The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

Vol. 20, No. 2, February 2009, 399419

Development and performance of self-managing work teams: a

theoretical and empirical examination
Ben. S. Kuipersa* and Janka I. Stokerb
a

Faculty of Social Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands; bFaculty of

Economics and Business, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Several theories have been developed that prescribe the team development of selfmanaging work teams (SMWTs). Some of these have led to models with successive
linear developmental phases. However, both the theory and the empirical data show
little support for these models. Based on an extensive review of team development
literature, we propose, instead of linear phases, describing team development in three
general team processes. These processes, internal relations, task management, and
external relations and improvement, were empirically explored in a longitudinal fieldstudy of more than 150 blue-collar and white-collar SMWTs in a Volvo plant in
Sweden. The three processes were found to be consistent over time and appeared to
relate to one-year-later objective SMWT performance measures for product quality, the
incidence of sick-leave and long-term sick-leave. Based on these findings, a resultoriented team development approach is proposed, in which the achieved results
determine the processes followed to develop SMWTs further. Also, managers and HR
practitioners are encouraged to monitor the three ongoing team processes and to relate
these to the desired team performance. Such an analysis should be the starting point of a
dialogue between manager and team to improve the functioning and performance of
SMWTs.
Keywords: business performance; quality of working life; self-managing work teams;
team development; team processes

Introduction
The use of teams has grown increasingly popular in organizations over recent decades
(witnessed by the special issue of The International Journal of Human Resource
Management in February 2005). Many publications in professional journals and the
applied press have appeared (see OConnell, Doverspike and Cober 2002). In their
summary and review of research on teams, Cohen and Bailey (1997) define four different
team types: work, parallel, project, and management. Self-Managing Work Teams
(SMWTs) are a particular form of work team (Spreitzer, Cohen and Ledford 1999) and are
the focus of this paper. They can be defined as groups of interdependent individuals that
are able to self-regulate their behaviour concerning relatively complete tasks (Spreitzer
et al. 1999). Self-management refers to a reduced need for hierarchical command and
control leadership (Morgeson 2005) in organizations. SMWTs are adopted in many
organizations in order to improve performance and the wellbeing of employees (Hackman
1990; Manz and Sims 1993; Cascio 1995; Cohen, Ledford and Spreitzer 1996; Spreitzer
et al. 1999).

*Corresponding author. Email: kuipers@fsw.eur.nl

ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online
q 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09585190802670797
http://www.informaworld.com

400

B.S. Kuipers and J.I. Stoker

An important, and not necessarily straightforward, issue in achieving self-management

is the development path towards this goal. The main line of thinking in several
publications on this subject is that the development of SMWTs can be described in distinct
linear phases (Katzenbach and Smith 1993; Zenger, Musselwhite, Hurson and Perrin 1994;
Van Amelsvoort and Benders 1996). However, OConnell et al. (2002) observe that such
publications seldom contain empirical support for this statement. Although some research
has vigorously investigated these prescriptive linear phases (see, for example, Miller
2003), the debate on team development in academic journals has focused more
on theoretical descriptive frameworks and the taxonomies of team processes (Marks,
Mathieu and Zaccaro 2001). Unfortunately, these articles are again rarely based on real,
in-context, empirical data and, if they are, as is the case for the work of Gladstein (1984),
they tend to be focused on common work teams rather than SMWTs.
Overall, there seems to be little consensus on the overall development processes
associated with SMWTs. Although several authors agree that SMWTs somehow develop
towards greater self-management, and thereby achieve increased performance and
enhanced quality of working life, there is no consensus on how this occurs and the type
of performance-related outputs that can be expected. Moreover, there is a lack of
empirical data to support or refute the various claims. Given the growing importance
of SMWTs, we clearly need a better theoretical and empirical understanding of
team development and its relationship to performance within SMWTs. Therefore, in
this paper, we will first review a variety of phase models as well as other approaches to
team development and team performance. Then, based on this, we propose an
alternative view of team development processes. Following this, these team processes
will be empirically related to team performance indicators (product quality and
absenteeism) in a longitudinal field-study involving more than 150 SMWTs at a Swedish
Volvo plant. Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings for both theory and
practice.
Team development literature
Various schools of thought can be distinguished that deal with the issue of team
development. In the following subsections, we will briefly discuss key literature for each
of them, including their strengths and weaknesses. Overall, it seems reasonable to divide
the approaches into three main types:
1. phase models (including group dynamics, consultancy and sociotechnical phase
models);
2. recurring phase models; and
3. process models.

Phase models: Group dynamics

The most commonly used and cited approach in the group-dynamics literature (Miller
2003) is the group development theory by Tuckman (1965), later extended by Tuckman
and Jensen (1977). This theory describes five stages through which a group passes:
1. Forming. The initial group phase of orientation among group members in which
interpersonal and task behaviour is tested.
2. Storming. The second stage of the group process, where interpersonal conflicts and
positioning are the bases of group influence and task requirements.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

401

3. Norming. Overcoming the resistances of the second phase to achieve group

cohesiveness and developing norms and roles occur in this third phase.
4. Performing. This is the fourth stage of group development and focuses on task
performance. The roles and group structure developed in the norming phase form
the basis for accomplishing the task.
5. Adjourning. In this final phase the group separates and, in a new form, starts again
with the forming phase.
Tuckman built his theory using the concept of interpersonal stages of group development
and task behaviours on the contention . . . that any group, regardless of setting, must address
itself to the successful completion of a task. At the same time, and often through the same
behaviours, group members will be relating to one another interpersonally (1965, p. 385). He
based his successive stages of group development on an extensive literature search involving
findings related to therapy groups, training groups and laboratory groups.
Despite the popularity of Tuckmans model, three fundamental criticisms have been
levelled at it. The first is that team development often deviates from the sequential steps
suggested (Forsyth 1999). Groups omit certain of the phases defined by Tuckman, move
through the phases in a different order or develop in ways that cannot be described by these
phases (Seeger 1983). The second criticism is that it is impossible to demarcate clearly
between the phases since certain group dynamical aspects do not occur timely nor in
sequential order (Arrow 1997). That is, in practice, teams do not always develop according
to clear, distinguishable phases. Third, the theory was based on the temporal
patterns found in time-limited therapy and laboratory groups, and it has been questioned
whether such patterns can adequately describe work-team processes in an organizational
setting. As Cohen and Bailey (1997, p. 240) observe, The findings from studies of
undergraduate psychology or business students are much less likely to apply to practicing
managers, employees or executives. The authors also noted that many of the studies
involving laboratories failed to examine organizational features external to the teams.
Phase models: Consultancy practice
In terms of consultancy practice, several phase models have been developed. Katzenbach
and Smith (1993), as an example, define five phases of team development in their team
performance curve: the team starts out as a working group, and ends up by being a
high-performance team. Another well-known best-practice model by Wellins, Byham and
Wilson (1991) describes a similar method for empowering teams by increasing levels of
job responsibility and authority. Important elements of these phase models are: the
development of joint accountability, the goal direction and the performance focus of
the team; and these are related to the teams group dynamical phases. Although these
models are highly prescriptive and poorly defined for academic application, their role in team
development practice should not be underestimated. Offerman and Spiros (2001) note that
Katzenbach and Smiths 1993 book The Wisdom of Teams is the most commonly cited book
by both full-time practitioners and academic practitioners. One should also note that these
popular teamwork phase models clearly stem from Tuckmans model described earlier.
Phase models: Sociotechnical approach
Based on sociotechnical principles (Morgan 1993), Van Amelsvoort and Benders (1996)
also developed a phase model for SMWTs. This model was inspired by the work of
Katzenbach and Smith (1993) and Tuckman and Jensen (1977) but, in every phase, aspects

402

B.S. Kuipers and J.I. Stoker

of the sociotechnical concept are included. The phases (Van Amelsvoort and Benders
1996; Hut and Molleman 1998; Van Amelsvoort and Van Amelsvoort 2000; Kuipers and
De Witte 2005) can be described as:
. Phase 1. Involves a bunch of individuals with a focus on technical proficiency, and
this leads to a broadening of the types of tasks performed. The job content is
increased by focusing on the redundancy of functions and on multi-functionality.
All members of the team must be able to perform the primary tasks of the team.
. Phase 2. The group acquires a focus on managerial autonomy. This implies that
team members are empowered through adding greater decision-making authority to
their tasks, and thereby increasing the teams responsibility. The key characteristic
of this phase is also called minimal critical specification (Morgan 1993).
Managers, from production as well as from supporting departments, delegate some
of their responsibilities to the team, such as for quality and planning activities.
. Phase 3. The team develops a focus on social maturity, which is also described as
the self-reliance of the team. The team has to work as a team, and this involves
teambuilding, working on communication, and joint decision-making. The team
grows in autonomy and becomes increasingly independent of its supervisor.
. Phase 4. The open team with a performance focus evolves. The principles of this
phase are double-loop learning and developing the capacity to solve most nonroutine problems. It concerns the management of team boundaries. This idea is
based on Katz and Kahn (1978) and relates to building relationships with other
teams, customers and suppliers.

Empirical support for phase models

Empirical support for the phase models discussed above is limited. For example, although
Van Amelsvoort and Benders (1996) investigated 267 teams by a quick-scan, the items
used in this scan and the measurement methods are not clearly explained. Further, they
report that 26% of the teams were newly established, 63% were in Phase 2, 8% had entered
Phase 3 but none had reached the fourth phase (De Leede and Stoker 1996).
Hut and Molleman (1998) investigated the sociotechnical phase approach by
integrating it with the theories of Wellins et al. (1991) and Campion, Medsker and Higgs
(1993). Their article presents the outcomes of a small survey among four teams and
involved measuring four successive phases. Although their sample was rather small, the
results are nevertheless interesting. They show that teams cannot be positioned in a single
phase at a particular time; rather, teams are developing in all four phases at the same time.
Nevertheless, for three of the teams, they concluded that the first phase had been
developed the most, followed by the second, the third and finally the fourth phase. This
pattern of overlapping phases does suggest that teams do indeed move from simple to
complex tasks.
Based on the study of Hut and Molleman (1998), Kuipers and De Witte (2005)
conducted a study of 37 assembly teams at a Swedish Volvo Truck plant. They also failed
to recognize a pattern of phased development and, further, they could not even detect the
overlapping pattern suggested by Hut and Molleman. The teams did not show any
particular pattern in their development. De Leede and Stoker (1999) examined SMWTs in
11 companies, and they also failed to find the linear developments described by
Katzenbach and Smith (1993) and by Van Amelsvoort and Benders (1996). They
suggested that the normative character of the phase theories might partly explain this

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

403

discrepancy. In an earlier publication, De Leede (1997) argued that such models connect
structural change to a group dynamical change and wondered whether the structural
change transitions really took place at the exact same time as group dynamical change
transitions. Overall, it is reasonable to conclude that phase models lack a firm empirical
basis resulting from the study of real work teams.
A final critical remark concerns the fact that, as with the consultancy practice
approach, these phase models can also be traced back to the ideas of Tuckman (1965).
However, the prescriptive nature of linearly developing SMWTs cannot be justified using
the predominantly descriptive nature of Tuckmans original study. Moreover, Tuckman
developed his model based largely on studies concerning group development in therapy
groups and laboratory settings. Ignoring the quite different nature of group working in
organizations, the proponents of the contemporary phase models adopted these phases for
the development of SMWTs without regard to the specific nature and characteristics of
such teams. Given the differences, the use of Tuckmans descriptive model for team
development is questionable in developing a prescriptive approach for a work-related
setting.
Recurring phase models
The criticisms regarding Tuckman-like successive phase theories led to another
perspective on teamwork phases being developed. Gersick (1988; 1989) can be seen as one
of founders of this approach which sees the developmental process of a team as much more
complex than a number of sequential phases. She studied the development of groups and
subsequently introduced the idea of two main phases. Her punctuated equilibrium model
describes an initial phase which, half way through the groups lifespan, undergoes a
transition into a certain action phase.
Gersicks ideas have served as input to other models, such as the one by Marks et al.
(2001). Both the theories of Gersick (1988; 1989) and of Marks et al. (2001) can be
labelled as recurring phase models, with transaction and action phases taking turns
through time for the various tasks and sub-tasks. Marks et al. (2001, p. 357) define team
processes as members interdependent acts that convert inputs to outcomes through
cognitive, verbal, and behavioural activities directed toward organizing task work to
achieve collective goals . . . . Their descriptive approach is based on the idea that teams
perform in temporal cycles of goal-directed activity, called episodes . . . (p. 359). They
also place an emphasis on interpersonal processes occurring throughout both transition
and action phases, and typically lay the foundation for the effectiveness of other
processes . . . (p. 368). They describe ten sub-processes that can take place, and these are
allocated to the two episodes and to the associated interpersonal processes. The transition
phase consists of the mission analysis, goal specification, and strategy formulation and
planning sub-processes. The action phase includes monitoring progress toward goals,
systems monitoring, team monitoring and backup, and coordination sub-processes. The
interpersonal processes are conflict management, motivation and confidence building,
and the affect management sub-processes (Marks et al. 2001).
Process models
Another, more process-oriented, theory linking teamwork to performance is Gladsteins
concept of group processes (1984). In her study of 100 small sales teams (2 4 people), she
showed that the group processes she was measuring were clearly dividable between an

404

Table 1. Summary of linear phase models.

Consultancy phase models
Phase
Phase 1

Sociotechnical phase models

Wellins, Byham and

Wilson (1991)

Katzenbach and Smith

(1993)

Van Amelsvoort and

Benders (1996)

Hut and
Molleman (1998)

Comparable
processes

Forming: Orientation
and testing
(task) behaviour

Diverse collection
of individuals,
arranging simple tasks

Combination of individuals
changing information
and successful working
methods
No performance focus

Multi-skilling

Multi-functionality

Task
management

Focus on tasks
and roles, increasing
responsibilities

Common tasks and

goals, influence
on performance
improvement

Managerial tasks

Control tasks

Phase 2

Storming: Conflicts and

group influence

Internal
relations

Phase 3

Norming: Cohesiveness,
developing
norms and roles

Common processes and

crisis situations

Collective accountability

Team-building and
collective goals

Self-reliance
and team
communication

Phase 4

Performing: Accomplishing
the task

Continuous improvement,
proactiveness,
arranging complex
tasks and higher
order responsibilities

Deep commitment to mutual

growth and success

External team
relationships
and high performance

Boundary management
and
non-routine problems

Phase 5

Adjourning: Separation

External
relations and
improvement

B.S. Kuipers and J.I. Stoker

Group dynamic phase models

Tuckman and Jensen
(1977)

Table 2.

Literature overview of aspects of team development and the relation with team results.
Characterization

Authors

Model type

Performance orientation

Internal relations
Goal orientation

Determining team goals

Katzenbach and Smith (1993), Marks et al.

(2001), Wellins et al. (1991)

2,4

Self-reported effectiveness, work

satisfaction, customer satisfaction
(Gladstein 1984); value creation
(Dunphy and Bryant 1996)

Planning activities

Team planning of work and

support activities

2,3,4

Feedback

Motivation, assessment and

constructive feedback in task
performance
Handling cooperation and
behaviour problems

Wellins et al. (1991), Dunphy and Bryant

(1996), Van Amelsvoort and Benders
(1996), Hut and Molleman (1998)
Marks et al. (2001), Gladstein (Gladstein
1984), Hut and Molleman (1998)
Marks et al. (2001), Gladstein (1984)

4,5

Task flexibility and appliance of multi-skilling

Dunphy and Bryant (1996), Van

Amelsvoort and Benders (1996), Hut and
Molleman (1998)

3,5

Carrying out and arranging

routine production support
activities
Sharing strictly task-related
information
Joint performance of managerial tasks

Wellins et al. (1991), Dunphy and Bryant

(1996), Van Amelsvoort and Benders
(1996), Hut and Molleman (1998)
Gladstein (1984), Wellins et al. (1991), Van
Amelsvoort and Benders (1996)
Wellins et al. (1991), Dunphy and Bryant
(1996), Van Amelsvoort and Benders
(1996), Hut and Molleman (1998)

2,3,5

Conflict management
Task management
Multi-functionality

Delegated management and

support tasks
Work communication
Decision-making and control

3,4,5

2,3,5
2,3,5

Affective and behavioural responses

(Dunphy and Bryant); work satisfaction
(Gladstein 1984), individual performance,
costs, value creation (Dunphy and Bryant
1996)

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Key aspects

405

406

Table 2 Continued
Characterization

Authors

Model type

Performance management

Actions to improve the

teams performance

Katzenbach and Smith (1993), Marks et al.

(2001), Wellins et al. (1991), Dunphy and
Bryant (1996), Van Amelsvoort and
Benders (1996), Hut and Molleman (1998)

2,3,4,5

Initiating and supporting

product and process
improvements

Katzenbach and Smith (1993), Marks et al.

(2001), Wellins et al. (1991), Dunphy and
Bryant (1996), Van Amelsvoort and
Benders (1996), Hut and Molleman (1998)

2,3,4,5

Customer and supplier

relations

Maintaining relations with

internal and external
customers

2,3,5

Advanced management and

support activities

Carrying out and arranging

non-routine production
support activities

Gladstein (1984), Katzenbach and Smith

(1993), Wellins et al. (1991), Van
Amelsvoort and Benders (1996), Hut and
Molleman (1998)
Wellins et al. (1991), Dunphy and Bryant
(1996), Van Amelsvoort and Benders
(1996), Hut and Molleman (1998)

External relations and

improvement
Improvement activities

Notes: 2 Consultancy phase models; 3 Sociotechnical phase models; 4 Recurring phase models; 5 Process models

2,3,5

Performance orientation

Self-reported effectiveness, work satisfaction, customer satisfaction (Gladstein

1984); innovation (Dunphy and Bryant
1996); high performance (Van Amelsvoort and Benders 1996; Wellins et al.1991;
Katzenbach and Smith 1993)

B.S. Kuipers and J.I. Stoker

Key aspects

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

407

intra-group process and a boundary management process. The first included aspects such
as open communication, supportiveness, conflict management and discussion of strategies.
The concept of boundary management on the other hand is defined as the degree of
misunderstanding with external groups (Gladstein 1984). She stressed the importance
of the difference between the two types of processes: Clearly, in organisational settings
many groups cannot work in the isolation enjoyed by groups in a laboratory setting. These
groups need to manage their boundaries and adapt to their organizational environment . . .
(Gladstein 1984, p. 513). A feature of Gladsteins theory is that it sets out to describe the
processes occurring within teams without trying to order what comes first and what comes
last. She also considers the intra-group processes and boundary management to be parallel
processes.
Similarly, Dunphy and Bryant (1996) define three team attributes that they see as
creating an agenda for team development: 1) technical expertise; 2) self-management;
and 3) self-leadership. Although these attributes are not directly defined as processes, they
can easily be regarded as such. Under technical expertise, the members of a team work on
multi-skilling for an expanded task. Self-management concerns the delegation of
operational responsibilities from the manager to the team. Self-leadership involves
elements of both cooperation and continuous improvement. Teams that have developed
this final attribute are seen as the self-governing basic units of the organization, they can
play a strategic role and can provide improved communications both within and beyond
the team (Dunphy and Bryant 1996). The authors link their team attributes to three sets of
performance outcomes: costs; value; and innovation.
In a third and related approach, Kuipers and De Witte (2005) suggest considering the
simultaneous processes that occur during the life of an SMWT. Based on their empirical
finding that there were very few teams [that] exhibited a linear pattern . . . , they proposed
the existence of parallel dimensions that could be developed independently of each other.
Patterns in team development theories
From the above discussion, based on a literature review, it can be concluded that several
theories adhere to some form of linear phase approach. Further, as can be seen in Table 1,
there are clear similarities between the various linear phase models.
The overview provided in Table 1 shows that the various linear phase models can
indeed all be seen as refinements of the original model by Tuckman (1965). Further, all the
models indicate, in one way or another, stepwise growth in performance with each
successive development phase, resulting in some final high-performance phase.
If we take this analysis one step further, and compare not only the linear phase models but
also the recurring phase models and the process models, it seems that there are three team
processes that essentially cover all the theoretical ideas expounded. In Table 2, these
three processes are described and linked to the related models by determining 12 key aspects.
First, if we look at how these three processes resemble the phase models, the process of
task management generally covers the first two phases of the models, i.e. activities linked
to team multifunctionality and its capabilities to manage responsibilities and control. Next,
the process of internal relations covers the third phase of the consultancy and
sociotechnical phase models and the second phase of Tuckmans model, in which the team
deals with internal cooperative issues. Finally, the external relations and improvement
process covers the fourth phase of all the models. In this process, the team deals with
its relationships with other teams, customers and suppliers and works on improving
performance.

408

B.S. Kuipers and J.I. Stoker

Further, these three processes can also be clearly related to the recurring phase models
and the process models. After all, Marks et al. (2001) refer to the teams interpersonal
processes and Gladstein (1984) distinguishes the intra-group process from a teams
external relationships. Task management can be found in Dunphy and Bryants technical
expertise and self-management attributes (1996), and Marks et al. (2001) are referring to
this topic in their action phase. In terms of the third process, Dunphy and Bryant (1996) see
the teams external relations as part of self-leadership, and Gladstein (1984) uses the
specific terminology of boundary management, which she defined as the degree of
misunderstanding between the team and external individuals and groups.
Based on this assessment, we argue that these three processes are sufficient to describe
team development. The process of internal relations refers to the internal cooperation and
common accountability of the team. Internal relations include all the activities that
potentially connect the members as a team, such as goal orientation and planning
activities, as well as the relational processes of feedback and conflict management.
Second, the process of task management represents the extent to which the team manages
its primary process. It includes aspects of both job enlargement and job enrichment, such
as multifunctionality, delegated management support tasks, decision-making and control.
It also encompasses basic work communication and performance management. The final
process of external relations and improvement reflects the extent to which the team
explores and develops its boundaries and, as such, it is broader than Gladsteins
(1984) concept of boundary management. Here, in addition to customer and supplier
relations, we include improvement activities and the teams advanced managerial and
support function.
Team development and performance
We argue that the above three processes offer a suitable and all-embracing perspective on
team development. However, one issue is still missing, namely the explicit relationship
with performance. Team development should not be regarded as a goal in itself (see
Kuipers 2005), since teamwork is intended to achieve organizational goals: i.e. a team is a
means to an end rather than an end in itself. That is, the development of SMWTs should be
aimed at improving results, both in terms of organizational performance and in terms of
the wellbeing of employees. The contribution here by authors such as Gladstein (1984),
Dunphy and Bryant (1996) and Kuipers and De Witte (2005) is that they make a
connection between the development (processes) of teams and the team performance.
Thus, the elaboration of the above three team processes would be incomplete without
relating them to specific SMWT performance outcomes.
Since team development is not a goal in itself, but a means to achieve certain desired
outcomes, we will define team development in this paper, following Kuipers (2005), as the
overall set of group processes reflecting a teams actions and behaviour to given tasks,
goals and challenges, resulting in desired outcomes of teamwork. Each of the theories
introduced earlier in this paper describes the performance of a team, implicitly or
explicitly, as a result of one or more of the stages or attributes that a team passes through.
While Katzenbach and Smiths learning performance curve (1993) and Dunphy and
Bryants (1996) connection between team attributes and team performance are the clearest
examples of this general situation, even Tuckman (1965) calls one of the team stages
performing. However, in general, the authors remain vague as to the performance level
that might be achieved. Further, there is very little empirical evidence supporting the
relationship between team development and performance.

Table 3. Measures for team processes.

No. of items

Example item

Cronbachs alphas*

Internal relations
Goal orientation

.76, .76, .74

Planning activities

Feedback

Conflict management

Team goals are formulated by the

team and based on the companys goals
The team formulates its own weekly
production plan
The team members address to each
other in case of mistakes in the task performance
The team members solve internal cooperation
problems without management interference

Task management
Multifunctionality
Delegated management and support tasks

5
4

Work communication

Decision making and control

Performance management

6
3

External relations and improvement

Improvement activities

Customer and supplier relations

Advanced management and support activities

The team members often interchange tasks

The team carries out the routine
maintenance
The team members share information about
the work
The team divides the tasks
The team acts on mistakes
The team members often take initiatives
for improvement
The team solves problems with internal
customers
The team arranges back-up and support
when necessary

.79, .76, .78

.70, .63, .67
.78, .77, .81

.78, .77, .79

.74, .75, .75
.64, .70, .66
.76, .84, .86
.68, .67, .70
.76, .76, .77
.87, .86, .88
.69, .72, .73

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Key aspects

Note: *The sample size ranges between n 1,293 (2001) and n 1,507 (2002).

409

410

B.S. Kuipers and J.I. Stoker

In general, one can differentiate between two types of team performance (see Dunphy
and Bryant 1996; Kuipers and De Witte 2005). One reflects the quality of working life
(QWL), referring to the wellbeing of people in organizations in terms of satisfaction
(a subjective measure), involvement and also absenteeism and sick leave (objective
measures). The other is business performance (BP), also known as organizational
performance, which is addressed using objective indicators such as product quality,
productivity, costs and delivery precision. Researchers have complained about the lack of
available studies on the latter (Dunphy and Bryant 1996) and it is claimed that it is difficult
to obtain appropriate objective outcome measures (Parker 2003).
Nevertheless, empirical studies using appropriate measures are important to reveal the
potentials of teamwork in terms of performance (Dunphy and Bryant 1996). Moreover, if
one is not only to relate team development and outcomes, but also to explain the
causalities, longitudinal data are essential. One of the general limitations of earlier
empirical studies is that they often lacked longitudinal data (Kozlowski and Bell 2003)
and, as a consequence, their cross-sectional design precludes any conclusions about the
direction of causality. From these findings, we concluded that insights into the longitudinal
relationship between team development processes and the objective measures for both
QWL and BP were needed.
In this paper, therefore, we will describe results of a longitudinal study looking into
both aspects. We set out to explore the relationships between the three processes of
internal relations, task management, and external relations and improvement on the one
hand, and team performance measures on the other. Based on the limited available
literature, we hypothesized the following relationships.
First, regarding internal relations, Marks et al. (2001, p. 368) state that especially
interpersonal processes . . . typically lay the foundation for the effectiveness of other
processes. The relationships found by Gladstein (1984) between intra-group processes
and self-reported group effectiveness provide additional support to this idea. Campion
et al. (1993, p. 841) similarly report the importance of proper group processes to the
functioning of effective work groups. In line with these arguments, we therefore expect to
find positive relationships between the internal relations of SMWTs and primarily the
QWL aspects of teams. That is, the relational aspects and interpersonal processes in teams
may primarily affect the team atmosphere and the wellbeing of team members.
Maintaining good internal cooperation may prevent absenteeism and support team
members in returning to work sooner after sick-leave.
Second, in terms of task management, job-related aspects have historically always
been connected with QWL. Hackman and Oldham (1980) reported positive consequences
of job enlargement and job enrichment in terms of motivation, quality of work, satisfaction
and turnover, and this has been supported by other studies. For example, Yeatts and Hyten
report that especially enriched work environments consistently show positive effects on
employee satisfaction (1998, p. 249). Similarly, Parker (2003) showed, in a longitudinal
study, how lower job autonomy, skill utilisation and participation in decision making
have negative effects on the wellbeing of employees. In other words, developments in task
management are primarily expected to affect QWL (see also Table 2).
Finally, we would expect external relations and improvement aspects to affect both BP
and QWL since, in the literature, these aspects are often related to high performance
(Wellins et al. 1991; Katzenbach and Smith 1993; Van Amelsvoort and Benders 1996),
customer satisfaction (Gladstein 1984) and innovation (Dunphy and Bryant 1996). In
general, the idea of high-performance reflects all the various types of performance
involved. However, more specifically, it is the direct customer and supplier relationships

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

411

Table 4. Data on business performance and quality of working life (average per team).
2002
Product quality (Blue-collar teams)
Short term sick-leave (Blue-collar and white-collar teams)
Long-term absenteeism (Blue-collar and white-collar teams)

n
M
s.d.
n
M
s.d.
n
M
s.d.

2002 2003

73
91.96
4.79
57
2.39
1.70
57
1.25
2.43

Notes: n number of teams; M mean; s.d. standard deviation.

that provide inputs to improve products and processes. Working on these relationships
may lead to better quality products being produced and also to a healthier working
environment. People may feel more committed and involved through managing good
relationships with customers and suppliers and therefore receive more intrinsic motivation
to be present at work and help the customer. As a consequence, absenteeism may be
reduced.
Method and measures
At one-year intervals, three sets of data were collected using questionnaires distributed
among 2,200 employees working in more than 150 SMWTs at a Volvo Trucks plant in
Sweden by the first author (see Kuipers 2005). Response rates for the 2001, 2002 and 2003
exercises were 73%, 76% and 68%, with data obtained from 152, 168 and 167 teams
respectively. The vast majority of the teams were production teams (about 75% of the
total) working in one of the plants five production departments (identified as blue-collar
teams). The other teams were related to service and support, ranging in function from
engineering to financial administration (white-collar teams). Conventional paper-based
questionnaires were used, and these were distributed by the team managers and completed
during working hours at one of the weekly team meetings. Volvo itself provided the
objective measures that were used for both BP and QWL. Unfortunately, the BP data were
available only for blue-collar teams, whereas QWL data were available for both bluecollar and white-collar teams.
Initially, we sought confirmation of the existence of the three team processes proposed.
To achieve this, the data for all the teams from the three questionnaire rounds were
compared using a factor congruency test. Next, the relationships between the three
processes and BP and QWL were established using longitudinal regression models: the
scores for the team processes in 2001 serve as input to the BP measures in 2002 and to
the average QWL measures over the period 2002 2003. The sample size for these latter
analyses is dependent on the availability of data (see below).
The questionnaire consists of 46 self-reported Likert-type items (1 strongly
disagree, 5 strongly agree) based on the aspects mentioned in Table 1 and originating
from Hut and Molleman (1998), the Work Groups Effectiveness Model by Campion et al.
(1993), De Leede and Looise (1999) and Kuipers and De Witte (2005). These items (see
Table 3) cover the 12 previously defined key aspects. Table 3 provides an overview of the
number of items used for each aspect, plus example items and Cronbachs Alpha
calculated for each aspect (which indicates adequate reliability) for each year of

412

B.S. Kuipers and J.I. Stoker

Table 5. Regression results for one-year-later BP and QWL measures.

Control: Blue-collar teams

Internal relations
Task management
External relations
df
R2

BP: Product
quality

QWL: Number of
sick-occasions b-values

QWL: Percentage
of long-term absenteeism

n.a.
2.019
.311**
.308**
47 (3)
.279

.603***
2.057
2.145
2.394**
42 (4)
.794

.311
2 .368*
2 .086
.017
42 (4)
.211

Notes: *p , .05; **p , .01; ***p , .001.

measurement. The items specifically reflect actions and behaviour of teams, that is, none
of the items refer to emergent states (Marks et al. 2001) or to actions and behaviours of
individual team members.
Three objective performance measures were also used, and these are presented in
Table 4. One of these represents business performance (product quality) and the other two
quality of working life (number of sick-occasions and long-term absenteeism). The data
for these were provided by Volvo.
Unfortunately, these performance measures were not available for all teams. The
measure used for product quality was only applicable to production teams. The measure is
the percentage of so-called Direct OK items produced that is the percentage of products
that are produced fault-free at the first attempt by a particular team. This figure is an
average measure of the product quality delivered by a team, and the data used here reflects
the week in which the questionnaire was answered. In terms of sick leave, Volvo provided
data on the number of sick occasions and the percentage of long-term sick leave in the
organization. The data for sick leave were only available as annual averages but at least
these periods started on the same date as the questionnaire was answered. Both these
measures were available for both blue-collar and white-collar teams. Product quality
data were available for 73 teams (43% of the total number of teams) and data
about sick leave were available for 57 teams (34% of the total number of teams).
Results
Factor analysis of team development
A factor analysis (principal components) was carried out, for each year of measurement,
on the 46 items related to team processes. The varimax rotated solution included three
factors (see Appendix). A factor congruency test was carried out using the formula of
Gorsuch (1974) in order to see if the three factors were similar for each year. The outcomes
of 2001 were compared with those of 2002, those of 2001 with 2003 and the outcomes of
2002 with those of 2003. The outcomes for these three tests had congruencies of .98, .96
and .98 respectively; clearly above the .9 threshold for claiming factor replication
(Gorsuch 1974). The three factors each explain between 10% and 20% of the variance for
each year, with a combined total explained variance of between 41% and 43% in each year
studied. Further, a Cronbach Alpha analysis of reliability showed that each of the three
item-scales had a satisfactory score above 0.8, for each of the years (see Appendix). The
three factors found by the factor analysis confirm the previously defined team processes.
It is notable that an inspection of the outcomes for the teams did not suggest any linear
pattern in the development of the three processes, a similar finding to those of Kuipers and

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

413

De Witte (2005). Rather, each team seemed to have its own strengths and weaknesses,
further supporting the idea of parallel processes.
Effects on team performance
The results of the regression analysis shown in Table 5 indicate the relationships between
team processes and team performance.1
First, as expected, internal relations do have a significant relationship with QWL, in
the form of long-term absenteeism. Internal relations seems to be the only team process
that has a significant effect here: high scores for internal relations are correlated to low
scores for long-term absenteeism one-year later. Second, the level of task management in
2001 positively relates to BP (product quality) in the following year. Apparently, task
management has a strong effect on this measure (b .311**). Third, as we expected,
external relations and improvement is also positively related to BP. Further, it also seems
to have a significant negative relationship with QWL, in particular the number of absences
due to sickness. We found that higher scores for external relations are related to lower
one-year-later sickness frequencies. No other significant relationships were found for this
sick-leave measure.
Conclusions and discussion
Conclusions
In this paper, some key theories concerning team development have been described and
the criticisms levelled at them discussed. By identifying related issues that were found
across all the common theories, a model was suggested that could characterize team
development through three processes involving behaviour and team action. Further, we
also cautioned that the use of phase approaches (e.g. Tuckman 1965; Wellins et al. 1991;
Katzenbach and Smith 1993; Van Amelsvoort and Benders 1996) might easily result in
team development being considered as a goal in itself, with passing through the stipulated
steps becoming the goal. We argued that team development should be considered as a
means to achieve better team results, both in terms of business performance (BP) and
quality of working life (QWL).
Our results first confirmed the existence of three team processes, internal relations,
task management and external relations and improvement. Their existence was supported
by data from more than 150 production and service SMWTs at a Volvo plant in Sweden.
They were then tested to see if they had a longitudinal relationship with the objective team
performance indicators of BP and QWL. The results showed how each of the processes has
its own distinct effects on team performance. These empirical results emphasize the
importance of team development for long-term team performance.
We found that internal relations relates negatively to long-term absenteeism.
A possible explanation for this is that internal relations and the groups attitude might help
to prevent long-term sick leave because team members pay attention to each other. For the
same reason, it might also help in avoiding short-term sick leave turning into long-term
absenteeism, if there is a feeling that the team cares for you and you care for the team.
Second, task management positively relates to product quality. One explanation could
be that SMWT craftsmanship depends on job management and so good task management
results in the team delivering higher quality products. We did not find a significant
relationship between task management and our measures for QWL. The reason that earlier
studies did may be related to the fact they focused more on the effects of autonomy, job

414

B.S. Kuipers and J.I. Stoker

enlargement and job enrichment as an emergent state, or given organizational

characteristic, rather than, as we did, on an aspect of team development. We chose to
define task management explicitly in terms of concrete behaviour and actions, rather than
as given working characteristics, and this might have led to the different findings. Further,
the use of only sick-leave measures as indicators of QWL might be too limited; measures
such as staff turnover perhaps need to be taken into account to fully describe QWL.
Third, external relations and improvement was found to be positively related to
product quality and negatively to the frequency of sick leave. Perhaps maintaining
customer supplier relationships makes people more committed to work and more
reluctant to stay at home if they feel unwell. Maybe, they feel responsible, rather than
pressured, to be at work to satisfy customer needs. Further, process improvements,
initiated by the team through external relations, may also contribute to a higher product
quality and to a healthier working place.
Theoretically, this study supports the idea that the various team processes occur
simultaneously as teams develop. In line with the thinking of Dunphy and Bryant (1996),
this also implies that, for different aspects of performance, different accents in team
development are required. Whereas phase theories specifically state that team development
should go through the full range of phases, our results show that high performance levels
can be reached by different combinations and patterns of the team processes. Our results
also suggest a revision of the existing theories rather than yet another new theory on team
development. The existing theories are able to deliver important input for a model that
provides a more dynamic view on developmental processes in teams. Unfortunately, many
of the models we reviewed lack a thorough empirical basis in real organization settings.
Some academics have also complained about a lack of studies that include objective
measures (e.g. Dunphy and Bryant 1996), or about the difficulty in gaining access to such
data of good quality (Parker 2003). In this study, we avoided these problems by collecting
data from a large number of teams over a three-year period and by including objective
performance measures. The insights from this study should support researchers in further
longitudinal studies of processes in SMWTs in organizations, and we would urge them to
use objective performance measures, and not see team development as a goal in itself.
Limitations of this study
This study, apart from the theoretical examination of team development theories, had an
explorative empirical nature. We found strong empirical support for the existence of three
team processes, although further study is necessary since we faced difficulties in trying to
hypothesize the longitudinal relationships between these processes and objective team
performance measures. Very little literature is available on these relationships, especially
in terms of having both objective and longitudinal data, and this restricts ones ability to
hypothesize with confidence.
To make a more general application of the model possible, further research is needed
that includes additional objective QWL and BP performance indicators. Organizations are
also interested in reducing costs, improving productivity and delivery precision and it is
important for them to know if, and how, internal relations, task management and external
relations effect such other team performances.
Further research should also involve other types of organizations. Despite the fact that
different types of teams were involved in this research, from various types of production
departments and from supporting departments, a more general approach to team development
will require studies in other settings such as healthcare and commercial service industries.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

415

Implications for management and HR practice

Contemporary approaches such as the HR scorecard (Paauwe 2004) can support
practitioners in further developing our perspective on team development. The essence of
approaches like the scorecard is to help managers define the connections, or causal chains,
between performance and whatever is driving and enabling this performance, and to define
these in terms of concrete practices (Becker, Huselid and Ulrich 2001). Having found
credible evidence for the existence of a few such connections between team processes and
performances, we would propose a similar approach for the development of selfmanagement in work teams. That is, first define the performances you want to achieve and
then go back and consider the team processes that enable these performances. This
alternative approach should help managers to develop their teams in a more sophisticated
way. HR practitioners could support managers through coaching, providing HR tools and
their knowledge of organizational development.
In practical terms, this means that teams should not be stimulated to develop in a
structured and predefined linear order. Rather, a teams development should be
continuously evaluated by its manager, with support from a HR practitioner. Together,
they can analyse the results and subsequently put an emphasis on those dimensions that
match the vulnerability of the team. Teams also do not need to be fully developed in one
dimension before shifting attention to another dimension. Rather, the circumstances and
the specific targets and goals related to the teams purpose should be used to define which
dimensions, and which aspects within these dimensions, should be the focus in seeking to
improve performance.
To conclude, we stress our argument that team development is situational, and does not
depend on sequential phases as phase models suggest. This insight should encourage
managers and their HR practitioners to monitor ongoing team processes and relate these to
the desired performance. Such a diagnosis should be the basis of a dialogue between
manager and team to improve the functioning and performance of SMWTs. By studying
further the SMWT development processes in real organizational settings, researchers may
encourage practitioners to develop healthy scepticism of the popular prescriptive phase
theories.

Note
1.

Please note that the regression models for absenteeism included a statistical control for any
effect of blue-collar versus white-collar SMWTs. Only in the case of the number of sickoccasions did it appear that there was a significant difference between the two types of team.
Overall, it seemed that blue-collar workers were most likely to report in sick but, in terms of
long-term absenteeism, no significant difference was found.

References
Arrow, H. (1997), Stability, Bistability, and Instability in Small Group Influence Patterns, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1, 75 85.
Becker, B.E., Huselid, M.A., and Ulrich, D. (2001), The HR Scorecard, Linking People, Strategy,
and Performance, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Campion, A.M., Medsker, G.J., and Higgs, A.C. (1993), Relations between Work Group
Characteristics and Effectiveness: Implications for Designing Effective Work Groups,
Personnel Psychology, 46, 823 850.
Cascio, W.F. (1995), Whither Industrial and Organizational Psychology in a Changing World of
Work?, American Psychologist, 50, 928 939.

416

B.S. Kuipers and J.I. Stoker

Cohen, S.G., and Bailey, D.E. (1997), What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research
from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite, Journal of Management, 23, 3, 239 290.
Cohen, S.G., Ledford, G.E., and Spreitzer, G.M. (1996), A Predictive Model of Self-Managing
Work Team Effectiveness, Human Relations, 49, 643 680.
De Leede, J. (1997), Innoveren van onderop: Over de bijdrage van taakgroepen aan product- en
procesvernieuwing (Bottom-Up Innovation: About the Contribution of Self-Managing Teams to
Product and Process Improvement), Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente.
De Leede, J., and Looise, J.K. (1999), Continuous Improvement and the Mini-Company Concept,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 19, 11, 1188 1202.
De Leede, J., and Stoker, J.I. (1996), Taakgroepen in de Nederlandse industrie: een concept met
vele toepassingen (Work Teams in the Dutch Manufacturing Industry: One Concept with Many
Applications), Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken, 12, 4, 310 321.
De Leede, J., and Stoker, J.I. (1999), Self-Managing Teams in Manufacturing Companies:
Implications for the Engineering Function, Engineering Management Journal, 11, 3, 19 24.
Dunphy, D., and Bryant, B. (1996), Teams: Panaceas or Prescriptions for Improved Performance,
Human Relations, 49, 5, 677 699.
Forsyth, D.R. (1999), Group Dynamics (3rd ed.), Belmont: Wadsworth/ITP.
Gersick, C.J.G. (1988), Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group
Development, Academy of Management Journal, 31, 1, 9 41.
Gersick, C.J.G. (1989), Marking Time: Predictable Transitions in Task Groups, Academy of
Management Journal, 32, 2, 274 309.
Gladstein, D.L. (1984), Groups in Context: A Model of Task Group Effectiveness, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 29, 4, 499 517.
Gorsuch, R.L. (1974), Factor analysis, Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.
Hackman, J.R. (1990), Groups That Work (and Those That Dont): Creating Conditions for Effective
Teamwork (2nd ed.), San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Hackman, J.R., and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hut, J.A., and Molleman, E. (1998), Empowerment and Team Development, Team Performance
Management, 4, 2, 53 66.
Katz, D., and Kahn, R.L. (1978), The Social Psychology of Organizations (2nd ed.), New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Katzenbach, J.R., and Smith, D.K. (1993), The Wisdom of Teams; Creating the High-Performance
Organization, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., and Bell, B.S. (2003), Work Groups and Teams in Organizations, in Handbook
of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 12), eds. W.C. Borman,
D.R. Ilgen and R.J. Klimoski, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 333 375.
Kuipers, B.S. (2005), Team Development and Team Performance. Responsibilities, Responsiveness
and Results: A Longitudinal Study of Teamwork at Volvo Trucks Umea, PhD, University of
Groningen.
Kuipers, B.S., and De Witte, M.C. (2005), Teamwork: A Case Study on Development and
Performance, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 2, 185 201.
Manz, C., and Sims, H. (1993), Business Without Bosses: How Self-managing Teams Are Building
High Performance Companies, New York: Wiley.
Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E., and Zaccaro, S.J. (2001), A Temporally Based Framework and
Taxomony of Team Processes, Academy of Management Review, 26, 3, 356 376.
Miller, D.L. (2003), The Stages of Group Development: A Retrospective Study of Dynamic Team
Processes, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20, 2, 121 134.
Morgan, G. (1993), Organizational Choice and the New Technology, in The Socio-Technical
Perspective, eds. E. Trist and H. Murray, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
pp. 354 368.
Morgeson, F.P. (2005), The External Leadership of Self-Managing Teams: Intervening in the
Context of Novel and Disruptive Events, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 3, 497 508.
OConnell, M.S., Doverspike, D., and Cober, A.B. (2002), Leadership and Semi-Autonomous Work
Team Performance, Group and Organisation Management, 27, 1, 50 65.
Offerman, L.R., and Spiros, R.K. (2001), The Science and Practice of Team Development:
Improving the Link, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 2, 376 392.
Paauwe, J. (2004), HRM and performance; Achieving Long Term Viability, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

417

Parker, S.K. (2003), Longitudinal Effects of Lean Production on Employee Outcomes and the
Mediating Role of Work Characteristics, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 4, 620 634.
Seeger, A.J. (1983), No Innate Phases in Group Problem Solving, Academy of Management
Review, 8, 683 689.
Spreitzer, G.M., Cohen, S.G., and Ledford, G.E. (1999), Developing Effective SMWTs in Service
Organizations, Group and Organization Management, 24, 3, 340 366.
Tuckman, B.W. (1965), Development Sequences in Small Groups, Psychological Bulletin, 63, 6,
384 399.
Tuckman, B.W., and Jensen, M.A.C. (1977), Stages of Small Group Development Revisited,
Group and Organization Studies, 2, 419 427.
Van Amelsvoort, P., and Benders, J. (1996), Team Time: A Model for Developing Self-Directed
Work Teams, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 16, 2,
159 170.
Van Amelsvoort, P., and Van Amelsvoort, G. (2000), Designing and Developing Self-Directed Work
Teams, Vlijmen: ST-Groep.
Wellins, R.S., Byham, W.C., and Wilson, J.M. (1991), Empowered Teams: Creating Self-Directed Work
Groups that Improve Quality, Productivity and Participation, San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Yeatts, D.E., and Hyten, C. (1998), High-Performing Self-Managed Work Teams: A Comparison of
Theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zenger, J.H., Musselwhite, E., Hurson, K., and Perrin, C. (1994), Leading Teams: Mastering the New
Role, Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin.

Factor analyses of team responsiveness dimensions (rotated factor loadings in absolute values).

2001
Items

Factor 1
Task mgt.
.598
.562
.340
.647
.596
.706
.673
.630
.370
.617
.556
.500
.517
.494
.458
.591
.482
.491
.526
.545
.478

2002
Factor 2
External rel.

Factor 3
Internal rel.

.451

.323
.348
.304

.383
.336
.360
.711
.829
.709
.838
.642
.702
.379
.596

Factor 1
Task mgt.
.485
.460
.438
.502
.447
.513
.635
.631
.636
.566
.467
.474
.504
.672
.573
.633
.539
.540
.380
.462
.489

2003
Factor 2
External rel.

Factor 3
Internal rel.

Factor 1
Task mgt.

.424
.386

.505
.458
.468
.564
.458
.563
.653
.676
.662
.580
.512
.487
.496
.700
.581
.664
.522
.599
.499
.602
.580

.333

.331
.385
.323
.362

.352
.367
.404
.686
.807
.686
.807
.657
.686
.541
.671

Factor 2
External rel.

Factor 3
Internal rel.
.356
.352

.359

.328

.316
.365
.345
.385

.406
.370
.701
.827
.726
.825
.659
.698
.481
.613

B.S. Kuipers and J.I. Stoker

task01
task02
task03
task04
task05
task06
task07
task08
task09
task10
task11
task12
task13
task14
task15
task16
task17
task18
task19
task20
task21
ext01
ext02
ext03
ext04
ext05
ext06
ext07
ext08

418

Appendix 1.

.417
.389
.390

.426
.464
.463
.459

.568
.483
.493
.460
.442
.321
.479
.9054

.8724

.393
.398
.429
.308
.577
.772
.716
.411
.361
.373
.380
.375
.424
.499
.493
.431
.8641

.327
.350

.434
.483
.365
.462
.465

.326
.339

.371
.343
.9179

.8832

.538
.337
.330
.319
.406
.452
.448
.631
.478
.665
.609
.689
.432
.547
.542
.8480

.416
.403

.388
.457
.410
.452
.452
.330
.318

.345
.376
.422
.316
.371
.494

.328

.9274

.8878

.357
.337
.435
.480
.438
.498
.612
.403
.689
.651
.701
.350
.424
.615
.8648

Notes: Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis; Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization; Factor loadings smaller than .30 are suppressed; Loadings in italic
indicate to which factor the item was assigned; a Cronbachs alphas for scales.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

ext09
ext10
ext11
ext12
ext13
int01
int02
int03
int04
int05
int06
int07
int08
int09
int10
int11
int12
a

419