A través de este estudio se intenta analizar el efecto modulador de la potencia grupal sobre la relación entre la interdependencia (de tarea y de metas) y la eficacia de los equipos de trabajo. Se parte de la hipótesis de que aquellos equipos de trabajo con altos niveles de interdependencia serán más eficaces, siempre y cuando sus puntuaciones en potencia grupal sean también elevadas. A partir de una muestra de 318 participantes pertenecientes a 67 equipos de trabajo sanitarios de hospitales, se demuestra una relación directa y positiva entre interdependencia y eficacia de los equipos de trabajo. Sin embargo, la potencia grupal no se relaciona de manera significativa con la efectividad grupal. Se discuten las posibles implicaciones teóricas y sus aplicaciones, además de futuras líneas de investigación sobre los procesos grupales emergentes en equipos de trabajo.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlcoverC. M.GilF. (2000). Potencia en grupos: un constructo entre la autoeficacia y la motivación colectiva. Apuntes de Psicología, 18, 123–143.
2.
AnconaD.CaldwellD. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634–665.
3.
AritzetaA.BalluerkaN. (2006). Cooperation, competition and goal interdependence in work teams: A multilevel approach. Psicothema, 18, 757–765.
4.
AshkanasyN. M.WilderonC. P.PetersonM. F. (2000). Handbook of organizational culture and climate.Thousand Oaks: Sage.
5.
BarrasaA.WestM. A.GilF. (2007). Is there an optimal size for health-care teams? Effects on team climate for innovation and performance. EnRichterP.PeiróJ.M.SchaufeliW. (Eds.), Psychosocial resources in human service work. Organizational psychology and health care (Vol. 5, pp. 51–66). Munich: Rainer Hampp.
6.
BirdiK.CleggC.PattersonM.RobinsonA.StrideC. B.WallT. D.WoodS. J. (2008). The impact of human resource and operational management practices on company productivity: A longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 61, 467–501.
7.
BlieseP. D. (1998). Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations: A simulation. (Organizational Research Methods, 1, 355–373.
8.
BonitoJ. A.DecampM. H.CoffmanM.FlemingS. (2006). Participation, information, and control in small groups: An actor-partner interdependence model. Group Dynamics Theory Research and Practice, 10, 16–28.
9.
BormanW. C.IlgenD. R.KlimoskiR. J. (2003). Stability and change in industrial and organizational psychology. EnBormanW. C.IlgenD. R.KlimoskiR. J. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 1–17). Londres: Wiley.
10.
CampionM. A.MedskerG. J.HiggsC. A. (1993). Relations between group characteristics and effectiveness. Implication for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–850.
11.
CampionM. A.PapperE. A.MedskerG. J. (1996). Relations between team characteristics and effectiveness. A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429–452.
12.
ChanD. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.
13.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS. G.AikenL. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/Correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences.Londres: LEA.
14.
CohenM.GaginR. (2005). Can skill-development training alleviate burnout in hospital social workers?Social Work in Health Care, 40, 83–97.
15.
DavisC. (2004). Hospital social work: Are we conducting the right type of research?Social Work in Health Care, 3, 67–79.
16.
EdwardsL. J. (2000). Modern statistical techniques for the analysis of longitudinal data biomedical research. Pediatric Pulmony, 30, 330–344.
17.
GilF.RicoR.AlcoverC. M.BarrasaA. (2005). Change-oriented leadership, satisfaction, and effectiveness in work groups: The team climate and group potency effects. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 312–328.
18.
GullyS.IncalcaterraK. A.JoshiA.BeaubienJ. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team. efficacy, potency and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 819–832.
19.
GuzzoR. A.YostP. R.CampbellR. J.SheaG. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 87–106.
20.
HackmanJ. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don't): Creating conditions for effective teamwork.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21.
HarrisT. C.BarnesJ. L. (1997). Components of teamwork: Impact on evaluations of contributions to work team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1694–1715.
22.
HatchM. J. (2006). Organizational Theory. Modern, symbolic, and post modern perspectives.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
HeinemannG. D.ZeissA. M. (2002). Team performance in health care: Assessment and development.Nueva York: Kluwer Academic.
24.
HignettS. (2004). Hospital ergonomics: a qualitative study to explore the organizational and cultural factors. Ergonomics, 46, 882–903.
25.
HirschfeldR. R.JordanM. H.FieldH. S.GilesW. F.ArmenakisA. A. (2006). Becoming team players: Team members' mastery teamwork knowledge as a predictor of team task proficiency and observed teamwork effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 467–474.
26.
HirstM. K. (1988). Intrinsic motivation as influenced by task interdependence and goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 96–101.
27.
HülshegerU. R.AndersonN.SalgadoJ. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1128–1145.
28.
IlgenD.HollenbeckJ. R.JohnsonM.JundtD. (2005). Teams in organizations: From Inputs-Process-Outputs Models to IMOI Models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.
29.
JongA.RuyterK.WetzelsM. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of group potency: A study of self-managing service teams. Management Science, 51, 1610–1625.
30.
KahaiS. S.SosikJ. J. (1998). Computer-supported work group potency and effectiveness: The role of transformational leadership, anonymity, and task interdependence. Computers in Human Behaviour, 14, 491–511.
31.
KennyD. A.LavoieL. (1985). Separating individual and group effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 339–348.
32.
KiggunduM. N. (1983). Task interdependence and job design: Test of theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 145–172.
33.
KozlowskiS. W.BellB. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. EnBormanW. C.IlgenD. R.KlimoskiR. J. (Eds.), Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333–367). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
34.
KozlowskiS. W.IlgenD. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124.
35.
LandyF. J.ConteJ. M. (2007). Work in the 21st Century. An introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology.Oxford: Blackwell.
36.
LangfredC. W. (2007). The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 885–900.
37.
LebretonJ. M.SenterJ. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815–852.
38.
LepineJ. A.PiccoloR. F.JacksonC. L.MathieuJ. E.SaulJ. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273–307.
39.
LesterS. W.MeglinoB. M.KorsgaardM. A. (2002). The antecedents and consequences of group potency: Longitudinal investigation of newly formed work groups. Academic of Management Journal, 45, 352–368.
40.
LockeE. A.LathamG. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
41.
MarksM. A.MathieuJ. E.ZaccaroS. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376.
42.
MartíM.GilF.BarrasaA. (2009). Organizational leadership: Motives and behaviors of leaders in current organizations. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12, 267–274.
43.
MartíM.GilF.BarrasaA.AntinoM. (2010). Leadership in entrepreneurial organizations: Contexts and motives. Psicothema, 22, 880–886.
44.
MathieuJ.MaynardmT.RappT.GilsonL. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–476.
45.
MuldrowT. W.BuckleyT.SchayB. W. (2002). Creating high-performance organizations in the public sector. Human Resource Management, 41, 341–354.
46.
OrtizA. E.JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T. (1996). The effect of positive goal and resource interdependence in individual performance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 243–249.
47.
PearceC. L.GallagherC. A.EnsleyM. D. (2002). Confidence at the group level of analysis: A longitudinal investigation of the relationship between potency and team effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 115–119.
48.
PearsonP.StevenA.HoweA.SheikhA.AshcroftD.SmithP. (2010). Learning about patient safety: organizational context and culture in education of health care professionals. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 15, 4–10.
49.
PeiróJ. M.Martínez-turV.RamosJ. (2005). Employees' overestimation of functional and relational service quality: A gap analysis. The Service Industries Journal, 25, 773–788.
50.
PooleM. S.RealK. (2003). Groups and teams in health care: communication and effectiveness. EnThompsonT. L.DorseyA. M.MillerK.ParrottR. (Eds.), Handbook of health communication (pp. 369–402). Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51.
RicoR.AlcoverC. M.TaberneroC. (2010). Efectividad de los equipos de trabajo, una revisión de la última década de investigación (1999–2009). Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 26, 47–71.
52.
RicoR.CohenS.GilF. (2006). Efectos de la interdependencia de tarea y la sincronía en las nuevas tecnologías de comunicación sobre el rendimiento de los equipos virtuales de trabajo. Psicothema, 18, 743–749.
53.
SaavedraR.EarleyP. C.Van DyneL. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61–72.
54.
SalanovaM.LlorensS.CifreI. M.SchaufeliW. (2003). Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being and task performance among electronic work groups. Small Group Research, 34, 43–73.
55.
SanzJ.GilF.BarrasaA.García-veraM. P. (2006). Self-assessment of needs and behavior patterns at work: Psychometric properties of the Personality and Preference Inventory-Normative (PAPI-N). Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 837–847.
56.
SanzJ.GilF.García-veraM. P.BarrasaA. (2008). Needs and cognition/behavior patterns at work and the big five: An assessment of the Personality and Preference Inventory-Normative (PAPI-N) from the perspective of the Five-Factor model. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 46–58.
57.
SargentL. D.Sue-ChanC. (2001). Does diversity affect group efficacy? The intervening role of cohesion and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 32, 426–450.
58.
SaylesL. (1958). Behaviour of industrial work groups: Prediction and control.Nueva York: Wiley.
59.
ShawJ.DuffyM. (2000). Interdependence and preference group work: Main and congruence effects on the satisfaction and performance of group members. Journal of Management, 26, 259–279.
60.
SivasubramaniamN.MurryW. D.AvolioB. J.JungD. I. (2002). A longitudinal model of the effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance. Group & Organization Management, 27, 66–96.
61.
SosikJ. J.AvolioB. J.KahaiS. S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 89–103.
62.
StajkovicA. D.LeeD.NybergA. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-Analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 814–828.
63.
StokerJ. I. (2008). Effects of team tenure and leadership in self-managing teams. Personnel Review, 37, 564–582.
64.
SulmanJ.KaneeM.StewartP.SavageD. (2007). Does difference matter? Diversity and human rights in hospital workplace. Social Work in Health Care, 44, 145–159.
65.
TannenbaumS. I.SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ. A. (1996). Promoting team effectiveness. EnWestM. A. (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 503–529). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
66.
Van der VegtG.EmansB.Van der VliertE. (2001). Patterns of interdependence in work teams: A two level investigation on the relations with job and team satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 54, 51–69.
67.
Van VijfeijkenH.KleingeldA.Van TuijlH.AlgeraJ. A.ThierryH. (2002). Task complexity and task, goal, and reward interdependence in group performance management: prescriptive model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 363–383.
68.
WagemanR. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145–180.
69.
WagemanR.BakerG. (1997). Incentives and cooperation: the joint effects of task and rewards interdependence group performance. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 18, 307–334.
70.
WestM. A. (2003). El trabajo eficaz en equipo.Barcelona: Paidós.
71.
WestM. A.HirstG. (2003). Cooperation and teamwork for innovation. EnWestM. A.TjosvoldD.SmithK. G. (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working (pp. 297–319). Chichester, UK: Wiley
72.
WilkeH. A. M.MeertensR. W. (1994). Group performance.Londres: Routledge.
73.
YoungG. (2003). Contextualizing cooperation. EnWestM. A.TjosvoldD.SmithK. G. (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working (pp. 77–109). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
