Team Effectiveness and Characteristics: Apparel Product Development Teams Eun J

Home , Team effectiveness

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 [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF HUMAN SCIENCES

TEAM EFFECTIVENESS AND CHARACTERISTICS:

APPAREL PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TEAMS

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

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.

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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 & rewards ◦ Heterogeneity ◦ Size ◦ Skill ◦ Heterogeneity ◦ Role & goal clarity ◦ Self management ◦ Work norm ◦ Participation ◦ Organizational & job tenure ◦ Flexibility ◦ Leadership

Organizational ◦Training ◦Education system ◦Training Context ◦ Supervisory control ◦ Material resources ◦ Managerial support ◦ Rewards ◦ Information system ◦ Communication / Cooperation between teams ◦ Markets served ◦ Reward system

Process ◦Open communication ◦Group synergy ◦Communication / Cooperation within the team ◦ Supportiveness ◦ Level of effort ◦ Social support ◦ Discussion of strategy ◦ Task performance strategies ◦ Potency ◦ Weighing individual ◦ Knowledge and skills inputs ◦ Workload sharing ◦ Conflict ◦ Boundary management

Effectiveness ◦Performance ◦Task output acceptable ◦Employee judgment of effectiveness ◦ Satisfaction ◦ Capability of members work together in the future ◦ Manager judgment of effectiveness ◦ Group satisfaction ◦ 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 coworkers) 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.

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.

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.

Team Themes

Process

Potency Social support Workload sharing Communication/Cooperation within the team

Job Design Team Effectiveness

Self-management Participation Team member job Task variety satisfaction (TMJS) Task significance Team members judgment of Context effectiveness (TMJE) Training 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.

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 Team Effectiveness • Social Support • Workload Sharing • Communication/Cooperation Team member job

within the Team satisfaction (TMJS)

• Self-management

• Participation Team members • Training judgment of • Managerial Support effectiveness (TMJE)

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:

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 2 R .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 2 R .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 2 R .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 2 R .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 2 R .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

3.87 8. Managerial Support .59 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.

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

APPENDIX A. Initial Letter to Companies

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 . Thank you for your consideration. I would appreciate your participation in this project.

Sincerely,

Eun Kwak Catherine Black Ph. D. Candidate Professor Email: [email protected] [email protected] Phone: 850-386-8782 850-645-9881

A Team is a group of people work together to develop products for your company.

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.)

APPENDIX B. Cover Letter to Companies

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, [email protected]). 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 , 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: [email protected] [email protected] Phone: 850-386-8782 850-645-9881

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)

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.

one best Please place a check (√) in the box that 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 , please mail your completed survey in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope.

APPENDIX E. Survey Questionnaire to Managers

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

one best Please place a check (√) in the box that 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.) □

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 , 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

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 2 R .24 F1, 108 = 6.60, p ≤ .05 Adjusted R2 .05

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