Group, team, or something in between? Conceptualising and measuring team entitativity

Main Article Content

Katrien Vangrieken
Anne Boon
Filip Dochy
Eva Kyndt

Abstract

The main aim of this study includes bridging the gap between strict team and broader group research by describing the distinction between strict teams and mere collections of individuals as the degree of team entitativity or teamness. The concept of entitativity is derived from social psychology research and further developed and integrated in team research. Based upon the entitativity concept and the core team definitions, the defining features shaping teams’ degree of entitativity are determined: shared goals and responsibilities; cohesion (task cohesion and identification); and interdependence (task and outcome). In a next step, a questionnaire is developed to empirically grasp these features. The questionnaire is tested in two waves of data collection (N1=1320; N2=731). Based upon a combination of Classical Test Theory analyses (exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses) and Item Response Theory analyses the questionnaire is developed. The final questionnaire consists of three factors: shared goals and cohesion, task interdependence, and outcome interdependence. Further psychometric analyses include the investigation of validity, longitudinal measurement invariance, and test-retest reliability. This manuscript describes frontline research by: (1) developing a novel conceptualisation bridging groups and teams based upon two research traditions (social psychology and team research) and (2) combining two methodological traditions regarding questionnaire development and validation (Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory).

Article Details

How to Cite
Vangrieken, K., Boon, A., Dochy, F., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Group, team, or something in between? Conceptualising and measuring team entitativity. Frontline Learning Research, 5(4), 1-41. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v5i4.297
Section
Articles

References

Albrecht, S. L. (2012). The influence of job, team and organizational level resources on employee well-being, engagement, commitment and extra-role performance: Test of a model. International Journal of Manpower, 33, 840-853. doi: 10.1108/01437721211268357
Aubé, C., & Rousseau, V. (2005). Team goal commitment and team effectiveness: The role of task interdependence and supportive behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and, Practice, 9, 189-204. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.9.3.189
Beersma, B., Homan, A. C., Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W. (2013). Outcome interdependence shapes the effects of prevention focus on team processes and performance. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 121, 194-203. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.02.003
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. (1987). Practical issues in structural modelling. Sociological Methods & Research, 16, 78–117.
Bouas, K. S., & Arrow, H. (1996). The development of group identity in face-to-face and computer-mediated groups with member- ship change. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 4, 153–178.
Brewer, M., Hong, Y., & Li, Q. (2004). Dynamic entitativity: Perceiving groups as actors. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 25-38). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Brouwer, P. (2011). Collaboration in teacher teams (Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University, The Netherlands). Retrieved from http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2011-1110-200504/brouwer.pdf
Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). California: Sage Publications Inc.
Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14-25. doi:10.1002/bs.3830030103
Campion, M. A., Medsker, A., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.
Carless, S. A., & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31, 107-118. doi:10.1177/104649640003100104
Carpenter,S., Fortune, J.L., Delugach, H.S., Etzkom, L.H., Utley, D.R., Farrington, P.A., & Virani, S. (2008). Studying team shared mental models. In P.J. Ågerfalk, H. Delugach & M. Lind (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Pragmatic Web: Innovating the interactive society (pp. 41-48). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1479190.1479197
Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Implications and considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 123-138.
Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., Paladino, M., & Sacchi, S. (2002). I belong, therefore, I exist: Ingroup identification, ingroup entitativity, and ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 135-143. doi:10.1177/0146167202282001
Cavazza, N., Pagliaro, S., & Guidetti, M. (2014). Antecedents of concern for personal reputation: The role of group entitativity and fear of social exclusion. Basic and Applied Psychology, 36, 365-376. doi:10.1080/01973533.2014.925453
Coertjens, L., Donche, V., De Maeyer, S., Vanthournout, G., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). Longitudinal measurement invariance of Likert-type learning strategy scales: Are we using the same ruler at each wave? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 577-587. doi:10.1177/0734282912438844
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290. doi:10.1177/014920639702300303
Costa, P. L., Passos, A. M., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). Team work engagement: Considering team dynamics for engagement (Working Paper No. 12-06). Retrieved from Business Research Unit website http://bru-unide.iscte.pt/RePEc/pdfs/12-06.pdf
Crawford, M. T., & Salaman, L. (2012). Entitativity, identity, and the fulfillment of psychological needs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 726-730. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.015
Crawford, M. T., Sherman, S. J., & Hamilton, D. L. (2002). Perceived entitativity, stereotype formation, and the interchangeability of group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1076-1094. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.5.107
Dasgupti, N., Banaji, M. R., & Abelson, R. P. (1999). Group entitativity and group perception: Associations between physical features and psychological judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 991-1003. doi:0022-3514/99/$3.00
Decuyper, S., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2010). Grasping the dynamic complexity of team learning: An integrative model for effective team learning in organisations. Educational Research Review, 5, 111-133. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.02.002
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. (2001). The Job Demands-Resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 499-512. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
Dyer, N. G., Hanges, P. J., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Applying multilevel confirmatory factor analysis techniques to the study of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 149-167. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.009
Edelen, M. O., & Reeve, B. B. (2007). Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement. Quality of Life Research, 16, 5-18. doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9198-0
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383. doi:10.2307/2666999
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-282. doi:10.1037/h0056932
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

Gajda, R., & Koliba, C. J. (2008). Evaluating and improving the quality of teacher collaboration: A field-tested framework for secondary school leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 92, 133–153. doi:10.1177/0192636508320990
Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette, L. H. Hough (Eds.). Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3 (pp. 269-313). Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto.
Hackman, J. R. (2012). From causes to conditions in group research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 428-444. doi:10.1002/job.1774
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hamilton, D. L. (2007). Understanding the complexities of group perception: Broadening the domain, 37, 1077-1101. doi:10.1002/ejsp.436
Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336-355.
Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S.J., & Castelli, L. (2002). A group by any other name – The role of entitativity in group perception. European Review of Social Psychology, 12, 139-166. doi:10.1080/14792772143000049
Henry, K. B., Arrow, H., & Carini, B. (1999). A tripartite model of group identification: Theory and measurement. Small Group Research, 30, 558-581. doi:10.1177/104649649903000504
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85
Jans, L., Postmes, T., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2011). The induction of shared identity: The positive role of individual distinctiveness in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1130-1141. doi:10.1177/0146167211407342
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. The Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724. doi:10.2307/256287
Katzenbach, J. R. & Smith, D. K. (1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, 71, 111-120.
Kiggundu, M. N. (1983). Task interdependence and job design: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 145-172. doi:0030-5073/83/020145-28$03.00/0
Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2015). Advancing research on team process dynamics: Theoretical, methodological, and measurement considerations. Organizational Psychology Review, 5, 270-299. doi:10.1177/2041386614533586
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.). Handbook of Psychology: Vol. 12. Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333-375). London: Wiley.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Chao, G. T. (2012). The dynamics of emergence: Cognition and cohesion in work teams. Managerial and Decision Economics, 33, 335-354. doi:10.1002/mde.2552
Kyndt, E., Janssens, I., Coertjens, L., Gijbels, D., Donche, V., & Van Petegem, P. (2014). Vocational education students’ generic working life competencies: Developing a self-assessment instrument. Vocations and Learning, 7, 365-392. doi:10.1007/s12186-014-9119-7
Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223-246. doi:10.1037//0022-3514..78.2.223
Lima, J.A. (2001). Forgetting about friendship: Using conflict in teacher communities as a catalyst for school change. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 97-122. doi:10.1023/A:1017509325276
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. London: University of Chicago Press.
Lyubovnikova, J., West, M. A., Dawson, J. F., & Carter, M. R. (2015). 24-Karat or fool’s gold? Consequences of real team and co-acting group membership in healthcare organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 929-950. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2014.992421
Main, K. (2007). A year-long study of the formation and development of middle school teaching teams (Doctoral dissertation, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Australia). https://www120.secure.griffith.edu.au/rch/file/64a6473e-3a2b-f149-bd30-6e2033bbef0f/1/02Whole.pdf
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273-283. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.85.2.273
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34. doi:10.1177/0149206308316061
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
McLeod, J., & von Treuer, K. (2013). Towards a cohesive theory of cohesion. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 3(12), 1-11. Retrieved from http://www.thejournalofbusiness.org/
Meneses, R., Ortega, R., Navarro, J., & de Quijano, S. D. (2008). Criteria for assessing the level of group development (LGD) of work groups: Groupness, entitativity, and groupality as theoretical perspectives. Small Group Research, 39, 492-514. doi:10.1177/1046496408319787
Moolenaar, N. M. (2010). Ties with potential: Nature, antecedents, and consequences of social networks in school teams (Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Retrieved from http://dare.uva.nl
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227.
Ohlsson, J. (2013). Team learning: Collective reflection processes in teacher teams. Journal of Workplace Learning, 25, 296-309. doi:10.1108/JWL-Feb-2012-0011
Pearce, J. L., & Gregersen, H. B. (1991). Task interdependence and extrarole behaviour: A test of the mediating effects of felt responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 838-844. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.838
R Core Team (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.Rproject.org
Raes, E., Kyndt, E., Decuyper, S., Van den Bossche, P., & Dochy, F. (2015). An exploratory study of group development and team learning. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 26, 5-30. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21201.

Revelle, W. D. (2012). Psych: procedures for personality and psychological research. Evanston: Northwestern University. Retrieved from http://personality-project.org/r/psych.manual.pdf.
Rosseel, Y. D. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org.
Rutchik, A. M., Hamilton, D. L., & Sack, J. D. (2008). Antecedents of entitativity in categorically and dynamically construed groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 905-921. doi:10.1002/ejsp.555
Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61-72. doi:0021-9010/93/$3.00
Salas, E., Bowers, C. A., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1995). Military team research: 10 years of progress. Military Psychology, 7, 55–75.
Salas, E., Burke, C. S., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). Teamwork: Emerging principles. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2, 339-356. doi:10.1111/1468-2370.00046
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. (2004). Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293-315. doi:10.1002/job.248
semTools Contributors. (2016). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. R package version 0.4-11. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/package=semTools
Smith, G. (2009). If teams are so good… Science teachers’ conceptions of teams and teamwork (Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology, Australia). Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/31734/1/Gregory_Smith_Thesis.pdf
Somech, A. (2008). Managing conflict in school teams: the impact of task and goal interdependence on conflict management and team effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 359-390. doi:10.1177/0013161X08318957
Spencer-Rodgers, J., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (2007). The central role of entitativity in stereotypes of social categories and task groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 369-388. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.369
Sundström, E., McIntyre, M., Halfhill, T., & Richards, H. (2000). Work groups: From the Hawthorne studies to work teams of the 1990s and beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 44-67. doi:10.1037//1089-2699.4
Svirydzenka, N., Sani, F., & Bennet, M. (2010). Group entitativity and its perceptual antecedents in varieties of groups: A developmental perspective. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 611-624. doi:10.1002/ejsp.761
Torrente, P., Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). From “I” to “we”: The factorial validity of a team work engagement scale. In J., Neves, & S.P. Gonçalves (eds.). Occupational Health Psychology: From burnout to well-being (pp. 333-355). Lisboa: alth Psychology.
Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W.H., Segers, M., Kirschner, P.A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: Team learning beliefs and behaviors. Small Group Research, 37, 490-521. doi:10.1177/1046496406292938
Van der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. The Academy of Management Journal, 48, 532-547. doi:10.2307/20159674
Van der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B., & Van de Vliert, E. (1998). Motivating effects of task and outcome interdependence in work teams. Group & Organization Management, 23, 124-143. doi:10.1177/1059601198232003
Van der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B., & Van de Vliert, E. (1999). Effects of interdependencies in project teams. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 202-214.
Van der Vegt, G. S., & Janssen, O. (2003). Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal of Management, 29, 729-751. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00033-3
Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., & Raes, E. (2016). Team learning in teacher teams: Team entitativity as a bridge between teams-in-theory and teams-in-practice. European Journal of Psychology of Education. doi:10.1007/s10212-015-0279-0
Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2013). Team entitativity and teacher teams in schools: Towards a typology. Frontline Learning Research, 1, 86-98. doi:10.14786/flr.v1i2.23
Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17-40. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002
Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Adminsitrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145-180. doi:0001-8392/95/4001-0145/$1 .00.
Wageman, R., Hackman, J. R., & Lehman, E. (2005). Team diagnostic survey: Development of an instrument. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciance, 41, 373-398. doi:10.1177/0021886305281984
Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
West, M. A., & Lyubovnikova, J. (2012). Real teams or pseudo-teams? The changing landscape needs a better map. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 25-55. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01397.X
Westheimer, J. (2008). Learning among colleagues: Teacher community and the shared enterprise of education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, & J. McIntyre (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 756-782). Reston, VA and Lanham, MD: Association of Teacher Educators and Rowman.
Yzerbyt, V. Corneille, O., & Estrada, C. (2001). The interplay of subjective essentialism and entitativity in the formation of stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 141-155. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0502_5
Zaccaro, S. J. (1991). Nonequivalent associations between forms of cohesiveness and group-related outcomes: Evidence for multidimensionality. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 387-399. doi:10.1080/00224545.1991.9713865