The Influence of Team Cohesion and Contextual Performance on Project Team Performance Over Time

Theory and empirical research suggest that team cohesion and contextual performance relate to team performance. However, while general support exists for a team cohesion and contextual performance relationship, less is known about the how the relationship evolves over time. This study aimed to examine the extent to which team cohesion and contextual performance reciprocally relate over time. Data were collected from 245 individuals comprising 40 student project teams engaged in the Capsim business simulation over a 10-week quarter. Results supported hypothesis 1; based on a cross-lagged path model, a stronger relationship exists between contextual performance at time point 1 and cohesion at time point 2 than between cohesion at time point 1 and contextual performance at time point 2. However, hypothesis 2, which predicted the same relationship for time points 2 and 3, was not supported. Additional results reveal significant effects for control variables. TEAM COHESION AND CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE OVER TIME 2 The Influence of Team Cohesion and Contextual Performance on Project Team Performance Over Time Organizations have shifted from hierarchical to more team-based structures over the past few decades (Devine, Clayton, Philips, Dunford, & Melner, 1999; Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008), stressing the need for team effectiveness in order to drive performance and remain competitive. Organizations face increasing pressures, such as innovation demands and global expansion, which prompt these structural shifts (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). The success of these team-based organizations is contingent on the ability of team members to effectively coordinate behaviors. These organizations also derive success from consistent, high-level team performance (Mathieu, Kukenberger, D’Innocenzo, & Reilly, 2015). In teams where coworkers are dependent on each other for optimal task performance, going beyond assigned duties to facilitate cooperation and support one another proves vital for ensuring team effectiveness. The overall objective of this study centers on understanding how emergent states may contribute to team effectiveness throughout time. This will be achieved by examining the interplay between contextual performance and team cohesion over time. Researchers continue to recognize the importance of behaviors that exceed typical role expectations or role requirements that benefit the organization. Researchers define these behaviors as contextual performance (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Teams and team members are expected to not only perform at suitable levels, but to go above and beyond their specific job roles and execute tasks that may not be included in their job descriptions (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). A team of individuals who tend to exhibit more contextual performance behaviors, may maximize its teamwork capabilities (LePine, Hanson, Borman, Motowidlo, 2000). This TEAM COHESION AND CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE OVER TIME 3 conclusion stems from the idea that contextual performance impacts team processes, social, and psychological functioning (LePine et al., 2000). In order to better understand team performance, it is essential to consider the dynamic processes that unfold over time (McGrath, 1990; Mohammed, Hamilton, & Lim, 2009; Morgan, Salas, & Glickman, 1993). For example, team cohesion describes group members’ attraction to one another and their desire to remain on the team (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). A study by Mathieu and colleagues (2015) revealed that team cohesion and task performance were related positively, and mutually, to each other over time. Researchers often regard team cohesion as an important state that facilitates team performance (e.g., Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003); however, empirical research is less consistent and indicates the performance and cohesion relationship varies considerably (Mathieu et al., 2015). One may argue that contextual performance behaviors facilitate team members’ positive feelings toward their teammates and the team task, which fosters team cohesion. Indeed, researchers identify a major limitation in the team cohesion literature as the failure to carefully consider the temporal nature of teams (Drescher, Burlingame, & Fuhriman, 2012). Team-level phenomena (e.g., performance, cohesion) moves from the individual level to the team level, and reflects upward temporal dynamics (Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, & Smith, 1999). The factor of time may influence the importance of various dimensions of teamwork in different phases (e.g., contextual performance, team cohesion) (Cronin, Weingart, & Todorova, 2011; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; LePine et al., 2000). Groups progress through stages of development. In these stages, team members learn how to adapt to the environment through interpersonal knowledge (i.e., team formation), establish the nature of the team and focus on individual performance (i.e., task compilation), engage in personalized interactions and learn TEAM COHESION AND CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE OVER TIME 4 how to coordinate with each other (i.e., role compilation), and create social networks to advance performance (i.e., team compilation) (Kozlowski et al., 1999). Each of these stages illustrate the importance of assessing contextual performance for team development in multiple phases. Ideally, team members adopt group norms and exhibit positive attitudes toward the team over time, which facilitates rapport necessary for task accomplishment (LePine et al., 2000). This study measures team cohesion and contextual performance at three time points in order to examine changes in structural coefficients over time. Because of well-known changes in work environments, researchers now place a greater emphasis on contextual performance and teams (LePine et al., 2000). As effective contextual performance behaviors improve team’s social and psychological environments, understanding how these behaviors relate to team cohesion over time is crucial for improving team development and multiple work elements (e.g., team selection, performance appraisals; LePine et al., 2000). Thus, this research examines the extent to which team cohesion and contextual performance reciprocally relate over time. Contextual Performance Campbell and colleagues (1990) identified two types of behaviors associated with job performance: behaviors unique to each job in an organization (i.e., task performance) and behaviors similar across all jobs (i.e., contextual performance). Taking this a step further, Motowidlo, Borman, and Schmit (1997) proposed individual differences influence task and contextual performance. Their theory assumes that job performance may be a function of both performance types, as well as factors outside of the individual. Thus, an individual’s task performance may not fully capture the person’s own contributions to team and/or organizational goals. Therefore, both contextual performance and task performance should be examined in research to understand an accurate representation of job performance. Moreover, contextual TEAM COHESION AND CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE OVER TIME 5 performance reflects activities that support the organizational, social, and psychological environment (Borman & Motowildo, 1993). More specifically, contextual performance aids in team functioning through interpersonal helping, job dedication, and initiative (Morgeson, Reider, & Campion, 2005). Behaviors associated with contextual performance are discretionary, interpersonal behaviors that enhance the context (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997) propose that contextual performance helps stabilize organizational performance and allows organizations to more effectively adapt to environmental changes. To maintain a competitive advantage, organizations concentrate on hiring and retaining inordinately helpful, involved, and cooperative workers (Katz, 1964). Researchers believe helping behaviors that are distinguished in contextual performance reduce turnover as a result of a more cohesive and cordial work environment (Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 1997). Both exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) illustrate social interactions as a flow of open-ended exchanges, with both parties making contributions and receiving benefits (Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007). Namely, contextual performance can influence outcomes; howbeit, contextual performance can be influenced as well. Researchers propose these “affect-driven” behaviors that encompass contextual performance fluctuate over time (Ilies, Scott, & Judge, 2006; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) explain how situations at work can influence contextual performance related behaviors. Additionally, these contextual performance behaviors have been described and modeled as reciprocal, and even as “socially contagious” (Andersson & Pearson, 1999). Team performance relies on both taskwork and teamwork dimensions (Salas, Burke, & Cannon‐Bowers, 2000; LePine et al., 2000). The distinction between teamwork and taskwork TEAM COHESION AND CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE OVER TIME 6 appears similar to how Borman and Motowidlo (1993) categorize behaviors that contribute to contextual performance and task performance (LePine et al., 2000). In the past, researchers drew parallels between contextual performance and teamwork because both terms focus on behaviors important for creating an appropriate social context for teams, regardless of the task (LePine et al., 2000). Contextual performance and teamwork both revolve around activities that contribute to team effectiveness by improving the team’s context (Lepine et al., 2000). Furthermore, Salas, Sims, and Burke (2005) frame teamwork as combined thoughts, actions, and feelings that are essential to promote the functioning of a team, to enhance vital outcomes such as coordination and achievement of task objectives. LePine and colleagues (2000) also frame teamwork in a similar manner to contextual performance,