1. careers
2. nursing

Journal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 25, 979–996 (2004)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/job.284
The proficiency trap: how to balance
enriched job designs and the team’s
need for support
ANAT DRACH-ZAHAVY*
Faculty of Health and Welfare, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
Summary
The present study seeks to enlighten our understanding of ways to promote the performance of
teams of professionals. Considering that job enrichment practices might block support for a
team, and hence its performance, the study examined the moderating effects of cultural factors, namely individualism–collectivism and power distance, and the team leader’s practices
as a source of support in the job enrichment–team support relationship. Further, the study
examined the mediating role of team support in improving the performance of professional
teams. Results from 56 healthcare teams from different hospitals indicated that attempts to
promote professionals’ performance should consider at a minimum how to balance job
enrichment practices and the team’s need for support. The findings suggest that this balance
could be achieved by emphasizing the support provided by the leader, and by strengthening
the cultural values of low power distance and collectivism in the team. Copyright # 2004
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
As more and more professionals are employed in organizations (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Conley,
1990; Janz, Colquitt, & Noe, 1997; Reed, 1996), a major challenge is how to design their jobs in
ways that promote their performance. Professionals can be defined in terms of their membership of
institutions or associations, their publications, and their formal qualifications (e.g., Robson, Wholey,
& Barefield, 1996), or more loosely in terms of their type of work and the training it demands. The
latter would be ‘exclusive occupational groups applying somewhat abstract knowledge to particular
cases’ (Abbott, 1988, p. 131). Despite their uniform definition, professional teams have typically been
examined across a variety of organizations. Examples are teams of lawyers (Hirschhorn, 1998), of
insurers, and of workers in information systems (Campion, Pepper, & Medsker, 1996; Janz et al.,
1997), of workers in finance (May, Korczynski, & Frenkel, 2002), and of nurses (Gibson, 2001).
These workers expect to be recognized as possessing a degree of expertise, which gives them the
privilege to engage in meaningful jobs, the right to a high level of job responsibility, and the ability to
* Correspondence to: Anat Drach-Zahavy, Faculty of Health and Welfare, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel
31905. E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 7 July 2003
Revised 19 January 2004
Accepted 24 June 2004
980
A. DRACH-ZAHAVY
serve as their own judges in relying on inherent feedback; these rights are often realized through job
enrichment practices (Dwyer & Fox, 2000; Janz et al., 1997; Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Bacharach
et al., 1990). Typically the job enrichment literature proposes that designing complete jobs with greater
job autonomy, control, and varied skill requirements stimulates workers’ affective and motivational
systems by providing multiple and uncertain paths to job goals (Griffin, Patterson, & West, 2001;
Dwyer & Fox, 2000; Campbell, 1988). These jobs also create higher-level mental challenges that
require from job incumbents skill and training, hence are congruent with their professional ethos
(Bacharach et al., 1990; Hirschhorn, 1998). Such enriched job content characterizes most professional
occupations; even greater responsibility, accountability, and flexibility, and the need for higher technical, conceptual, and interpersonal skills, are predicted for the 21st century (Dwyer & Fox, 2000).
The rights that professionals expect, however, often clash with their role as team members. They are
often called upon to apply their expertise to new, complex, and redesigned contexts, so their team’s
support behaviors play an important part (Tucker & Edmonson, 2002; Lepine & van Dyne, 2001;
Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2001). Team support is defined here as a relative property of the team. It
means the availability to team members of broad helping behaviors such as tangible assistance (instrumental support), feelings of mutual caring and acceptance (emotional support), sharing ideas and
information (informational support), and team members helping each other learn (appraisal support)
(West, 1994; Tjosvold & Tjosvold, 1995; Janz et al., 1997). It is proposed here that precisely the motivational features of job enrichment, such as conducting complete jobs, enjoying enhanced autonomy,
and bearing individual accountability, might block professionals’ willingness to engage in team support, thereby creating a so-called proficiency trap. That is, enriched job designs and team support are
both needed for promoting professionals’ team performance, but at the same time enriched job designs
hinder team support and, vice versa, support could restrict the beneficial outcomes of job enrichment
for professionals, thereby causing lower individual and team performance. Some examples of this proficiency trap should be noted here. Designing complete jobs underlines professionals’ sole responsibility for the services or products they deliver. While promoting identification with the job, which
could enhance motivation and performance, this exclusivity creates low interdependence among professionals, which runs counter to teamwork and mutual support. Similarly, an emphasis on job discretion and autonomy in decision-making might be perceived as providing a greater sense of control over
work, but it also encourages self-reliance, which might militate against mutual feedback and helpseeking at the workplace. Finally, free access to feedback provides good learning conditions for the
individual professional, but circumscribes his or her essential inclination to join with other significant
team members for mutual learning and sense making.
Hypothesis 1: Job enrichment practices will be negatively associated with team support.
Hence, if job design efforts for professionals are to be effective, we need to examine empirically
how the professionals’ need for individual identity, autonomy, and control over work may be accommodated with the team’s need for mutual support so that effective individual and team performance is
achieved. The study reported here addressed that proficiency trap.
A model was developed depicting team support as a key process variable that promotes the performance of professionals. The model also aimed to test the link between team support and job enrichment. However, due to the inherent tension between job enrichment and team support, we turned to the
context that the team worked in to identify key variables that enhance or neutralize the proposed inhibiting effects of job enrichment practices on team support (Sagie, 1997; Howell et al., 1997). This can
have critical theoretical and practical ramifications if certain variables act as neutralizers for job
enrichment practice, and reduce its negative effects on team support. Consider the case of a manager
supervising a team characterized by high job enrichment practices. Can the manager increase his/her
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. Organiz. Behav. 25, 979–996 (2004)
THE PROFICIENCY TRAP
981
Figure 1. A model for promoting professional team performance
support behaviors as a means of raising team support? Or should he/she perhaps try to promote in the
team cultural values, which are more compatible with team support? To answer such questions we
have to examine how a leader’s support and job enrichment, and cultural values and job enrichment,
interact in relation to team support. Finally, the model proposed to test the mediating role of team support in the job enrichment–team performance relationship. The rationale for the mediating hypothesis
comes from typical input–process–outcome models of team effectiveness (e.g., Hackman, 1990;
Guzzo & Shea, 1992; McIntyre & Salas, 1995; Tannenbaum, Salas, & Cannon Bowers, 1996).
These posit that it is not job enrichment per se that affects team effectiveness. Rather, job enrichment
(and its combination with the leader’s support and team cultural values) defines the opportunity, availability, and appropriateness of team members to engage in support behaviors, which further affect team
effectiveness (Figure 1).
The antecedents of team support
Team support as moderated by leader’s support
Few would argue that the team leader carries the responsibility as well as the authority to initiate and
conduct ongoing follow-up of improved job designs so that team performance is assured (Griffin et al.,
2001). The leader can play a key role by undertaking such leadership practices as being more visible in
the department, demonstrating roles and expectations concerning support among team members, and
setting ground rules to ensure that team members engage in support (McIntyre & Salas, 1995; Griffin
et al., 2001). Leader’s support is defined here as the availability of broad helping behaviors from the
direct supervisor (Anderson & Willams, 1996).
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. Organiz. Behav. 25, 979–996 (2004)
982
A. DRACH-ZAHAVY
Although a main effect of leader’s support on team support was expected here, and has been empirically obtained in previous studies (e.g., Anderson & Williams, 1996), our primary interest was leader’s
support as neutralizer of the negative impact of job enrichment on team support. We posited that leaders might have fewer opportunities to support employees performing enriched jobs for a variety of
reasons. Leaders of such professionals often conclude that empowering employees requires that they
allow them to work by themselves (Tucker & Edmonson, 2002); or they are so preoccupied with other
administrative work that they have no time to spare supporting their workers (Yukl, Fable, & Joo,
1993). Alternatively, the professionals themselves may so value their autonomy as to perceive leader’s
support as an obstacle to their maintaining it (Hirschhorn, 1998). This does not mean that leaders as a
source of support make no impact on those workers (Griffin et al., 2001). In a recent review, Parker and
Wall (1998) identified a number of options for the leadership role in teams, ranging from the complete
elimination of supervisory positions to the retention of supervisory positions but with redefined role
requirements, such as facilitation. In the context of support, leaders can play a key role in modeling
support behaviors in teams, setting the ground rules for team members to engage in support, and
demonstrating roles and expectations concerning support from employees (McIntyre & Salas, 1995;
Griffin et al., 2001). In enriched job designs the leader’s role might be shifting towards a more facilitative role, focused on creating the ‘right’ environment to encourage team members to act supportively. Hence, we proposed that in teams performing highly enriched jobs, leader’s support would
act to neutralize job enrichment such that team support would be considerably higher when leader’s
support was high than when it was low.
Hypothesis 2: Job enrichment and leader’s support will interact in their effects on team support, so
that the relationship between job enrichment and team support will be less negative when leader’s
support is high than when it is low.
Team Support as moderated by cultural values
Researchers now agree that variations in cultural values may enhance or diminish the impact of management practices such as job enrichment on team members’ attitudes and behaviors (Hofstede, 1993;
Robert et al., 2000; Lee, Pillutla, & Law, 2000; Newman & Nollen, 1996). This line of research emphasizes the importance of fit of management practices with cultural values in predicting their effectiveness (Erez, 1994; Kirkman & Shapiro, 1997; Newman & Nollen, 1996; Klein & Sorra, 1996). We drew
on this research and proposed that the two dimensions of culture—individualism–collectivism and
power distance—could moderate the negative impact of job enrichment on team support. Differences
in these cultural values have been examined primarily at the societal (national) level (e.g., Hofstede,
1980; Robert et al., 2000; Chen, Brockner, & Katz, 1998). However, recent theory and research have
noted their usefulness for predicting job-related attitudes and behaviors at the team level of inquiry
also (e.g., Eby & Dobbins, 1997; Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001; Workman, 2001; Bantz, 1993). The idea
that teams can have a distinct culture is based on the assumption that particular sets of values, norms,
beliefs, and assumptions become internalized, shared, and enacted by a team’s members (Klimoski &
Mohammed, 1994; Anderson & West, 1998; Earley & Mosakowski, 2000).
Individualism–collectivism refers to the degree to which team members expect each other to orient
his/her actions to his/her own benefit (individualism) rather than to the team’s (collectivism). High
individualism and high job enrichment alike emphasize self-reliance, autonomy, and self-coping
(Triandis, 1993; Hofstede, 1980), which may stand in contrast to team support. We proposed that these
variables would act as enhancers of each other, so their combination would yield the lowest levels
of team support. By contrast, high collectivism may reduce the negative impact of job enrichment
practices on team support, because highly collective teams are characterized by concern for comembers’ interests and well-being (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1993).
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. Organiz. Behav. 25, 979–996 (2004)
THE PROFICIENCY TRAP
983
Hypothesis 3: Job enrichment and individualism–collectivism will interact in their effect on team
support, so that the relationship between job enrichment and team support will be more negative in
individualist teams than in collectivist teams.
Power distance means the extent to which inequality among persons in different positions of formal
power is viewed as a natural and even desirable aspect of social order. Values concerning the distribution of power may also determine the impact of job enrichment practices in acting to block team support. High power distance emphasizes that those at the top are expected to take charge, to be in control,
to give orders, and to support employees (Robert et al., 2000). Support in such cultures is expected
mainly from the supervisor and not from team members. Hence, high power distance and high job
enrichment might enhance each other’s impeding effect on team support, and their combination might
yield the lowest levels of team support. By contrast, in teams characterized by low power distance,
members expect their counterparts to be equally powered and competent (Hofstede, 1980), and hence
adequate sources of support. In such teams, therefore, low power distance may be expected to act as a
substitute for job enrichment and to reduce the negative impact of job enrichment practices on team
support (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1993).
Hypothesis 4: Job enrichment and power distance will interact in their effect on team support, so
that the relationship between job enrichment and team support will be more negative in high power
distance teams than in low power distance teams.
Consequences of team support
Team support has been empirically associated with team performance (Drach-Zahavy & Somech,
2001; West, 1994; Bishop, Scott, & Burroughs, 2000). Previous research demonstrated that behaviors
such as sharing ideas and information (Janz et al., 1997; Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2001; Durham,
Knight, & Locke, 1997), providing instrumental assistance (Janz et al., 1997; Drach-Zahavy &
Somech, 2001), and emotionally supporting each other (Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2001; Bishop
et al., 2000) enhanced team performance.
Hypothesis 5: Team support will be positively related to team performance.
The mediating role of team support
The model proposed here is consistent with previous models of team effectiveness (e.g., Kirkman &
Rosen, 1999; Campion et al., 1996; Gladstein, 1984; Hackman & Morris, 1975). Classified as input–
process–output models, they separate objective job characteristics from effectiveness and internal
responses to these characteristics. All these models involve a three-stage process: leaders take various
actions at stage 1 (inputs), these actions affect workers’ experiences at stage 2 (process), and important
outcomes result from positive workers’ processes at stage 3 (outputs). Hackman and Morris (1975)
noted that the team’s task design is one of the most potent determinants of what constitutes an effective
process to promote performance. Our model deviates from these models in that in addition it considers
moderating effects between the input variables. However, in keeping with our model of team support,
these models imply that the processes of stage 2 will mediate managerial actions taken at stage 1 and
outcomes realized at stage 3. Consequently,
Hypothesis 6: Team support will mediate the relationship between job and team characteristics
(job enrichment, team culture, and leader’s support) and team performance.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. Organiz. Behav. 25, 979–996 (2004)
984
A. DRACH-ZAHAVY
Organizational Context
External Environment
During the late 1980s, a perceived crisis in financing and service delivery in Israel led to the creation of a national commission. Influenced by British and Dutch efforts, the National Health Insurance Law was enacted in Israel in 1995 in an attempt to manage competition among the nation’s
four non-profit health funds, and also among hospitals. Consequently, health professionals operate
in a healthcare system that has shifted towards a more profit-oriented climate, emphasizing professionalization in delivering care.
Worker-Job Factors
The nursing workplace is undergoing major reforms in the way that care is delivered towards more
enriched job designs for nurses (e.g., primary nursing, disease management, and case management).
These reforms underscore that certain nurses should be made solely responsible for particular
patients from hospitalization to discharge. These nurses should be given the resources as well as
the opportunities to assume direct responsibility for their task, ensuring that patients get what they
need when they need it, and at the same time safeguarding the quality of care (e.g., Cook, 1998).
Organizational Factors
Hospitals in Israel are characterized by separate chains of control and different payment systems for
the various professions. Nurses report to superiors within the nursing system, namely head nurses, a
nurse manager, and a director of nursing. As in other healthcare systems, however, hospitals are
mainly dominated by physicians.
Method
Sample and procedure
Nurses in hospitals provided a setting appropriate for this study. First, members of nursing teams have
been identified in past research as professionals, who apply theoretical and professional knowledge,
acquired through formal education, to provide quality services for clients (Dwyer & Fox, 2000;
Bacharach et al., 1990; West & Poulton, 1997). Second, evidence from past research (Dwyer &
Fox, 2000; Drach-Zahavy, 2004; Williams & Anderson, 1996) as well as pre-assessment interviews
with nurse managers indicated that variance could be obtained in the key variables in this study.
This study investigated 56 nursing teams selected from three major hospitals in the center of Israel.
The three hospital sites selected were traditionally structured with a separate department for nursing
services, a director of nursing, a nurse manager, and head nurses for the units, and a hierarchical structure of authority. Typically, hospitals often maintain paradoxical modes of structuring, retaining traditional hierarchical structures of authority from the management down to unit levels, while employing
more organic structuring such as teams and enrichment practices within the unit itself. The hospitals
were matched in size (800–1000 beds), facilities, and workforce qualifications, so I did not expect
potentially confounding factors to affect the sample (Mukherjee, Lapre’, & Wassenhove, 1998).
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. Organiz. Behav. 25, 979–996 (2004)
THE PROFICIENCY TRAP
985
Further, in each hospital, 20 nursing units were randomly selected from a list provided by the nurse
manager, representing medical, surgical, internal, and critical care units, and the obstetrics and gynecology/neonatal areas. Four units had a policy of not participating in research. Thus, 56 nursing units
finally took part (unit size ranged from 5 to 20 nursing staff, with an average of 15 nurses (SD ¼ 8.23)).
Pre-assessment interviews were conducted with the nurse manager and three head nurses at each
hospital to identify teams. Following these interviews, a relatively permanent team in each unit was
identified, which was comprised of nurses who worked together in morning shifts and shared the same
schedule (size of teams sampled ranged from 6 to 10 nurses). Hence, although nurses in our teams had
clear and defined roles, they necessarily interacted regularly during the shift to achieve shared goals in
the quality of care given to their patients. They also depended on one another for knowledge and effort
via several permanent structures such as daily nurses’ rounds, shift transfer practices, ‘brown bags’
lunch meetings, and scheduled staff meetings held at least once a month.
Univariate analyses indicated that unit, team size, and unit type did not predict a significant portion
of the variance in any of the study’s key variables (job enrichment, team support, or team performance). Hence, size and unit type were not included in the subsequent analyses to test the hypotheses.
Out of 605 questionnaires sent out, 368 were returned. Response rates within units ranged from
39 per cent to 95 per cent, with a mean response rate of 67 per cent (SD ¼ 22.6) for staff nurses and
100 per cent for head nurses. Post-survey interviews of the research assistants who conducted the surveys confirmed that the majority of nurses who did not participate were prevented by factors beyond
their control such as absence due to illness, out-ward training, or scheduling conflicts.
The sample was 75 per cent women, average age 36.6 years (SD ¼ 7.97). Average unit tenure was
6.06 years (SD ¼ 5.32), and average job tenure was 9.5 years (SD ¼ 7.38). In education level, the
majority (53 per cent) of the nurses in the sample had a college degree; 42 per cent had a Bachelor’s
degree and 5 per cent a Master’s degree. 68 per cent of the nurses had participated in programs for
advanced training in nursing. Analyses of variance of responses to demographic surveys confirmed
no statistically significant differences across organizations or teams in gender, age, unit or job tenure,
or education. In addition, none of the demographic variables predicted a significant portion of the variance in team support or team performance. These demographic variables were not included in subsequent analyses to test the hypotheses.
Data were obtained through surveys distributed by a multi-source approach. Staff nurses’ survey
questionnaires consisted of measures of team support, job enrichment practices, leader’s support,
and cultural values. These measures were aggregated to the team level of analysis. Nurse managers’
surveys included parallel measures of job enrichment and leader’s support, and a measure of performance of each nurse in the unit.
Measures
Job enrichment was measured on a four-item Likert-type scale (ranging from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to
7 ¼ strongly agree). Participants were instructed to think of their daily work in the unit, and indicate
the answer that best described the way their job was structured: . . . ‘Nursing teams vary in their job
characteristics. Please indicate on the scale below the extent to which the following job characteristics
are actually put into practice in your daily work at the unit.’ The items covered the following aspects of
Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) concept of an ‘enriched job’ as follows. Greater task identity: ‘In this
unit nurses are held accountable for the patients’ quality of care from admission to discharge.’ The
opportunities to practice a variety of complex skills: ‘In this unit nurses have the opportunity to use
various and complex skills.’ Flexibility in implementing tasks: ‘How things are done in this unit is left
pretty much to the nurse in charge of the patient.’ Feedback: ‘Because of the way the job is designed in
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. Organiz. Behav. 25, 979–996 (2004)
986
A. DRACH-ZAHAVY
this unit, nurses can’t tell when they have done a good job’ (reversed). Ratings of job enrichment by
leaders and staff nurses were in agreement (r ¼ 0.53; p < 0.001), providing a validity index for the
measure. Out of multi-source considerations we used the leader’s own appraisal measure of enriched
job designs for further analysis ( ¼ 0.83 for head nurses and 0.85 for staff nurses).
Leader’s support: we ran parallel measures of each team leader’s own ratings and the team members’ ratings of the leader’s support behaviors, applying a 14-item measure adopted from Anderson and
Williams (1996). As the correlation between the support scores obtained by the team and by the leader
was considerably high (r ¼ 0.68; p < 0.001), and to avoid same-source bias (Podsakoff & Organ,
1986), we used the leader’s own appraisal measure of support for further analysis. The items represented several different types of support, including tangible assistance, listening and encouragement,
sharing/giving information and ideas, as well as creating an atmosphere of support. To assess leader’s
support we averaged the responses to the 14 items. An example item was, ‘Talk the nurse through problems at work, helping him/her come up with solutions’ ( ¼ 0.91 for head nurses, and 0.87 for staff
nurses).
Team culture was measured by adoption of the individualism–collectivism and power distance
scales from the GLOBE project, worded with the team, not the organization, as the referent (Hanges
et al., 1998; for a detailed description of the development and validation of the scales see also Hanges
& Dickson, 2004). There were eight items on team individualism, for example: ‘In this unit the head
nurse encourages devotion to the team, even at the price of harming members’ personal goals’
(reversed) ( ¼ 0.68). Five items were on power distance, for example: ‘In this unit, a member’s influence is based mainly on his/her formal authority’ ( ¼ 0.67).
Team support measures included team emotional support, team informational support, team instrumental support, and team appraisal support, adapted from West (1994) and factor-analyzed and standardized in previous research (Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2001). Four items assessed team emotional
support, for example: ‘People feel understood and accepted by each other.’ Four items assessed team
informational support, for example: ‘We generally share information in the team, rather than keeping it
to ourselves.’ Four items assessed team instrumental support, for example: ‘Team members provide
practical help to enable you to do the job to the best of your ability.’ Two items assessed team appraisal
support, for example: ‘Team members provide each other with fresh perspectives and ideas.’ The correlations between the four dimensions of team support were notably high in our sample (ranging from
r ¼ 0.43 between emotional team support and appraisal team support to r ¼ 0.64 between instrumental
team support and appraisal team support), and could not provide evidence for the multidimensional
nature of team support. Therefore, we averaged the responses to the 14 items of support for further
analysis. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.88.
Team performance: we used the nurse manager’s ratings of job performance of all the unit’s nurses,
applying a seven-item measure adopted from Settoon, Bennett, and Liden (1996). The items referred to
an overall evaluation by the team leader of each nurse’s job performance, role fulfillment, and professional competence. To assess team performance we averaged the responses to the seven items across
all staff members. Example items are: ‘In my estimation the nurse adequately completes assigned
duties;’ ‘the nurse fulfills the responsibilities specified’; ‘he/she performs the tasks that are expected
of him/her’ ( ¼ 0.84).
Level of analysis
The unit of theory in the present study was the team. Therefore, leader’s support and job enrichment
were measured at the team level by surveying the team leader. Team support and culture values were
aggregates of individual responses to the team level of analysis (all items were worded with the team,
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. Organiz. Behav. 25, 979–996 (2004)
THE PROFICIENCY TRAP
987
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, aggregation indexes, and intercorrelation matrix of all study variables
Variable
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Job enrichmentd
Leader’s supportd
Individualisme
Power distancee
Team supporte
Team
performanced
M
SD
rwga
4.92
3.58
3.76
4.22
3.7
3.61
1.94
0.48
0.37
0.39
0.34
0.72
—
—
0.87
0.84
0.77
—
ICC(1)b ICC(2)c (1)
—
—
0.20
0.19
0.17
—
—
—
0.80
0.79
0.77
—
(2)
1.00
0.17
1.00
0.10
0.16
0.22 0.18
0.25* 0.33**
0.08
0.23y
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
1.00
0.07
1.00
0.37** 0.12 1.00
0.25* 0.16 0.32* 1.00
n ¼ 56; y p < 0.08; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
a
The statistic rwg represents the reliability within groups averaged across all teams (James et al., 1993).
b
ICC(1) provided an estimate of the reliability of an individual respondent’s rating (Bliese & Halverson, 1996).
c
ICC(2) estimated the reliability of mean differences across teams (Bliese & Halverson, 1996).
d
Leader’s perceptions.
e
Team members’ perceptions.
not the individual, as the referent). Finally, team performance was an aggregate of the nurse manager’s
appraisals of the performance of each nurse in the unit.
Justification for aggregation is provided by theoretical as well as empirical arguments (Rousseau,
1985). Theoretically, Rousseau (1985) advocated the use of composition theories, which specify the
functional similarities of constructs at different levels. There are many reasons to expect team members to share perceptions concerning their work environment, such as team support, team design, team
leader, and team culture. Members’ frequent interaction, shared tasks, the clear delineation of team
boundaries, and the long tenure of most of the teams should allow team members to adopt the views
of the collective, thereby creating shared norms (George, 1990; Janz et al., 1997). Thus, it was critical
to demonstrate high within-team agreement in order to justify using the team average as an indicator of
team-level variable (rwg: James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1993). A value of 0.70 or above is suggested as a
‘good’ amount of within-group interrater agreement (James et al., 1993). All scales exceeded this criterion. Values are given in Table 1, in the column rwg.
In addition, in team-level analyses the aggregation of individual responses into a team score treats
team members as judges rating their environment. Therefore, it is important to demonstrate also that
team members ‘agree’ before claiming that a construct is a team-level variable (Bliese & Halverson,
1996). In this study, within-team agreement was estimated by two measures: the ICC(1) provided an
estimate of the reliability of an individual respondent’s rating, and the ICC(2) estimated the reliability
of mean differences across teams (Bliese & Halverson, 1996). Values are given in Table 1, in the columns ICC(1) and ICC(2). As indicated by James (1982), ICC(1) generally ranges from 0 to 0.50 with a
median of 0.12. There are, however, no definite guidelines for determining acceptable values. From
Table 1 it is apparent that all scales exceeded the median score.
Results
Table 1 contains the intercorrelation matrix for the study variables. Close examination of this table
reveals several insights. First, concerning the antecedents of team support, the zero-order correlations
between job enrichment and team support were negative (r ¼ 0.25, p < 0.05), providing initial
support for our predictions. In addition, the zero-order correlations between the proposed moderators
and team support (except for the correlation of team support with power distance) were significant,
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. Organiz. Behav. 25, 979–996 (2004)
988
A. DRACH-ZAHAVY
indicating that leader’s support and the value of individualism might also exert main effects on team
support. Finally, team support and team performance were positively and significantly related, providing initial support for the predicted link between team process and team outcome.
Team support antecedents
To test Hypotheses 1–4 a hierarchical regression analysis for predicting team support was conducted.
All effect terms of the proposed predictors, namely job enrichment, leader’s support, individualism–
collectivism, and power distance, were entered in the regression equation. The main effect terms were
entered in step 1, and the second-order interactive effect term in step 2. To facilitate interpretation of
significant interactive effects, these analyses were conducted with centered variables, and the predicted
values for all dependent variables were calculated by the unstandardized regression coefficients (bs)
from the regression equation (Aiken & West, 1991). The results of the hierarchical regression analysis
are presented in Table 2, in the column labeled ‘team support’.
As shown in Table 2, the joint main effects of team support predictors accounted for 49 per cent
(F ¼ 12:04; p < 0.01) of the variance in team support. In line with Hypothesis 1, job enrichment
was negatively and significantly associated with team support. Additionally, leader’s support was
significantly and positively associated with team support, and individualism and power distance were
significantly and negatively related with team support.
When we entered the interaction effects among job enrichment, leader’s support, and cultural values
in step 2, they accounted for an additional 14 per cent of the variance in team support (F ¼ 3:65;
p < 0.05). In line with Hypothesis 2, the interaction effect between job enrichment and leader’s support
was significant. When leaders’ support was high, no significant differences in team support were found
under high or under low job enrichment. By contrast, when leader’s support was low, team support was
significantly lower with high job enrichment than with low job enrichment practices. The interaction
effect is illustrated in Figure 2.
Table 2. Summary of hierarchical regression analyses for predicting team support and team performance
Step variable
Team support
b
Step 1: Main effects
Job enrichment
Leader’s support
Individualism
Power distance
Step 2: Two-way interaction
Job enrichment leader’s support
Leader’s support individualism
Leader’s support power distance
Job enrichment individualism
Job enrichment power distance
Step 3: Team support
Team support
Total R2
F
R2
0.49
Team performance
F
b
12.04**
0.07*
0.37**
0.45**
0.24**
R2
F
0.27
5.12**
0.22
4.06**
0.09
9.96**
0.05*
0.19**
0.24**
0.16y
0.14
3.65*
0.05
0.58*
0.02
0.15*
0.05
0.94**
0.02
0.47
0.02
0.18**
—
0.43**
0.63
8.77**
0.58
7.82**
n ¼ 56; y p < 0.08; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
Note: Unstandardized regression coefficients are shown.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. Organiz. Behav. 25, 979–996 (2004)
THE PROFICIENCY TRAP
989
Figure 2. Team support: means by leader’s support and job enrichment
Second, in regard to the moderating effects of cultural values, as predicted in Hypothesis 4, the interaction effect of power distance and job enrichment was significant, suggesting that when power distance was low no significant differences between high and low job enrichment in team support were
found. However, when power distance was high, team support was significantly lower under high job
enrichment than under low job enrichment. Note that the combination of high job enrichment and high
power distance yielded the lowest level of team support, whereas the combination of low job enrichment and low power distance yielded the highest levels of team support in our sample. The interaction
effect is illustrated in Figure 3. However, in contrast to our prediction in Hypothesis 3, the interaction
effect of job enrichment and individualism–collectivism was not significant. This effect is illustrated in
Figure 3.
Team support outcome
To test Hypothesis 5, a hierarchical regression analysis for predicting team performance was
conducted. All effect terms of the proposed predictors, namely job enrichment, leader’s support,
individualism–collectivism, and power distance, were entered in the regression equation. The main
effect terms were entered in step 1, and the second-order interactive effect term in step 2. To qualify
for the effect of team support on team performance above and across the antecedents, we entered the
effect of team support in step 3. The results of the hierarchical regression analysis are presented in
Table 2, in the column labeled ‘team performance.’ As predicted in Hypothesis 5, team support predicted 9 per cent of the variance in team performance (F ¼ 9:96; p < 0.01).
The mediating role of team support
Complete mediation can be demonstrated only by showing the following: (a) The antecedents are
related to the consequence: support for this argument was provided by the results of the hierarchical
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. Organiz. Behav. 25, 979–996 (2004)
990
A. DRACH-ZAHAVY
Figure 3. Team support: means by power distance and job enrichment
regression analysis presented in Table 2, in the column labeled ‘team performance.’ The antecedents of
job enrichment, leader support, individualism, and power distance significantly predicted 27 per cent
of the variance in team performance. (b) The antecedents are related to the mediator: support
for this argument was provided by the testing of Hypotheses 1–4, which were supported. (c) The mediator is related to the consequence: support for this argument was provided by the support shown for
Table 3: Summary of hierarchical regression analyses for predicting team support as a mediator of team
performance
Step variable
Team performance
B
Step 1: Mediating variable
Team support
Step 2: Main effects
Job enrichment
Leader’s support
Individualism
Power distance
Step 3: Two-way interaction
Job enrichment Leader’s support
Leader’s support individualism
Leader’s support power distance
Job enrichment individualism
Job enrichment power distance
Total R2
F
R2
F
0.09
6.29**
0.08
1.23
0.22
3.49*
0.30**
0.00
0.10
0.19
0.13
0.01
0.91*
0.12
0.08
0.00
0.39
3.16**
n ¼ 56; y p < 0.08; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
Note: Unstandardized regression coefficients are shown.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. Organiz. Behav. 25, 979–996 (2004)
THE PROFICIENCY TRAP
991
Hypothesis 5. (d) The relation between the antecedent and the consequence is eliminated when the
mediator is controlled (Baron & Kenny, 1986). To demonstrate this, we conducted a hierarchical
regression analysis to control for team support in the first step. The main effect terms were entered
in step 2, and the second-order interactive effect term in step 3. The results of the hierarchical
regression analysis are presented in Table 3. Team support remained significant (b ¼ 0.30;
p < 0.01), but with the exception of the second-way interaction of leader’s support and individualism
(b ¼ 0.9; p < 0.01) none of the main terms and interactive terms of job enrichment, leader’s support,
and cultural values was significant. Thus, for all but one of the characteristics, team support fully
mediated their relationships.
Discussion
The present study addressed the question of how to accommodate enriched jobs, designed to meet professionals’ own need for skill variety, entire tasks, autonomy, and control, with the unit’s need for
mutual support such that the team’s performance is enhanced. The benefits of enriched job designs
are well documented in the literature, and praised especially for their wide-ranging power in motivating professionals (e.g., Hackman, 1990; Bacharach et al., 1990; Janz et al., 1997). The present study
contributes by acknowledging the potentially dark side of enriched job designs, namely their obstruction of team support. It highlights a proficiency trap: enriched job designs and team support are both
needed for promoting professionals’ team performance, but at the same time enriched job designs hinder team support. Further, the findings contribute by identifying managerial strategies to integrate team
support and job enrichment practices into one performance-promoting model.
The negative association found here between job enrichment and team support is especially important in light of recent research findings that illumined the costs of job enrichment practices in terms of
elevated levels of stress, strain, and burnout (e.g., Melchior et al., 1996; Xie & Johns, 1995;
Schaubroeck, Ganster, & Kemmerer, 1994; Dwyer & Fox, 2000). Because of the efficiency of team
support in moderating job stress (e.g., Fenlason & Beehr, 1994), and also, as our findings demonstrated, because it is a potent means to promote performance, the present results imply that job enrichment practices should be implemented with caution, while support continues to be safeguarded.
Further, the findings outline organizational substitutes that might be effective in maneuvering between
job enrichment and preservation of team support.
One such strategy is the leader’s providing support, which was found to be a powerful enhancer of
team support in professionals and at the same time a potent neutralizer of the paralyzing effect of job
enrichment practices on support in such teams (Sagie, 1997).
Our findings indicated that when job enrichment practices were accompanied by high leader support
team support remained intact, whereas when job enrichment practices were implemented without parallel concern by the leader to provide support for his/her workers it was seriously hampered. So
although several authors argue that restructuring efforts towards enriched jobs might limit the potential
benefits of traditional support provided by leaders for professionals (Griffin et al., 2001; Kerr, Hill, &
Broedling, 1986; Podsakoff, Niehoff, MacKenzie, & Williams, 1993; Hirschhorn, 1998), leaders might
still play a key role in such settings through their impact on maintaining team support. Leaders might
satisfy followers’ needs for support through modeling support behaviors in teams, setting the ground
rules for team members to engage in support, and clarifying roles and expectations from employees
concerning support (Graen & Scandura, 1987; McIntyre & Salas, 1995; Griffin et al., 2001). Anderson
and Williams (1996) showed that when leaders demonstrated helping behaviors, team members
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. Organiz. Behav. 25, 979–996 (2004)
992
A. DRACH-ZAHAVY
developed norms holding that it was ‘safe’ to seek and provide support at the workplace, and the occurrences of support-seeking behaviors in those teams rose. With the implementation of enriched job
designs, leaders might assume a more facilitative role of creating an atmosphere for the development
of team support (Parker & Wall, 1998).
Our findings also illustrated that the negative impact of job enrichment designs on team support
among professionals could be offset by values involving the distribution of power. When job enrichment practices were implemented in teams characterized by high power distance, team support was
considerably lower in teams performing high as compared with low enriched jobs. In fact, job enrichment and power distance enhanced each other’s negative effect on team support, resulting in the poorest levels of team support being obtained when both job enrichment and power distance were high.
Hence, high power distance seems to be reinforced by job enrichment designed to promote autonomy
and self-reliance (e.g., Bacharach et al., 1990). Consequently, as our findings indicated, professionals
in such teams acted on those combined expectations, and withdrew from engaging in team support
behaviors. By contrast, when job enrichment practices were accompanied by low power distance, team
support was maintained, regardless of the level of job enrichment. Members of such teams perceive
their counterparts to be equally knowledgeable and professional, and refer to them as adequate sources
of support. To conclude, values of low power distance and egalitarianism proved powerful enhancers
of team support in professionals, and at the same time potent neutralizers of the paralyzing effect of job
enrichment practices on team support in such teams. These findings imply that the tendency of professionals to engage in support behaviors depends on the extent to which they consider support from colleagues to be legitimate, that is, not sanctioned by cultural norms (Brockner et al., 2001; Anderson &
Williams, 1996). It is not the support per se that members avoid. It is when support violates cultural
norms, imposed on them by job enrichment designs on the one hand and by power distribution values
on the other, that members withdraw from acting supportively.
To conclude, attempts to promote professionals’ performance should consider at a minimum how to
balance enriched job designs with the team’s need for support. The results of the present study suggest
that this balance could be achieved by emphasizing the support provided by the leader, and by strengthening cultural values of low power distance and collectivism in the team. Once team support is
achieved, however, it acts as an important carrier of team performance.
Limitations and suggestions for future research
Some limitations of the study should be acknowledged. One of these pertains to the issue of causality.
One should be cautious about causal interpretations of the relationship found between team design,
values, and leadership and team support, and between team support and team performance. As the
study was cross-sectional, other interpretations than ours might be given. For example, poor team performance might create perceptions of alienation, disagreement, and conflict among team members,
which intensify their unwillingness to engage in support behaviors; and vice versa: high functioning
teams may very likely be more motivated to engage in team support behaviors. Nevertheless, as our
starting point was a theoretical framework, experimentally examined in previous studies, our causal
inferences do seem the most logical.
A second limitation pertains to the uniqueness of the sample of nurses nested within healthcare
organizations in this study. While theory cuts across organizational types, the question arises as to
whether nursing teams are sufficiently similar to other teams of professionals, or if they are so distinct
as to require different ways of viewing and measuring team phenomena in them. Two salient aspects
of nursing teams have been identified previously that make them interesting for cross-team comparisons (Tucker, Edmondson, & Spear, 2002): they rely on professionals, and they involve complex
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. Organiz. Behav. 25, 979–996 (2004)
THE PROFICIENCY TRAP
993
interdependent relationships among various professional groups, as well as across organizations (e.g.,
clinic to hospital to rehabilitation center to home health agency). In all, this might imply that results
from well-executed research with nursing teams should be applicable to teams of other types of professionals that share these characteristics.
Nevertheless, it is critical to assess the generalizability of the present findings to other types of professionals’ teams, so perceptions can be tailored to specific circumstances. This is particularly true as
our sample was limited in size, considering the complex set of analyses. In particular, further research
should try to compare job enrichment configurations implemented on an individual basis (which prevails in nursing teams in primary care and case management practices of care) with job enrichment
configurations implemented through teams. These studies should also evaluate the relative potency of
team support versus job enrichment practices as means for enhancing effectiveness. Furthermore, for
especially talented team members job enrichment may serve as a better means of enhancing performance, whereas for less efficient team members support appears crucial (Van Yperen, 1998). Further
studies should also control for personal dispositions such as self-efficacy, tenure, and level of expertise
and skills in an attempt to identify the relative benefits of support as compared with job enrichment
practices.
Managerial implications
The finding that job enrichment places constraints on the accessibility of support for team members
might represent an inherent trap in promoting professionals’ team performance. These practices might
reduce the positive effects associated with each other (at least when job enrichment design is implemented on an individual basis). Managers should therefore put into practice enriched job designs with
caution, ensuring that support is maintained. First, managers should develop institutionalized structures and processes that foster support. Examples are ‘being there’ for workers when needed, and supporting team members directly as well as indirectly through developing team meetings, team
consulting, and team teaching arrangements. Second, as long as the job designs of professionals militate against the development of interdependency and support, leaders should assimilate and strengthen
cultural values such as collectivistic and egalitarian values, which are compatible with, rather than violated by team support, in order to encourage team members to display support.
The findings also point to the changing role of the leader supervising a team of professionals. Organizational behavior authors have repeatedly argued that leaders of professionals lack the adequate expertise, power, or resources to exert direct control (e.g., Yukl et al., 1993) or alternatively are unwilling to
exert control over professionals because they identify with their workers’ need for self-discretion and
autonomy (Bacharach et al, 1990; Hirschhorn, 1998). Our findings suggest instead that empowerment
of professionals is not about letting them do their jobs, or that supervisory support is no longer important.
Rather, with the implementation of enriched job designs, leaders might undertake a more facilitative,
albeit active role, creating an atmosphere for the development of team support.
Author biography
Anat Drach-Zahavy is a lecturer in Organizational Behavior in the Department of Nursing, Faculty of
Health and Welfare Studies, at the University of Haifa, Israel. Her research focuses on promoting team
innovation and effectiveness, in particular in healthcare organizations.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. Organiz. Behav. 25, 979–996 (2004)
994
A. DRACH-ZAHAVY
References
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and
validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 235–258.
Anderson, S. E., & Williams, L. J. (1996). Interpersonal, job, and individual factors related to helping processes at
work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 282–296.
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. C. (1990). Work processes, role conflict, and role overload: the case
of nurses and engineers in the public sector. Work and Occupation, 17(2), 199–228.
Bantz, C. R. (1993). Cultural diversity and group cross-cultural team research. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 21, 1–20.
Baron, R. M., & 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.
Bishop, J. W., Scott, K. D., & Burroughs, S. M. (2000). Support, commitment, and employee outcomes in a team
environment. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1113–1132.
Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. R. (1996). Individual and nomothetic models of job stress: an examination of work
hours, cohesion and well-being. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1171–1189.
Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., Leung, K., Bierbrauer, G.,
Gomez, C., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: the influence of power
distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 300–315.
Campbell, D. J. (1988). Task complexity: a review and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 13, 40–52.
Campion, M. A., Pepper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work group characteristics and
effectiveness: a replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429–452.
Chen, Y. R., Brockner, J., & Katz, T. (1998). Toward an explanation of cultural differences in in-group favoritism:
the role of individual versus collective primacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6),
1490–1502.
Drach-Zahavy, A. (2004). Exploring the impact of primary nursing care on nurses’ performance: the moderating
role of supportive management practices. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 45(1), 7–16.
Drach-Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. (2001). Team heterogeneity and its relationship with team support and team
effectiveness. Journal of Educational Administration, 40, 44–66.
Durham, C. C., Knight, D., & Locke, E. A. (1997). Effects of leader’s role, team-set goal difficulty, and tactics on
team effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making, 72(2), 203–231.
Dwyer, D. J., & Fox, M. L. (2000). The moderating role of hostility in the relationship between enriched jobs and
health. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1086–1096.
Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: an empirical test of transnational team
functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 26–49.
Eby, L. T., & Dobbins, G. H. (1997). Collectivistic orientation in teams: an individual and group-level analysis.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(3), 275–295.
Erez, M. (1994). Toward a model of cross-cultural industrial and organizational psychology. In H. C. Triandis,
M. Dunnette, & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd edn., Vol. 4, pp.
557–607). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Fenlason, K. J., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Social support and occupational stress: effects of talking to others. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 15, 157–175.
George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect and behavior in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,
462–474.
Gibson, C. B. (2001). Me and us: differential relationships among goal-setting training, efficacy and effectiveness
at the individual and team level. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(7), 789–808.
Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly,
29(4), 499–517.
Graen, G., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Towards a psychology of dyadic organizing. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M.
Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 175–298). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. Organiz. Behav. 25, 979–996 (2004)
THE PROFICIENCY TRAP
995
Griffin, M. A., Patterson, M. G., & West, M. A. (2001). Job satisfaction and teamwork: the role of supervisor
support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 537–550.
Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M. D.
Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 269–
313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction processes, and group performance
effectiveness: a review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (pp. 45–99). New York: Academic Press.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hanges, P. J., House, R. J., Dickson, M. W., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., & GLOBE. (1998).
Development and validation of scales measuring organizational culture, societal culture, and preferences for
leader’s behaviors and attitudes. Working paper, University of Maryland.
Hanges, P. J., & Dickson, M. (2004). The development and validation of the GLOBE culture and leadership scales.
In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and
organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 122–151). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hirschhorn, L. (1998). Reworking authority. London: MIT Press.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultural consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy of Management Executive, 7, 81–94.
Howell, J. P., Bowen, D. E., Dorfman, P. W., Kerr, S., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1997). Substitutes for leadership:
effective alternatives to ineffective leadership. In R. P. Vecchio (Ed.), Leadership: Understanding the dynamics
of power and influence in organizations (pp. 381–395). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67,
219–229.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: an assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 78, 306–309.
Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness: the role of autonomy,
interdependence, team development, and contextual support variables. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 877–904.
Kerr, S., Hill, K. D., & Broedling, L. (1986). The first line supervisor: phasing out or here to stay? Academy of
Management Review, 54(1), 1–44.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self management: antecedents and consequences of team
empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58–74.
Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (1997). The impact of cultural values on employee resistance to teams: towards a
model of globalized self managing work team effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 22, 730–757.
Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organizational
commitment in self-managing work teams: the mediating role of employee resistance. Academy of Management
Journal, 44(3), 557–569.
Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review,
21, 1055–1080.
Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental models: construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20,
403–437.
Lee, C., Pillutla, M., & Law, K. S. (2000). Power-distance, gender, and organizational justice. Journal of
Management, 26(4), 685–704.
Lepine J. A., & van Dyne, L. (2001). Peer responses to low performers: an attributional model of helping in the
context of groups. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 67–84.
May, T. Y., Korczynski, M., & Frankel, S. J. (2002). Organizational and occupational commitment: knowledge
workers in large corporations. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 775–801.
McIntyre, R. M., & Salas, E. (1995). Measuring and managing for team performance: lessons from complex
environments. In R. A. Guzzo, & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations
(pp. 9–45). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Melchior, M. E., Halfens, R. J., Abu Saad, H. H., Philipsen, H., Van de Berg, A. A., & Gassman, P. (1996). The
effects of primary nursing on work-related factors. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(1), 88–96.
Mukherjee, A. S., Lapre’, M. A., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (1998). Knowledge driven quality improvement.
Management Science, 44, 535–549.
Newman, K. L., & Nollen, S. D. (1996). Culture and congruence: the fit between management practices and
national culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 27, 753–779.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. Organiz. Behav. 25, 979–996 (2004)
996
A. DRACH-ZAHAVY
Parker, S. K., & Wall, T. D. (1998). Job and work design: Organizing work to promote well-being and
effectiveness. London: Sage.
Podsakoff, P. M., Niehoff, B. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Williams, M. L. (1993). Do substitutes for leadership really
substitute for leadership? An empirical examination of Kerr & Jermier’s situational model. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Making, 54(1), 1–44.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-report in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal
of Management, 12, 531–544.
Reed, M. I. (1996). Expert power and control in late modernity: an empirical review and theoretical synthesis.
Organization Studies, 17, 573–597.
Robert, C., Probst, T. M., Martocchio, J. J., Drasgow, F., & Lawler, J. J. (2000). Empowerment and continuous
improvement in the United States, Mexico, Poland, & India: predicting fit on the basis of the dimensions of
power distance and individualism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 643–658.
Robson, G. S., Wholey, D. R., & Barefield, R. M. (1996). Institutional determinants of individual mobility:
bringing the professions back in. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 397–420.
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of levels in organizational research: multilevel and cross level perspectives. In L. L.
Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 1–37). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Sagie, A. (1997). Tightening the loose-tight model of leadership. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
46(4), 447–452.
Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D. C., & Kemmerer, B. E. (1994). Job complexity, ‘type A’ behavior, and cardiovascular
disorder: a prospective study. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 426–439.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: perceived organizational
support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 219–227.
Tjosvold, D., & Tjosvold, M. M. (1995). Cross functional teamwork: the challenge of involving professionals. In
M. M. Beyerlin, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlin (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams
(pp. 1–34). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Triandis, H. C. (1993). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tucker, A. L., & Edmondson, A. C. (2002). Managing routine exceptions: a model of nurse problem solving
behavior. In G. T. Savage, M. D. Fottler, & J. D. Blair (Eds.), Advances in health care management (Vol. 3,
pp. 87–113). New York: JAI Press/Elsevier.
Tucker, A. L., Edmondson, A. C., & Spear, S. (2002). When problem solving prevents organizational learning.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 122–137.
Van Yperen, N. W. (1998). Informational support, equity and burnout: the moderating effects of self-efficacy.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71(1), 29–33.
West, M. A. (1994). Effective teamwork. Leicester: BPS.
West, M. A., & Poulton, B. C. (1997). A failure of function: teamwork in primary health care. Journal of
Interprofessional Care, 11(2), 205–216.
Workman, M. (2001). Collectivism, individualism, and cohesion in a team-based occupation. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 58, 82–97.
Xie, J. L., & Johns, G. (1995). Job scope and stress: can job scope be too high? Academy of Management Journal,
38, 1288–1309.
Yukl, G. A., Fable, C. M., & Joo, Y. Y. (1993). Patterns of influence behavior for managers. Group and
Organization Management, 18(1), 5–28.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
J. Organiz. Behav. 25, 979–996 (2004)