Introduction and position in the current literature
As organizations rely progressively more on teams rather than individuals (Tekleab, Quigley, & Tesluk, 2009; Wech, Kennedy, & Deeter-Schmelz, 2009), managers become more interested in how to measure and monitor team performance. Only if managers stay tuned into teams, they can provide feedback and timely support at the team and individual level. While team performance inventories and employee survyer exist (e.g., Wageman, Hackman, & Lehman, 2005), they may be less suited to specific workplace demands . For example, criteria relevant to manufacturing industries may not fit with human service environments, such as, the healthcare and homecare context (Faul et al., 2010; Ouweneel, Taris, van Zolingen, & Schreurs, 2009). In addition, the interpretation of performance measures over time is an underdeveloped issue. It is yet unclear how to follow up on changes in time in team outcomes. For example, when do changes in team performance qualify as early warning signals that necessitate managerial attention, and when do changes reflect transitory issues (see Hackman & Wageman, 2005)? Obviously, innovative ideas are needed on how to assess and interpret team performance over time (Birkinshaw, Hamel, & Mol, 2008). This research aims to provide input to the development of the team performance inventory.
Research questions & hypothesis
This research broadly aims to investigate team performance and team processes over time. Next to that it provides input to the development of a team performance inventory instrument.
We will make use of (online) questionnaires measuring team functioning and outcomes over time;
We intend to conduct semi-structured interviews and workplace observations to add qualitative insights to our quantitative findings.