considered, our focus here reflects our interest in focusing on team composition, team size, and workplace commitment and perceptions. These characteristics will be addressed in this section, particularly in relation to team outcomes. This review of literature sets the stage for the hypotheses that formed this research project.

Team Composition and Team Effectiveness The makeup of a team is related to its effectiveness. Specifically, previous research has demonstrated the importance of physical characteristics, knowledge, and leadership on team success. These factors will be addressed here in relation to team effectiveness. One component of team composition is the physical characteristics of team members. For example, racial diversity in team composition affects team decisions (Sommers, 2006). Various researchers (e.g., Rico, Molleman, Sanchez-Manzanares, & Van der Vegt, 2007; Roberson & Stevens, 2006; Scheepers et al., 2006) empirically demonstrated that physical similarity and


Ogungbamila et al.

729

weak diversity faultlines enhanced team cohesiveness, team performance, and concern about the welfare of team members. Apart from physical factors, psychological variables such as mental ability and meaningfulness of task are important in team cohesiveness. When considering the mental models (people’s mental organization of information and the relationship between concepts) of team members, two factors may influence teams: accuracy and similarity. Whereas mental accuracy reflects the extent to which team members’ mental models adequately represent a specific knowledge/skill domain, similarity refers to the level at which team members possess shared, similar, or overlapping mental models (Edwards, Day, Arthur, & Bell, 2006). Edwards et al. reported that the mental accuracy of work teams was a stronger predictor of performance than was similarity. However, the extent to which team members have shared knowledge or shared perspectives relates to team outcomes. For example, team members with a good knowledge of the team and who engaged in good team interactions saw increases in task proficiency, performance, and observer ratings of team effectiveness (Hirschfeld, Jordan, Feild, Giles, & Armenakis, 2006; Lim & Klein, 2006). Other research shows that work teams are better able to meet deadlines when members agree on the temporal aspects of their task (Gevers, Rutte, & van Eerde, 2006). Work team reflexivity (the extent to which a work team reflects on and modifies its functioning and performance) is another important factor that determines the effectiveness of a work team (Schippers, Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2007; Schippers, Den Hartog, Koopman, & Wienk, 2003; West, 2000). When considering team members’ knowledge and characteristics, it is also important to consider that team tasks usually require team members to work together. For example, complex tasks may require the pooling of cognitive resources (Mason & Griffin, 2003; Mohrman, 2003). In fact, continued intellectual development of team members contributes to team cohesion and collective performance (DeNisi, Hitt, & Jackson, 2003). Other individual characteristics also play a role in team success. For example, individual ability and disposition are positively correlated with work team performance (Gevers et al., 2006), but composing work teams on the basis of high individual performance may not guarantee success as a collective unit (Stewart, 2003). When teams are composed based on work knowledge, skill, and abilities, work performance improves (Leach, Wall, Rogelberg, & Jackson, 2005). Furthermore, job strain is reduced when these factors are considered in composing teams. Because collaboration is important for solving task and relationship conflict, leadership style may be a strong factor in team effectiveness. For


730


example, in functionally heterogeneous teams (those with people from a variety of backgrounds with pertinent expertise), groups who experienced a participative leadership style engaged in more team reflection, which, in turn, increased team innovation. However, this leadership style reduced the extent to which groups achieved their goals (Somech, 2006). Nevertheless, collaborative problem solving can reduce the negative effects of task conflict on team innovativeness (De Dreu, 2006). Socialized charismatic leaders also had groups with reduced levels of deviance, including deviance from both interpersonal and organizational expectations (Brown & Trevino, 2006). Work team empowerment programs have been developed to enhance the effectiveness of work teams. Such programs improve team processes, which lead to increases in customer satisfaction and the team’s performance on issues such as response time (Mathieu, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006).

Team Size and Team Effectiveness Conventional wisdom states that two heads are better than one. If this sentiment is true, one might conclude that three heads are better than two, four better than three, and so on. Does increasing a team’s size enhances the team’s ability to arrive at correct answers, make good decisions, and reach productivity goals? Results of past studies on team size and the effectiveness of a work team are mixed. The association between team size and team effectiveness has been reported as weak at best (e.g., Leach et al., 2005). Whereas some studies found that work teams with more members suffered from coordination and process loss (e.g., Price, Smith, & Lench, 2006), other studies reported that work teams with more members were more effective than those with fewer members (e.g., Gevers et al., 2006; Hirschfeld et al., 2006). An increase in the size of a work team might increase the resources available to the team and the team’s potential productivity because of the capacity and experience of the additional member (Huckman, Staats, & Upton, 2009; Stewart, 2006). However, an increase in team size above a context-specific maximum might increase coordination problems and unequal participation of group members, which may culminate in reduced effectiveness (Hackman, 2002; Schneider, Smith, & Sipe, 2000). For example, Hirschfeld et al. (2006) reported that team size was proportionate with a team’s problem-solving proficiency but inversely related with physical-task proficiency. But Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt, and Jonsen (2010), in a meta-analysis, demonstrated that teams composed of fewer members were more effective than teams made up more members. Stahl et al’s (2010) result corroborated previous findings, demonstrating that larger groups demonstrated lower productivity (Marimuthu


Ogungbamila et al.

731

& Kolandaisamy, 2009) and lower performance (Mueller, 2006) than did smaller groups. An increase in resources (because of more team members) is often counterbalanced by the team’s increased difficulty in arriving at a decision and a decrease in the average personal and work space of each team member. Intragroup conflict may ensue because of reduced personal and work space. In fact, De Dreu (2006) found that work teams were more innovative when the level of task conflict was moderate instead of low or high; this curvilinear relationship between innovation and conflict points not only to the potential positive outcomes of conflict but also to the need to consider when conflict may be too much. Scholars do not have a conclusive answer to the best size for a group; the benefits of a large team likely depend on the nature of the work team and its environment (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Although Campion, Medsker, and Higgs (1993) recommended that teams should be composed of 10 or less members for team effectiveness, this recommendation is general and may not be applicable to the production setting. Based on the average of 12 members in production work teams (Hirschfeld et al., 2006; Stewart, 2006), we propose a series of hypotheses related to work team size; we categorized production work teams into two sizes: small (membership size is not more than 12) and large (membership size is more than 12). Hypothesis 1: Work team members’ workplace commitment will be inversely related to the size of the work team. Hypothesis 2: Work team size will be inversely related to members’ perceptions of their production work team. Hypothesis 3: Individuals in small production work teams will show a higher level of workplace commitment than will individuals in large production work teams.

Work Team Perception and Workplace Commitment In addition to work team size, literature also points to the importance of considering perceptions of the work team and workplace commitment. Assessments of entitativity are affected by both what is perceived and what is inferred. Ip et al. (2006) were particularly concerned with whether similarity in physical traits (e.g., same skin color) and concerted collective behavior (e.g., same movement, such as collectively marching) would evoke perceptions of team entitativity. The same team movement invariably led to common goal inferences, increased perceived cohesiveness, and increased


732


perceived entitativity. Same skin color also evoked inferences of team traits and increased perceived homogeneity. Despite the effects of these inferences and perceptions, an outsider’s perception of a collection of workers as an entity may not be a strong influence on team members’ commitment. Rather, team members’ appraisal of the team’s effectiveness may be a stronger influence on commitment. Team members’ evaluations of various aspects of the team’s experience are expected to positively influence an employee’s level of workplace commitment (Spreitzer & Mishra, 2002). However, Costa (2003) noted that team trust and cooperation are positively related to work attitude, not workplace commitment. Nevertheless, perception of coworkers’ solidarity in the workplace has been associated with workplace commitment (Parris, 2003) and job satisfaction (Belanger, Edwards, & Wright, 2003). Dion (2000) reported that perceptions of team cohesion are consistently linked to other subjective evaluations and attitudes as well as organizational outcomes. Work teams vary in the extent to which they meet team- and organization-defined goals (Jex, 2002; Jex & Thomas, 2003). Other scholars have found that team members’ belief in team effectiveness is related to higher levels of motivation, satisfaction, and commitment to the workplace (Kirkman & Rosen, 2000; Lester, Meglino, & Korsgaard, 2002). Furthermore, a member’s belief in work team effectiveness is also a key factor in the member’s turnover intentions (Bayazit & Mannix, 2003). The subculture and leadership of a team provide two additional effects on team members. Work teams usually create a subculture that team members come to respect and cherish; this subculture influences the workplace commitment of the members of the team (e.g., Lok, Westwood, & Crawford, 2005). Team members’ subjective assessments of the team’s social relations, effectiveness, opportunities to participate in decision making, and team structure are related to workplace commitment and turnover intentions (Greenberg et al., 2006). Leadership style and the level of autonomy the work team enjoys may influence this connection (DeChurch & Marks, 2006; Rico et al., 2007; Walumbwa, Lawler, & Avolio, 2007). In fact, self-managed work teams led by a supervisor who exhibited the characteristics of an efficient leader had higher levels of workplace commitment, job satisfaction, and organizational self-esteem than did other categories of work teams (Elloy, 2005). Mayer, Nishii, Schneider, and Goldstein (2007) affirmed that the personality characteristics of the leader of the work team strongly predicted the followers’ justice perception, job satisfaction, and workplace commitment. Together, the literature suggests that employees’ perceptions of their teams will play a role in their commitment to the workplace. In light of the


Ogungbamila et al.

733

previously mentioned effects of team size, we also consider the size of teams to be an influence on commitment. Against this background, we tested the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 4: There will be a positive relationship between employees’ perceptions of their production work team and their levels of workplace commitment. Hypothesis 5: Employees who have positive perceptions of their work team will be more committed to the workplace than will those who hold either negative or neutral perceptions. Hypothesis 6: Employees in small production work teams who hold positive perceptions of their work team will be more committed to the workplace than those who hold either neutral or negative perceptions or are in large production work teams.

Method To address the hypotheses articulated above, we conducted a study in two large team-based manufacturing companies in southwest Nigeria; company names and specific locations are omitted to protect the identities of the participants. The two companies produced similar household products such as disinfectants, toiletries, and vegetable oil. In this section, we will describe the participants, the instruments they completed, and the approach to analysis used to address the hypotheses.

Participants This study was approved by the Research and Development Committee of the university. The Research and Development Committee not only scrutinized the viability of this research but also evaluated the level of compliance of the research with the ethical guidelines stipulated in the Protection of Human Subjects section of the University Research Ethics. To further protect the participants, we assured them that their responses could not be traced to them and the results of the study would not be made available to the management of their organizations. Participants were drawn from the production units of the two companies. Production managers set up the teams; members did not self-select into teams. Each team had been working together for at least 2 months. Out of the 280 employees who volunteered to participate, 205 individuals completed and returned the questionnaires; 105 were male and 100 were female


734


(response rate = 73.21%). Participants’ ages ranged between 20 and 61 years (M = 35.55, SD = 7.17) and they had spent an average of 3.80 years in the organization. Each participant had completed at least 6 years of education.

Instruments Work team perception was measured using Seashore, Lawler, Mirvis, and Cammann’s (1982) 14-item workgroup functioning scale. This measure assesses perceptions of team cohesiveness, team goal clarity, group internal fragmentation, open team process, and team homogeneity on a 7-point scale (7 = strongly agree; 1 = strongly disagree). Items on the measure include “I feel I am really part of my work team” (group cohesiveness), “Each member of my work team has a clear idea of the team’s goal” (team goal clarity), “There are feelings among members of my work team which tend to pull the team apart” (team internal fragmentation), “If we have a decision to make, everyone is involved in making it” (open team process), and “Members of my work team vary widely in their skills and abilities” (reverse scored; team homogeneity). In Seashore et al.’s (1982) original reporting, alpha coefficients were .61 (team goal clarity) and .79 (team internal fragmentation). The scale’s concurrent validity coefficients with a measure of overall job satisfaction ranged between .13 (group homogeneity) and .48 (team cohesiveness; Seashore et al., 1982). For the current use of the scale, Cronbach’s alpha was .85. Each participant’s level of workplace commitment was evaluated using Buchanan’s (1974) 23-item organizational commitment scale. Using a 7-point scale (7 = strongly agree; 1 = strongly disagree), this measure assesses the job involvement, identification, and loyalty dimensions of workplace commitment. Participants responded to statements such as “I don’t mind spending a half-hour past quitting time if I can finish a task” (job involvement), “I feel a sense of pride in working for this organization” (identification), and “My loyalty is to my work; not to any particular organization” (reverse scored; loyalty). Buchanan (1974) reported a coefficient alpha of .94 for the scale. The scale had a .62 concurrent validity coefficient with a measure of job satisfaction (Cook & Wall, 1980). In the current study, Cronbach’s α = .90.

Analysis Using Hirschfeld et al.’s (2006) and Stewart’s (2006) reports as benchmarks, the participants were divided into two groups: small production work teams (those with not more than 12 members) and large production work teams


735

Ogungbamila et al. Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities Variables 1. Production team size 2. Work team perception 3. Workplace commitment

M

SD

1

2

3

12.03 68.01 93.83

11.46 8.40 11.93

— −.01 .07

— .35**

—

**p < .01.

(those with more than 12 members). This division was used for testing hypotheses that dealt with production team size. To test the hypotheses, all data was entered into a 2 (production team size) × 3 (work team perception) analysis of variance. Respondents were grouped based on production team size (small, large) and by work team perception (negative, neutral, positive). Hypotheses 1, 2, and 4, which predicted simple correlations, were tested using the Pearson’s product-moment correlation statistics. The remaining hypotheses were addressed by looking at the overall model and the relationships between the variables.

Results Using the analysis methods just outlined, we tested the six hypotheses concerning team size, work team perception, and workplace commitment. Table 1 provides an overview of the descriptive results as well as the correlations between variables. Hypothesis 1 predicted an inverse relationship between production team size and team members’ level of workplace commitment, r(203) = .07, p > .05; thus, Hypothesis 1 was not supported. The second hypothesis predicted an inverse relationship between production team size and the perception of the production work team. The relationship between production team size and perception of the work team was not significant, r(203) = −.01, p > .05. The third hypothesis compared workplace commitment between individuals in small and large production teams. Means and standard deviations for the different sizes of production teams are shown in Table 2; a graphical representation of Table 2 is presented in Figure 2. As shown in Table 3, production team size had no significant effect on workplace commitment, F(1, 199) = 1.21, p > .05. Hypothesis 3 was, therefore, not confirmed. Hypothesis 4 was concerned with employees’ perceptions of their teams and their workplace commitment. Work team perception had a significant


736


Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Team Size and Team Perception Team Size

Team Perception

Small team Large team Total

Negative perception Neutral perception Positive perception Total Negative perception Neutral perception Positive perception Total Negative perception Neutral perception Positive perception Total

N

M

SD

15 41 26 82 27 51 45 123 42 92 71 205

86.13 89.95 100.46 92.59 90.15 94.53 97.53 94.67 88.71 92.49 98.61 93.83

12.80 14.82 7.68 13.64 12.30 11.63 6.95 10.62 12.48 13.27 7.31 11.93

Workplace commitment

Team perception Positive perception

100

Neutral perception Negative perception

95

90

Small team

Large team

Production team size

Figure 2. Effects of production team size and work team perception on workplace commitment

direct association with team members’ commitment to the workplace, r(203) = .35, p < .01; thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported. The fifth hypothesis predicted that employees with positive perceptions of their work team would be more committed to the workplace than would those with either negative or neutral perceptions. Those who had positive impression of their production work team exhibited a significantly higher level of workplace commitment than those who had either neutral or negative


737

Ogungbamila et al. Table 3. Effects of Team Size and Work Team Perception on Workplace Commitment Sources Production team size Work team perception Production team size × work team perception Error Total

SS

df

MS

F

p

153.99 3235.52 590.24

1 2 2

153.99 1617.76 295.12

1.21 12.68 2.31

>.05 .05

25381.41 29038.36

199 204

127.54

perceptions of their work team, F(2,199) = 12.68, p < .001. Employees who held positive perceptions of their production work teams (M = 98.61; SD = 7.31) were the most committed to the workplace compared with those who held negative (M = 88.71; SD = 12.45) or neutral (M = 92.49; SD = 13.27) perceptions of their production work teams. Workplace commitment increased with production team size among employees who had neutral or negative impression of their production work teams. However, for employees who held positive evaluations of their production work teams, workplace commitment fell with an increase in the size of production team size. The final hypothesis predicted that employees in small production teams who have positive perceptions of their teams would be the most committed to the workplace. Production team size and work team perception had a weak joint effect on workplace commitment F(2,199) = 2.31, p > .05. Although we cannot claim statistically significant support for Hypothesis 6, we can see that the data trended in the predicted direction. The most positive perceptions of a team came from the small teams, and given the significant results from Hypothesis 4, it seems possible that our hypothesis has merit.

Discussion and Conclusions This study investigated the extent to which the size of production work teams and employees’ perception of their work teams influence their level of commitment to the workplace. In looking at the results, there are several themes to discuss. First, team size had implications for commitment and perceptions of the team. Next, members’ perceptions of the team were related to members’ commitment. Finally, the results suggest variation in commitment based on a combination of team size and perceptions. After discussing these three main points, we turn to implications and the limitations of this study, concluding with suggestions for future research.


738


Contrary to our expectations, production team size and employees’ commitment to the workplace were not related. This result was in contrast to other research that suggested that an increase in production team size was associated with negative team ratings (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Price et al., 2006; Schneider et al., 2000). The results presented here, however, confirmed other work that demonstrated that team size enhanced individual, team, and organizational outcomes (Gevers et al., 2006; Hirschfeld et al., 2006; Stewart, 2006). More important, the present result confirmed Leach et al.’s (2005) finding that a weak connection exists between team size and team-related outcomes. Contrary to expectations (Hypothesis 3), employees in the large production work teams were as committed to the workplace as those in the small production work teams. This finding did not support either of the two positions in the literature on team size and team members’ behavior but rather implies that whatever an employee loses as a result of a large production work team can be regained in terms of the pool of resources available to team members. This result lends support to the suggestion that a production work team should have an average of 12 members (Hirschfeld et al., 2006; Stewart, 2006). Although in other contexts, smaller groups may be more efficient (e.g., Laughlin et al.’s 2006 study of problem solving), the present results have demonstrated that small teams may be inadequate in a production setting. Furthermore, perceived job insecurity and high rate of unemployment may mediate the connection between team size and workplace commitment, especially in Nigeria. As hypothesized, employees who held positive perceptions of their work teams were more committed to the workplace than were those who reported either negative or neutral impression of their production work teams (Hypothesis 5). This result was in consonance with past studies (e.g., Dion, 2000; Greenberg et al., 2006; Ip et al., 2006; Lester et al., 2002; Lok et al. 2005; Parris, 2003). The production work team served as the indirect basis for an employee’s evaluation of his/her relationship with, and importance in the workplace, suggesting an affective extension from the production work team to the workplace (Jackson et al., 2006; Scheepers et al., 2006). Finally, we looked at the combination of team size and perceptions on commitment. The lack of statistically significant results here does hinder some of what could be said with these results, but, when combined with other significant results, do point to influences on commitment. Specifically, teams with more members were less positive about the workplace; this reduction in affective extension might be because of team members’ perceived decrease in personal work space. With a significant relationship between workplace perceptions and commitment, it seems that these variables may play an untold role in teams’ experiences in the workplace.


Ogungbamila et al.

739

Implications The implications of this study are at both the practical and the theoretical level. Practically, the findings of this research imply that managers and supervisors should consider psychological factors over physical factors (e.g., ethnicity, age, team size, and physical attraction) in setting up a production work team to guarantee their levels of workplace commitment and team effectiveness. At the theoretical level, the results of this study lend support to the psychological route to entitativity (Campbell, 1958; Ip et al., 2006). Furthermore, the results suggest that the psychological route to perceived entitativity is stronger than the physical route to perceived entitativity (a fact that Ip et al., 2006 did not stress in their study). Such results imply that members of production work teams placed more emphasis on psychological factors such as cohesiveness, goal inference, and perceived team support than team size.

Limitations and Future Directions The results of this study should be generalized with caution. Because the study only focused on production work teams in team-based manufacturing organizations, the results may not reflect happenings in non-team-based manufacturing organizations as well as employees in different types of work teams. Only 23 production work teams were studied here; these results might be different if more production work teams had been studied. Furthermore, only private manufacturing organizations were studied. Type of organization in terms of ownership (public versus private) could be a strong factor in perceptions of entitativity, team effectiveness, and team member’s level of workplace commitment. In Nigeria, for example, most government-owned organizations are put up for privatization because their low levels of efficiency have been attributed to lack of commitment on the part of the employees. Based on this project, future research could move in a variety of directions. For example, future research should compare entitativity in team-based public and private organizations to address potential differences. Additionally, researchers should compare workplace commitment and entitativity among different types of work teams. Results would also be improved by involving more work teams.

Conclusions The goal of this project was to address the variables of team size, workplace perceptions, and workplace commitment. Through surveys of work teams in


740


two production facilities in Nigeria, we found that although most of our hypotheses were not supported, there were trends in team members’ commitment to the workplace based on team size and the team members’ perceptions of the workplace. These results open new potential for studying factors that influence work teams. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References Bayazit, M., & Mannix, E. A. (2003). Should I stay or should I go? Predicting team members’ intent to remain in the team. Small Group Research, 34, 290-321. Belanger, J., Edwards, P. K., & Wright, M. (2003). Commitment at work and independence from management: A study of advanced team-working. Work and Occupations, 30, 234-252. Brewer, M., Hong, Y., & Li, O. (2004). Dynamic entitativity: Perceiving groups as actors. In L. Judd, V. Yzerbyt, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 25-38). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Brown, M. E., & Trevino, L. K. (2006) Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence and deviance in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 954962. Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546. Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fates, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14-24. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective workgroups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850. Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., Eys, M. A., Bray, S., Dorsch, K., Estabrooks, P., Terry, P. C. (2003). Do individual perceptions of group cohesion reflect shared beliefs? Small Group Research, 34, 468-496. Cook, J., & Wall, T. D. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment, and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39-52.


Ogungbamila et al.

741

Costa, C. C. (2003). Work team trust and effectiveness. Personnel Review, 32, 605-623. De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32, 83-107. DeChurch L. A., & Marks, M. A. (2006). Leadership in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 311-329. DeNisi, A. S., Hitt, M. A., & Jackson, S. E. (2003). The knowledge-based approach to sustainable competitive advantage. In S. E. Jackson, M. A. Hitt, & A. S. DeNisi (Eds.), Managing knowledge for sustained competitive advantage: Designing strategies for effective human resource management (pp. 3-33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Devine, D. J. (2002). A review and integration of classification systems relevant to teams in organizations. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 291-310. Dion, K. L. (2000). Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 7-26. Edwards, B. D., Day, E. A., Arthur, Jr., W., & Bell, S. T. (2006). Relationships among team ability composition, team mental models, and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 727-726. Elloy, D. F. (2005). The influence of superleader behaviors on organizational commitment, job satisfaction and organization self-esteem in a self-managed workteam. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 26, 120-127. Gaertner, L., Iuzzini, J., Witt, M. G., & Orina, M. M. (2006). Us without them: Evidence for an intragroup origin of positive in-group regard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 426-439. Gevers, J. M. P., Rutte, G. O., & van Eerde, W. (2006). Meeting deadlines in work groups: Implicit and explicit mechanisms. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 52-72. Glassop, L. (2002). The organizational benefits of teams. Human Relations, 55, 225-249. Greenberg, E. S., Sikora, P. B., Grunberg, L., & Moore, S. (2006). Work teams and organizational commitment: Exploring the influence of the team experience on employee attitudes (Workplace Change Project Working Paper, WP-012). Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/ibs/PEC/workplacechange/papers/WP_012.pdf Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston: HBS Press. Hamilton, B. H., Nickerson, J. A., & Owan, H. (2003). Team incentives and worker heterogeneity: An empirical analysis of the impact of teams on productivity and participation. Journal of Political Economy, 117, 465-497.


742


Hirschfeld, R. R., Jordan, M. H., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Armenakis, A. A. (2006). Becoming team players: Team members’ mastery of teamwork, knowledge as a predictor of team task proficiency and observed teamwork effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 467-474. Huckman, R. S., Staats, B. R., & Upton, D. M. (2009). Team familiarity, role experience, and performance: Evidence from Indian Software Services. Management Sciences, 55, 85-100. Ip, W. G., Chiu, C., & Wan, C. (2006). Birds of a feather and birds flocking together: Physical versus behavioral cues may lead to trait-versus goal-based group perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 368-381. Jackson, C. L., Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2006). Psychological collectivism: A measurement validation and linkage to group member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 884-899. Jex, S. M. (2002). Organizational psychology: A scientist-practitioner approach. New York: Wiley. Jex, S. M., & Thomas, J. L. (2003). Relations between stressors and group perceptions: Main and mediating effects. Work & Stress, 17, 158-169. Kashima, Y., Kashima, E., Chiu, C., Farsides, T., Gelfand, M., & Hong, Y., Yzerbyt, V. (2005). Culture, essentialism, and agency: Are individuals universally believed to be more real entities than groups? European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 147-169. Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 623-655. Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (2000). Powering up teams. Organizational Dynamics, 28, 48-65. Knights, D., & McCabe, D. (2000). Bewitched, bothered, and bewildered: The meaning and experience of teamworking for employees in an automobile company. Human Relations, 53, 1481-1517. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. T. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (vol. 12, pp. 333-375). New York: Wiley. Laughlin, P. R., Hatch, E. C., Silver, J. S., & Boh, L. (2006). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 644-651. Leach, D. J., Wall, T. D., Rogelberg, S. G., & Jackson, P. R. (2005): Team autonomy performance, and member job strain: Uncovering the teamwork KSA link. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 1-24. Lester, S. W., Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2002). The antecedents and consequences of group potency: A longitudinal investigation of newly formed workgroups. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 352-368.


Ogungbamila et al.

743

Lim, B. C., & Klein, K. J. (2006). Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental models similarity and accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 403-418. Lok, P., Westwood, R., & Crawford, J. (2005). Perceptions of organizational subculture and their significance for organizational commitment. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 490-514. Marimuthu, M., & Kolandaisamy, I. (2009). Can demographic diversity in top management team contribute for greater financial performance? An empirical discussion. The journal of International Social Research, 2, 274-286. Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2003). Identifying group task satisfaction at work. Small Group Research, 34, 413-422. Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 97-108. Mayer, D., Nishii, L., Schneider, B., & Goldstein, H. (2007). The precursors and products of justice climates: Group leader antecedents and employee attitudinal consequences. Personnel Psychology, 60, 929-963. Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102-1123. Mohrman, S. A. (2003). Designing work for knowledge based competition. In S E. Jackson, M. A. Hitt, & A. S. DeNisi (Eds.), Managing knowledge for sustained competitive advantage: Designing strategies for effective human resource management (pp. 94-123). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mueller, J. S. (2006, August). Why individuals in larger teams perform worse. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Atlanta, GA. Nadler, A., & Halabi, S. (2006): Intergroup helping as status relations: Effects of status stability, identification, and type of help on receptivity to high-status group’s help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 97-110. Parris, M. A. (2003). Work team: Perceptions of a ready-made support system? Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 15, 71-83. Price, P. C., Smith, A. R., & Lench, H. C. (2006). The effect of target group size on risk judgments and comparative optimism: The more, the riskier. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 382-398. Pruljt, H. (2003). Teams between neo-Taylorism and anti-Taylorism. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 24, 77-101. Rico, R., Molleman, E., Sanchez-Manzanares, M., & Van der Vegt, G. S. (2007). The effects of diversity faultlines and team task autonomy on decision quality and social integration. Journal of Management, 33, 111-132. Roberson, Q. M., & Stevens, C. K. (2006). Making sense of diversity in the workplace: Organizational justice and language abstraction in employees’ accounts of diversity-related incidents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 379-391.


744


Scheepers, D., Spears, R., Doosje, B, & Manstead, A. S. R. (2006). Diversity in ingroup bias: Structural factors, situational features, and social functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 944-960. Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2007). Reflexivity in teams: A measure and correlates. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56, 189-211. Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., & Wienk, J. A. (2003). Diversity and team outcomes: The moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity and the mediating effect of reflexivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 779-802. Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., & Sipe, W. P. (2000). Personnel selection and psychology. Multilevel considerations. In K. J. Klein & S.W.J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations. Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 91-156). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Seashore, S. E., Lawler, E. E., Mirvis, P., & Cammann, C. (1982). Observing and measuring organizational change: A guide to field practice. New York: Wiley. Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous team. Journal of Management, 32, 132-157. Sommers, S. R. (2006). On racial diversity and group decision making: Identifying multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 597-612. Spreitzer, G. M., & Mishra, A. K. (2002). To stay or go: Voluntary survivor turnover following an organizational downsizing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 707-729. Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2010). Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural workgroups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 690-709. Stewart, G. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of the multilevel role of personality in teams. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 183-204). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32, 29-54. Stewart, G. L., Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (2000). Teamwork and group dynamics. New York: Wiley. Walumbwa, F. O., Lawler, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Leadership, individual differences, and work-related attitudes: A cross culture investigation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56, 212-230.


Ogungbamila et al.

745

West, M. A. (2000) Reflexivity, revolution and innovation in work teams. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (Vol. 5, pp. 1-29). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Yzerbyt, V., Corneille, D., Seron, E., & Demoulin, S. (2004). Subjective essentialism in action: Self-anchoring and social control as consequences of fundamental social divides. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 101124). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Bios Bolanle Ogungbamila is in the PhD program in the Department of Psychology, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. His research focus is individuals’ reactions to unpleasant situations. Some of his articles have appeared in Journal of Psychology in Africa and Gerontology. Adepeju Ogungbamila is a graduate student in the Department of Psychology, Adekunle Ajasin University, Nigeria. Gabriel Agboola Adetula is in the Department of Psychology, Adekunle Ajasin University, Nigeria. His research focus is security and prison reform. Some of his articles have been published in journals such as Ife PsychologIA and The Social Sciences.
