Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice Copyright 2005 by the Educational Publishing Foundation 2005, Vol. 9, No. 3, 189–204 1089-2699/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1089-2699.9.3.189 Team Goal Commitment and Team Effectiveness: The Role of Task Interdependence and Supportive Behaviors Caroline Aube´ Vincent Rousseau HEC Montreal University of Montreal The objectives of this study were to test the relationships between team goal commit- ment and 3 criteria of team effectiveness (i.e., team performance, quality of group experience, and team viability) as well as to examine the moderating effect of task interdependence and the mediating role of supportive behaviors. Data were gathered from a sample of 74 teams working in 13 Canadian organizations. Results indicated that team goal commitment is positively related to all 3 criteria of team effectiveness. In addition, task interdependence moderates the relationship between team goal commit- ment and team performance. Furthermore, supportive behaviors mediate the relation- ships that team goal commitment has with team performance and the quality of group experience. Implications of these findings and future research needs are discussed. Keywords: work teams, team goal commitment, team effectiveness, task interdepen- dence, supportive behaviors Increasingly, much of the work in North ence of work teams is not a panacea for all American and European organizations is ac- organizational problems (Buzaglo & Wheelan, complished in teams (Porter & Beyerlein, 1999; Mueller, Procter, & Buchanan, 2000). 2000). According to many authors, the imple- Whereas some teams are very successful, others mentation of teams is one of the most common are confronted with a series of failures. Clearly, changes in work settings (Devine, 2002; Mohr- it is not sufficient to merely put individuals man, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995; Sundstrom, together in the hope that they will automatically McIntyre, Halfhill, & Richards, 2000). A work know how to work effectively in a team team may be defined as a permanent and formal (Rentsch, Heffner, & Duffy, 1994; Salas, Bowers, group of at least two interdependent individuals & Cannon-Bowers, 1995). who are collectively responsible for the accom- In this context, many studies have indicated plishment of one or several tasks set by the that goal setting at the team level is an inter- organization (Gladstein, 1984; Sundstrom, De- vention that considerably enhances team perfor- Meuse, & Futrell, 1990). Many advantages are mance (for research reviews, see Aube´, Rous- associated with the use of work teams in orga- seau, & Savoie, in press; Locke & Latham, nizations, including increased productivity, 1990; O’Leary-Kelly, Martocchio, & Frink, flexibility, innovation, and employee satisfac- 1994; Weldon & Weingart, 1993). In work set- tion, as well as decreased production costs, turn- tings, a team goal generally refers to the level of over, and absenteeism (Goodman, Ravlin, & task outcomes that team members have to Schminke, 1987; West, Borrill, & Unsworth, achieve (Weldon & Weingart, 1993). In other 1998). Nevertheless, it remains that the pres- words, it establishes the threshold of success explicitly in terms of quantity, quality, speed of work, or deadlines (e.g., produce 25 units before Caroline Aube´, Department of Management, HEC Mon- the end of the month; reduce returns by 15% treal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Vincent Rousseau, School over the next year). Setting a goal at the team of Industrial Relations, University of Montreal, Montreal, level means that team members must reach it Quebec, Canada. collectively. Thus, team goals are connected to Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Caroline Aube´, HEC Montreal, 3000 Chemin de the performance of the team. Even if team la Coˆte-Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, Quebec H3T 2A7, Can- members are involved in the goal-setting pro- ada. E-mail: [email protected] cess, in hierarchical work teams, supervisors 189 190 AUBE´ AND ROUSSEAU usually set team goals (Manz & Sims, 1987). extent to which team goal commitment is re- These assigned goals are described as official lated to team performance and to two additional because they publicly reflect the legitimate pur- criteria of team effectiveness, namely, the qual- pose and mission of the team (Perrow, 1961). ity of group experience and team viability. A substantial amount of research on goal Moreover, we investigated the moderating ef- processes has been carried out at the individual fect of task interdependence on these relation- and group (team) level (for a review, see Locke ships. Finally, the mediating role of supportive & Latham, 1990). The core findings of these behaviors in the relationships between team studies are that specific and difficult goals lead goal commitment and the three criteria of team to higher levels of performance than do easy effectiveness was examined. goals or no goals (Locke & Latham, 2002). However, according to the goal-setting theory, a Effects of Team Goal Commitment goal cannot have an impact on performance unless it is accepted and internalized by the Commitment to team goals is generally un- individual (Earley & Shalley, 1991). In other derstood in an expectancy–value framework words, as Hollenbeck and Klein (1987) stated, (Weldon & Weingart, 1993). Specifically, com- “goal commitment is a necessary condition for mitment is a function of the expectancy that goal setting to work” (p. 219). In team settings, goal attainment is possible and the attractive- team goal commitment means that team mem- ness or value placed on reaching the team goals. bers feel an attachment to the team goals and Conceptually, individuals who are highly com- that they are determined to reach these goals mitted to a goal direct their cognitive and be- (Weldon & Weingart, 1993). havioral resources toward attaining the goal, Many authors have focused on the measure- whereas individuals with low-goal commitment ment of goal commitment (e.g., DeShon & Lan- may be distracted from the assigned goal and dis, 1997; Hollenbeck, Klein, O’Leary, & may put efforts into unrelated activities because Wright, 1989; Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, they have not internalized the goal (Renn, Wright, & DeShon, 2001), the antecedents of 2003). goal commitment (e.g., Hollenbeck & Klein, The role of team goal commitment in team 1987; Hollenbeck, Williams, & Klein, 1989), performance depends on the conceptualization and especially the moderating effect of goal of performance. As stated by Wofford, Good- commitment on the relationship between goal win, and Premack (1992), “the performance difficulty and performance (e.g., Locke, 1968; variable has been operationalized in two ways see the meta-analysis of Donovan & Radose- in goal setting literature: that is, (a) as the quan- vich, 1998). Much less attention has been given tity or quality of output or productivity and (b) to the effects of goal commitment on the behav- as the discrepancy between the goal level and ior of individuals and on individual and team the performance level (goal achievement)” (p. outcomes. Some studies have indicated that 600). With regard to the first conceptualization, goal commitment at the individual level may be which is often used in laboratory studies, re- associated with work-related processes and out- search indicated that goal difficulty level inter- comes (e.g., Klein & Kim, 1998; Renn, 2003). acts with goal commitment to predict perfor- At the team level, studies have investigated the mance (Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, & Alge, influence that group (team) goal commitment 1999). More specifically, the highest level of may have on group (team) performance (e.g., task outcomes can be reached when individuals Hecht, Allen, Klammer, & Kelly, 2002; Hyatt & have to attain difficult goals and are committed Ruddy, 1997). However, the research on team to them. Either goal difficulty level or goal goal commitment as a determinant of team per- commitment may have a main effect on perfor- formance and other criteria of team effective- mance when the range of the other variable is ness is still in its infancy. restricted. Thus, difficult goals can lead to The purpose of this research was to investi- higher levels of performance than easy goals, if gate the effects of team goal commitment in the individuals are committed to the goals (Hol- team contexts. In the current study, we focused lenbeck & Klein, 1987). Furthermore, when on commitment toward assigned team goals. goals of equivalent difficulty level are assigned More specifically, we aimed to determine the to individuals, those who are strongly commit- TEAM GOAL COMMITMENT AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS 191 ted to these goals will perform better than those Hypothesis 1: Team goal commitment is who are less committed to these goals (Klein & positively related to team performance. Kim, 1998). In short, goal difficulty level and goal commitment interact with each other to Other Criteria of Team Effectiveness determine the level of task outcomes (Weldon & Weingart, 1993). Given that the purpose of a team is to produce In accordance with the second conceptualiza- a good or a service, team performance is the tion, the assessment of team performance con- most frequently used criterion of team effective- sists in comparing task outcome level with the ness (Ilgen, 1999; Shea & Guzzo, 1987). How- standards established by team goals (Hackman, ever, team performance is not the only effec- 1987; Pritchard, Jones, Roth, Stuebing, & Eke- tiveness criterion that is relevant in organiza- berg,