The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7592.htm

TPM
15,5/6 Integral team effectiveness:
validity analysis of a
theory-based team measure
220
Ron Cacioppe
Integral Development, Sydney, Australia, and
Received March 2008
Accepted October 2008 Roger Stace
University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – This paper seeks to develop a self-report instrument completed by team members, the
Integral Team Effectiveness Measure (ITEM), in order to assess team strengths and weaknesses based
on a review of research and models of effective teams. The ability of the instrument, based on an
“integral” or holistic framework, to capture a latent factor relevant to team success is tested. Based on
two studies, support for the construct and predictive validity of the ITEM measure is provided.
Design/methodology/approach – Psychometric evaluation of a survey instrument is described. A
quasi-experiment to see whether an objective measure of team performance can be predicted from the
instrument and multi-level modelling was also incorporated.
Findings – Although there are many elements necessary for good teamwork, there is nevertheless an
underlying common theme. This underlying theme or construct of integral team effectiveness can be
measured with a self-report instrument, which successfully predicted subsequent team performance in
a sample of 45 teams.
Practical implications – The Integral Team Effectiveness Measure (ITEM) is an instrument that
captures an important underlying quality of teams. Organisations relying on teams may benefit from
using the ITEM to diagnose weaknesses and to design corrective interventions.
Originality/value – Although many previous studies have described variables which impact team
performance, integral team effectiveness is an original contribution in that it describes and measures
an underlying essence of teamwork. Managers and team members may find integral team
effectiveness valuable for overcoming the apparent complexities and contradictions that confound
sincere efforts to improve team performance.
Keywords Team performance, Managers, Team working, Management effectiveness,
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Teams are an important part of the functioning of an organization. They can be
significant contributors to the effectiveness of organizations or can cause problems and
restrict organizational success. Methods which allow human resource professionals,
consultants or teams to understand their strengths and weaknesses can help determine
and prevent difficulties in the functioning of the team and can help in improving the
performance of the team. This study tests the effectiveness of a team measure, the
Team Performance Management integral team effectiveness measure (ITEM), based on the integral theory of teamwork
Vol. 15 No. 5/6, 2009
pp. 220-234 (Cacioppe, 2008).
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited In the last decade, there have been three Annual Review of Psychology chapters
1352-7592
DOI 10.1108/13527590910983503 reviewing research on teams within organizations (Guzzo and Dickson, 1996; Kerr and
Tindale, 2004; Ilgen et al., 2005). Arising from the impressive body of research Integral team
reviewed in those chapters, are numerous but somewhat fragmented factors associated effectiveness
with enhancing the effectiveness of teams. Other research has measured the
significance of the sharedness of team related knowledge because of its potential
impact on team performance (Johnson et al., 2007). In selecting constructs to
incorporate into the Integral Team Effectiveness Measure, two criteria were used. First,
the construct should be widely applicable to different tasks and contexts – hence 221
consistent and universal factors were included rather than intermittent or secondary
factors. Second, constructs should be actionable by leaders and members of existing
teams, so do not include variables such as selection, team member personalities, or
market or industry conditions (Barrick et al., 1998; LePine, 2003).
The purpose in developing the ITEM was to have available a comprehensive
diagnostic checklist for teams. The instrument is intended as a tool that:
.
identifies a team’s overall state as an “integral” team; and
.
helps identify the specific nature of a team’s strengths and weaknesses.
It can be completed on-line or by paper and pencil to produce an automated diagnostic
report to guide subsequent actions to improve or maintain overall team effectiveness.
The first part of this paper describes distinct constructs used to develop the
measure, and then using integral theory suggests an underlying common factor
expected to cross all facets of team effectiveness. Two studies then examine the
measure’s construct validity. Using a sample of teams composed of practising
managers, the measure is found to have convergent validity. Using a sample of teams
made up of undergraduate students, the measure is shown to have convergent validity,
divergent validity (with respect to personality), and predictive validity (with respect to
an objective measure of team performance). The paper concludes with
recommendations, limitations and implications.

Development of the integral team effectiveness measure

In seeking to develop a holistic measure of team effectiveness, a review of effective
team functioning was performed (Dyer, 1995; Robbins et al., 2001; Thompson, 2004;
DeRue and Morgeson, 2005, Castka et al., 2001). A set of common factors were
summarized from the literature and a pilot questionnaire was developed including
characteristics that describe ideal or “integral” team functioning. Since teams are
composed of individuals, and typically operate within an organization, a holistic
measure of team effectiveness would incorporate not just “teams” research, but also
constructs affecting individual and organizational effectiveness.
Table I provides a summary of empirical research using constructs likely to affect
teams, individuals within teams, and teams within organizations. The categories
shown in Figure 1 represent an attempt to summarize and integrate the diverse
constructs from Table I into functions. The functional categories are relevant to
multiple levels of analysis. For example, goals apply to individuals, their teams, and
across organizations.
Each of the constructs mentioned in Table I has been linked to higher levels of
individual, team, or organisational performance. Some of these constructs merit further
explanation.
TPM
Construct Source
15,5/6
Performance-approach goals and learning goals Dragoni (2005); Bunderson and Sutcliffe (2003)
(goal orientation)
Meaningful work Grant (2008); Stace (2006)
Idealised influence (transformational leadership) Lowe et al. (1996); Bono and Judge (2003)
222 Collective efficacy Seijts et al. (2000); Gully et al. (2002)
Inter-role understanding Marks et al. (2002); Druskat and Kayes (2000)
Enabling resource allocation Hopwood (1972); Davila and Wouters (2005)
Appreciative performance monitoring Pritchard et al. (2001); Kaplan and Norton (2004);
Van der Stede et al. (2006)
Bonding/cohesion Beal et al. (2003)
Intragroup trust; rich, unemotional debate Simons et al. (1999); Simons and Peterson (2000)
Positive-to-negative ratio . 3 Inquiry-advocacy Losada (1999); Losada and Heaphy (2004)
Table I. ratio .1 (non-linear team dynamics)
Summary of constructs Open communication Barry and Stewart (1997); Hyatt and Ruddy (1997)
used in the integral team Psychological safety Edmondson (1999)
effectiveness measure, Reflected best-self Roberts et al. (2005)
and their sources Mindfulness Weick et al. (1999); Fiol and O’Connor (2003)

Figure 1.
Elements of effective
integral teamwork
Losada (1999) found that successful strategic planning teams had a Integral team
positivity-to-negativity ratio in member interactions of greater than 3:1. Successful effectiveness
teams not only gave more praise than criticism in member interactions, but could also
be distinguished by the fact that members asked questions at least as often as they
advocated positions.
Both high performance goals and high learning goals predict performance. Goal
orientation research has shown that performance-approach goals (as distinct from 223
performance-avoid goals) are beneficial. Bunderson and Sutcliffe (2003) found that
management teams with a strong (but not extreme) orientation toward learning goals
performed best. Such teams were able to learn without excessively sacrificing
performance goals.
Much research has examined the link between team cohesion and performance. Beal
et al. (2003) in a meta-analytic review showed that cohesion robustly predicted higher
levels of team performance. Another meta-analysis found strong effects of team
efficacy on performance (Gully et al., 2002), while Seijts et al. (2000) showed that
individual assessments of team efficacy are distinct from self-efficacy. Despite some
indications that high levels of team cohesion and collective efficacy can have
“groupthink” effects that worsen decision making, we hold that high cohesion and high
efficacy need not impede effective debate and decision making within teams (Choi and
Kim, 1999).
Edmondson (1999) found that a sense of psychological safety within teams enables
learning, which in turn leads to higher performance. Similarly, Barry and Stewart
(1997) and Hyatt and Ruddy (1997) showed that open communication lead to higher
team performance, while Simons and Peterson (2000) emphasized intra-group trust as a
precondition for rich debate within management teams.
Performance monitoring that is sensitive to the pressures and trade-offs inherent in
a job role can increase performance (Pritchard et al., 2001). Appreciating the pressures
and difficulties faced by team members has also been shown to increase team
effectiveness (Marks et al., 2002; Druskat and Kayes, 2000). Performance measurement
systems that map how organisational sub-units contribute to an overall, aligned
purpose can also increase organisational performance (Kaplan and Norton, 2004),
particularly when subjective aspects of performance are included (Van der Stede et al.,
2006).
Meaningful work allows employees to recognise how their work role enhances the
well being of others. Meaningful work has been shown to increase motivation and
performance (Grant, 2008). Contributing to broad social and environmental ideals
appears to be a stronger motive than helping a narrower, parochial “in-group” (Stace,
2006), in many societies (Herrmann et al., 2008).
More generally, mindfulness (Weick et al., 1999; Fiol and O’Connor, 2003) enables
expanded scanning for relevant information, and more accurate interpretation of
relevant information. This attentiveness to task and contextual information is expected
to increase performance in complex tasks, such as working in teams.
Integral theory was then used to synthesize and arrange the theoretical constructs
described previously into the integral team effectiveness measure. Accordingly,
relevant aspects of integral theory are described in the next section.
TPM Dimensions: four quadrants of integral teamwork
15,5/6 Integral theory is based on a two-by-two framework (“quadrants”) for understanding
people and situations (Wilber, 2001). Other elements of integral theory and integral all
quadrants all level theory (AQAL) are beyond the scope of the current paper. This
framework suggests that an integrated understanding of teams requires an
appreciation of both individual and collective phenomena, as well as objective
224 (behavioural and structural) and subjective (affective, cognitive) aspects of a team
(Wilber, 1995; Cacioppe, 1983). The ITEM survey used in this study is described as
step one in measuring integral teamwork, while levels of teamwork are covered in the
ITEM step two.
This two-by-two framework can be thought of as representing the inside and
outside of an individual, and the inside and the outside of a collective. For example, the
interior of an individual is where individual awareness is described. It includes the
thoughts, feelings, sensations, values and all other immediate states of consciousness
of individual members of a team. The exterior of an individual includes the observable
(i.e. objective) behaviours, skills, resources and individual pieces of equipment used by
individual members of a team.
The interior of a collective (i.e. the “we” quadrant) represents the group or collective
culture, the shared values, feelings, unwritten ground rules or “way we do things
around here”. The exterior of a collective represents objective features affecting the
entire team, such as accounting and human resource systems, the team structure, and
strategic direction that describe a team (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.
The four quadrants of
integral teamwork
Eight questions were included to cover each of the four quadrants described previously Integral team
for a total of 32 questions. effectiveness
In summary, an integral team:
.
Has a purpose, vision, objectives and values that contribute to the wellbeing and
sustainability of its customers, stakeholders, community, all forms of life and the
natural environment that sustains it.
.
Encourages personal and professional development.
225
.
Enables staff to find and realise their “potential” first, as a human being and
second, within his or her chosen profession.
.
Encourages deep learning, especially in regard to mistakes and conflict, in
individuals and the team.
.
Develops and improves competencies and skills in staff so that they perform
their tasks effectively.
.
Operates in a way that ensures the physical and emotional safety of all staff and
customers.
.
The physical environment is attractive, supports the work effectively and
enhances the morale and spirit of the team.
.
Provides sufficient, good quality equipment and resources to achieve the
expected results.
.
Minimizes waste and maintains and restores the natural environment in the way
it operates.
.
Encourages a culture that is honest, open, based on trust and doing work that
provides maximum value to its customers.
.
Contributes and develops positive and useful relations with other teams.
.
Develops leaders who are professional, ethical, and compassionate.
.
Develops and aligns excellent systems to achieve strategic objectives effectively.
.
Aligns the team objectives with the organisations objectives and cascades these
to individual objectives.
.
Works to achieve unity within and between individuals, teams and organisations
through aligning people, culture, systems and strategic objectives yet recognizes
the unique attributes and needs of each individual.

An integral factor
Integral theory posits that although numerous, distinct behaviours contribute to team
effectiveness, and four distinct perspectives are necessary to allow a holistic view of
teams, nevertheless a common, underlying factor to these behavioural measures exists.
Across the perspectives mentioned previously, integral theory posits a common source
– that team members are willingly and authentically able to place team ideals ahead of
lesser (presumably selfish) concerns. Teams members may have mixed motives, and
within-team cooperation is vulnerable to member competition that undermines
performance (Johnson et al., 2006). If the circumstances encourage each team member
to make their major concern the success of the team, this will displace individual
TPM competitive tendencies to focus on individual team member’s own or competing
15,5/6 interests.
The extent to which a team receives a high level of cooperative alignment and
selfless service from team members represents a latent variable that is hypothesized to
affect individual and collective team phenomena, subjective phenomena (such as affect
and cognition) and objective phenomena (behaviours and systems). Accordingly,
226 although integral theory suggests a 2 £ 2 framework of individual/collective, and
subjective/objective, these perspectives will nevertheless align into a common factor.
H1. Every item of the integral team effectiveness measure will load substantially
onto a single factor.
At the core of this integral perspective is the focus of energy and attention of the whole
team in being in the present moment and mindfully responding to what is needed to
provide an excellent product or service. An integral team therefore is aware and
responsive to the moment and all contextual challenges, including the environment, the
needs of customers and colleagues as well as the achievement of key goals.
For example, the items “Team members listen to each other and respect differing
views” (interior of the individual), “Our team minimises the wasting of time and
resources” (exterior of the individual), “Mistakes or problems are seen as an
opportunity to learn rather than blame in this team” (interior of the collective), and
“Procedures within the team are changed when needed to achieve our goals” (exterior
of the collective) measure different quadrants in integral theory’s 2 £ 2 framework.
Nevertheless all of these items are affected by the degree to which team members
exhibit mindful, thoughtful responses to situational challenges- without resorting to
visceral temptations such as to derogate others, deny collective responsibility, or
withdraw from the team.

Face validity
The face validity of the resulting instrument was tested by workshopping the
instrument and obtaining feedback from over 350 professionals and managers in both
the private and public sectors. This included over 30 teams in agriculture, law, the
navy, health care and university MBA students.

Discriminant validity
A potential weakness of a self-report team effectiveness measure is that individual
differences in team members may determine their attitudes towards their team. Thus it
is possible that extraversion (in particular its “warmth” sub-dimension) may be highly
correlated with team member self-reports of team effectiveness. Similarly, team
members who are high in agreeableness (particularly its “compliant” sub-dimension)
may enlist their preference for being cooperative, and act as a “team player”, thus
agreeing uncritically that all is well within their team. Accordingly, to test discriminant
validity of the team effectiveness measure from individual differences, we test the
following hypothesis:
H2. The integral team effectiveness measure ratings given by an individual will
be distinct from, and largely uncorrelated with the warmth facet and
compliant facet of their personality.
Convergent and predictive validity Integral team
Convergent validity requires that a measure is internally consistent, and covaries effectiveness
positively with other constructs within its nomological net. Because we are using an
instrument completed by individuals to measure a theoretically team-level construct, it
is important that individual responses cluster within teams, and vary across teams.
Furthermore, the main construct of interest in a workplace setting is team performance.
Therefore we examine: 227
.
internal consistency reliability;
.
whether team effectiveness scores can be meaningfully aggregated to represent a
team-level construct; and
.
whether the aggregated ITEM score of a team predicts subsequent performance
in a business simulation.
Since reliability and aggregation are relatively modest hurdles they will be tested but
not expressed as hypotheses. Predictive validity however is tested in the next
hypothesis:
H3. There will be a positive relationship between a team’s integral team
effectiveness score and subsequent team performance.

Method
Sample
Subjects for study 1 were 77 practising managers who were members of seven different
teams. Study 2 involved 194 senior undergraduate students playing a business
simulation in 45 different teams at a large Australian university.

Tasks
Study 1 simply involved administering the ITEM to teams of practising managers
from different industries. No performance outcomes were measured since study 1
merely sought to establish the dimensionality and reliability of the instrument. In
study 2, students were randomly assigned into self-managed teams of four to five, who
then competed in a multidisciplinary business simulation (Capsime) produced by
Management Simulations, Inc., as part of a capstone class in their final semester of an
undergraduate business degree. This business simulation has been used in over 500
business schools. In study 2 student participants were assigned into teams and then
given two rehearsal rounds over two weeks, followed by eight weekly rounds of the
actual simulation. The self-report measure of team effectiveness was administered at
the completion of round 2 of the simulation (i.e. a quarter of the way through the
competition). This timing was chosen as a compromise between measuring self-report
perceptions of team effectiveness too early (when team members have had little
interaction), or too late (when performance outcomes are known). Student teams had an
incentive to perform well, since their semester grade was dependent on their team’s
profit in the simulation.

Team effectiveness measure

A 36-item instrument was used in study 1, while a 23-item version of the instrument
relevant to undergraduate student teams was used for study 2. The student version of
TPM the instrument omitted items on senior management, remuneration, and other
15,5/6 contextual features that affect workplace teams, but not classroom teams in a
simulation.

Data analysis
Data analysis consisted of three parts, as recommended by Schwab (1980) and Cook
228 and Campbell (1979). These consisted of empirical checks on:
(1) dimensionality (H1) and internal consistency;
(2) discriminant validity from constructs outside the nomological net of team
effectiveness (H2); and
(3) relatedness to measures of similar constructs that lie within the nomological net
of the focal construct, or in this case, predictive validity (H3).

Results
Dimensionality and internal consistency reliability
Study 1 was used to conduct exploratory factor analysis and measure coefficient alpha
reliability. In the sample of 77 respondents, the 36-item scale showed a coefficient alpha
of 0.97. Factor analysis showed six factors with Eigenvalue . 1, but the first factor was
dominant, accounting for 47 per cent of variance in the scale. All 36 items loaded . 0.5
on this factor, and all but two items had an item-total correlation . 0.5 (items five and
21 had an I-T correlation of 0.48). Removing any of the items would not increase
reliability, hence, leaving the overall scale unaltered is defensible. Interpreting the
smaller factors was difficult and gave unstable results, but since these factors
accounted for only 3 to 7 per cent of the remaining scale variance, they can be ignored.
Using a scree-plot criterion, a single factor solution is justified (see Figure 3). This
result supports H1, that every item of the integral team effectiveness measure will load
substantially onto a single factor.
In addition to the one-factor solution for the overall scale, we also examined each of
the six sub-scales and “quadrants” and found that each sub-scale showed a single
factor solution, and acceptable internal reliability (see Table II).
A confirmatory factor analysis of the each of the sub-scales showed that all of the
sub-scales were highly intercorrelated (all correlations . 0.7), which is unsurprising
given that all items loaded substantially onto a single factor.
To examine whether ITEM scores could be meaningfully aggregated to the team
level in study 1, an unconditional means multilevel model was constructed (Singer,
1998) with team membership as a random independent variable, predicting ITEM
scores. Team membership explained 45 per cent of the variance in ITEM scores (i.e.
ICC(1) ¼ 0.45), indicating that within teams, ITEM scores cluster significantly
(z ¼ 1:47, p ¼ 0:07) in this sample of only seven teams.
In study 2, team members were asked to complete the ITEM measure, along with
the Big 5 personality facets of warmth (a sub-factor of extraversion), and compliance (a
sub-factor of agreeableness). These personality measures had six items each. For a
summary of measured variables in study 2 (see Table III).
In this student sample, reliabilities remained high for the overall ITEM (alpha ¼ 0.93)
and its sub-scales (all alphas . 0.74). A multilevel model was then used to
simultaneously test the validity of using ITEM scores to measure a team-level construct,
 Integral team
effectiveness

229

Figure 3.
Scree plot of integral team
effectiveness measure
scale factors

Cronbach alpha

Panel A: Functional areas of team effectiveness

Sub-scale
Vision and goals 0.88
Leadership and team roles 0.85
Systems, procedures and rewards 0.86
Relationships and culture 0.87
Development and learning 0.91
Organisational and environmental alignment 0.85
Panel B: Integral quadrants of team effectiveness
Sub-scale
Team culture 0.88
Team effectiveness 0.92 Table II.
Individual wellbeing 0.91 Internal reliability of
Team efficiency 0.89 ITEM sub-scales

and discriminant validity. SAS PROC MIXED was used to predict ITEM score with team
membership as a level two random variable (z ¼ 3:1, p ¼ 0:001) and warmth
(tð147Þ ¼ 1:1, n.s.) and compliance (tð147Þ ¼ 1:87, p ¼ 0:06) as level one fixed effects.
These results indicate that ITEM scores strongly cluster within teams and are distinct
between teams (ICC(1) ¼ 0.33), suggesting that ITEM scores can validly be aggregated
to a team level. The non-significant effects of personality measures on ITEM score
support H2 that the team effectiveness measure is distinct from personality measures.
Correlation analysis similarly shows that ITEM scores are distinct from personality
traits. In particular, the team effectiveness- warmth correlation was 0.15 (p , 0:05),
TPM
Variables M SD 1 2 3
15,5/6
Individual-level measures
ITEM 2.95 0.53 (0.93)
Warmth 5.29 0.72 0.15 * (0.70)
Compliance 4.41 0.77 0.10 0.25 * * (0.58)
230 Team-level measures
Average ITEM 2.96 0.37 –
Table III. Concurrent performance $1.16 million $5.01 million 0.08 –
Descriptive statistics, Subsequent performance $52.5 million $67.6 million 0.27 * 0.14 –
correlations, and
reliability coefficients in Notes: For individual-level measures, n ¼ 194; for team-level measures, n ¼ 44. Numbers in
study 2 parentheses are coefficient alphas. *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01 (one-tailed)

indicating a small, albeit significant positive correlation. The team effectiveness-

compliant correlation was 0.10 (n.s.), indicating no significant association with
agreeableness. These results suggest that although the personality facet of warmth
does lead students to evaluate their teams more positively, the correlations are
sufficiently low to regard the constructs as distinct. Furthermore, when run together in
an exploratory factor analysis, the integral team measure and the personality measures
loaded cleanly onto distinct factors when forced to three factors. In particular, none of
the integral team measure items loaded onto either of the personality factors.
This testing was performed at the individual level of analysis (n ¼ 194), giving
plenty of statistical power to detect relationships. Thus H2 is supported.

Predictive validity
Because numerous constructs related to team effectiveness (shown in Table I) were
included in the integral team effectiveness measure, each separate construct was not
separately measured to see if it correlates (i.e. converges) with the integral team
effectiveness score. Rather, the primary concern is predictive validity and whether the
team effectiveness measure predicts subsequent team performance, operationalised as
final team profit in the online business simulation task.
Testing was performed at the team level of analysis (n ¼ 44). From the original
sample of 45 teams, one team was excluded as it had only one respondent. H3 was
tested by calculating the partial correlation between ITEM and subsequent team profit,
controlling for current profit. This resulted in a partial correlation of 0.258 (p , 0:05,
one-tailed). This correlation is both significant and in the expected direction,
supporting H3 that the integral team effectiveness measure predicts subsequent team
performance. The bivariate correlation was also significant, however controlling for
concurrent performance offsets any potential performance-cue bias (Staw, 1975) of
early task performance influencing team effectiveness ratings.

Additional analysis
To examine which of the four quadrants of the ITEM predict performance, the partial
correlation was calculated (controlling for concurrent performance) between each
quadrant score and subsequent team performance. The results showed subsequent
team performance correlated 0.36 (p , 0:01) with team culture, 0.04 (n.s.) with Integral team
individual wellbeing, 0.29 (p , 0:05) with team effectiveness, and 0.31 (p , 0:05) with effectiveness
team efficiency).
Hence the team culture, team effectiveness, and team efficiency quadrants were each
predictive of subsequent performance, while the individual wellbeing quadrant was
not. In this sample and setting of multicultural teams of undergraduate students
engaging in a ten-week business simulation, team performance was unrelated to 231
individual wellbeing ratings. It is not clear why individual wellbeing should be
irrelevant in this setting, however in post-hoc analysis of our data we found that the
average level of the personality facet of compliance within a team was negatively
related to subsequent team performance (r ¼ 20:21, p , 0:05, two-tailed). This
unexpected relationship tentatively suggests that in the simulation task, teams with
members who were more willing to vehemently disagree with one another, achieved
higher performance. The performance benefits of within-team confrontation in the task
may have offset the benefits of caring for one another’s well being. In spite of this
speculation, it remains an open question whether the individual wellbeing portion of
the ITEM is also irrelevant to team performance in other settings, particularly with
older respondents.

Conclusion
The purpose of this paper was to test the construct validity of a measure of team
effectiveness. Our results indicate that the measure is reliable, is best described as
one-dimensional, has discriminant validity from individual differences, aggregates
meaningfully to the team level, and has predictive validity.
The results of these studies suggest it is acceptable to use a summary overall
indicator to describe integral team effectiveness. While individual question scores on
the integral team effectiveness measure point out areas where specific improvement is
required and where positive factors of team functioning are occurring, the overall score
represents a valid measure of “integral” (i.e. holistic) team effectiveness.
A strength of the research design used in study 2 is that it avoided same-source
bias, which would have occurred if the dependent variable of team performance had
been self-assessed by team members. Study 2 is however subject to several limitations.
First, study 2 is based on a sample of student teams, and the results may fail to
generalise to business settings. For example, the team effectiveness measure used in
study 2 is a subset of the measure used in study 1, so the omitted items have an
unknown relationship with team performance. Second, the nature of the simulation
task and the fact that the teams were self-managed raises the possibility that the
person with the best understanding of the simulation made all the team’s decisions.
Unfortunately an individual measure of task expertise was not captured during the
simulation to test this possible alternate explanation. Future research may be useful to
test if expertise is a correlated omitted variable in the ITEM-performance relationship.
Third, no experimental manipulation was performed in study 2, so any underlying
causal mechanisms of how the integral team effectiveness measure causes subsequent
team performance cannot be demonstrated.
Further research would also be necessary to measure the longitudinal reliability of
the integral team effectiveness measure, and to compare it with measures designed to
capture other aspects of integral theory. Based on the two studies described in this
TPM paper, the four quadrants concept from integral theory enables a useful measure of
15,5/6 team effectiveness, which can predict subsequent team performance.
It is surprising that there are relatively few validated measures of overall team
effectiveness given the large number of teams that operate in organisations and the key
role teams play in reaching organisational objectives. An “integral” measure of team
effectiveness is especially important since integral theory explicitly seeks to integrate
232 individual-level, team-level, organisation-level and societal-level concerns. Further
development of practical measures based on integral theory would be a valuable
contribution to potentially enabling the most noble and inclusive aspirations of
individuals who vary in the extent to which they identify with their team, their
organisation, their society, and their world.

References
Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L., Neubert, M.J. and Mount, M.K. (1998), “Relating member ability and
personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 377-91.
Barry, B. and Stewart, G. (1997), “Composition, process, and performance in self-managed
groups: the role of personality”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 62-78.
Beal, D., Cohen, R., Burke, M.J. and McLendon, C.L. (2003), “Cohesion and performance in groups:
a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88
No. 6, pp. 989-1004.
Bono, J. and Judge, T. (2003), “Self-concordance at work: toward understanding the motivational
effects of transformational leaders”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 5,
pp. 554-71.
Bunderson, J. and Sutcliffe, K. (2003), “Management team learning orientation and business unit
performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 552-60.
Cacioppe, R. (1983), “A theory of consciousness applied to the quality of work experience,
managerial type and stress in organizations”, PhD thesis, Macquarie University, Sydney.
Cacioppe, R. (2008), Integral Teamwork: From Ordinary to Extraordinary Teamwork, Integral
Development, Sydney.
Castka, P., Bamber, C.J., Sharp, J.M. and Belohoubek, P. (2001), “Factors affecting successful
implementation of high performance teams”, Team Performance Management, Vol. 7
No. 7/8, pp. 123-34.
Choi, J. and Kim, M. (1999), “The organizational application of groupthink and its limitations in
organizations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 297-306.
Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979), Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for
Field Settings, Rand-McNally, Chicago, IL.
Davila, T. and Wouters, M. (2005), “Managing budget emphasis through the explicit design of
conditional budgetary slack”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 30 No. 7/8,
pp. 587-608.
DeRue, D.S. and Morgeson, F.P. (2005), “Developing a taxonomy of team leadership behavior in
self-managing teams”, poster session presented at the 20th Annual Conference of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.
Dragoni, L. (2005), “Understanding the emergence of state goal orientation in organizational
work groups: the role of leadership and multilevel climate perceptions”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 1084-95.
Druskat, V. and Kayes, D. (2000), “Learning versus performance in short-term project teams”,
Small Group Res., Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 328-53.
Dyer, W. (1995), Team Building, Current Issues and New Alternatives, 3rd ed., Addison-Wesley, Integral team
New York, NY.
Edmondson, A. (1999), “Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams”,
effectiveness
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 350-83.
Fiol, C.M. and O’Connor, E.J. (2003), “Waking up! Mindfulness in the face of bandwagons”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 54-70.
Grant, A.M. (2008), “The significance of task significance: job performance effects, relational 233
mechanisms, and boundary conditions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 1,
pp. 108-24.
Gully, S., Incalcaterra, K., Joshi, A. and Beaubian, J. (2002), “A meta-analysis of team-efficacy,
potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of
observed relationships”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 5, pp. 819-32.
Guzzo, R. and Dickson, M. (1996), “Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and
effectiveness”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 307-38.
Herrmann, B., Thöni, C. and Gächter, S. (2008), “Antisocial punishment across societies”, Science,
Vol. 319 No. 5868, pp. 1362-7.
Hopwood, A.G. (1972), “An empirical study of the role of accounting data in performance
evaluation”, Journal of Accounting Research, supplement, Vol. 10, pp. 156-82.
Hyatt, D. and Ruddy, T. (1997), “An examination of the relationship between work group
characteristics and performance: once more into the breech”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50
No. 3, pp. 553-85.
Ilgen, D., Hollenbeck, J.R., Johnson, M. and Jundt, D. (2005), “Teams in organizations: from
input-process-output models to IMOI models”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 56,
pp. 191-7.
Johnson, M., Hollenbeck, J., Humphrey, S., Ilgen, D., Jundt, D. and Meyer, C. (2006), “Cut-throat
cooperation: symmetrical adaptation to changes in team reward structures”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 103-19.
Johnson, T.E., Lee, Y., Lee, M., O’Connor, D., Khalil, M. and Huang, X. (2007), “Measuring
sharedness of team-related knowledge: design and validation of shared mental model
instrument”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 437-54.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2004), Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible
Outcomes, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kerr, N. and Tindale, R. (2004), “Small group decision making and performance”, Annual Review
of Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 623-55.
LePine, J. (2003), “Team adaptation and postchange performance: effects of team composition in
terms of members’ cognitive ability and personality”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88
No. 1, pp. 27-39.
Losada, M. (1999), “The complex dynamics of high performing teams”, Mathematical and
Computer Modeling, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 179-92.
Losada, M. and Heaphy, E. (2004), “The role of positivity and connectivity in the performance of
business teams: a nonlinear dynamics model”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 47 No. 6,
pp. 740-65.
Lowe, K., Kroeck, K. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996), “Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ
literature”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 385-425.
Marks, M., Sabella, M., Burke, C.S. and Zaccaro, S.J. (2002), “The impact of cross-training on team
effectiveness”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 3-13.
Pritchard, R., Holling, H., Lammers, B. and Clark, B. (2001), Improving Organizational
Performance with the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System:
An Interactional Collaboration, Nova Science, Huntington, NY.
TPM Robbins, S.P., Millet, B., Cacioppe, R. and Waters-March, T. (2001), Organisational Behaviour;
Leading and Managing in Australia and New Zealand, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, Sydney.
15,5/6 Roberts, L.M., Dutton, J.E., Spreitzer, G.M., Heaphy, E.D. and Quinn, R.F. (2005), “Composing the
reflected best-self portrait: building pathways for becoming extraordinary in work
organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 712-36.
Schwab, D.P. (1980), “Construct validity in organizational behavior”, in Cummings, L. and Staw,
B. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 2, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 3-43.
234 Seijts, G., Latham, G. and Whyte, G. (2000), “Effect of self- and group efficacy on group
performance in a mixed-motive situation”, Human Performance, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 279-98.
Simons, L. and Peterson, R. (2000), “Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management
teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 1,
pp. 102-11.
Simons, T., Pelled, L. and Smith, K. (1999), “Making use of difference: diversity, debate, and
decision comprehensiveness in top management teams”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 662-73.
Singer, J. (1998), “Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and
individual growth models”, Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 323-55.
Stace, R. (2006), “Transcendent business goals resonate with managers”, paper (virtual)
presented at the Business as an Agent of World Benefit Global Forum, October, Cleveland,
OH.
Staw, B. (1975), “Attribution of the ‘causes’ of performance: a general alternative interpretation of
cross-sectional research on organizations”, Organizational Behavior and Human Processes,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 414-32.
Thompson, L. (2004), Making the Team: A Guide for Managers, 2nd ed., Pearson, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Van der Stede, W., Chow, C. and Li, T. (2006), “Strategy, choice of performance measures, and
performance”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 185-205.
Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M. and Obstfeld, D. (1999), “Organizing for high reliability: processes of
collective mindfulness”, in Sutton, R.I. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational
Behavior, JAI Press, Stamford, CT, pp. 81-123.
Wilber, K. (1995), Sex, Ecology and Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution, Shambala, Boston, MA.
Wilber, K. (2001), A Theory of Everything; An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science and
Spirituality, Gateway, Dublin.

Further reading
Erez, A., Lepine, J. and Elms, H. (2002), “Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the
functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: a quasi-experiment”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 929-48.
Ilgen, D. (1999), “Teams embedded in organizations: some implications”, American Psychologist,
Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 129-39.
Tasa, K., Taggar, S. and Seijts, G.H. (2007), “The development of collective efficacy in teams:
a multilevel and longitudinal perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1,
pp. 17-27.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints