Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2004

Team Effectiveness and Characteristics:

Apparel Product Development Teams
Eun J. Lynn Kwak

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact lib-ir@fsu.edu
 THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF HUMAN SCIENCES

TEAM EFFECTIVENESS AND CHARACTERISTICS:

APPAREL PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TEAMS

By

EUN J. LYNN KWAK

A Dissertation submitted to the

Department of Textiles and Consumer Sciences
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded:
Summer Semester, 2004

Copyright © 2004
Eun J. Kwak
All Rights Reserved
The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Eun Kwak defended on May 21,
2004.

Catherine Black
Professor Directing Dissertation

Lee Stepina
Outside Committee Member

Susan S. Fiorito
Committee Member

Rinn M. Cloud
Committee Member

Approved:

Rinn M. Cloud, Chairperson, Department of Textiles and Consumer Sciences

Penny A. Ralston, Dean, College of Human Sciences

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The completion of this research was possible only with the support of many wonderful
people and I express my deep appreciation to some of them within this acknowledgement. With
sincere respect, I acknowledge my committee members: Dr. Black, my major professor,
patiently offered valuable advice, which was drawn from her industry experience. Dr. Cloud
guided me to pursue my initial research interest, which became my final dissertation topic. She
provided me with focused and critical guidance that strengthened my research. Dr. Fiorito was
welcoming and responsive to my inquiries and gave me caring support and insightful advice. Dr.
Stepina spent effort and time answering my many questions and generously provided useful
resources for this research.
I received support and encouragement from the other faculty members and the staff of
The Department of Textiles and Consumer Sciences at The Florida State University. Dr.
Heitmeyer, Dr. Grise, and Dr. Moore were available and accessible throughout the duration of
my Ph. D. program. Dr. Moore generously gave me keen advice. The department staff, Ms.
Johnnie Davis, Ms. Clarice Dalton, and Ms. Erica Lee offered me friendly and helpful
administrative assistance and eased my tension in the midst of my demanding graduate work.
My fellow colleague, Todd McAllister, supported me with friendship.
Two esteemed former faculty members of The Florida State University were willing to
provide their personal time and academic expertise: Dr. Scott from The Department of Finance
enhanced my understanding of research methodology. He also offered me friendship and
mentoring, especially when I was working on my methodology chapter. Dr. Schvaneveldt from
The Department of Family and Child Sciences encouraged me to stay positive and to see my
strength as a young scholar. He shared his timely and discerning guidance with me regarding the
early chapters of my dissertation.

iii
 Prior to this dissertation, the professors of my Master’s Program motivated me to
establish a solid foundation in research. Their example helped me to strive to be a diligent
researcher and teacher. I especially express my thanks to Dr. Johnson and Dr. DeLong from The
Department of Design, Housing, and Apparel at the University of Minnesota.
I acknowledge my special appreciation to the Payne family, who nurtured and
encouraged me. Dr. Stephen Payne provided statistical assistance while Mrs. Stephen Payne
(Margo) provided editing assistance. They were always available when I needed their personal
and academic advice during my Ph. D. program. They cheered me up and lightened my
wearisome tasks with laughing and fun throughout this research.
My friends, family, and their prayers were also important. I would like to share the joy of
the completion of my dissertation with my parents, Do Kwak and Peong-Soon Won, who
supported me with finances and abundant love during the seemingly endless years of graduate
studies. Most of all, I give thanks to Jesus Christ, who gives me wisdom in my time of
difficulties and who completes the good work which He began.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables vii

List of Figures viii
Abstract ix

I. INTRODUCTION

Introduction 1
Purpose Statement and Objectives 2
Rationale of the Study 2
Concepts and Definitions 3

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Apparel Product Development (APD) Team 5

Team Approach in APD 5
Apparel Product Development Process 6
APD Team Members 7
Teams in Apparel Production 8
Team and Team Characteristics 9
Definition of Teams 9
Models of Team Characteristic 11
Gladstein’s models 11
Hackman’s models 12
Campion, Medsker, & Higgs’ models 14
Team Characteristics 17
Process 17
Job design 19
Context 21
Interdependence 22
Composition 23
Team Effectiveness 23
Subjective and Objective Measurement 24
Internal and External Measurement 25
Job satisfaction in apparel industry 26
Job satisfaction in general industry 27
Summary of Literature Review 29

v
III. METHODOLOGY

Conceptual Framework for the Study 31

Survey Procedures 36
Purposive Sampling 36
Initial Letter 36
Survey 36
Survey Identification 37
Survey Instruments 38
Team Characteristics Measures 38
Team Effectiveness Measures 39
Job Satisfaction Measures 40
Demographics 40
Hypotheses 41
Analyses of Data 42
Interdependence Among Variables 42

IV. RESULTS

Demographic Characteristics of Companies, Teams, and Participants 44

Characteristics of Companies and Teams 44
Demographic Characteristics of Individual Team Members 46
Demographic Characteristics of Team Managers 46
Reliability Test for Measurements 48
Objective One 48
Factor Analysis 48
Objective Two 51
Hypotheses Test 51
Regression Analysis on Two Themes: Team Interaction
and Interdependence 52
Team member job satisfaction 52
Team member judgment of effectiveness 54
Manager judgment of effectiveness 56
Interdependency Among Team Members (Membership) 56
Team Member Job Satisfaction 57
Team Member Judgment of Effectiveness 57
Correlation Analysis 58

V. DISCUSSION

Conceptual Model 60
APD Team Effectiveness 63
Team Interaction Theme 63

vi
 Team interaction characteristics I 64
Team interaction characteristics II 66
Interdependence Theme 69
Interdependence characteristics 69
Summary 70
Limitation of the Current Study 71
Sample 71
Measurement 71
Research Design 71
Implications for APD Team Managers 72
Recommendations for Future Study 73

APPENDIX

A. Initial Letter to Companies 75

B. Cover Letter to Companies 77
C. Questionnaire List (By Category) 79
D. Survey Questionnaire to Team Members 84
E. Survey Questionnaire to Managers 90
F. Human Subject Approval 93
G. Factor and Regression Analyses on Selected Characteristics and MJE 95

REFERENCES 97

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 103

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

1.1. Similarities and Differences Among the Three Models 16

3.1. Team Characteristics and Question Numbers in the Questionnaire 39

4.1. Dollar Volume (in Millions) of Companies’ Annual Sales 45

4.2. The Number of APD Teams within Companies 45

4.3. The Number of Companies in Each State 45

4.4. Demographic Characteristics of Participants 47

4.5. Factor Loadings for the Theme Characteristics 49

4.6. Results of Regression Analysis of Two Themes and Team Member Job
Satisfaction 53
4.7. Results of Regression Analysis of Two Themes and Team Member Judgment of
Effectiveness 55

4.8. Results of Regression Analysis of Two Themes and Manager Judgment of

Effectiveness 56

4.9. Results of Regression Analysis of TMJS and Theme Themes with Team
Membership Variables 57

4.10. Results of Regression Analysis of TMJE and Theme Themes with Team
Membership Variables 58

4.11. Variable Reliabilities, Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations 59

G.1. Factor Loadings for Selected Six Team Characteristics 96

G.2. Regression Analysis of the Influence of Factor (with Six Characteristics)

on Manger Judgment of Effectiveness 96

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

1.1. General Model of Group Behavior: Constructs and Measured Variables 12

1.2. An Overview of the Normative Model of Group Effectiveness 13

1.3. Themes and Characteristics Related to Workgroup Effectiveness 15

3.1. Themes and Characteristics Related to Workgroup Effectiveness 32

3.2. Themes and Characteristics Related to Team Effectiveness of Apparel Product

Development Team 35

4.1. A Model Examining the Relationship between Team Themes and Team
Effectiveness in Apparel Product Development Team. 50

5.1. Team Characteristics Related to Team Effectiveness of Apparel Product

Development Team 62

ix
 ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between apparel product
development (APD) team characteristics and APD team effectiveness. Apparel product
development (APD) describes the process of designing and engineering serviceable, producible,
saleable, and profitable apparel products (Glock & Kunz, 2000). This research identified APD
team characteristics that contribute to APD team effectiveness, based on the model developed by
Campion, Medsker, and Higgs (1993). A total of 160 participants who were APD team
managers and their APD team members completed the survey instrument. The participants
worked in the areas of design, merchandising, and sales/marketing and represented 22 apparel
manufacturers in the U. S.
Both factor analysis and multiple regression analysis were used to accomplish the study’s
objectives. Factor analysis resulted in two themes for team characteristics: team interaction and
team interdependence. Based on multiple regression analysis, these two themes predicted team
member job satisfaction (TMJS) and team member judgment of effectiveness (TMJE).
However, multiple regression analysis with these two themes did not predict manager judgment
of effectiveness (MJE). This study also examined the correlations between the 11 APD team
characteristics measured (potency, workload sharing, communication/cooperation within the
team, social support, managerial support, training, self-management, participation, independent
feedback/rewards, goal interdependence, and task interdependence) and the three measures of
APD team effectiveness (TMJS, TMJE, and MJE). Among the 11 APD team characteristics,
potency, workload sharing, communication with teams, and social support displayed the highest
correlation (in descending order) with APD team effectiveness.
This research proposed a model describing the relationship between APD team
characteristics and APD team effectiveness. This model may serve as a theoretical framework

x
for future APD team research. Results of this study reveal the major APD team characteristics
that impact team effectiveness; these characteristics are team spirit and social interaction team
characteristics (workload sharing, communication/cooperation within teams, and social support).
Results of this study contribute to the knowledge to enhance APD team effectiveness as apparel
manufacturers meet the current challenges in product development (e.g. shortening the product-
development life-cycle) and in consumer demands (e.g. high-quality, diverse, and competitively-
priced products).

xi
 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

This study examines the relationship between the effectiveness and the characteristics of
teams in the apparel product development (APD) industry. APD is the design and engineering of
apparel products that are serviceable, producible, marketable, and profitable (Glock & Kunz,
2000). The APD process focuses on the following areas: perfect style and fit, produce patterns,
test materials and assembly methods, develop style and quality specifications, detail costs, and
grade patterns (Wickett, Gaskill, & Damhorst, 1999). In each step of the process, it is critical for
team members to be interdependent (Gaskill, 1992).
Team refers to a small group whose members have complementary skills, have a
common purpose, apply performance goals, and who accept mutual accountability (Proehl, 1997,
p.139). A complex production environment benefits from the work produced by teams (Pulat,
1994). Forsyth (1990) states that teams utilize individual resources, and team performance
should utilize the interpersonal dimensions of the team. Research concludes that individuals who
work in groups or teams produce higher levels of creativity and problem-solving than individuals
who work alone (Ingram, Teare, Scheuing, & Armistead, 1997).
Team researchers have discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the team approach.
Usually, productivity increases when workers see themselves as part of a team, rather than as
individuals who work alone. Also, a team approach increases the sense of camaraderie, self-
worth, and belonging (Stewart, Manz, & Sims, 1999). However, Stewart et al. (1999) point out
that the team approach can generate unnecessary meetings, lengthy negotiations, and personality
conflicts, all of which reduce the efficiency of teams.
In spite of the perceived challenges, both academic literature and current trends in the
workplace indicate that the use of teams will continue to grow (Elmuti, 1996). According to
Elmuti (1996), during the mid-1990s, more than 50 % of all Fortune 500 companies utilized

1
teams in their management structure and 70% to 75% companies utilize teams in new product
development (Barczak & Wilemon, 2001).
Globalization presents continuing challenges for the apparel industry. Apparel firms are
required to develop and manufacture a product line that is high-quality, diverse, and
competitively-priced. They also must shorten the product-development life-cycle and effectively
manage workers to meet these challenges (Dillard, Crane, & Hamilton, 2000).
This study evaluates the effectiveness of the APD team approach as a way to meet these
challenges. It identifies and examines the relationship between the characteristics of APD teams
and their effectiveness. Team characteristics describe team traits, qualities, and properties.

Purpose Statement and Objectives

This study investigates the relationship between team characteristics and team
effectiveness in APD. Based on the model developed by Campion, Papper, and Medsker (1996)
this study identifies specific characteristics that contribute to APD team effectiveness. This
study:
1. proposes a conceptual model that describes the relationships between APD team
effectiveness and APD team characteristics.
2. examines the relationships between team effectiveness and team characteristics.

Rationale of the Study

The Apparel Product Development (APD) literature lacks in a thorough investigation of

the use of teams, team characteristics, and team effectiveness. Researchers have examined the
process aspect of APD (Gaskill, 1992; Pitimaneeyakul, 2001; Regan, Kincade, & Sheldon, 1998;
Wickett, Gaskill, & Damhorst, 1999). However, this research solely relied on case studies
utilizing qualitative research methods.

2
 Prior studies (Batt & Appelbaim, 1995; Berg, Applebaum, Bailey, & Kalleberg, 1996;
Dillard, Crane, & Hamilton, 2000; Oliver, Kincade, & Albrecht, 1994) have investigated the use
of teams in the clothing and textile fields. These studies focused on production system teams,
rather than APD, which relies on individuals who perform critical and analytical decision-
making tasks (Ingram, Teare, Scheuing, & Armistead, 1997).
This study focused on the use of teams in APD and presents a conceptual model that
describes the relationship between APD team characteristics and team effectiveness. This study
should provide a foundation for further investigation of teams in APD.

Concepts and Definitions

Apparel product development: is the design and engineering of apparel products that
are serviceable, producible, marketable, and profitable (Glock & Kunz, 2000).
Apparel product development team members: include designers, product engineers,
marketing/sales personnel who participate in the product development process.
Context: refers to the resources and contextual influences that make teams more
effective. Training, managerial support, and communication/cooperation between teams are
characteristics of context.
Interdependence: refers to the amount of interaction that team members require to
complete their work tasks. Task interdependence, goal interdependence, and interdependent
feedback and rewards are characteristics of interdependence.
Job satisfaction (dissatisfaction): “…a positive (or negative) evaluative judgment one
makes about one’s job or job situation” (Brief & Weiss, 2002, p. 283).
Job design: includes self-management, participation, task variety, and task significance.
Process: “ . . how group members behave and react to each other regardin g such things
as exchanging information, expressing feelings, forming coalitions, or supporting or rejecting a
group leader” (Guzzo & Shea, 1992, p. 302). Potency (team spirit/confidence), social support,
work-load sharing, and communication/cooperation within the teams are the characteristics of
process.

3
 Team: “…a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a
common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they are mutually accountable”
(Proehl, 1997, p.139).
Team characteristics: refer to teams’ distinguishing traits, qualities, or properties.
Team characteristics include the following: self management, participation, task variety, task
significance, task interdependence, goal interdependence, interdependent feedback/rewards,
potency, social support, workload sharing, communication/cooperation within the team, training,
managerial support, and communication/cooperation between teams.
Team effectiveness: refers to the output production of the team, which should meet or
exceed the performance standard, and the work that should maintain or enhance the capability of
team members to work together (Hackman, 1987). The assessment of team effectiveness
consists of the criteria of team member job satisfaction (TMJS), team member judgment of
effectiveness (TMJE), and manager judgment of effectiveness (MJE).
Team theme: consists of job design, interdependence, composition, context, and
process. Each of these five team themes has its own set of team characteristics.

4
 CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter provides an overview of the literature relevant to this study. It discusses
literature related to team characteristics to team effectiveness. This chapter covers three topics:
Apparel Product Development (APD) teams, team characteristics, and team effectiveness.
Clothing and textile literature provides the primary basis for the first section, which
describes the nature of APD teams. Reviewing this literature helps to explain APD team
structures. This section also includes a discussion of apparel production teams, called modular
production systems, and discusses other types of teams used in the apparel industry. The second
section defines teams and discusses general conceptual models and team characteristics. The
third section discusses literature relevant to team effectiveness and job satisfaction. It also
describes measures of team effectiveness and job satisfaction. Management literature is
discussed in the second and third sections. A summary section concludes this chapter.

Apparel Product Development (APD) Team

Team Approach in APD

The term, Apparel Product Development (APD), did not appear in the research literature
until recent decades. However, both the current apparel industry and research studies frequently
use the term (Gaskill, 1992; Glock & Kunz, 2000; Jang, 2001; LaBat & Sokolowski, 1999;
Regan, Kincade, & Sheldon, 1998). APD first appeared in Gaskill’s (1992) retail product
development research study. Apparel industry practitioners and researchers have paid increasing
attention to the APD process as retail firms launch in-house private labels.

5
 A number of case studies confirm that the APD process currently utilizes the team
approach (Gaskill, 1992; Pitimaneeyakul, 2001; Regan, Kincade, & Sheldon, 1998; Wickett,
Gaskill, & Damhorst, 1999). Product planning and development requires the participation of
team members from various departments within the apparel companies (Pitimaneeyakul, 2001;
Regan, Kincade, & Sheldon, 1998).

Apparel Product Development Process

The review of APD research literature provides a basis for this study. This section
summarizes the literature regarding the APD process. It also describes the APD process
developed by various researchers (Gaskill, 1992; Glock & Kunz, 2000; LaBat & Sokolowski,
1999; Regan, Kincade, & Sheldon, 1998).
Glock and Kunz (2000) conclude that the APD process evolves through three phases:
pre-adoption, line adoption, and post-adoption. The pre-adoption phase in product development
focuses on the analysis, creativity, and formation of product groups that are unique and that
reflect the line concept (Glock & Kunz, 2000). Design is the key element in this phase, in which
the trend analysis investigates a variety of influences to the target market of the company
(Gaskill, 1992).
In the second phase, the line adoption process, merchandisers and other members of the
design team decide which styles and which merchandise groups meet the criteria of the product
lines (Glock & Kunz, 2000). To reinforce the seasonal theme, APD team members create and
develop the physical characteristics of the seasonal line (including palette selection, fabric
design, and silhouette generation) (Gaskill, 1992).
During the post-adoption phase of product development, APD team members prepare
production styles. This phase requires that APD team members perform several tasks to develop
prototypes: perfecting the style and fit, engineering the production patterns, testing the materials
and assembly methods, developing the style and quality specifications, detailing the costs, and
grading the patterns (Glock & Kunz, 2000). After the APD team members visualize the seasonal
line, they prepare the prototype construction to develop samples of the proposed line.
Compared to the APD process proposed by Glock and Kunz (2000), Gaskill (1992)
identifies the APD process as including the following categories: trend analysis, concept

6
evolvement, (color) palette selection, fabrications, fabric design, silhouette generation, prototype
construction and analysis, line presentation, and subsequent activities. Gaskill (1992) examined
retail APD task activities and concluded that a descriptive chronological framework assisted in
analyzing retail APD task activities.
To demonstrate the APD process, LaBat and Sokolowski (1999) separated Apparel
Product Development into three phases: problem definition and research, creative exploration,
and implementation. LaBat and Sokolowski (1991) defined the APD process as enhancing the
collaboration between a university design team and its industry client. The creative exploration
phase involves many decisions: generating ideas for solving the problem, refining the design,
developing a prototype, exploring the problem, and searching for and evaluating problem-
solving alternatives. The implementation phase involves selecting, evaluating, specifying,
implementing, and communicating the solution (Pitimaneeyakul, 2001).
In their study of the APD process, Regan, Kincade, and Sheldon (1998) investigated the
applicability of the engineering design process theory to the apparel design process. One of
Regan et al.’s research goals was to interpret the APD actions and decisions. They developed a
systematic, building-block process for the design of apparel lines. Their study concluded that
there is a direct relationship between the engineering design process and the APD process.
According to Regan et al., the APD process requires a series of decision-making steps, such as
defining and articulating the problem, exploring possible solutions, and implementing a solution.

APD Team Members

According to Pitimaneeyakul (2001), the APD team members who participate in the
process are from the areas of marketing, design, and merchandising. APD team members
collaborate throughout the phases of idea/concept development, problem definition/research,
creative exploration, and implementation (Pitimaneeyakul, 2001).
The following examples describe three types of APD team members and their
responsibilities. Marketing personnel develop marketing plans (Pitimaneeyakul, 2001). Sales
personnel collect concept ideas and analyze the consumers’ needs. Designers seek inspiration
from various sources, (i.e., magazines, market trends, and consumers’ needs). After concept

7
development, designers participate in sketching the design specifications and in developing
samples (Pitimaneeyakul, 2001).
Regan, Kincade, and Sheldon’s (1998) study provides more information regarding the
roles of the APD team members. First, merchandisers (with assistance from product engineers)
review the apparel line to evaluate cost and manufacturing considerations. Based on the analysis
of the needs of the consumer, sales personnel provide input into the design concept for a new
apparel line. Design associates (with assistance from technical service personnel and product
engineers) determine “first costs on garments” (Regan, Kincade, & Sheldon, 1998). After
finalizing their proposal, design associates present the apparel line to, and request input from,
management.

Teams in Apparel Production

For the purpose of this current study in apparel product development, it is beneficial to
review the studies of apparel production teams. Apparel production teams are different from
apparel product development teams. Apparel production is the construction and assembly
process of garment components and trims into finished apparel products. There are a couple of
apparel production team studies (Batt & Appelbaim, 1995; Berg, Appelbaum, Bailey, &
Kalleberg, 1996; Dillard, Crane, & Hamilton, 2000; Oliver, Kincade, & Albrecht, 1994).
However, there is a scarcity of apparel product development team studies. These production
team studies were focused on the team-based modular production system (MPS).
The modular production system allows flexibility and manufacturing process
improvement, compared to the traditional bundle system (Dillard, Crane, & Hamilton, 2000). In
the MPS, ten or fewer workers assemble a garment. In the bundle system, each operator works
at his/her own individual station and performs repetitive tasks. The bundle system works well in
the assembly of basic and high-volume apparel products. However, the disadvantage of the
bundle system is that it consistently ties up inventory throughout the process, which leads to
wasted time (Berg, Appelbaum, Bailey, & Kalleberg, 1996).
The advantage of the MPS system is that all of the team members are responsible for
improving the quality of the entire product, rather than focusing on their individual tasks. In this

8
system, team members participate in setting team goals, problem solving, resolving conflict,
organizing workflow, and arranging sewing facilities (Berg et al., 1996).
Several studies confirm the distinctive benefits of MPS teams in relationship to job
satisfaction, social support, and participation (Batt & Appelbaim, 1995; Berg et al., 1996; Oliver,
Kincade, & Albrecht, 1994). The modular production system decreases employee turnover and
absenteeism, while it improves job satisfaction. Since MPS team members help other team
members who fall behind, peer pressure increases work pace as it reduces absenteeism. The
MPS team system reduces bottlenecks and eliminates defects. Its accountability also enhances
performance quality improvement. The system allows for active participation and horizontal
coordination among team members. Research results indicate that MPS workers’ training and
education increases their participation, as they contribute suggestions for the benefit of their
teams.
Well-managed MPS teams assure successful performance and timely delivery, allowing
them to effectively respond despite short notice on the part of customers. Apparel manufacturers
who utilize the MPS can offer customers the benefits of carrying a smaller inventory, thereby
avoiding markdowns and stock outs (Dillard et al, 2000). In contrast to the research studies
conducted in team-based MPS, there has been a lack of empirical study regarding APD teams.

Team Characteristics

Definition of Teams
In studies on teams, researchers used similar definitions for groups, work groups, and
teams and used these terms interchangeably. Although the distinctions among these terms have
been unclear, Brannick and Prince (1997) discussed groups related to work teams, and teams as
follows:
Group has been used in a much broader sense than team and has been
applied to a larger number of social and organizational forms (Hackman, 1990).
Group dynamic research, for example, has focused on therapy groups, T-groups,
and self-study groups, where the task of each member was to achieve personal
goals. Hackman (1990) stated that group is a rather general label and needs to be

9
 differentiated from work groups that can be defined by certain criteria. These
criteria include differentiated roles [a higher level of coordination] and tasks [task
interdependency between members] to be performed. (Brannick & Prince, 1997,
p.4)

For almost a century, psychologists and sociologists have studied the concept of groups
(Stewart, Manz, & Sims, 1999). Since the beginning of the group dynamics movement of the
1930s, researchers have studied groups and the behaviors/interactions of group members
(Ingram, Teare, Scheuing, & Armistead, 1997).
Previous researchers define groups and compositions of groups. Shaw (1981) defined
groups as “two or more persons who are interacting with one another in such a manner that each
person influences and is influenced by each other person (p.8).” In a similar definition, McGrath
(1984) defined a group as two or more persons who are each aware of their potential interaction.
According to Proehl (1997), groups are developed due to proximity, homogeneity, and
distinctiveness. Proehl (1997) summarizes the results of influential researchers and theoreticians
who investigated the compositions of groups. These compositions of groups are: shared
identity, interdependence, personal interaction, common goals, structured relationships, and
mutual influence.
The concept of work group is similar to the teams. Guzzo and Dickson (1996) defined
work group as follows:
A “work group” is made up of individuals who see themselves and are
seen by others as a social entity, who are interdependent because of the tasks they
perform as members of a group, who are embedded in one or more larger social
systems (e.g. community, organization), and who perform tasks that affect others
(such as customers or coworkers). (p. 308-309)

Teams are special cases of groups. A team is a more highly-developed form of a work
group in terms of possessing the characteristics of autonomy and shared responsibilities (Cohen
& Baily, 1997; Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). A team is a group that has developed a high degree of
interdependency and integration (Cohen & Baily, 1997). Whereas a group merely consists of at
least two interacting individuals, a team is more cohesive than a group because team members
have common commitments and goals (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993).

10
 Baker and Salas (1997) illustrate the characteristics of teams, based on their review of
literature: Teams consists of, at a minimum, two or more individuals; have specific role
assignments; must perform specific tasks; and interact or coordinate to achieve a common goal
or outcome.
The review of the literature indicates that there is no consensus among previous
researchers on a concrete definition of these three terms (groups, work groups, and teams); in
fact, previous researchers often interchange them. Theoretical models and empirical findings of
previous studies of groups, work groups, and teams provide a foundation for the current APD
team research. However, the current study considers the differences among groups, work
groups, and teams. The current study uses the following definition for team: “…a small number
of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance
goals, and approach for which they are mutually accountable” (Proehl, 1997, p.139).

Models of Team Characteristics

Researchers who study general team characteristics often examine and reference the
models of Gladstein (1984), Hackman (1987), and Campion et al. (1996). These three key
models are discussed below.
Gladstein’s model. Gladstein’s (1984) model categorized the variables and labeled them
as either input, process, or output (Figure 1). Gladstein defines inputs as contributions from
individual, group, and organization for group effectiveness. Gladstein categorized the inputs into
two levels: group and organizational. Process refers to the activities of decision-making and
output refers to the outcomes of the team activities. Group task moderates the relationship
between group process and group effectiveness. Group level inputs and organizational level
inputs directly affect group effectiveness. Both levels of inputs indirectly affect the group
process. Gladstein’s model defines team effectiveness based on the performance of the team and
the satisfaction of the team members.

11
 INPUTS PROCESS OUTPUTS

GROUP LEVEL

GOUP COMPOSOTION GROUP TASK

• Adequate Skills
• Heterogeneity • Task Complexity
• Organizational Tenure • Environmental Uncertainty
• Job Tenure • Interdependence

GROUP STRUCTURE

• Role & Goal Clarity *

• Specific Work Norms
• Task Control GROUP PROCESS GROUP EFFECTIVENESS
• Size
• Formal Leadership
• Open Communication • Performance
ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL • Supportiveness • Satisfaction
• Conflict
RESOURCES AVAILABLE • Discussion of Strategy
• Weighting Individual Inputs
• Training & Technical Consultation • Boundary Management
• Markets Served

ORGANIZATIOANAL

STRUCTURE

• Rewards for Group Performance

• Supervisory Control * indicates a moderated relationship.

Figure 1.1. General Model of Group Behavior: Constructs and Measured Variables. From
“Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness,” by D. Gladstein, 1984, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 29, p. 502.

Hackman’s model. Hackman (1987) created a practical framework for team studies
(Figure 2). Hackman’s model (1987), like Gladstein’s model (1984) uses an “input-process-
output” framework for analyzing group behavior and performance. Hackman’s model consists
of six major variables: organizational context, group design, group synergy, process, group task,
and group effectiveness. In Hackman’s model, organizational context, refers to the reward

12
 MATERIAL
RESOURCES

Sufficiency of material
ORGANIZATIONAL resources required to
CONTEXT accomplish the task well
and on time
A context that supports
and reinforces competent
task work, via:
• Reward system PROCESS CRITERIA GROUP
• Education system OF EFFECTIVENESS EFFECTIVENESS
• Information system
• Level of effort • Task output
brought to bear on the acceptable to those
group task who receive or review
• Amount of knowledge it
GROUP DESIGN and skill applied to • Capability of
task work members to work
• Appropriateness of the together in future in
task performance maintained or
A design that prompts and strategies used by the strengthened
facilitates competent work group • Members’ needs are
on the task, via: more satisfied than
• Structure of the task frustrated by the group
• Composition of the experience
group
• Group norms about
GROUP SYNERGY
performance processes

Assistance to the group by

interacting in ways that:
• Reduce process losses
• Create synergistic
process gains

Figure 1.2. An Overview of the Normative Model of Group Effectiveness. From “The Design
of Work Teams,” by R. Hackman, 1987, In Jay W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational
Behavior, 331. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

system, the education system, and the information system, all of which support the work of the
team. Organizational context, along with group design and group synergy, influences how well
team members are able to apply their skill and knowledge to the team task. The model defines
group synergy as interactions between members, which increases group progress and decreases
progress losses (Hackman, 1987). These variables, along with group tasks, determine group
effectiveness. In Hackman’s model, the significance and variety of the group tasks are
important. In addition, the appropriate skills of the team members are important to the design of
the work team (Hackman, 1987). In his model, task output (the ability of team members to work
together and the satisfaction of those team members) contributes to team effectiveness.

13
 Campion, Medsker, and Higgs’ model. Campion et al. (1993) developed a model
(Figure 3) of team characteristics and team effectiveness. Their model is based on the studies of
Gladstein (1984); Hackman (1987); and Guzzo and Shea (1992).
Guzzo and Shea (1992) reviewed previous studies regarding task performance of teams in
organizations, according to several schools of thought: socio-technical theory; interaction
process; group development; group composition and goals; contextual influences on
performance; and inter-group relations. Guzzo and Shea (1992) reviewed previous studies,
which focused on conceptual and theoretical paradigms. Guzzo and Shea (1992) developed a
theoretical prediction for the correlations between group variables and group performance.
Campion, Medsker, and Higgs (1993) developed five common themes, all of which relate
to team effectiveness. The five themes in their model were: job design, interdependence,
composition, context, and process. Each team theme is associated with a unique set of team
characteristics. The authors also identified team effectiveness criteria. These criteria are team
productivity, employee satisfaction, and manager judgments of effectiveness (Campion et al.,
1993).
Campion et al. (1996) replicated and expanded on their previous study Campion et al.
(1993). Their 1996 study eliminated two team characteristics (task identity and preference for
group work), based on their 1993 study results. The two variables were not highly-related to
team effectiveness (Campion et al., 1993) and were not relevant to their second study (Campion
et al., 1996).
They measured team effectiveness based on manager judgment of team effectiveness,
employee satisfaction, and productivity (performance appraisals). Chapter Three includes a
detailed discussion of this model.

14
 Themes/Characteristics

Job Design
• Self-management
• Participation
• Task variety
• Task significance
• Task identity

Interdependence
• Task interdependence
• Goal interdependence
• Interdependent feedback and
rewards
Effectiveness Criteria

Composition Productivity
• Heterogeneity
• Flexibility Satisfaction
• Relative size
• Preference for team work Manager judgments

Context
• Training
• Managerial support
• Communication/Cooperation
between teams

Process
• Potency
• Social support
• Workload sharing
• Communication/Cooperation
within the team

Figure 1.3. Themes and Characteristics Related to Workgroup Effectiveness.

From “Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and
extension,” by Campion, Papper, & Medsker, 1996, Personnel Psychology, 49, p. 431.

In each of the models, team characteristics notably overlap each other. However, the
authors differ in emphases and definitions of team characteristics and effectiveness. The
following table compares similarities and differences among the three models. This table
summary explains how the models from Gladstein (1984) and Hackman (1987) related to the

15
 Table 1.1. Similarities and Differences Among the Three Models

Models Gladstein (1984) Hackman (1987) Campion, Papper, &

(A General Model of (A Normative Model of Group Medsker (1996)
Group Behavior: Effectiveness) (Themes and Characteristics
Constructs and Measured Related to Work Team
Variables Variables) Effectiveness)

Group Design ◦ Task ◦ Task ◦ Task variety & significance

◦ Interdependence ◦ Composition ◦ Task & goal independence
◦ Size ◦ Group norm ◦ Interdependent feedback &
◦ Heterogeneity rewards

◦ Skill ◦ Size
◦ Role & goal clarity ◦ Heterogeneity
◦ Work norm ◦ Self management
◦ Organizational & job ◦ Participation
tenure ◦ Flexibility
◦ Leadership
Organizational ◦ Training ◦ Education system ◦ Training
Context ◦ Supervisory control ◦ Material resources ◦ Managerial support
◦ Rewards ◦ Information system ◦ Communication /
◦ Markets served ◦ Reward system Cooperation between teams

Process ◦ Open communication ◦ Group synergy ◦ Communication /

◦ Supportiveness ◦ Level of effort Cooperation within the team

◦ Discussion of strategy ◦ Task performance strategies ◦ Social support

◦ Weighing individual ◦ Knowledge and skills ◦ Potency
inputs ◦ Workload sharing
◦ Conflict
◦ Boundary management
Effectiveness ◦ Performance ◦ Task output acceptable ◦ Employee judgment of
◦ Satisfaction ◦ Capability of members work effectiveness
together in the future ◦ Manager judgment of
◦ Group satisfaction effectiveness

◦ Employee satisfaction
◦ Performance appraisal

16
Campion et al.’s model (1993, 1996). As the table indicates, Campion et al.’s 1996 model
strongly relates to the other two models (Gladstein, 1984 and Hackman, 1987). The three
models share the same variable categories: group design, organizational context, process, and
effectiveness. Within the group design criteria, tasks are common variables that appear in each
of the three models. Within the effectiveness criteria, satisfaction also appeared in each model.

Team Characteristics
Previous research results have found that team characteristics are important. In the
Campion et al. (1996) model, team themes are characterized as: process, job design, context,
interdependence, and composition. The model represents each team theme with a set of unique
characteristics. The number of characteristics per theme ranges from three to five. Campion et
al.’s study forms the basis for this section.
Campion, Medsker, and Higgs, (1993) explored the relationships between team
characteristics and team effectiveness. They measured team effectiveness by assessing three
criteria: team productivity, employee satisfaction, and manager judgments of effectiveness. The
study sample consisted of clerical teams from a large financial services company. Both team
members and managers were surveyed. The results of the study showed that process and job
design had a greater impact on team effectiveness than other team themes.
Process. Guzzo and Shea (1992) defined process as “. . . how group members behave
and react to each other regarding such things as exchanging information, expressing feelings,
forming coalitions, or supporting or rejecting a group leader” (Guzzo & Shea, 1992, p. 302).
Gladstein (1984) considered team process as a group maintenance behavior. Several studies had
focused on communication and cooperation within the teams (Campion, Papper, &
Medsker,1996; Choi & Gaskill, 2000; Dickson & Littrell, 1998; Loker, 2002; Presley, 1999;
Regan et al., 1998).
In the clothing and textiles literature, Choi and Gaskill (2000) have investigated the
relationship between the characteristics of communication/cooperation and employee
performance. They reported that retail APD developers tend to cooperate and interact with
employees from various levels of the organization. Traditional retail buyers have more contact
with sales personnel, customers, and students than do product developers. The research results

17
imply that, compared to traditional retail buyers, APD developers are more reliant on
relationships with team members and other employees within the organization.
To enhance APD performance, Regan et al. (1998) state that interdepartmental
communication is important within apparel companies. According to Regan et al., (1998), APD
design associates present their ideas through visual communication at merchandising committee
meetings. Next, merchandisers and product engineers review the proposed apparel product line
to consider manufacturing issues. Both verbal and visual communication are essential to the
approval of the proposed APD product line. This communication takes place among retail
buyers, salesmen, and management (Regan et al., 1998).
Discovering a link between the communication and motivation of employees, Dickson
and Littrell (1998) investigated seven small businesses in Guatemala and focused on the
similarities between apparel businesses in Guatemala and apparel businesses in the United
States. They also focused on the financial and product development strategies of the seven
Guatemalan small businesses. To increase productivity, Guatemalan workers established a
system in which group members work together, share work evenly, and assist those who fall
behind (Dickson & Littrell, 1998). Presley (1999) noted that central workplaces and regular
meetings fostered optimal decision-making and communication among team members. Open
communication leads to business pride, group standards, product quality, and business success.
Loker (2002) substantiated Dickson and Littrell’s findings, that the communication between
employees facilitates performance of discretionary tasks.
Wolken and Good (1995) had studied team process based on aspects of social support.
They conducted research with retail employees on the relationship between social support and
stress levels. Social support encourages employee communication and participation. Wolken
and Good investigated social support from both organizational sources (supervisors and co-
workers) and from extra-organizational sources (family and friends). Wolken and Good (1995)
concluded that the social support system is beneficial in reducing the retail employees’ stress
levels.
Campion, Papper, and Medsker (1996) investigated the relationship between team
characteristics and team effectiveness within a financial services organization. The researchers

18
surveyed 357 employees and 93 managers. The researchers also obtained data from archival
records of 60 teams within the company. In overall team effectiveness, the strongest predictor
was the process (i.e., potency, social support, workload sharing, and communication/cooperation
within the work team). As a result of Campion et al.’s (1996) study, the process team theme was
most closely related to team effectiveness, followed, in order, by job design, context, and
interdependence.
Based on previous studies, the following research hypothesis describes the expected
relationship between process and team effectiveness: There is a positive relationship between
process and team effectiveness.
Job design. The job design theme should enhance workers’ motivation in performing
tasks. The literature on job design covers the team theme characteristics: self-management,
participation, and task.
Self-management refers to the degree of self-control that an individual exercises over
his/her own tasks within the team. Previous literature relates self-management to employees’
performance and effectiveness. Cohen and Ledford (1994) assessed the effectiveness of self-
managing teams in a telecommunications company. For several years, the company had
implemented teams in an attempt to improve quality, customer service, and productivity. The
teams performed various functions, including customer service, technical support, and
administrative support. The researchers systematically compared the performance of 12 pairs of
self-managing teams with that of comparable, traditionally-managed teams. The criteria of team
effectiveness consisted of quality, productivity, and safety. Their results suggested that the
performance of self-managing teams was more effective than that of traditionally-managed
teams performing the same type of work. Results also indicated that self-managing team
members reported a higher degree of satisfaction than their counterparts.
Researchers examined autonomy to evaluate the concept of self-management (Choi &
Gaskill, 2000; Elmuti, 1996; Loker, 2002; Presley, 1999). Elmuti (1996) investigated the
relationship between the degree of autonomy and the degree of organizational effectiveness
within a self-managed team. He conducted a study with 126 respondents, including presidents,
vice presidents, general managers, and project managers in the areas of manufacturing,

19
wholesale, retail, and professional services. The research results supported the author’s
hypothesis that the self-managed team approach improves team effectiveness.
In the apparel industry, the findings of several studies indicate that employees prefer to
work autonomously, which results in higher job satisfaction. In Presley’s (1999) article, the
author defined autonomy as “workers who can schedule their work, and choose the piece of
equipment they use, along with the requisite procedures or dimension” (p. 97). The author asked
the respondents to answer the following questions regarding job autonomy: To what extent are
you able to do your job independently of others?” “What opportunity do you have for
independent thought and action?” “To what extent are you able to act independently of your
supervisor in performing your job function?” (p. 101). Presley concluded that the workers
preferred to work autonomously. This paralleled Loker’s (2002) findings, which showed that
employees are more motivated to do extra work when they have job autonomy.
A review of the literature, discussing the relationship between employee job autonomy
and employee job satisfaction, leads to Choi and Gaskill’s (2000) study. Autonomy was one of
the variables in their analysis of the mental process, behavior, and job satisfaction of retail
product developers and traditional retail buyers. The results of the study indicated that
traditional retail buyers perceived a higher degree of autonomy and reported a higher degree of
job satisfaction. Apparel product developers perceived a lower degree of autonomy.
The apparel industry research literature discussed employee task participation and how it
related to employee performance. Loker (2002) interviewed apparel manufacturing team
workers including managers, sales staff, marketing staff, and production employees. Loker’s
(2002) case study concluded that a higher degree of motivation on the part of employees is
related to an increase in their participation and discretionary effort.
Task variety, one of the characteristics of the job design theme, provides each team
member with the opportunity to perform a number of different tasks. When team members share
both interesting and mundane tasks, this enhances the motivation of the individual team members
(Campion et al., 1993).
Presley (1999) used a survey to investigate the relationship between task variety and
employee satisfaction in the apparel industry. The task variety survey items are: “The

20
opportunity to do a number of different things; How much variety is there in your job? How
similar are the tasks you perform in a typical work day?” In Presley’s study, workers reported
the lowest scores of satisfaction on task variety because workers considered their job repetitious.
In the results of the Campion et al. (1993) study, job design theme (i.e., self-management,
participation, task variety, task significance, and task identity) were related to all three team
effectiveness criteria. In the job design theme, the researchers determined that self-management
and participation were the strongest predictors of team effectiveness. This study result is
consistent with other studies discussed above. Based on previous study results, the following
research hypothesis describes the expected relationship between job design and team
effectiveness: There is a positive relationship between job design and team effectiveness.
Context. Context refers to the resources and contextual influences that make teams more
effective. Training, managerial support, and communication/cooperation between teams are
characteristics of context. Training includes technical skills and quality customer services. The
previous studies mainly investigated training aspects among context characteristics. According
to the study by Presley (1999), productivity increases when group members receive training and
are more familiar with their work and environment.
When retail companies introduce in-house product development, their employees, who
have expanded their roles from traditional retail buyers to product developers, require additional
training (Choi & Gaskill, 2000). Choi and Gaskill (2001) concluded that product developers
need a higher level of job-related skills and knowledge to effectively perform their tasks than
traditional retail buyers do.
In Dickson and Littrell’s (1998) study of Guatemalan workers, employee training (i.e.,
developing skills related to sewing, pricing, and administration) was important to group
members. A central workplace for employees enhanced their communication and increased
business success and product quality. Guatemalan businesses showed a strong commitment to
training, as did other textile and apparel businesses located in Latin America. Employee training
was necessary to assist the business in meeting the needs of diverse consumers and enlarging
workers’ business experience.

21
 In Campion et al.’s (1993) study, context team themes had the lowest impact on team
effectiveness. However, Campion, Medsker, and Higgs’ 1996 study indicated that context
characteristics (i.e., training, managerial support, and communication/cooperation between
groups) positively related to employee job satisfaction and manager judgment of team
effectiveness. In Campion et al. (1996), managerial support showed more significant
relationships than training.
Therefore, the following research hypothesis describes the expected relationship between
context and team effectiveness: There is a positive relationship between context and team
effectiveness.
Interdependence. Interdependence refers to the level of team-member interaction
required by a work task in order for the team members to complete the task. Interdependence
may increase workers’ motivation toward performing their tasks (Kiggundu, 1983; Shea &
Guzzo, 1987). The examples of the interdependence team theme are: task interdependence, goal
interdependence, and interdependent feedback and rewards.
According to Shea and Guzzo (1987), interdependence links individual workers to a
common mission or purpose to maximize team effectiveness. Researchers have investigated (at
the individual level) the effects of feedback and rewards on employee performance. However, it
is uncertain how well the findings generalize to the group level (Shea & Guzzo, 1987). Among
empirical studies regarding interdependence, Wageman (1993) determined that a higher degree
of task interdependence increases the degree of quality interaction and cooperation among team
members.
In Campion, Medsker, and Higgs’ (1993) study, interdependence characteristics exhibited
a positive relationship with team effectiveness. Feedback and rewards team characteristics
indicated the strongest positive relationship with team effectiveness within the interdependence
theme.
Therefore, the following research hypothesis describes the expected relationship between
interdependence and team effectiveness: There is a significant positive relationship between
interdependence and team effectiveness.

22
 Composition. A review of the literature related to composition includes heterogeneity
and group size. Heterogeneity refers to team members’ diversity of skill, experience and
knowledge. Heterogeneity may increase team effectiveness when team members can learn from
each other (Campion et al., 1993). Heterogeneity of abilities and experiences has a positive
affect on group performance when the group tasks are diverse (Shaw, 1981). On the other hand,
homogeneity also may lead to better group outcomes in terms of employee satisfaction, conflict,
communication, and turnover (Jackson, Brett, Sessa, Cooper, Julin, & Peyronnin, 1991).
The size of the team may impact the degree of interaction among members (Shaw, 1981).
When the goal is to complete diverse tasks, a larger group may be more beneficial. However,
large groups may reduce individual team member’s involvement. The results of the research
regarding group size have not been conclusive.
Campion, Papper, and Medsker (1996) replicated and expanded their previous study
(Campion et al., 1993). In the 1996 study, they discovered that, among the other team themes
(i.e., job design, interdependence, context, and process), the composition characteristic showed
the lowest relationship with the effectiveness criteria. Based on the weak relationship that they
found in both of their studies, my study does not postulate the relationship between composition
(heterogeneity and group size) and team effectiveness (Campion et al., 1996).

Team Effectiveness

Responding to the increasing practice of utilizing work teams in companies, researchers

explored team effectiveness in relationship with various team characteristic variables in team
studies (Baily, 1997; Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Campion, Papper, & Medsker, 1996;
Cordery, Muller, & Smith, 1991; Janz, Colquitt, & Noe, 1997).
Hackman (1987) defines team effectiveness as teams’ output production that meets or
exceeds the performance standard. He asserts that effective teams should maintain or enhance
the capability of the team members to work together.

23
Subjective and Objective Measurements
In assessing team effectiveness, previous researchers have created several types of
measurements. The field/laboratory research environments and their specific research
limitations required the implementation of a variety of team effectiveness measurements.
Multiple measures, including subjective and objective, have assessed team effectiveness.
Subjective measurements consist of the assessment of team members’ and leaders’
feelings or perceptions (Baily, 1997; Hyatt & Ruddy, 1997). Objective measurements assess
team performance by the use of financial, production, or human resource data. A review of the
previous literature indicated that researchers have used subjective measurements more frequently
than objective measurements.
Baily (1997) primarily used subjective measurements to assess team effectiveness. The
author measured the team effectiveness perceptions of 188 operators and 150 employees (e.g.,
managers, engineers, technicians, supervisors, etc.) in semiconductor manufacturers (i.e.,
Hewlett-Packard, National Semiconductor, and Texas Instruments). The operators participated
in a written survey, while the remaining employees participated in interviews concerning the
team program effectiveness of three different teams (i.e., continuous improvement teams, quality
circles, and self-directed work teams). Baily (1997) measured the team effectiveness of the three
team programs by assessing the perceptions of the participants regarding various aspects of
management and work group support. The study also measured participants’ job satisfaction
related to their income and their relationship with their supervisors. The researcher asked
operators to assess the effect of the team program on their knowledge, skill, and overall
performance.
The analysis of the perceptions of the participants indicated that two team programs,
quality circles and self-directed work-teams, were more effective than the other team program,
continuous improvement. The respondents rated the first two team programs as being more
effective than the latter in terms of high function and performance outcomes. The respondents
perceived that the continuous improvement team is the least effective.
In their investigation of the relationship between job characteristics and group
effectiveness, Hyatt and Ruddy (1997) used both subjective and objective measures. Using

24
subjective measurements, they investigated group effectiveness in communication, norms, roles,
work group support, trust, commitment to a common goal, and work group confidence. Through
the use of objective measurements, the researchers assessed group effectiveness by studying the
performance of the group over a six-month period. To evaluate the performance of the group,
the researchers surveyed the following criteria: response time, percentage of broken calls, and
on-going maintenance hours. Based on their study, authors concluded that group support,
process orientation, goal and customer orientation, and confidence enable team members to
become effective and deliver desired performance results.

Internal and External Measurement

Researchers have measured team effectiveness not only by subjective and objective
measurement, but also by internal and external measures. Internal measures focus primarily on
how the team members view the team’s performance (Baily, 1997, Bottom & Baloff, 1994;
Hyatt & Ruddy, 1997). External measures rely on the analysis of team performance by
individuals including customers, organizational leaders, and managers. They provide assessment
from a different perspective than that of team members.
Using internal measurements, Cordery, Mueller, and Smith (1991) surveyed employees
about their level of job satisfaction and decision-making responsibility. Hyatt and Ruddy (1997)
included not only internal measurements but also external measurements in their assessment of
team effectiveness. The researchers employed an external measurement to assess group
effectiveness by rating managers’ responses. The researchers also included consumer
satisfaction as an external measurement of team effectiveness. The researchers randomly
selected customers who had previously received services from each work group.
In summary, according to the literature review, multiple measures provide the best
assessment of team effectiveness. The maximum possible combination of the subjective,
objective, internal, and external measurements provide the most balanced and complete view of
the overall effectiveness of the team. This current study assesses team effectiveness using
subjective, internal, and external measures, specifically, judgment, employee satisfaction, and
manager judgment.

25
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction in the apparel industry. Job satisfaction is an important outcome
related to employees’ well-being and stress levels (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001).
This current study defines job satisfaction as “a positive (or negative) evaluative judgment one
makes about one’s job or job situation” (Brief & Weiss, 2002, p. 283).
Researchers have investigated the relationship between job satisfaction and job
characteristics in the apparel industry (Choi & Gaskill, 2000; Presley, 1999). Presley (1999)
studied Mexican workers to investigate the relationship between job satisfaction and job
characteristics (i.e., variety, autonomy, task identity, and feedback). The Mexican employees
were part of a Maquiladora, which aimed at taking advantage of lower-priced Mexican labor to
lure U. S. companies to Mexico. The Maquiladora employed a modular manufacturing system
that contained a manageable work unit and an empowered work team. According to Presley’s
research findings, Mexican workers were more satisfied with the core dimensions of their jobs
(i.e., variety, autonomy, task identity, and feedback) than with the interpersonal dimensions (i.e.,
dealing with others).
Presley (1999) used the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire to assess employees’ job
satisfaction related to their work and work environment. This measurement has a reliability
coefficient of between .8 and .9. The questionnaire measures three aspects of job satisfaction:
intrinsic, extrinsic, and general satisfaction. Intrinsic satisfaction measures the degree of
employee job satisfaction in the areas of activity, interdependence, variety, social status, moral
values, security, social service, authority, ability utilization, responsibility, creativity, and
achievement. Extrinsic satisfaction measures the degree of employee job satisfaction in the areas
of human relations, technical supervision, company policies and practices, compensation,
advancement, recognition, working conditions, and coworkers. General satisfaction includes
both intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction (Presley, 1999). The Mexican workers were also more
satisfied with the intrinsic rather than the extrinsic aspects of their job (Presley, 1999).
In a study that explored job satisfaction and job characteristics, Choi and Gaskill (2000)
compared the significant differences between the perceptions of traditional retail buyers and
those of retail product developers. The comparison examined the following variables: skill

26
variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, job feedback, feedback from others, and
dealing with others.
Choi and Gaskil (2000) measured employees’ overall job satisfaction, using Hoppock’s
Job Satisfaction Measure (1935), which is a four-item instrument with a seven-point scale. This
measurement has a reliability coefficient of .93. McNichols, Stahl, and Manley (1978)
concluded that Hoppock’s measurement (1935) has significant usefulness in contemporary
organizations.
A total of 147 subjects participated in the Choi and Gaskill (2000) study. In their study,
70 product developers and 77 traditional retail buyers participated. Retail employees who have
expanded their role into product development require a higher level of skills, education, and
cooperation in performing their functions, compared to the requirements of employees in
traditional retail buying (Choi & Gaskill, 2000).
Choi and Gaskill concluded that product developers experienced lower levels of job
satisfaction than did traditional retail buyers. The researchers implied that autonomy and task
identity were the major factors affecting the job satisfaction of the two groups.
Job satisfaction in general industry. This section focuses on the relationship between
team member job satisfaction and team themes (e.g., team design, self-managing teams,
autonomy, process, etc.) in general industry (Baily, 1997; Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993;
Campion, Papper, & Medsker, 1996; Cordery, Muller, & Smith, 1991; Janz, Colquitt, & Noe,
1997; Van der Vegt, Emans, & Van de Vliert, 2001).
Baily (1997) investigated the impact of team designs on team effectiveness. The author
defined team effectiveness according to the following criteria: job satisfaction, management
support, technical support, work group support, shift competition, knowledge and skills, and
overall organizational performance. The study focused on the team program design (discussed in
the following paragraph) and its effect on overall team effectiveness, which includes both
intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction. Intrinsic job satisfaction included non-monetary aspects,
(i.e., relationships with supervisors.) The extrinsic measurement included pay-related aspects.
Baily (1997) studied three types of team programs in the semiconductor industry. These
programs were continuous improvement teams (CIT), quality circle (QC), and self-directed work

27
teams (SDWT). Baily (1997) concluded that QC and SDWT were superior to CIT in terms of
team effectiveness. Participants from CIT reflected a lower degree of job satisfaction than
participants from QC and SDWT. Baily’s study confirms the fact that team program design
influences employee job satisfaction.
Cordery, Muller, and Smith (1991) conducted a study to determine the relationship
between self-managing teams and job satisfaction as one of the criteria of team effectiveness.
The remaining team effectiveness criteria were organizational commitment and trust in
management.
For their study, Cordery et al. (1991) conducted surveys with two groups of participants.
The first group was comprised of 242 employees and the second group of 172 employees. The
authors concluded that employees in autonomous work groups reported a more favorable work
attitude than did employees in traditionally-designed jobs. Overall, both intrinsic and extrinsic
satisfaction was higher among employees in autonomous work groups than in traditionally-
designed jobs.
Janz, Colquitt, and Noe’s (1997) work provides another example of a team satisfaction
study. They investigated how team design, autonomous work groups, process, and contextual
support relate to team effectiveness. They measured team satisfaction, team performance, and
team commitment to determine team effectiveness.
Janz et al. (1997) selected the study subjects from 231 participants from six industry
categories within Fortune 500 organizations (i.e., financial, manufacturing, petroleum processing,
insurance, public utilities, and food services). The researchers asked team participants to assess
their degree of satisfaction with a team. The results suggested that interactions among the
variables of team design, process, and contextual support have important implications for team
effectiveness, including team satisfaction.
Van der Vegt, Emans, and Van de Vliert (2001) conducted research using Hackman and
Oldham’s (1980) and Gladstein’s (1984) job satisfaction measurement. They studied team
members from 24 engineering teams, to investigate the relationship between interdependence
and job satisfaction/team satisfaction. Van der Vegt, Emans, and Van de Vliert (2001)
concluded that team members who exercised relatively high levels of task interdependence

28
appeared to be more satisfied with their jobs and teams than team members who exercised
relatively low levels of task interdependence.
In creating The Job Characteristics Model (JCM)1, Hackman and Oldham (1980)
developed an overall satisfaction measurement. Using Hackman and Oldham’s (1980) and
Gladstein’s (1984) satisfaction measurements, this current study assesses team members’
satisfaction toward their teams. These two measurements are provided in Appendix C.
In summary, this section discussed studies that have investigated the relationship between
job satisfaction and job characteristics in the apparel industry (Choi & Gaskill, 2000; Presley,
1999). Most of the studies discussed in this chapter investigated the relationship between team
characteristics (team designs, self-managing teams, autonomous work groups, process, and
contextual support) and job satisfaction (as one of the team effectiveness criteria) (Baily, 1997;
Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Cordery, Muller, & Smith, 1991; Janz, Colquitt, & Noe,
1997; Van der Vegt et al., 2001). However, previous apparel studies had yet to investigate the
relationship between APD team characteristics and team effectiveness. This current study fills
this gap in the previous apparel research literature.

Summary of Literature Review

This chapter defined APD and teams. It also described the APD process and the role of
team members in APD. This chapter reviewed the literature on team characteristics and team
effectiveness and discussed team effectiveness measurements. This chapter presented and
compared three models of the relationship between team characteristics and team effectiveness.
Campion’s (1996) model provides the conceptual framework for this current study.

1
JCM includes five job characteristics: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback.
Hackman and Oldham (1980) recommended the use of JCM, which assists researchers and practitioners in
evaluating the effects of work-restructuring interventions for individual workers. More recently, researchers have
applied JCM, not only to the individual level, but also to the group and team level (Hackman, 1987; Gladstein, 1984;
Campion et al., 1993, 1996).

29
 The apparel industry recognizes the possible benefits of team efforts (Gaskill, 1992;
Glock & Kunz, 2000; Jang, 2001; LaBat & Sokolowski, 1999; Regan, Kincade, & Sheldon,
1998). Moreover, previous studies of teams confirmed that teams facilitate effective decision-
making. The current trend also shows increased use of teams in industry (Elmuti, 1996).
Apparel companies need to evaluate their product development teams to promote APD team
effectiveness. However, according to the review of literature regarding the apparel industry,
empirical research has not yet fully explored the concept of the APD team or the relationship
between APD team characteristics and APD team effectiveness. This study uses Campion et
al.’s (1996) model. The Framework for the Study section in Chapter Three provides the
rationale for using Campion et al.’s (1996) model.

30
 CHAPTER III
METHODODOLOGY

This study investigates the relationship between team characteristics and team
effectiveness. The majority of the prior research on Apparel Product Development (APD) has
been concerned with the APD process and has not evaluated the use of teams in APD. Most
published studies of APD have been descriptive or qualitative in nature. This study develops a
conceptual framework and provides quantitative analyses of the use of the team approach in
APD.
The first section of this chapter presents the framework for the study. The second
section, survey procedures, summarizes the procedures implemented to obtain information on the
use of the team approach in APD. Sampling procedures are described in the third section. The
fourth section includes an explanation of the survey measurements and discusses the
questionnaire and the reliability of the measurements. The fifth section contains the statistical
hypotheses that are used to test the theoretical relationships between team characteristics and
team effectiveness. The sixth section describes the analysis of data.

Conceptual Framework for the Study

This study adopts the conceptual model developed by Campion, Papper, and Medsker
(1996) (Figure 3.1). In constructing their model, they examined team studies and team models,
which key researchers previously developed (i.e., Gladstein, 1984; Guzzo & Shea, 1992;
Hackman, 1987). These models share many similarities, as explained in Chapter Two.
Characteristics of teams in each study overlap considerably.

31
 Campion et al. (1996) also reviewed diverse research areas, including social psychology,
organizational psychology, socio-technical theory, and industrial engineering. Campion et al.
synthesized these diverse models. Their model characterizes the relationships between team
theme characteristics and team effectiveness. The Campion et al. (1996) model provides the
framework for this current study.
Campion et al. (1996) concluded that further empirical research is necessary to test their
model in various settings where teamwork takes place. Team behavior is context-bound and

Themes/Characteristics

Job Design
• Self-management
• Participation
• Task variety
• Task significance
• Task identity

Interdependence
• Task interdependence
• Goal interdependence
• Interdependent feedback and
rewards
Effectiveness Criteria

Composition Productivity
• Heterogeneity
• Flexibility
• Relative size Satisfaction
• Preference for team work
Manager Judgments

Context
• Training
• Managerial support
• Communication/Cooperation
between teams

Process
• Potency
• Social support
• Workload sharing
• Communication/Cooperation
within the team

Figure 3.1. Themes and Characteristics Related to Workgroup Effectiveness. From “Relations
between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension,” by Campion,
Papper, & Medsker, 1996, Personnel Psychology, 49, p. 431.

32
situational factors influence team behavior. As they suggested, this framework needs conceptual
refinement through further empirical studies. Due to this, the current study uses Campion et al.’s
model to investigate APD team characteristics and effectiveness. Applied to the current study,
this framework helps to identify characteristics that may enhance the effectiveness of APD
teams. It also helps to explore the relationship between team characteristics and effectiveness.
Campion et al.’s model (1996) consists of five themes: job design, interdependence,
composition, context, and process. These themes are comprised of 19 team characteristics. The
discussion of the five themes and 19 team characteristics in Campion et al.’s (1996) model is as
follows.
In Campion et al.’s (1996) team effectiveness model, the first team theme is job design.
The theories of motivational job design by Hackman and Oldham (1980) provide the conceptual
basis for job design. According to Campion et al. (1996), job design includes five team
characteristics: self-management, participation, task variety, task significance, and task identity.
Interdependence is “the amount of interaction for team members required to complete
their work tasks” (Shea & Guzzo, 1987, p. 323). Interdependence may increase employees’
motivation or efficiency (Shea & Guzzo, 1987). In this model, interdependence includes three
team characteristics: task interdependence, goal interdependence, and interdependent feedback
and rewards.
The composition theme includes heterogeneity, flexibility, size, and group work
preference. Training, managerial support, and communication/cooperation between groups are
characteristics of the context theme, which considers the necessary resources and contextual
influences to make the team effective. The last of these team themes is process. Potency (team
spirit/confidence), social support, workload sharing, and communication/cooperation within the
work groups are the characteristics of process.
Based on Campion et al.’s framework (1996), this current study examines 14 of the 19
characteristics subsumed under four of the five themes (Figure 3.1). The model in Figure 3.2
lists the team themes in the order of significance suggested by Campion et al. study (1996).
These four themes and the 14 characteristics in Figure 3.2 are listed in this order: process

33
(potency, social support, workload sharing, and communication/cooperation within the team);
job design (self management, participation, task variety, task significance); context (training,
managerial support, communication/cooperation between teams); and interdependence (task
interdependence, goal interdependence, interdependent feedback and rewards).
There are three reasons why this study extracted four from the original five themes and
14 from the original 19 characteristics:
1) The current study does not include the composition team theme, since Campion et
al.’s (1996) most recent work concluded that composition had little effect on team
effectiveness.
2) The previous study (Campion et al., 1996) found that two characteristics (task identity
and preference for team work) were not highly-related to team effectiveness. These
same characteristics have little application to the current study of APD, since they are
most often applied in the context of production rather than product development.
3) The selected 14 characteristics strongly indicated significant relationships with team
effectiveness in previous studies (Campion et al., 1996).
In Campion et al.’s (1996) study the authors used four criteria to measure team effectiveness:
employee judgment (evaluated by subjective and internal measurements), employee satisfaction
(evaluated by subjective and internal measurements), manager judgment (evaluated by subjective
and external measurements), and teams’ performance (evaluated by objective and external
measurements). Chapter Two described these terms in detail.
This current study assesses team effectiveness by utilizing three criteria, which are
evaluated by subjective and external measurements: team member job satisfaction (TMJS), team
member judgment of effectiveness (TMJE), and manager judgment of effectiveness (MJE). This
current study collected data from APD teams from various companies. Since each company may
utilize its own objective measurement of team effectiveness, there is no standard across
companies that permits the current study to assess team effectiveness. Therefore, assessing the
current APD team’s effectiveness by objective measurements is beyond the scope of this study.

34
 Team Themes

Process
Potency
Social support
Workload sharing
Communication/Cooperation
within the team

Job Design Team Effectiveness

Self-management
Participation ƒ Team member job
Task variety
satisfaction (TMJS)
Task significance
ƒ Team members
judgment of
Context effectiveness (TMJE)
Training
ƒ Manager judgment of
Managerial support
effectiveness (MJE)
Communication/Cooperation
between teams

Interdependence
Task interdependence
Goal interdependence
Independent feedback and
rewards

Figure 3.2. Themes and Theme Characteristics for Their Relationship to Team Effectiveness of
Apparel Product Development Team. Adapted from “Relations between work team
characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension,” by Campion, Papper, &
Medsker, 1996, Personnel Psychology, 49, p. 431.

35
 Survey Procedures

Purposive Sampling
A purposive sampling technique was used to select the participating companies. Six
hundred and ninety three apparel companies, which earned over $50 million in annual sales,
were selected from the National Register of Apparel Manufacturers, Women & Children’s Wear
(2004). The contact individuals’ names, titles, and addresses were identified. These companies
had a large number of employees, and it was assumed that they would have more than one APD
team. The survey process for the current study started October 2003 and ended January 2004.

Initial Letter
After obtaining the Florida State University Human Subject Committee’s approval on
October 1, 2003 (Appendix F), an initial contact letter was sent to 693 U. S. apparel companies.
The contact persons included CEOs, APD managers, and executives who made final decision
about their company’s participation in this study. The initial contact letter sent to the contact
persons requested information regarding: 1) whether or not their companies had APD teams, 2)
the company’s number of APD teams, and 3) the number of members in each team (Appendix
A). The initial letter included a self-addressed, stamped return envelope. To increase the
response rate, a follow-up letter was sent to those companies who did not respond by the
requested deadline. A total of 91 companies responded to the initial request for information on
the use of APD teams. Eleven companies were eliminated because of incorrect contact
addresses.
Seventy-three of the 91 responding companies indicated that they have one or more APD
teams. Eighteen companies indicated that they do not have APD teams and were eliminated
from the sample for the second mailing. Therefore, the final response rate for the initial letter
was 13.3 % (91 responses out of 682 letters).

Survey
Based on responses to the initial letter, a survey packet was sent to the contact person at
the 73 companies that indicated they had one or more APD teams. Each survey packet included

36
one manager survey and one set of team member surveys. Within each company, each APD
team received one survey packet. If the company had multiple APD teams, the company
received multiple survey packets, equal to the number of APD teams. A total of 418 manager
surveys and a total of 1,163 team member surveys were sent out. Chapter Four provides detailed
information regarding the number of teams for each company and the range of team members for
each team.
The researcher requested that the contact persons distribute the survey packets to each
team manager in his/her company. Managers were defined as the persons who manage teams,
provide supervisory inputs, and evaluate the teams’ annual performance. Team managers
completed a manager survey.
Each team manager or contact person distributed the team member surveys to each of
his/her APD team members (designers, marketing/sales personnel, and merchandisers). Team
members completed a team member survey. Both managers and team members sent the
completed surveys directly to the researcher. An example of each survey is included in
Appendix D and Appendix E. Follow-up postcards were mailed to companies that did not
respond by the requested deadline.
A total of 29 managers and 131 individual team members representing 22 companies
responded. These managers and individual members represented 34 teams. The return surveys
totaled 160 (29 team managers and 131 team members). Within the 22 responding companies,
504 surveys were sent (447 team member surveys and 57 team manager surveys). Therefore, the
response rate from within these 22 companies was 31.7% and the response rate for all 73
companies was 10.1 %.

Survey Identification
During this procedure, the confidentiality of each respondent was protected. The
identification procedure used sequential code numbers to track (identify) team members, teams,
and companies. The survey identification procedure allowed for the evaluation of the survey
return rate. Also, these code numbers provided a way to match team members and their
managers.

37
 Individual team members completed a survey to determine how they perceived their APD
team characteristics and team effectiveness. Completion of the team member survey required
approximately 15 minutes. The managers’ survey required less than five minutes for
completion. After the respondents received a questionnaire, they had approximately three weeks
to complete and return it. To maintain confidentiality, each participant returned his/her survey
directly to the researcher. In responding to the survey, the individual team members evaluated
their team characteristics, their job satisfaction, and team effectiveness. Each APD team
manager completed a survey regarding only his/her judgment of APD team effectiveness. The
questionnaire method allowed the collection of information from participants in a shorter time
frame and at a low cost and it also ensured respondents’ anonymity (Neuman, 2000).

Survey Instruments

Team Characteristic Measures

This study used the self-administered questionnaire items, which Campion et al. (1993)
developed for their study. Permission to use Campion et al.’s survey questionnaire (1993) was
requested and consent was received (personal telephone communication, May 28, 2003). Each
of these questionnaire items used a five-response-choice Likert scale: 5 = strongly agree, 4 =
agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 2 = disagree, and 1 = disagree strongly. The
questionnaire (Appendix C) covered the team characteristics used in this study. Campion et al.’s
study (1993), the reliability of these characteristics measurements were sound, with the reliability
coefficient ranging from .66 to .88.
A minor problem with the Campion et al. (1993) questionnaire was identified during the
course of this study. The questionnaire uses a Likert scale, with (1) as “Strongly Disagree (SD)”
and (5) as “Strongly Agree (SA).” The questions are stated so that SA is aligned with a positive

38
Table 3.1. Team Characteristics and Question Numbers in the Questionnaire
Team Characteristics Question Numbers
Process Potency 17, 38, 54
Social support 28, 52, 56
Workload sharing 8, 42, 57
Communication/cooperation with the teams 26, 40, 46
Job design Self-management 12, 24, 33
Participation 36, 49, 43
Task Variety 27, 35, 47
Task significance 19, 41, 51
Context Training 37, 50, 55
Managerial support 23, 53
Communication/cooperation between teams 20, 34, 48
Interdependence Task interdependence 18, 39, 45
Goal interdependence 1, 11, 31
Interdependent feedback/rewards 22, 32, 44

response and SD is aligned with a negative response to every question. To increase reliability,
some question items were modified so that the direction of the relationship between the modified
question and the responses was reversed. Ten out of 59 questions (in team member survey) and
three out of 11 questions (in manager survey) were randomly selected and modified. Those
modified item numbers are from the team member survey question numbers 5, 10, 16, 20, 28, 35,
40, 45, 51, and 55; and from the manager survey question numbers 4, 6, and 11.
The direction of the Likert scale was not changed [i.e., (1) = SD and (5) = SA] but the
modified questions were stated as the opposite of the original question. For example, an original
question stated, “I frequently talk to other people in the company besides the people on my
team.” The modified question stated, “I rarely talk to other people in the company besides the
people on my team.”

Team Effectiveness Measures

Team effectiveness was measured by team member and manager judgment of
effectiveness. Campion et al. used 11 items in determining manager judgment of effectiveness
and nine items in determining team member judgment of effectiveness. Because two additional
items were used only in the manager questionnaire, the extent of agreement between the

39
judgments of team members and managers cannot be evaluated. The current study used the same
11 items (Appendix C) for both manager and team member judgment of effectiveness. The
internal consistency reliability coefficient was .89 for the 11-items. Managers did not evaluate
team characteristics or job satisfaction.

Job Satisfaction Measures

To assess team member job satisfaction, the current study used survey instruments used
in studies by Van der Vegt, Emans, & Van de Vliert (2001) and Gladstein (1984). The
instrument used by Van der Vegt et al. was adapted from Hackman and Oldham (1980), and
from Gladstein (1984). Since Campion et al. (1996) developed their study (model) based on
Gladstein’s study, it is appropriate in this current study to also use Gladstein’s team satisfaction
measurement. Gladstein (1984) did not specify the context of one of the question items in his
research survey, which reads, “I am satisfied with my present colleagues.” To clarify the
original item, the current study added the phrase, “on my team,” at the end of the original
sentence. Therefore, for the purpose of the current study, six items measured job satisfaction.
Three of the six items were taken from the studies by Van der Vegt, Emans, & Van de Vliert
(2001). The other three items were taken from Gladstein (1984).

Demographics
The survey in the current study asked both team managers and team members to provide
demographic information; including gender, age, and years of apparel industry experience. After
the development of the questionnaire, three individuals tested the team member survey and the
manager survey. This testing process allowed the current study to maintain validity of the
instruments and to calculate the approximate time necessary for a person to complete a survey.
The three individuals had previous job experience as team members and managers. Two of the
three individuals had job experience in government work and the other individual had job
experience in the apparel industry.

40
 Hypotheses

Based on existing theories and empirical research, operational hypotheses were

developed. Each pair of null and alternative hypotheses was tested using standard statistical
methods. If the research results permitted the rejection of the null hypotheses, the data were
seem as supportive of the alternative research hypotheses. The following hypotheses were
developed to test the relationship between the team theme and team effectiveness:

TMJS and Four Team Themes

H10 (P – TMJS): The Process Theme is not related to TMJS.
H1a (P – TMJS): The Process Theme is positively related to TMJS.

H20 (J – TMJS): The Job Design Theme is not related to TMJS.

H2a (J – TMJS): The Job Design Theme is positively related to TMJS.
H30 (C – TMJS): The Context Theme is not related to TMJS.
H3a (C – TMJS): The Context Theme is positively related to TMJS.

H40 (I – TMJS): The Interdependent Theme is not related to TMJS.

H4a (I – TMJS): The Interdependent Theme is positively related to TMJS.

TMJE and Four Team Theme

H50 (P – TMJE): The Process Theme is not related to TMJE.

H5a (P – TMJE): The Process Theme is positively related to TMJE.

H60 (J – TMJE): The Job Design Theme is not related to TMJE.

H6a (J – TMJE): The Job Design Theme is positively related to TMJE.

H70 (C – TMJE): The Context Theme is not related to TMJE.

H7a (C – TMJE): The Context Theme is positively related to TMJE.

H80 (I – TMJE): The Interdependent Theme is not related to TMJE.

H8a (I – TMJE): The Interdependent Theme is positively related to TMJE.

MJE and Four Team Theme

H90 (P – MJE): The Process Theme is not related to MJE.

H9a (P – MJE): The Process Theme is positively related to MJE.

41
H100 (J – MJE): The Job Design Theme is not related to MJE.
H10a (J – MJE): The Job Design Theme is positively related to MJE.

H110 (C – MJE): The Context Theme is not related to MJE.

H11a (C – MJE): The Context Theme is positively related to MJE.

H120 (I – MJE): The Interdependent Theme is not related to MJE.

H12a (I – MJE): The Interdependent Theme is positively related to MJE.

Analyses of Data

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyze the data. Based
on the hypotheses, this study utilized factor analysis to test the conceptual data. After the factor
analysis, this study used multiple regression analysis with factor scores as independent variables
to test hypotheses. Multiple regression analysis examined the relationships between the
independent variables (team themes) and dependent variables (team effectiveness). This study
used a one-tailed test with a significance level of .05. This study used correlation analysis for
two reasons: 1) to identify the detailed relationship between each team characteristic and each
team effectiveness criteria and 2) to compare these relationships with the results of previous
studies.

Interdependency Among Variables.

The following procedure resolved the issue of the interdependency of team responses of
members who belong to the same team (i.e., the team membership/effect, which influences the
responses of the individual team members). In regression analysis, team membership among
observations from the teams can be handled by adding team membership variables as a dummy-
variable coding in the regression analysis.
In this study, a manager gave the same evaluation score to his/her multiple team
members. (See Survey Questionnaire to Managers in Appendix E.) Since the manager score for
the team member is a dependent variable, this same-evaluation-score result does not present a
problem for the regression analysis. (The team member score is an independent variable and the
manager judgment of effectiveness score is a dependent variable.) Since investigating the effect

42
on the company was not the focus of this study, multiple teams from the same company were
included.

43
 CHAPTER IV
RESULTS

This chapter presents the results of the analyses in five sections: demographic
characteristics of participants, the reliability test, objective one, objective two, and influence of
team membership. The section describing tests of objective one proposes the conceptual model
that describes the relationship between APD team characteristics and three team effectiveness
variables. The section on the tests of objective two describes the results of the hypotheses, which
explored the relationship between the team characteristics and team effectiveness. This chapter
also includes the results of the examination of the influence of team membership.

Demographic Characteristics of Companies, Teams, and Participants

Characteristics of Companies and Teams

Five hundred and four surveys were sent (447 team member surveys and 57 team
manager surveys) to 57 teams within 22 companies. The return surveys totaled 160 (29 team
managers and 131 team members). Thus, the return rate among the participating companies was
31.7 % and a total of 34 teams participated.
The majority (59.1%) of the 22 participating companies produced approximately $50
million in annual sales. The remaining companies produced more than $75 million in annual
sales (Table 4.1). Table 4.2 presents the number of APD teams responding existing within each
of the 22 companies. Over half of the companies had only one APD team, while 27.2 % of the
companies had two or three APD teams. The remaining companies had more than three teams.
Among the 22 participating companies, the majority of companies (81.8 %) had teams
that averaged four to eight team members. The average number of team members was six.

44
Table 4.1. Dollar Volume (in Millions) of Companies’ Annual Sales
Dollar Volume Frequency Percent
50 13 59.1
75 2 9.1
100 – 1000 4 18.0
1001 – 41000 3 13.5
Total 22 100.0

Table 4.2. The Number of APD Teams within Companies

Number of Teams Frequency Percent
1 13 59.1
2 3 13.6
3 3 13.6
5 1 4.5
7 2 9.1
Total 22 100

Table 4.3. The Number of Companies in each State

State Number of Companies Percent
CA 6 27.3
GA 2 8.3
TX 2 8.3
CO 1 4.5
FL 1 4.5
IL 1 4.5
MA 1 4.5
MN 1 4.5
MS 1 4.5
NC 1 4.5
NY 1 4.5
PA 1 4.5
WA 1 4.5
WI 1 4.5
WV 1 4.5
Total 22 100

As Table 4.3 indicates, the participating companies represented 15 states throughout the U.S.
Twenty-seven percent of the companies were California-based. As Table 4.3 indicates, the
participating companies represented 15 states throughout the U.S.

45
Demographic Characteristics of Individual Team Members
This study measured six demographic characteristics of individual team members and
managers: gender, age, educational level, job title, years of APD experience, and number of
years employed by their current employer (Table 4.4).
A high percentage of team member respondents were females (77.9 %). Males accounted
for only 21.4 % of the respondents. The most frequent age range was between 26 and 35 years
of age (38.9 %), followed by 36 and 45 years (32.8 %). More than half of the team members
(58.5 %) had undergraduate degrees or an associate degree (19.5%).
In terms of job title, 29% of the team members were designers. The “other” job title
describes those team members who fulfill more than one job function, and comprised the next
highest percentage (28.2 %). Production (19.1%), merchandising (12.2%), and sales/marketing
personnel (8.4%), respectively, represented the remaining job titles in descending order (Table
4.4).

Demographic Characteristics of Team Managers

The second column in Table 4.4 provides demographic information on the team
managers. Sixty-five percent of team managers were female. The largest portion of respondents
(44.8 %) were between 36 and 45 years of age, with those respondents between 26 and 35 years
of age comprising the next largest group. In this study, there were no team managers under the
age of 25 or over age 55. Forty-eight percent of the team managers had an undergraduate
degree. Twenty-seven percent had a master’s degree. Regarding the job titles of the team
managers, 24.1% were merchandisers, while 20.7 % were designers. A large portion of the team
managers (37.9 %) had worked in APD for more than 25 years. However, half had worked for
their current company for three years or less. Twenty five team managers (84 %) served as both
a team member and team manager for their teams.

46
Table 4.4. Demographic Characteristics of Participants (Individual Team Members N = 131,
Managers N=29)
Characteristic Individual Team Members Managers
n % n %
Gender
Male 28 21.4 10 34.5
Female 102 77.9 19 65.5
No response 1 8.0 0 0

Age
25 or less 10 7.6 0 0
26-35 51 38.9 8 27.6
36-45 43 32.8 13 44.8
46-55 17 13.0 8 27.6
Over 55 8 6.1 0 0
No response 2 1.5 0 0

Educational level
High School 15 10.2 1 3.4
Associate degree (2 yrs) 25 19.5 5 17.2
Undergraduate (4 yrs) 77 58.5 14 48.3
Master’s degree 7 5.9 8 27.6
Other 5 4.2 1 3.4
No response 2 1.5

Job title
Merchandiser 16 12.2 7 24.1
Designer 38 29.0 6 20.7
Sales/Marketing 11 8.4 3 17.2
Production 25 19.1 3 10.3
Other 40 28.2 7 27.4
No response 1 .8
Years of experience in APD
3 yrs or less 20 15.3 2 6.9
4-7 yrs 35 26.7 4 46.8
8-11 yrs 29 22.1 7 24.1
12-25 yrs 12 9.2 4 13.8
More than 25 yrs 33 25.2 11 37.9
No response 2 1.5 1 3.4

Years employed by their current

company
3 yrs or less 53 40.5 14 48.3
4-7 yrs 36 27.5 8 27.6
8-11 yrs 11 8.4 2 6.9
12-25 yrs 7 5.3 2 6.9
More than 25 yrs 23 17.6 3 10.31
No response 1 .8

47
 Reliability Test for Measurements

Prior to testing the hypotheses in this current study, a reliability test was conducted on the
survey instruments. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was used. According to Nunnally (1978), a
satisfactory level of reliability depends upon how the measure is used. Kerlinger and Lee (2000)
concur with Nunnally and suggest that, in some cases, a reliability value of .50 or .60 is
acceptable. The current study used Campion et al.’s (1993) measurements, which have
reliability coefficients ranging from .66 to .88.
To determine a total value for each characteristic, the responses to either two or three
questionnaire items were summed. For example, the value of the self-management characteristic
was measured by summing the responses to three questions (questionnaire item numbers 12, 24,
and 33) (Appendix C).
The results of the reliability test conducted on the survey instruments are presented in
Table 4. 11. Three of the fourteen team characteristics indicated an alpha value of less than .50.
These three characteristics were: task significance (r = .40), task variety (r = .08), and
communication between teams (r = .28).
After the reliability test, this study eliminated the three characteristics that received an
alpha value lower than .50. The coefficient alpha value for the current study’s instruments
(measuring eleven characteristics and team effectiveness) ranged from .50 to .79.

Objective One

The first objective of this study was to analyze the model of Campion et al. (1996) and to
propose a conceptual model that would describe the relationships between APD team
characteristics and APD team effectiveness.

Factor Analysis
In general, researchers use factor analysis to reduce the number of the variables in the
data set. Factor analysis estimates factors that explain the variation and covariation among the
characteristic measures. This study used factor analysis to explore the relationships among the

48
11 team characteristics. The factor analysis used varimax rotation, producing uncorrelated
factors. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 4.5. Based on factor loadings, the 11
team characteristics generated two factors. The characteristics that had large loadings were
grouped together (greater than .50 in absolute value). Each factor extracts the most variance
between team characteristics and their factor.
The first factor included eight team characteristics: potency, social support, workload
sharing, communication/cooperation within teams, self-management, participation, training, and
manager support. These characteristics belonged to the process, job design, and context themes
in Campion et al.’s model (1996). The first factor was labeled “team interaction” for the purpose
of this study. The second factor incorporated three characteristics: task interdependence, goal
interdependence, and independent feedback/rewards, all of which belong to Campion et al.’s
interdependence theme (Table 4.5). Therefore, it remained labeled as “interdependence.”

Table 4.5. Factor Loadings for the Team Characteristics

Item Factor loading
Team interaction Interdependence
Potency .73 .31
Social support .64 .31
Workload sharing .71 .21
Communication within the team .71 .42
Self-management .63 -.02
Participation .74 .05
Training .60 .11
Managerial support .55 .40
Task interdependence .14 .71
Goal interdependence .06 .82
Independent feedback .26 .76
Eigenvalues 4.60 1.32
% of variance 2 33.00 21.20
Note. Boldface indicates higher factor loadings.

2
A factor explains a certain % of variance in the characteristics. For example, in Table 4.5, “% of variance = 33.0”

indicates that a factor explains 33.0 % of the total variance (11) of 11team characteristics in the team interaction theme.

49
 Team Themes

Team Interaction
• Potency
• Social Support
Team Effectiveness
• Workload Sharing
• Communication/Cooperation ƒ Team member job
within the Team
satisfaction (TMJS)
• Self-management
• Participation
ƒ Team members
• Training judgment of
• Managerial Support effectiveness (TMJE)

ƒ Manager judgment of
effectiveness (MJE)

Interdependence
• Task Interdependence
• Goal Interdependence
• Independent Feedback and
Rewards

Figure 4.1. A Model Examining the Relationship between Team Themes and Team
Effectiveness in Apparel Product Development Team.

50
 Both Campion et al.’s original 1993 study and their 1996 research confirmed the
empirical validity of the team characteristics used to measure each of the themes. Also,
Gladstein (1984), Hackman (1987), and Guzzo and Shea’s (1992) models support the conceptual
themes in Campion et al.’s model.
These two factors are represented by factor scores. Factor scores are weighted averages
based on the factor loadings (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000). A factor score for each individual
response is computed by summing up the standard values, then multiplying by factor score
coefficients. These factor scores were used as independent variables in regression analysis. The
model (Figure 4.1), based on the factor analysis results, depicts the relationship between the team
characteristics and team effectiveness. This model was further refined through the regression
analysis of objective two.

Objective Two

The second objective of this study was to examine the relationships between team
effectiveness and team characteristics by testing the hypotheses. In order to test the hypotheses,
regression analyses were applied. Each of the two themes was represented by a set of team
characteristics. The three measures of team effectiveness are team member job satisfaction
(TMJS), team member judgment of effectiveness (TMJE), and manager judgment of
effectiveness (MJE).

Hypotheses Test
In Chapter Three, hypotheses were proposed for the relationships between the four team
themes (process, job design, context, and interdependence) and three team effectiveness
variables. However, the factor analysis indicated that there are two main factors instead of four.
Therefore, six pairs of null and alternative hypotheses were tested: three measures of
effectiveness multiplied by two team themes (team interaction and interdependence). The
revised hypotheses are as follows:

51
TMJS and Two Themes
H10 (TI – TMJS): Team Interaction is not related to Team Member Job Satisfaction.
H1a (TI – TMJS): Team Interaction is positively related to Team Member Job Satisfaction.

H20 (I – TMJS): Interdependence is not related to Team Member Job Satisfaction.

H2a (I – TMJS): Interdependence is positively related to Team Member Job Satisfaction.

TMJE and Two Themes

H30 (TI – TMJE): Team Interaction is not related to Team Member Judgment of Effectiveness.
H3a (TI – TMJE): Team Interaction is positively related to Team Member Judgment of
Effectiveness.

H40 (I – TMJE): Interdependence is not related to Team Member Judgment of Effectiveness.

H4a (I – TMJE): Interdependence is positively related to Team Member Judgment of
Effectiveness.

MJE and Two Themes

H50 (TI – MJE): Team Interaction is not related to Manager Judgment of Effectiveness.
H5a (TI – MJE): Team Interaction is positively related to Manager Judgment of Effectiveness.

H60 (I – MJE): Interdependence is not related to Manager Judgment of Effectiveness.

H6a (I – MJE): Interdependence is positively related to Manager Judgment of Effectiveness.

Regression Analysis on Two Themes: Team Interaction and Interdependence

Based on the results of the factor analysis, regression analysis was applied to examine the
relationship between the two themes (team interaction and interdependence) and team
effectiveness (TMJS, TMJE, and MJE). Each measure of effectiveness was separately analyzed
according to team interaction and interdependence.
In regression analysis, a set of independent variables explains a proportion of the variance
in a dependent variable and indicates the relative predictive importance of the independent
variables. In this study, each regression analysis examined the relationships between the three
measures of team effectiveness and these two themes. This study used a one-tailed test with a
significance level of .05.
Team member job satisfaction. This current study examined team interaction and
interdependence in order to determine their impact on TMJS. Team interaction consisted of the

52
characteristics from process, job design, and context themes identified by Campion et al. (1996).
The interdependence theme remained unchanged. Based on the regression analysis results
(Table 4.6), the equation for the prediction of TMJS is as follows:
TMJS = 21.93 + 1.85 (team interaction) + .68 (interdependence)

Table 4.6. Regression Analysis of the Influence of Two Themes on Team Member Job
Satisfaction
Themes b t p
Team Interaction 1.85 11.70 .00
Interdependence .68 4.33 .00
(constant) 21.93 139.69
R2 .74 F2, 128 = 77.90, p ≤ .05
Adjuste R2 .55

The overall effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable is expressed by
the squared correlation coefficient (R2). R2 indicates the degree to which the predicted scores are
correlated with the observed scores. It is interpreted in terms of percentage of variation,
explained in the dependent variable by the independent variables. In Table 4.6, R2 = .74. Thus,
74 % of the variance in job satisfaction is predicted by the two themes.
R2 may be overestimated when the data sets have few cases relative to the number of
independent variables. The adjusted R2 was produced by an adjustment to the effect of the
number of predictors of R2. In Table 4.6, according to the adjusted R2 (.55), this model explains
55 % of the variation in the dependent variable, TMJS.
The F test is used to examine whether there is a significant linear relationship between
the entire set of independent variables and the dependent variable. F (2, 128) = 77.9, p < .05
indicates that there is a significant linear relationship between the two themes and TMJS. The F
statistic was computed with degrees of freedom 2 (k) and 128 (n-k-1), where k represents the
number of the independent variables and n represents sample size.
H10 (TI – TMJS): Team Interaction is not related to Team Member Job Satisfaction
(TMJS).
H1a (TI – TMJS): Team Interaction is positively related to Team Member Job Satisfaction
(TMJS).

53
 In Table 4.6, the estimated regression coefficient (b = 1.85) associated with team
interaction is significantly greater than zero, t = 11.70, p < .01. The individual regression
coefficient (b) is a measure of the linear relationship between a chosen independent variable and
the dependent variable. The regression coefficient is the average amount that the dependent
variable increases when an independent variable increases one unit and the other independent
variable is held constant. A coefficient (b = 1.85) for team interaction indicates the individual
contribution of team interaction to the model.
The t-test individually examines the predictors. If the t-test associated with a b value is
significant, then that predictor is making a significant contribution to the model. The smaller the
p value (and the larger the value of t) the greater the contribution of that predictor. The p-value
is compared with the significance level. If it is small (less than 0.05 in this study) then the result
is considered to be statistically significant.
As the data in Table 4.6 indicates, the team interaction theme is related to TMJS (p ≤ .05).
Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis. The fact that the
b value is positive indicates that team interaction theme has a positive effect on team
members’ job satisfaction.

H20 (I – TMJS): Interdependence is not related to Team Member Job Satisfaction (TMJS).
H2a (I – TMJS): Interdependence is positively related to Team Member Job Satisfaction
(TMJS).

The interdependence theme is also significantly related to TMJS (p ≤ .05). The null
hypothesis is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis. Since the b value is positive, this
study indicates that team interdependence has a positive effect on team members’ job
satisfaction.
Team member judgment of effectiveness. This current study examined team
interaction and interdependence in order to determine their impact on team member judgment of
effectiveness (TMJE). The regression analysis equation for the prediction of team member
judgment of effectiveness (TMJE) is as follows:
TMJE = 41.92 + 2.15 (team interaction) + .89 (interdependence)

54
Table 4.7. Regression Analysis of the Influence of Two Themes on Team Member Judgment of
Effectiveness
Themes b t p
Team Interaction 2.15 6.87 .00
Interdependence .89 2.86 .00
(constant) 41.92 134.77
R2 .55 F2, 128 = 27.70, p ≤ .05
Adjusted R2 .29

In Table 4.7, adjusted R2 = .29. Thus, 29 % of the variance in team member judgment of
effectiveness (TMJE) is predicted by the two themes. F (2, 128) = 27.70, p ≤ .05 indicates that
there is a significant linear relationship between the two themes and team member judgment of
effectiveness (TMJE).

H30 (TI – TMJE): Team Interaction is not related to Team Member Judgment of
Effectiveness (TMJE).
H3a (TI – TMJE): Team Interaction is positively related to Team Member Judgment of
Effectiveness (TMJE).

In Table 4.7, the estimated regression coefficient (b = 2.15) associated with team
interaction is significantly greater than zero, t = 6.87, p < .01. The regression analysis indicates
that team interaction is related to team member judgment of effectiveness (TMJE) (p ≤ .05).
Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. Since the b value is positive, the alternative hypothesis
is accepted. There results imply that interaction has a positive influence on the degree of team
member judgment of effectiveness (TMJE).

H40 (I – TMJE): Interdependence is not related to Team Member Judgment of

Effectiveness (TMJE).
H4a (I – TMJE): Interdependence is positively related to Team Member Judgment of
Effectiveness (TMJE).

The regression analysis indicates that interdependence is related to Team Member

Judgment of Effectiveness (TMJE) (p ≤ .05). Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. Since
the b value is positive, the alternative hypothesis is accepted. There is a positive relationship
between interdependence and team member judgment of effectiveness (TMJE). These results

55
imply that interdependence has a positive influence on the degree of team member judgment
of effectiveness (TMJE).
Manager judgment of effectiveness. The themes of team interaction and
interdependence were examined to determine their impact on manager judgment of effectiveness
(MJE). The regression analysis equation for the prediction of MJE is as follows:
MJE = 3.87 + .08 (team interaction) + .03 (interdependence)

Table 4.8. Regression Analysis of the Influence of Two Themes on Manager Judgment of
Effectiveness
Themes b t p
Team Interaction .08 1.95 .05
Interdependence .03 .65 .52
(constant) 3.87 92.03
R2 .19 F2, 107 = 2.10, p > .05
Adjusted R2 .02

The p values for the themes of team interaction and interdependence were .054 and .518,
respectively. The p value for team interaction was slightly greater than .05, which this study
used as a significance level. The degree of the influence of team interaction (p=.054) was higher
than the influence of interdependence (p = .518). However, based on the regression analysis
results (p > .05, p = .13), these two themes are not related to management judgment of
effectiveness. Therefore, this study could not reject the two null hypotheses, H50 and H60.

H50 (TI – MJE): Team Interaction is not related to Manager Judgment of Effectiveness
(MJE).
H60 (I – MJE): Interdependence is not related to Manager Judgment of Effectiveness
(MJE).

Interdependency Among Team Members (Membership)

Since each individual team member belongs to a team, responses from team members
within the same team may be interdependent. To examine statistical interdependency among
team members, this study used regression analysis by adding team membership variables: This

56
study used dummy-variable coding for team membership. The regression analysis included 34
dummy-coded variables and two themes (36 independent variables). The changes of the p-value
for the two themes represented team membership influence on each of the two dependent
variables (TMJS and TMJE).

Team Member Job Satisfaction (TMJS)

Table 4.9 displays the results of the regression analysis between the 36 independent
variables and TMJS. The results indicate that the significance level of team interaction (p ≤ .05)
and interdependence (p ≤ .05) is the same as the significance level of the regression analysis
using only two independent variables (team interaction and interdependence) and TMJS (Table
4.6). The overall significance also remains the same (p ≤ .05). Although the adjusted R2
increased by 6 %, these regression analysis results indicate that team membership’s influence on
the relationship between the two team themes and TMJS is not significant.

Table 4.9. Regression Analysis of the Influence of Two Themes on Team Member Job
Satisfaction with Team Membership
Themes b t p
Team Interaction 1.89 10.25 .00
Interdependence .63 3.25 .00
(constant) 20.44 35.62
R2 .85 F35, 95 = 27.70, p ≤ .05
Adjusted R2 .61

Team Member Judgment of Effectiveness (TMJE)

Table 4.10 displays the results of the regression analysis between the total of 36
independent variables and the TMJE (dependent variable). The results of this regression analysis
(including the extra 34 dummy variables) demonstrated that the overall significance (p ≤ .05)
remained the same as the results of the regression analysis with only two independent variables.
In the regression analysis with the total of the 36 independent variables, the p values for the
independent variables were: team interaction (p ≤ .05) and interdependence (p ≤ .05). The
adjusted R2 increased by 20 %. However, the overall regression analysis results support the fact
that team membership does not influence the relationship between the two themes and TMJE.

57
Table 4.10. Regression Analysis of the Influence of Two Themes on Team Member Judgment
of Effectiveness with Team Membership
Themes b t p
Team Interaction 1.92 5.76 .00
Interdependence .96 2.73 .00
(constant) 41.26 39.62
R2 .79 F35, 95 = 4.62, p ≤ .05
Adjusted R2 .49

Correlation Analysis

The following table (Table 4.11) describes the correlations among team characteristics
and team effectiveness. The table also includes reliability, means, and standard deviations.
Potency (team spirit/confidence), workload sharing, communication, and social support within
teams were highly correlated (in descending order) with team member job satisfaction (TMJS)
and team member judgment of effectiveness (TMJE). The correlations between potency and
team member job satisfaction (TMJS) and team member judgment of effectiveness (TMJE) were
.71 and .68, respectively. Workload sharing, social support, potency, and communication within
teams were highly correlated (in descending order) with manager judgment of effectiveness
(MJE). However, training, managerial support, task interdependence, goal interdependence and
feedback were not significantly related with MJE.

58
 Table 4.11. Variable Reliabilities, Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
r M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1.
Potency .69 3.78 0.59 1.00

2.
Social Support .50 3.74 0.54 0.48 1.00

3.
Workload Sharing .71 3.55 0.79 0.58 0.44 1.00

4.
Communication w/t Team .67 3.97 0.58 0.64 0.61 0.52 1.00

5.
Self-Management .50 3.28 0.67 0.40 0.22 0.34 0.31 1.00

6.
Participation .73 3.57 0.70 0.46 0.39 0.43 0.53 0.43 1.00

7.
Training .65 3.24 0.70 0.38 0.41 0.30 0.36 0.33 0.32 1.00

8.
Managerial Support .59 3.87 0.69 .040 0.45 0.46 0.51 0.24 0.35 0.34 1.00

9.
Task Interdependence .55 3.83 0.58 0.26 0.40 0.19 0.45 0.11 0.26 0.05 0.25 1.00

10.
Goal Interdependence .61 3.40 0.74 0.28 0.20 0.25 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.24 0.32 0.40 1.00

11.
Feedback .53 3.19 0.72 0.45 0.27 0.32 0.45 0.24 0.24 0.29 0.39 0.37 0.58 1.00

12.
TMJS .56 3.65 0.45 0.71 0.58 0.64 0.66 0.35 0.45 0.35 0.48 0.23 0.27 0.35 1.00

13.
TMJE .71 3.83 0.37 0.68 0.35 0.53 0.50 0.31 0.29 0.20 0.33 0.16 0.24 0.30 0.58 1.00

14.
MJE .79 3.93 0.38 0.25 0.26 0.37 0.22 0.31 0.21 0.02 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.13 0.32 0.28 1.00

Note. r= Cronbach’s alpha, M = Means, SD = Standard Deviations (n = 131, n = 110 for MJE). Correlations greater than .16 in absolute value are significant at p < .05.

59
 CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION

This chapter has five sections. The first two sections provide a discussion of the
findings regarding the conceptual model and APD team effectiveness, respectively. The
third section discusses the limitations of the current study. Section four discusses the
implications of this study for APD managers. The fifth section provides
recommendations for future research.

Conceptual Model

The first objective of this study was to propose a conceptual model (Figure 5. 1)
that describes the relationships between APD team characteristics and APD team
effectiveness. This study examined three team effectiveness criteria: team member job
satisfaction (TMJS), team member judgment of effectiveness (TMJE), and manager
judgment of effectiveness (MJE). TMJS was an outcome related to the team members’
well-being and the stress level related to their jobs and job situations. Team members
evaluated TMJS and TMJE. Each team manager evaluated the productivity and
performance of his/her teams.
This study identified two themes: team interaction and interdependence. The
first theme in this study, team interaction, incorporated three themes (process, job design,
and context) identified by Campion, Medsker, and Higgs (1993) and Campion, Papper,
and Medsker (1996). The second theme in the current study, interdependence, remained
unchanged from Campion et al.’s model. Therefore, in this study, the team interaction
theme includes eight characteristics: potency (team spirit/confidence), workload sharing,
communication/cooperation within the team, social support, managerial support, training,
self-management, and participation. The interdependent theme in this study includes

60
three characteristics: independent feedback/rewards, goal interdependence, and task
independence (Figure 5.1).
The current study included a total of 11 APD team characteristics associated with
the two themes. In Campion et al.’s investigation of financial teams, 12 of 19 identified
characteristics were associated with three themes (process, job design, and context). By
comparison, in this study, team characteristics associated with Campion et al.’s three
themes were associated with a single theme.
Among the eight team interaction characteristics, potency (team spirit), workload
sharing, communication/cooperation within the team, and social support originally
belonged to the Campion et al.’s process theme. In that study, managerial support and
training were part of the job design theme, while self-management and participation were
part of the context theme. The interdependent theme in this study was unchanged from
their model.
Based on the results, this study proposes the following conceptual model to
describe the relationship between APD team characteristics and team effectiveness. The
following comparison between the study of Campion et al. (1996) and the current study
helps explain the difference between the conceptual models used in the two studies.
These distinctions are related to the types of teams and the number of team
characteristics.
Campion et al. (1996) investigated several types of teams. On the other hand, the
current study investigated only one type of team. Although Campion et al. (1996)
collected their data from only one company, the participants were from several types of
teams; the career fields of the team members included system analysis, insurance, and
administration. The teams in the current study performed the same type of task, product
development. Thus, team characteristics tended to have less diversity; there were no
strong distinctions among characteristics. In other words, characteristics were similar to
each other and generated a fewer number of themes (compared to the Campion study). In
the current study, the team characteristics were related to two themes, rather than the four
included in Campion et al.’s study.

61
 Team Themes

Team Interaction

• Potency Team Effectiveness

• Social support
• Workload sharing
• Communication/Cooperation
ƒ Team member job
within the team p = .00 satisfaction (TMJS)
• Self-management
• Participation p = .00
ƒ Team members
• Managerial support p = .05
• Training
judgment of
effectiveness (TMJE)
p = .01

p = .00 ƒ Manager judgment of

p = .00 effectiveness (MJE)
Interdependence

• Independent feedback/ rewards p = .52

• Goal interdependence
• Task interdependence

Significance level p < .05

Significance level p ≥ .05

Figure 5.1. Team Characteristics Related to Team Effectiveness of Apparel

Product Development Team.

Campion et al. (1996) examined a total of 14 characteristics (within four themes,

which the current study investigated). The current study investigated 11, which did not
result in significant variance among characteristics. The fact that Campion et al.’s study
utilized more characteristics resulted in a corresponding higher number of themes.

62
 APD Team Effectiveness

Objective two examined the relationships between team characteristics and team
effectiveness. The following section discusses this study’s findings and includes a
discussion of the hypotheses, correlation analysis, and team membership. To fulfill
objective two, the current study conducted three separate regression analyses on two
themes (team interaction and interdependence) and on three team effectiveness criteria
(TMJE, TMJS, and MJE).

Team Interaction Theme

The team interaction theme incorporated eight characteristics: potency (team
spirit), workload sharing, communication/cooperation within the team, social support,
managerial support, training, self-management, and participation, which were discussed
in the earlier chapters. Based on hypotheses test results related to the team interaction
theme, the alternative hypotheses, H1a and H3a, were supported. Thus, the results
indicated that the team interaction theme was positively related to and predicted TMJE
and TMJS in apparel product development teams. The results of the current study
suggest that the team interaction theme is important for the effectiveness of APD teams
and for APD team members’ satisfaction. In other words, this study verified that the
characteristics that belong to the team interaction theme were important aspects of team
effectiveness.
According to the regression analysis on MJE, the team interaction theme did not
predict MJE. In the regression analysis on MJE, the p value was greater than .05 (p =
.054); therefore, H50 was accepted. The lack of influence of the team interaction theme
on MJE may be due to the small number of responses from APD team managers. This
study used only 105 of the total 131 responses from team members, since the team
managers of 16 team members did not respond to the team managers’ evaluation
questionnaire.
The other explanation may be due to a lack of correlation between manager
judgment of effectiveness (MJE) and specific team characteristics (such as training and
managerial support). To further investigate the relationship between team characteristics

63
and MJE, the current study applied factor analysis to only the team characteristics that
have significant correlations with MJE. These team characteristics were potency, social
support, workload sharing, communication within teams, self-management, and
participation (which were grouped together within a broken-line border in Figure 5.1).
Then, regression analysis examined the relationship between the factor (the outcome of
the factor analysis) and MJE. These results presented in Figure 5.1 and Appendix G.
The following sections present a summary of findings on the correlation among
variables. Examining the results of the correlation allows detailed discussions of the
relationship between each team characteristic and team effectiveness. Correlation
analysis also allows this study to compare its findings with previous study results.
The following two sections discuss team interaction characteristics. The first
section describes the first set of four characteristics, which showed a higher correlation.
The second section describes the second set of four characteristics, which showed a lower
correlation.
Team interaction characteristics I. This first section discusses the four
characteristics (potency, workload sharing, communication/cooperation within the team,
and social support) that showed higher correlations with TMJS and TMJE.
Based on this study, potency (team spirit/confidence) displayed the highest degree
of correlation with team members’ job satisfaction and team members’ judgment of
effectiveness. However, very few previous team studies investigated this characteristic.
In this current study, potency (team spirit/confidence) was assessed by the following
team member survey items: Members of my team have great confidence that the team
can perform effectively, my team can take on nearly any task and complete it, and my
team has a lot of team spirit.
At the individual (team member) level, potency may be compatible with “self-
efficacy,” which is defined as one’s judgments of “how well one can execute courses of
action required to deal with a prospective situation” (Bandurs, 1982). Team research
may apply the studies of self-efficacy in an individual level to a team level. However,
this possible compatibility needs further empirical investigation. The question also
remains: Does a high level of team effectiveness cause a high level of team potency? Or,

64
does a high level of team potency cause a high level of team effectiveness? Further
studies may investigate the causation between these two variables.
In the current study, communication/cooperation within the team, workload
sharing, and social support, in descending order, displayed the next highest degree of
correlation with team members’ job satisfaction (TMJS) and team members’ judgment of
effectiveness (TMJE). The results of this current study were consistent with the previous
research. In terms of communication, Presley (1999) noted that central workplaces and
regular meetings fostered optimal decision-making and communication among team
members. Presley concluded that open communication leads to business pride, group
standards, product quality, and business success. Loker (2002) also concluded that
communication between employees facilitates the performance of discretionary tasks
(i.e., creative and imaginative problem solving).
Clear communication within APD teams is essential in the apparel product
development process. However, APD team members are from different departments
(design, merchandising, and marketing/sales). Therefore, apparel companies and APD
team managers need to reinforce intentional and frequent communication among team
members who are from different departments. Within apparel companies,
communication is especially critical at the stage when retail buyers, salesmen, and
management share their ideas and opinions with one another regarding the approval of
the proposed APD product line (Regan, Kincade, & Sheldon, 1998).
Apparel manufacturers face many challenges. One of these challenges is to find
ways to shorten the product-development life-cycle (Dillard, Crane, & Hamilton, 2000).
Effective communication among APD team members may lead to shortening the APD
process. APD team members need to utilize technology (such as email, telephone
communication, etc.) in order to enhance communication within APD teams.
The results of this current study suggest that when all APD team members are
willing to equally share the workload, APD teams are more effective and team members
are more satisfied with their jobs. In this study, some of the APD team members
(approximately 10%) fulfilled more than one job function in design, merchandising, or
marketing/sales. This contributed to the teams’ effectiveness and enabled team members
to increase workload sharing to one another, when needed. These results also imply that

65
educators in APD need to instruct their students to learn broad aspects of APD and skills
required to work effectively in APD.
Social support, which is part of the team interaction theme, is positively related to
team effectiveness and team member satisfaction. The current study’s results are
consistent with the findings of Wolken and Good’s (1995). They concluded that both
social support and positive social interaction enhance team effectiveness and that the
social support system is beneficial in reducing retail employees’ stress levels.
The current study’s regression analysis results indicated that team interaction did
not predict MJE. However, the correlation analysis examined the separate relationship
between each of the four team interaction characteristics (potency, social support,
workload sharing, and communication/cooperation within the teams) and MJE. After
examining the correlations between each of these team characteristics and MJE, workload
sharing showed the highest degree of correlation with MJE. Social support, potency, and
communication within teams, in descending order, displayed the next highest degree of
correlation with MJE.
These results indicate that APD team managers evaluated their teams as being
effective when managers observed that their APD team members shared their workload
among themselves. These APD team manager results contrast to the APD team
members’ team effectiveness evaluation. APD team members considered their teams as
being effective when team members possessed strong team spirit and team confidence.
Team interaction characteristics II. This section discusses the remaining four
characteristics (managerial support, training, self-management, and participation) within
the team interaction theme. These four characteristics showed lower correlations with
TMJS and TMJE than did the characteristics in the previous section (Team interaction
characteristics I). In addition, these four characteristics showed lower factor loadings
(Table 4.5) within the team interaction theme than did the characteristics discussed in
Team interaction characteristics I.
Manager support displayed a higher correlation with all three of the effectiveness
criteria than did training, self-management, and participation. The correlation results of
this study imply that a high level of manager support regarding the concept of teams was
positively related to TMJS, TMJE, and MJE.

66
 According to the current study results, managers need to encourage the concept of
teams. This study found that team manager support is more important than the training
that team members receive from their companies. In other words, goal-oriented training
may not prove to be as effective as managerial support. Therefore, further studies may
investigate the influence of managerial support on team effectiveness.
Choi and Gaskill (2000) concluded that the traditional retail buyers who expanded
their roles to APD required additional training. Therefore, training was an important
variable for the success of their employees’ effective performance. In contrast to Choi
and Gaskill’s study, the APD team members who participated in this current already
possessed the required job-related skills and knowledge to effectively perform their tasks.
In fact, a high percentage of the APD team members (83.2%) who participated in this
study had more than four years of experience in APD. Furthermore, 25.2% of these APD
team members had more than 25 years of experience in APD. The number of years of
experience as APD members may contribute to the fact that training was not as important
as other team characteristics.
Previous studies (Dickson & Littrell, 1998; Presley, 1999) were conducted in
apparel companies in developing countries (Mexico and Guatemala). In these studies, the
authors reported that employee training was important. The employees’ lack of
education may have attributed to their conclusion. In this current study, the majority of
the APD team members (65.5%) had at least four years of undergraduate university
education. APD team members who participated in this current study consider that
training is not as important to team effectiveness and team job satisfaction as other team
characteristics. These results indicated that the combination of education and job
experience contributed to team members’ confidence in performing their jobs.
Bunderson and Scutcliffe (2003) concluded that overemphasizing training may
consume company resources and divert attention away from existing company goals,
especially when team members have already been performing well. Therefore, APD
team managers need to consider how much emphasis to place on training. An
appropriate emphasis on training is important for APD team effectiveness but a strong
team training orientation may not always be beneficial.

67
 The low correlation between team training and team effectiveness may be also
explained by the low level of “team training” offered by the company. Although
companies may provide training at the individual level, they may not provide training at
the team level.
Another possible explanation may be the low number of years that team members
were employed in their current company. Forty percent of team members were employed
in their current company less than three years. Therefore, these team members may not
have received adequate team training from their companies. Additional research may
wish to further investigate the relationship between team training and team effectiveness.
Compared to the participation characteristic, the results indicated that the self
management characteristic showed a higher degree of correlation with both TMJE and
MJE. On the other hand, participation showed a higher degree of correlation with TMJS
than did self-management (Table 4.11).
The current research results are consistent with previous findings (Cohen &
Ledford, 1994; Cordery, Muller, & Smith, 1991; Choi & Gaskill, 2000; Loker, 2002;
Presley, 1999). The results of these studies indicated that employees express high job
satisfaction when they work autonomously. For instance, Choi and Gaskil (2000)
concluded that autonomy (self-management) was one of the major variables affecting the
job satisfaction of traditional retailers and apparel product developers. This was similar
to Loker’s (2002) findings among employees in apparel manufacturing, which showed
that employees are more motivated to do extra work when they have job autonomy.
Previous study results in other industries (Cohen & Ledford, 1994) suggested that
the performance of self-managed teams was more effective than that of traditionally-
managed teams. Among the characteristics included in the job design theme in Campion
et al.’s (1996) study, self management was shown to be an important characteristic that
correlated with MJE. In Campion et al.’s (1993) study, self-management and
participation were the strongest predictors of team effectiveness among their job design
characteristics.
The results of the current study, compared to numerous team studies mentioned
above, indicate that self-management and participation were not as essential as other
team interaction characteristics (social support, workload sharing, communication within

68
teams). Self-management and participation means that each APD team member has an
equal vote in deciding the tasks, schedule and procedures of the work within the teams.
Overall, in order to promote APD team effectiveness and team member satisfaction, each
team member’s individual input through self-management and participation is not as
important as the APD team members’ interaction.

Interdependence Theme
In the current study, factor analysis generated the interdependence team theme,
which formed the second theme. The interdependence theme included three
interdependence characteristics: task, goal, and feedback/rewards (Figure 5.1). Based on
the tests of the hypotheses, the alternative hypotheses, H2a and H4a, were supported. The
interdependence theme predicted TMJS and TMJE. However, the interdependence theme
was not significantly related to manager judgment of effectiveness (MJE). According to
the regression analysis on MJE, the interdependence theme did not predict MJE. In the
regression analysis on MJE, the p value was greater than .05 (p = .52); therefore, H60 was
accepted.
The manager judgment of effectiveness (MJE) measurement showed low
correlations with the team characteristics (task interdependence, goal interdependence,
and interdependent feedback/rewards) that belonged to this theme. This may explain the
lack of prediction of the interdependence theme on MJE. Since the interdependence
theme is relatively untested and appears more recently in the literature (Campion et al.,
1996), additional research on this team theme is needed.
The following section discusses each of the three characteristics that belong to the
interdependence theme. Although the regression analysis results indicated that the
interdependence theme did not predict MJE, the correlation analysis examined the
separate relationship between each of the three interdependence team characteristics
(task, interdependence, goal interdependence and interdependent feedback/rewards) and
MJE.
Interdependence characteristics. Among the three interdependence
characteristics, interdependent feedback/rewards was the characteristic that showed the
strongest degree of correlation with each of the three effectiveness criteria (TMJS, TMJE,

69
and MJE). This implies that the degree of feedback/rewards was positively related to
TMJS, TMJE, and MJE.
Interdependence feedback/rewards is related to the APD teams’ performance.
The current study suggests that APD teams are effective when there is a strong
interdependency between the feedback/rewards of the APD team and the
feedback/rewards of the APD team members. These suggest that the strong
feedback/rewards interdependency positively influences the job satisfaction of APD team
members. Consistent with the current study’s results, Campion et al.’s study indicated
that the feedback/rewards characteristic (within the interdependence theme) showed the
strongest positive relationship with team effectiveness.
In the current study, task interdependence is positively related to APD team
effectiveness. When the tasks of the team members are related to each other, the
performance of the team may be more effective. These current research results are
similar to previous results (Wageman, 1993) on task interdependence. Wageman (1993)
determined that a high degree of task interdependence increases the degree of quality
interaction and cooperation among team members. However, Wageman’s study did not
examine the task interdependence team characteristic and its relationship to employee
satisfaction, employee judgment of effectiveness, and manager judgment of effectiveness.

Summary

This study used factor analysis to generate APD themes. The results indicated
that 11 APD team characteristics belonged to two major APD themes. In the current
study, regression analyses examined the relationship between two team themes (team
interaction and interdependence) and team effectiveness (TMJS, TMJE, and MJE). The
results indicated that the team interaction theme predicted TMJS and TMJE. The results
also suggested that the interdependence theme predicted TMJS and TMJE. However,
these two themes did not predict MJE.

70
 Limitations of the Current Study

Sample
Participants in this study were from companies earning over $50 million in annual
sales. Each of these large companies had at least one APD team. Therefore, the
generalization of the results of this study must be given careful consideration. This
study’s results can be applied to companies that have similar characteristics (as presented
in Chapter Four) to the participating companies. There was a possibility that the 22
companies that agreed to participate in this study have more interest in promoting team
effectiveness than do the companies that declined.

Measurement
Twenty-two U. S. apparel companies, each of which employed one or more APD
teams, participated in this study. These companies represented a diverse cross-section of
the apparel industry. However, the participation from multiple companies did not enable
this current study to utilize a standardized objective measurement (e.g., quantified
financial performance and performance appraisals) of team effectiveness.
Each apparel manufacturer may utilize its own objective measurement of APD
team effectiveness. Therefore, there is no standard measurement across companies that
allows the current study to assess APD team effectiveness. Assessing APD team
effectiveness by objective, standardized measurements is beyond the range of this current
research endeavor.

Research Design
This current study examined the relationships between team characteristics and
team effectiveness within apparel companies. The current study utilized a cross-sectional
survey of the perceptions of individuals. Since this study did not focus on the causal
relationship, a longitudinal study was not used. In order to conduct a quantitative
analysis, this current study relied on a self-report questionnaire to systematically and
efficiently obtain standardized responses from the participants. This research study relied

71
on a single data collection technique. Future studies may wish to use multiple methods of
data collection in order to avoid common method variance.

Implications for APD Team Managers

The results of this study provide several implications for APD team managers
who want to promote the effectiveness of their teams. Among the 11 team
characteristics, potency (team spirit/confidence) was the most important characteristic,
which exerted the greatest influence on team effectiveness measurements. Managers
should promote potency (team spirit/confidence) within their teams. Managers need to
encourage potency through modeling and telling team members that their team possesses
capabilities in order to confidently accomplish their tasks.
The next major important team characteristics were workload sharing,
communication/cooperation, and social support, which can be called “social interaction
team characteristics.” These characteristics are more important than “goal-oriented team
characteristics” (e.g., training and tasks) as influences of APD team effectiveness. APD
team managers need to encourage these positive social interaction team characteristics
within their teams in order to increase APD team effectiveness.
Managers should decide when and how strongly to emphasize team training for
their teams. To determine these two issues, managers need to understand and evaluate
the demographic background and performance history of their team members and teams.
This research helped to identify the demographic characteristics of the APD teams and
team members.
Previous studies focused on the self-management and the participation of team
members. However, the results of the current study in APD teams indicated that the self-
management and participation of team members were not as important as other team
characteristics. In order to enhance APD team effectiveness, apparel firms and apparel
managers need to acquire knowledge of the important APD team characteristics. As a
result, the apparel firms and apparel managers may provide superior support to their APD
teams. Ultimately, this increased knowledge and enhanced support may offer companies

72
with a competitive advantage in overcoming challenges as the APD teams meet current
consumer demands.

Recommendations for Future Study

One recommendation for future study regards the application of general team
studies to APD team studies. The current study indicated that team studies in other fields
may be applied to APD teams. Comparative research between general teams and APD
teams is useful to better understand the uniqueness of APD teams. Future research
efforts could examine other variables that influence APD team effectiveness (for
example, leadership and organizational characteristics).
Other recommendations for future study regard the improvement of the data
collection methods, measurements, and theoretical models. To avoid common method
variance, future studies may combine multiple data collection methods, such as personal
interviews, telephone interviews, and direct observation.
Future studies may evaluate and improve the validity and reliability of the current
team characteristic measurements. These studies may refine these measurements and
make them more applicable to the APD team setting. Future studies may include
objective measurements from data (e.g., financial, managerial, and archival). Because
participants were from multiple companies, this current study did not utilize objective
measurements. Future studies may utilize objective measurements by obtaining
sufficient number of participants from one or two large companies.
This current study examined and extended the model of Campion et al. (1996).
(The measurements, however, were published in Campion et al.’s (1993) study.) The
findings of the current study identified two APD team themes (team interaction and
interdependence), APD team characteristics, and APD team effectiveness criteria (Figure
5.1). Further investigation may enhance the model describing the relationship between
APD team characteristics and APD team effectiveness criteria.
Future studies may refine the model of the current study by investigating the
relationship between the two APD team themes (team interaction and interdependence).
These studies may test the moderation effect of the interdependent theme. This analysis

73
will allow the researcher to test whether the interaction theme reduces or enhances the
degree of influence that the APD team interaction theme has on APD team effectiveness.
This test may answer the question regarding whether APD team characteristics that
belong to the interdependence theme (goals, tasks, and feedback) will promote APD team
characteristics that belong to the team interaction theme (potency, workload sharing and
social support).
The model of this study may be applicable to teams in other disciplines, which
focuses on teams that are similar to the teams of the current study. The model developed
in this study can be applied to teams in other fields that focus on product development
and to teams that perform one type of task. The recommended future research could fill
the gap in team literature, not only in the apparel field, but also in other fields. Future
research studies may enhance and improve APD team characteristics, APD team
effectiveness measurements, and APD models and theory.

74
APPENDIX A. Initial Letter to Companies

75
Date

Company Address

Dear:

Apparel product development is critical in the apparel industry. Several industries

have successfully adapted a team approach to product development. Given these
successful adaptations of the team approach to product development, this Ph.D. research
study will investigate how often the team approach is used in product development. The
form below asks four short questions on your company’s use of the team approach in
product development. The form also requests your email address and your telephone
number.
Please answer the questions below and then return this page in the enclosed self-
addressed, stamped envelope by <Date>. Thank you for your consideration. I would
appreciate your participation in this project.

Sincerely,

Eun Kwak Catherine Black

Ph. D. Candidate Professor
Email: eek2679@garnet.acns.fsu.edu cblack@mailer.fsu.edu
Phone: 850-386-8782 850-645-9881

ƒ A Team is a group of people work together to develop products for your company.
ƒ Apparel Product Development (APD) is the design and engineering of apparel products.
1.Does your company have an Apparel Product Development group? Yes □ No □
2.If yes, is your Apparel Product Development group organized as a team(s)? Yes □ No □
3.If yes, how many Apparel Product Development teams does your company have?
4.If your company has APD teams, they average members.
Please provide your current telephone number and email address below, or simply attach your business
card.
Name/Title:
Email :
Phone number: ( ) ––

If you have comments regarding this project, please provide them here.
(For more space, please use the back of this page.)

76
APPENDIX B. Cover Letter to Companies

77
Date

Company Address

Dear
I am a graduate student from The Florida State University and am conducting a survey
regarding Apparel Product Development (APD) Team Characteristics and Effectiveness. For
this research effort, I am working with Dr. Catherine Black, my major professor.
Based on your responses to my earlier questionnaire, I selected your company to participate
in this survey. All responses to the survey will remain confidential. The survey results will
help APD teams to be more effective through better communication, cooperation, training,
and support. For this project to be a success and to provide important knowledge about APD,
I need your participation. As a participant in the survey, you will receive the Executive
Summary for the study. The Executive Summary will provide specific information and
benchmarks for APD team management across the apparel industry. I will gladly answer
your specific questions on the research and our conclusions. Also, at your request, I will
provide you with details on any aspects of the completed study.
Please forward the survey to all of your APD members. It takes fifteen minutes or less in
order to complete the survey. The Florida State University Human Subjects Committee has
approved this survey. (For further information, contact Heidi Hodges, (850) 644-8633,
hhodges@mailer.fsu.edu). Again, this survey will be anonymous to protect the identity of
companies and all individual responses and opinions. We will not share this information
with managers or supervisors in your company or with anyone else.
If we do not hear from you by <Date>, we will send you a postcard to remind you to
complete and to return the survey. I look forward to working with you; thank you for your
help.

Yours truly,

Eun Kwak Catherine Black

Ph. D. Candidate Professor
Email: eek2679@garnet.acns.fsu.edu cblack@mailer.fsu.edu
Phone: 850-386-8782 850-645-9881

78
APPENDIX C. Questionnaire List (By Category)

79
Team Characteristics
Item Number on
the Questionnaire
(Job Design)
Self-Management
o The members of my team are responsible for determining the methods,
procedures, and schedules with which the work gets done. 33
o My team (rather than my manager) decides who does what tasks within
the team. 12
o Most work-related decisions are made by the members of my team
(rather than by my manager). 24
Participation
o As a member of a team, I have a real say in how the team carries out its
work. 36
o Most members of my team get a chance to participate in decision
making. 49
o My team is designed to let everyone participate in decision making. 43
Task Variety
o (Most members of my team get a chance to learn the different tasks,
which the team performances. — original) Few members of my team get
a chance to learn the different tasks, which the team performances. 35 (reversed)
o Almost every one on my team gets a chance to do the more interesting
tasks. 27
o Task assignments often change from day to day in order to meet the
work load needs of the team. 47
Task Significance
o The work performed by my team is important to our team’s customers. 41
o (My team makes important contributions to serving the company’s
customers. – original item before reversed) My team makes minor
contributions to serving the company’s customers. 51 (reversed)
o My team helps me feel that my work is important to the company. 19

(Interdependence)
Task Interdependence
o (I cannot accomplish my tasks without information or materials from
other members of my team. – original item before reversed) I can
accomplish my tasks without information or materials from other
members of my team. 45 (reversed)
o Other members of my team depend on me for information or materials
needed to perform their tasks. 18
o Within my team, jobs performed by team members are related to one
another. 39
Goal Interdependence
o My work goals come directly from the goals of my team. 31
o My work activities on any given day are determined by my team’s goals
for that day. 1

80
o I do very few activities on my job that are not related to the goals of my
team. 11
Interdependent Feedback and Rewards
o Feedback about how well I am doing my job comes primarily from
information about how well the entire team is doing. 22
o My performance evaluation is strongly influenced by how well my team
performs. 32
o My rewards from my job (e.g., pay, promotion, etc.) are determined in
large part by my contributions as a team member. 44

(Context)
Training
o (The company provides adequate technical training for my team. –
original item before reversed) The company provides inadequate
technical training for my team. 55 (reversed)
o The company provides adequate quality and customer service training
for my team. 37
o The company provides adequate team skills training for my team (e.g.,
communication, organization, interpersonal, etc.). 50
Managerial Support
o Higher management in the company supports the concept of teams. 53
o My manager supports the concept of teams. 23
Communication/Cooperation Between Work Groups
o I frequently talk to other people in the company besides the people on
my team. 34
o (There is little competition between my team and other teams in the
companies. – original item before reversed). There is competition
between my team and other teams in the companies. 20 (reversed)
o Teams in the company cooperate to get the work done. 48

(Process)
Potency (Spirit)
o Members of my team have great confidence that the team can perform
effectively. 54
o My team can take on nearly any task and complete it. 38
o My team has a lot of team spirit. 17
Social Support
o Being in my team gives me the opportunity to work in a team and
provide support to other team members. 52
o My team increases my opportunities for positive social interaction. 56
o (Members of my team help each other out at work when needed. –
original item before reversed) Members of my team seldom help each
other out at work when needed. 28 (reversed)
Workload Sharing
o Everyone on my team does his/her fair share of the work. 42
o No one in my team depends on other team members to do the work for
him/her. 57

81
o Nearly all the members on my team contribute equally to the work. 8
Communication/Cooperation Within the Work Group
o (Members of my team hesitate to share information with other team
members about our work. – original item before reversed) Members of
my team are very willing to share information with other team members
about our work. 40 (reversed)
o Teams enhance the communication among people working on the same
product. 46
o Members of my team cooperate to get the work done. 26

Team Member Job Satisfaction

(Gradstein, 1984)
o I am satisfied with my present colleagues on my team. 3
o I am pleased with the way my colleagues and I work together. 21
o I am very satisfied with working in this team. 58

(Hackman and Oldham, 1980)

o Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job. 6
o I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do in this job. 25
o I frequently think of quitting this job. 13

Team Member Judgment of Team Effectiveness

o My team consistently completes quality work. 15

o My team provides effective customer service. 7
o My team achieves the required productivity. 30
o (My team sometimes completes work late. – original) My team
consistently completes work on time. 5 (reversed)
o My team completes work within budget. 14
o (My team seldom provides innovative products or services. – original)
My team provides innovative products or services. 10 (reversed)
o My team responds quickly to problems and opportunities. 2
o My team members express job satisfaction. 9
o My team meets overall performance expectation. 29
o My team demonstrates initiative. 4
o (My team members seldom cooperate with non-team members. –
original) My team members cooperate with non-team members. 16 (reversed)

Manager Judgment of Team Effectiveness

o My team consistently completes quality work. 1

o My team provides effective customer service. 2
o My team achieves the required productivity. 3
o (My team sometimes completes work late. – original) My team
consistently completes work on time. 4 (reversed)
o My team completes work within budget. 5

82
o (My team seldom provides innovative products or services. – original)
My team provides innovative products or services. 6(reversed)
o My team responds quickly to problems and opportunities. 7
o My team members express job satisfaction. 8
o My team meets overall performance expectation. 9
o My team demonstrates initiative. 10
o (My team members seldom cooperate with non-team members. –
original) My team members cooperate with non-team members. 11 (reversed)

83
APPENDIX D. Survey Questionnaire to Team Members

84
 Apparel Product Development Team Survey for Individual Team Members
Please mail your completed survey in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope.

Please place a check (√) in the one box that best describes your opinion.

Strongly Agree Neither agree Disagree Strongly

agree nor disagree disagree
1. My work activities on any given day are determined by my □ □ □ □ □
team’s goals for that day.
2. My team responds quickly to problems and opportunities. □ □ □ □ □
3. I am satisfied with my present colleagues on my team. □ □ □ □ □
4. My team demonstrates initiative. □ □ □ □ □
5. My team sometimes completes work late. □ □ □ □ □
6. Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job. □ □ □ □ □
7. My team provides effective customer service. □ □ □ □ □
8. Nearly all the members on my team contribute equally to the □ □ □ □ □
work.
9. My team members express job satisfaction. □ □ □ □ □
10. My team seldom provides innovative products or services. □ □ □ □ □
11. I do very few activities on my job that are not related to the □ □ □ □ □
goals of my team.
12. My team (rather than my manager) decides who does what tasks □ □ □ □ □
within the team.
13. I frequently think of quitting this job. □ □ □ □ □
85
 Strongly Agree Neither agree Disagree Strongly
agree nor disagree disagree
14. My team completes work within budget. □ □ □ □ □
15. My team consistently completes quality work. □ □ □ □ □
16. My team members seldom cooperate with non-team members. □ □ □ □ □
17. My team has a lot of team spirit. □ □ □ □ □
18. Other members of my team depend on me for information or □ □ □ □ □
materials needed to perform their tasks.
19. My team helps me feel that my work is important to the □ □ □ □ □
company.
20. There is competition between my team and other teams in the □ □ □ □ □
company.
21. I am pleased with the way my team works together. □ □ □ □ □
22. Feedback about how well I am doing my job comes primarily □ □ □ □ □
from information about how well the entire team is doing.
23. My manager supports the concept of teams. □ □ □ □ □
24. Most work-related decisions are made by the members of my □ □ □ □ □
team (rather than by my manager).
25. I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do in this job. □ □ □ □ □
26. Members of my team cooperate to get the work done. □ □ □ □ □
27. Almost everyone on my team gets a chance to do the more □ □ □ □ □
interesting tasks.
28. Members of my team seldom help each other out at work when □ □ □ □ □
needed.
29. My team meets overall performance expectations. □ □ □ □ □
30. My team achieves the required productivity. □ □ □ □ □
86
 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree Disagree Strongly
nor disagree disagree
31. My work goals come directly from the goals of my team. □ □ □ □ □
32. My performance evaluation is strongly influenced by how well □ □ □ □ □
my team performs.
33. The members of my team are responsible for determining the □ □ □ □ □
methods, procedures, and schedules with which the work gets
done.
34. I frequently talk to other people in the company besides the □ □ □ □ □
people on my team.
35. Few members of my team get a chance to learn the different □ □ □ □ □
tasks, which the team performs.
36. As a member of a team, I have a real say in how the team carries □ □ □ □ □
out its work.
37. The company provides adequate quality and customer service □ □ □ □ □
training for my team.
38. My team can take on nearly any task and complete it. □ □ □ □ □
39. Within my team, jobs performed by team members are related to □ □ □ □ □
one another.
40. Members of my team hesitate to share information with other □ □ □ □ □
team members about our work.
41. The work performed by my team is important to our team’s □ □ □ □ □
customers.
42. Everyone on my team does his/her fair share of the work. □ □ □ □ □
43. My team is designed to let everyone participate in decision □ □ □ □ □
making.
44. My rewards from my job (e.g., pay, promotion, etc.) are □ □ □ □ □
determined in large part by my contributions as a team member.
45. I can accomplish my tasks without information or materials from □ □ □ □ □
other members of my team.
46. Teams enhance the communication among people working on □ □ □ □ □
the same product.
47. Task assignments often change from day to day in order to meet □ □ □ □ □
the work load needs of the team.
87
 Strongly Agree Neither agree Disagree Strongly
agree nor disagree disagree
48. Teams in the company cooperate to get the work done. □ □ □ □ □
49. Most members of my team get a chance to participate in decision □ □ □ □ □
making.
50. The company provides adequate team skills training for my team □ □ □ □ □
(e.g., communication, organization, interpersonal, etc.).
51. My team makes minor contributions to serving the company’s □ □ □ □ □
customers.
52. Being in my team gives me the opportunity to work in a team □ □ □ □ □
and provide support to other team members.
53. Higher management in the company supports the concept of □ □ □ □ □
teams.
54. Members of my team have great confidence that the team can □ □ □ □ □
perform effectively.
55. The company provides inadequate technical training for my □ □ □ □ □
team.
56. My team increases my opportunities for positive social □ □ □ □ □
interaction.
57. No one in my team depends on other team members to do the □ □ □ □ □
work for him/her.
58. I am very satisfied with working in this team. □ □ □ □ □
59. Our team demonstrates initiative. □ □ □ □ □

Please continue on to the last page.

88
 Please place a check (√) in the one box that best describes your team.
60. How many people are in your team? 1-4 5-8 9-12 13 or more

□ □ □ □
61. I would describe my team as a group of members Work together as Work together in Work as
who: a single team sub-groups. individuals.

□ □ □
Please place a check (√) in the one box that best describes you.
62. I am: Male Female

□ □
63. My age is: 25 or less 26-35 36-45 46-55 Over 55

□ □ □ □ □
64. My level of education is: High school Associate Undergraduate Master’s Other:
degree (2 yrs) (4 yrs) degree 
□ □ □ □ □
65. My primary job function is: Merchandiser Designer Sales/Marketing Production Other:

□ □ □ □ □
66. I have worked in Apparel Product Development for: 3 yrs or less 4-7 yrs 8-11 yrs 12-15 yrs More than
15 yrs
□ □ □ □ □
67. I have worked in my current company: 3 yrs or less 4-7 yrs 8-11 yrs 12-15 yrs More than
15 yrs
□ □ □ □ □
Thank you for your participation.
By <Date>, please mail your completed survey in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope.

89
APPENDIX E. Survey Questionnaire to Managers

90
 Apparel Product Development Team Survey for Managers
Please mail your completed survey in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope.

Please place a check (√) in the one box that best describes your opinion.

The team that I manage: Strongly Agree Neither agree Disagree Strongly
agree nor disagree disagree
1. consistently completes quality work. □ □ □ □ □
2. provides effective customer service. □ □ □ □ □
3. achieves the required productivity. □ □ □ □ □
4. sometimes completes work late. □ □ □ □ □
5. completes work within budget. □ □ □ □ □
6. seldom provides innovative products or services. □ □ □ □ □
7. responds quickly to problems and opportunities. □ □ □ □ □
8. the team members express job satisfaction. □ □ □ □ □
9. meets overall performance expectations. □ □ □ □ □
10. demonstrates initiative. □ □ □ □ □
11. seldom cooperates with non-team members. □ □ □ □ □

12. Do you serve as both a team member and team manager for this team? Yes No
□ □
(Please continue to the next page.)

91
 Please provide descriptive information about yourself below.
Please place a check (√) in the one box that best describes your team.
13. I would describe my team(s) as a group of members Work together as Work together in Work as
who: a single team sub-groups. individuals.

□ □ □
Please place a check (√) in the one box that best describes you.
14. I am: Male Female

□ □
15. My age is: 25 or less 26-35 36-45 46-55 Over 55

□ □ □ □ □
16. My level of education is: High school Associate Undergraduate Master’s Other:
degree (2 yrs) (4 yrs) degree 
□ □ □ □ □
17. My primary job function is: Merchandiser Designer Sales/Marketing Production Other:

□ □ □ □ □
18. I have worked in Apparel Product Development for: 3 yrs or less 4-7 yrs 8-11 yrs 12-15 yrs More than
15 yrs
□ □ □ □ □
19. I have worked in my current company: 3 yrs or less 4-7 yrs 8-11 yrs 12-15 yrs More than
15 yrs
□ □ □ □ □
Do you want to receive a copy of the summary and conclusions of the completed study? Yes No
□ □
Thank you for your participation.
By <Date>, please mail your completed survey in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope.
If you have comments regarding this survey, please provide them here. (For more
space, please use the back of this page.)
92
APPENDIX F. Human Subject Approval

93
94
APPENDIX G. Factor and Regression Analyses
on Selected Characteristics and MJE

95
Table G.1. Factor Loadings for Selected Six Team Characteristics
Item Factor loading
Potency .81
Social support .71
Workload sharing .75
Communication within the team .83
Self-management .57
Participation .73
Eigenvalues 3.26
% of variance 54.31

Table G.2. Regression Analysis of the Influence of Factor (with Six Characteristics) on
Manger Judgment of Effectiveness
b t p
Factor .10 2.57 .01
(constant) 3.87 93.43
R2 .24 F1, 108 = 6.60, p ≤ .05
Adjusted R2 .05

96
 REFERENCES

Anderson, N., Hardy, G., & West, M. (1990). Innovative teams at work.
Personnel Management, 22(9), 48-53.

Baily, D. (1997). Manufacturing improvement team programs in the

semiconductor industry. IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, 10(1), 1-
10.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American

Psychologist, 37, 122–147.

Baker, D., & Salas. E. (1997). Principles for measuring teamwork: A Summary
and look toward the future. In M. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team
performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications (pp.331-
355). Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Barczak, G., & Wilemon, D. (2001). Factors influencing product development

team satisfaction. European Journal of Innovation Management, 4(1), 32-36.

Batt, R., & Appelbaim, E. (1995). Worker participation in diverse settings: Does
the form affect the outcome, and if so, who benefits? British Journal of Industrial
Relations 33(3), 353-378.

Berg, P., Applebaum, E., Bailey, T., & Kalleberg, A. (1996). The performance
effects of modular production in the apparel industry. Industrial Relations, 35(3), 356-
373).

Brannick, M., & Prince, C. (1997). An Overview of team performance

measurement. In M. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance
assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications (pp.3-16). Mahwah,
NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brief, A., & Weiss, H. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace.
Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307.

Bunderson, J., & Scutcliffe, K. (2003). Mangement team learning orientation and
business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 552-560.

97
 Campion, M., Medsker, G., & Higgs, A. (1993). Relations between work group
characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups.
Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.

Campion, M., Papper, E., & Medsker, G. (1996). Relations between work team
characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology,
49, 429-452.

Choi, Y., & Gaskill, L. (2000). An analysis of mental processes, behaviors, and
job satisfaction of apparel product developers and traditional retail buyers. Journal of
Business Research, 49, 15-34.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied Multiple
Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Laurence Erlbaum.

Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E., Jr. (1994). The effectiveness of self-managing
teams: A field experiment. Human Relations, 47, 13-43.

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group
effectiveness research from the shop floor and to the executive suits. Journal of
Management, 23, 239-290.

Cordery, J., Muller, W., & Smith, L. (1991). Attitudinal and behavioral effects of
autonomous group working: A Longitudinal field study. Academy of Management
Journal, 34(2), 464-476.

Dickson, M., & Littrell, M. (1998). Organizational culture for small textile and
apparel business in Guatemala. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 16(2), 68-78.

Dillard, B., Crane, T., & Hamilton, J. (2000). Team-based sewn products
manufacturing: A case study. International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology,
12(4), 279-292.

Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method
(2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Dons, Inc.)

Elmuti, D. (1996). The perceived impact of team-based management systems on

organizational effectiveness. International Journal of Manpower, 17(8), 4-17.

Forsyth, D. (1990). Group Dynamics (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove: Brook/Cole.

Gaskill, L. (1992). Toward a model of retail product development: A case study

analysis. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 10(4), 17-24.

98
 Gladstein, D. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517.

Glock, R., & Kunz, G. (2000). Apparel Manufacturing (3rd ed.). New Jersey:
Printice Hall.

Griffin, A., & Page, A. (1993). An interim report on product development

success and failure. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10, 291-308.

Guzzo, R., & Dickson, M. (1996). Teams in organizations: Research on

performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-338.

Guzzo, R., & Shea, G. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in
oganizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 269-313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.

Hackman, R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.),

Handbook of organizational behavior (p.315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hackman, R., & Lawler, E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 259-286

Hackman, R., & Oldham, G. (1980). Work Design. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.

Hyatt, D., & Ruddy, T. (1997). An Examination of the relationship between work
group characteristics and performance: Once more into the breech. Personnel
Psychology, 50, 553-585.

Ingram, H., Teare, R., Scheuing, E., & Armistead, C. (1997). A systems model of
effective teamwork. The Total Quality Management Magazine, 2, 118-127.

Jackson, S., Brett, J., Sessa, V., Cooper, D., Julin, J., & Peyronnin, K. (1991).
Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as
correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,
675-689.

Jang, N. (2001). Apparel Product Development: Influential factors of Apparel

product Success and Failure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri,
Columbia.

Janz, B., Colquitt, J., & Noe, R. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness:
The role of autonomy, interdependence, team development, and contextual support
variables. Personnel Psychology, 50, 877-904.

99
 Judge, T., Thoresen, C., Bono, J., & Patton, G. (2001). The job satisfaction-job
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin,
127, 376-407.

Katzenbach, J.R., & Smith, D.K. (1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard
Business Review, 71, 111-120.

Kiggundu, M. (1983). Task interdependence and job design: Test of a theory.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 145-172.

Kerlinger, F. & Lee, H. (2000). Foundations of Behavioral Research. (4th ed.).

Stamford: Wadsworth.

LaBat, K. & Sokolowski, S. (1999). A three-stage design process applied to an

industry-university textile product design project. Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal, 17(1), 11-20.

Loker, S. (2002). People and technology management in flexible manufacturing:

An apparel industry case study. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 20(1), 26-32.

Magjuka, R. J., & Baldwin, T.T. (1991). Team-based employee involvement

programs: Effects of design and administration. Personnel Psychology, 44, 793-812.

Manz, C.C. (1986). Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-

influence possesses in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11, 585-600.

McGrath, J. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

McNichols, C., Stahl, M., & Manley, T. (1978). A validate of Hoppock’s job
satisfaction measure. Academy of Management Journal, 21(4), 737-742.

Neuman, L. (2000). Social Research Methods (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.

Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Oliver, B., Kincade, D., & Albrecht, D. (1994). Comparison of apparel

production system: A Simulation. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 12(4), 45-50.

Organ, D., & Near, J. (1985). Cognitive vs. affect measures of job satisfaction.
International Journal of Psychology, 75, 399-409.

Pitimaneeyakel, U. (2001). Product Development in the Knitwear Industry: A

case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, St. Paul.

100
 Presley, A. (1999). Maquiladoras: An unknown workforce. Clothing and
Textiles Research Journal, 17(2), 94-104.

Proehl, R. (1997). Enhancing the effectiveness of cross-functional teams.

Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 17(5), 3-11.

Pulat, B. (1994). Total quality management: A framework for application in

manufacturing. The Total Management Magazine, 6(1), 44-49.

Regan, C., Kincade, D., & Sheldon, G. (1998). Applicability of the engineering
design process theory in the apparel design process. Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal, 16(1), 36-46.

Rousseau, D. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multilevel and

cross-level perspectives. In L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 1-38). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Shaw, M. (1981). Group Dynamic: The psychology of Small Group Behavior.

New York: McGraw-Hill.

Shea, G.P., & Guzzo, R.A. (1987). Groups as human resources. In K.M.
Rowland & G.R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, (Vol. 5, pp. 323-356). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Stecens, J.P. (2001). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences (4th
ed.). Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stewart, G.L., Manz, C.C., & Sims, H. P. (1999). Teamwork and Group
Dynamics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Tannenbaum, S., Beard, R., & Salas, E. (1992). Team building and its influence
on team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. In K.
Kelly (Ed.), Issues, theory, and research in industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 117-
153). Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier.

Van der Vegt, G., Emans, B., & Van de Vliert, E. (2001). Patterns of
interdependence in work teams: A Two-level investigation of the relations with job and
team satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 54, 51-69.

Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and Group effectiveness. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 40,145-180.

Watkins, S. (1988). Using the design process to teach functional apparel design.
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 7(1), 10-14.

101
 Wickett, J. L., Gaskill, L. R., & Damhorst, M. L. (1999). Apparel retail product
development: Model testing and expansion. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal,
17(1), 21-35.

Wolken, W., & Good, L. (1995). The retail environment: Relationship of tension
and social support. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 13(4), 280-288.

102
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Eun Kwak was born in Seoul, Korea. She received a Bachelor of Arts degree in
Fashion from Ewha Women’s University in Seoul, Korea. She earned a Master of Arts
degree in Apparel Merchandising from The University of Minnesota. Eun was awarded a
Ph. D. in Apparel Product Development from The Florida State University in Summer
2004.
She received dissertation research grants from The College of Human Sciences
and from The Florida State University. Eun accepted an Assistant Professorship at
Dominican University in Illinois, beginning Fall 2004.

103