ASSESSING THE INCREMENTAL VALIDITY OF TEAM CONSENSUS RATINGS OVER AGGREGATION OF INDIVIDUAL‐LEVEL DATA IN PREDICTING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

By Bradley L Kirkman, Paul E. Tesluk, Benson Rosen. 2001

149 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Information Systems, Management Science and Operations Research, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/690d08cba162199a8655555ff24f7a2089a26900

How researchers see this paper

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

In Management Information Systems

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Teams in organizations: a review on team effectiveness (2008, background): “In this sense, several models have been developed with an objective: to identify multiple factors of effectiveness and their relationships with success ( Kirkman et al. , 2001”
Conceptual Framework and Statistical Procedures for Delineating and Testing Multilevel Theories of Homology (2005, background): “Another possible limitation involves the possibility that the reliability of measures would differ across levels of analysis, because of the potential use of different types of measures for which different sources (e.g., item, rater) affect measurement error (cf. Kirkman et al., 2001).”
A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. (2002, background): “Although we found that use of consensus ratings did not affect conclusions, researchers should continue to do work along the lines of Gibson et al. (2000) and Kirkman, Tesluk, and Rosen (2001).”
The Efficacy Advantage: Factors Related to the Formation of Group Efficacy1 (2003, background): “2001); insurance teams (Kirkman et al. 2001); and students working on group projects (Lee et al.”
Simultaneous Examination of the Antecedents and Consequences of Efficacy Beliefs at Multiple Levels of Analysis (2002, result): “Other research also suggests that alternative measurement techniques of collective efficacy, in particular the team discussion format, yield higher correlations with performance than the measurement of collective efficacy employed in this research (Gibson, Randel, & Earley, 1999; Kirkman, Tesluk, &”
Social Support at the Workplace, Motivation to Transfer and Training Transfer: A Multilevel Indirect Effects Model (2015, unknown): “A quite labor-intensive but recommended procedure is to initiate a discussion within the team about its perceptions, with the result that the team members have to agree on one value that represents the whole team (Kirkman et al., 2001).”
Examining Cultural Intelligence and Cross-Cultural Negotiation Effectiveness (2015, background): “Prior empirical research by Kirkman, Tesluk, and Rosen (2001); Pulakos, Schmit, Whitney, and Smith (1996); and Kleiman, Lounsbury, and Faley (1987) demonstrates the incremental validity of consensus ratings beyond the aggregation method of individual ratings.”
A Longitudinal Study of Team Conflict, Conflict Management, Cohesion, and Team Effectiveness (2009, methodology): “(2000), Klein et al. (2000), and LeBreton and Senter (2008), acceptable levels of agreement are indicated by rwg values at or near .”