Team Structure and Performance: Assessing the Mediating Role of Intrateam Process and the Moderating Role of Task Type

By G. Stewart, Murray R. Barrick. 2000

845 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research, Social Psychology, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/65025042a4fffebed83b31772c96124c37942a2f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Social Psychology

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Coordination in software development (2005, background): “They show how the structural properties of the work groups fluctuate during the various phases of Software Development, and how group cohesion and centrality are related to the final ISD performance.”
Exploring the Effects of Job Autonomy on Engagement and Creativity: The Moderating Role of Performance Pressure and Learning Goal Orientation (2017, background): “Similarly, when performance pressure within teams is high, collective responsibility to deliver superior outcomes will be emphasized, and individual responsibility generally decreases (Stewart and Barrick 2000).”
Self-leadership in organizational teams: A multilevel analysis of moderators and mediators (2009, methodology): “…begun to adopt a team self-leadership view (Cohen et al., 1997; Manz & Sims, 1987; Neck & Manz, 1994; Stewart & Barrick, 2000), which is defined ‘‘as the extent to which teams have the freedom and authority to lead themselves independent of external supervision’’ (Stewart & Barrick, 2000, p. 139).”
Structure and Learning in Self-Managed Teams: Why "Bureaucratic" Teams Can Be Better Learners (2010, background): “The term structure is often used to conceptualize the design of tasks within a group, with particular emphasis on issues of interdependence and autonomy (Langfred 2009, Stewart and Barrick 2000, Tata and Prasad 2004, Wageman et al. 2005).”
The Role of Interdependence in the Micro-Foundations of Organization Design: Task, Goal, and Knowledge Interdependence (2020, background): “There is some empirical support for this perspective (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 1998; Stewart & Barrick, 2000), but its underlying conceptualization of outcome interdependence—as a trade-off between competitive and collaborative behavior—is suspect because it conflates the design of tasks with that…”
Relational Job Design and the Motivation to Make a Prosocial Difference (2007, background): “…goal interdependence reveals that jobs structure the nature and content of employees’ relationships with coworkers by configuring particular patterns of interaction, cooperation, and collaboration (e.g., Kiggundu, 1983; Stewart & Barrick, 2000; Thompson, 1967; Wageman, 1995; Wong & Campion, 1991).”
The Relationship between Team Autonomy and New Product Development Performance under Different Levels of Technological Turbulence (2015, neutral): “Theory and hypotheses We define team autonomy as the extent to which a team has the authority and freedom to make its own decisions to fulfill its mission (Gerwin, 1999; Langfred, 2005; Stewart and Barrick, 2000).”
Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. (2004, methodology): “This may be done by including measures of elaboration of task-relevant information and perspectives in diversity research and relating these to either measures of task characteristics (cf. McGrath, 1984; Stewart & Barrick, 2000) or to experimental manipulations of task requirements.”
Person-Group Fit (2015, background): “Because the nature of the team’s task may also influence their interaction (Hackman, 1968; Kent & McGrath, 1969; Stewart & Barrick, 2000), we controlled for the type of task for which the teams were primarily responsible.”
The role of trust climate in virtual teams (2012, result): “In addition, other studies have shown that the type of tasks that VTs undertake moderates the outcomes among work groups in general (Stewart and Barrick, 2000; Wageman, 1995), including VTs (Majchrzak et al.”