Team & Teambuilding Article Reviews

profiledepressedstudent
8.TheeffectofteambuildingonperformanceAnintegration.pdf

SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 1999Salas et al. / TEAM BUILDING

THE EFFECT OF TEAM BUILDING ON PERFORMANCE

An Integration

EDUARDO SALAS Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division

DREW ROZELL BRIAN MULLEN

Syracuse University

JAMES E. DRISKELL Florida Maxima Corporation

In this article, meta-analytic integration of research examining the effects of team building on performance is reported. Overall, there was no significant effect of team building on per- formance. However, the effects of team building varied as a function of the type of operation- alization of performance: On objective measures of performance, there was a nonsignificant tendency for team building to decrease performance, whereas on subjective measures of per- formance, there was a significant, albeit small, tendency for team building to increase per- formance. Examination of the specific components of team building revealed that interven- tions emphasizing role clarification were more likely to increase performance, whereas interventions that emphasized goal setting, problem solving, or interpersonal relations were no more likely to render an increase or decrease in performance. Finally, the effects of team building decreased as a function of the size of the team. The discussion considers implica- tions of these effects of team building on performance.

Harry, you weren’t kidding when you said this Florida trip would be no vacation! Building a group like us into a high-performing team takes really hard work! But I wouldn’t have missed it for worlds!

—Jack, a participant in a team-building intervention (Shandler & Egan, 1996)

Team building, also called team development or group develop- ment, is an extremely popular and common intervention. In fact,

SMALL GROUP RESEARCH, Vol. 30 No. 3, June 1999 309-329 © 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.

309

310 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 1999

Porras and Berg (1978) observed that team building was one of the most frequently used organization development interventions. Enthusiastic reports can be found for the application of team build- ing to such diverse settings as hotel management organizations (e.g., Beckhard, 1966), microwave cooking manufacturers (George, 1977), metropolitan rapid transit authorities (Golem- biewski & Kiepper, 1976), medical rehabilitation teams (Halstead et al., 1986), and nursing teams (Robinson-Kurpius & Keim, 1994). A recent special issue of a scholarly journal was devoted to applica- tions of team building to sports teams (Hardy & Crace, 1997). Also, as conveyed in the epigram above, team-building interventions are evidently believed to lead to a substantive increase in team per- formance. Shandler and Egan (1996) claim that by applying princi- ples of team building, “any group can transform itself . . . into a high-performing team” (p. x).

In spite of this popularity of the concept of team building, how- ever, several reviewers (e.g., Buller, 1986; Woodman & Sherwood, 1980) have observed that there is no conclusive evidence that team building renders an increase in team performance. Druckman and Bjork (1994) noted that the enthusiasm for these approaches among practitioners “is not matched by strong empirical support for their effect on team performance” (p. 125). Similar to this, Smither, Houston, and McIntire (1996) concluded that “Research findings on the effectiveness of team building provide a complex mix of results that make drawing firm conclusions difficult” (p. 324). More than 20 years after Beer (1976) attempted to formalize the notion of team building, some of the most fundamental questions about the effects of team building remain: Does team building enhance performance? Why? Under what conditions? This article reports the results of a meta-analytic integration of previous research examining the effects of team building on performance.

Several issues need to be addressed in examining the effect of team building on performance. First, the significance and

AUTHORS’NOTE: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not re- flect the official position of their organizations. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eduardo Salas, Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division, Code 4961, 12350 Research Parkway, Orlando, FL 32826-3275.

Salas et al. / TEAM BUILDING 311

magnitude—indeed, the very existence—of an effect of team build- ing on performance needs to be established. Second, differences between objective and subjective indices of performance have been delineated in other domains, but there is no a priori determination of the extent to which team building would differentially affect these two different ways of operationalizing performance. Third, the degree to which a given team-building intervention engages dif- ferent components of team-building might influence the effective- ness of the team-building intervention. Fourth, the effect of team size needs to be specified, particularly in light of recent findings in cognate areas indicating that group size exerts a considerable effect on other group phenomena. Finally, the effect of the duration of team-building interventions on their effectiveness is of consider- able practical significance. Each of these considerations is addressed in turn.

THE EXISTENCE OF A TEAM-BUILDING EFFECT

Team building has at its core the central notion that enlisting the participation of a group in planning and implementing change will be more effective than simply imposing change on the group from outside. The process by which the members of the team become able to effectively participate in the targeted change requires that the team acquire new skills and perceptions. The various defini- tions of team building that have been proposed in the research lit- erature resonate to these elements of participation and acquisition of new skills and perceptions. For example, Buller (1986) defined team building as a planned intervention facilitated by a third-party consultant that develops the problem-solving capacity and solves major problems of an intact work group. Woodman and Sherwood (1980) proposed that team building was designed to enhance organ- izational effectiveness by improving team operation through devel- oping problem-solving procedures and skills and increasing role clarity (cf. Beer, 1976, 1980; DeMeuse & Liebowitz, 1981; Dyer, 1977).

The effects of team building are often described in extremely sanguinary terms. For example, the epigram at the beginning of this

312 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 1999

report is extracted from a primer on team building, entitled VROOM! Turbo-Charged Team Building (Shandler & Egan, 1996). Therein, the president of a high-tech research and development firm uses a team-building intervention to rescue his foundering company, ensure his promotion in the corporate hierarchy, and even save his failing marriage. It would seem that any intervention capa- ble of such impressive effects would have generated an imposing body of evidence supporting its effectiveness.

Unfortunately, a clear summary of the effects of team building on performance apparently cannot be formulated from narrative readings of previous research. Indeed, several narrative literature reviews have been conducted in this domain within the past two decades, and the judgments rendered by these previous review efforts have been inconclusive. Woodman and Sherwood (1980) reviewed 30 papers and concluded that there were generally posi- tive results for most of the studies but that there was no clear-cut evidence to suggest that team building can improve performance. DeMeuse and Liebowitz (1981) reviewed 36 previous reports and similarly concluded that there were generally positive descriptions of the team-building interventions but that there was a dearth of evi- dence for beneficial effects of team building on performance. Bul- ler (1986) reviewed 9 studies, Sundstrom, DeMeuse, and Futrell (1990) reviewed 13 studies, and Tannenbaum, Beard, and Salas (1992) reviewed 17 studies, and (like each of the previous reviews) each of these narrative reviews concluded that team building was described in encouraging ways by most of the studies reviewed, but there was a general lack of definitive, compelling evidence for the beneficial effects of team building on performance.

It is interesting to consider the nature of the body of studies con- sidered in many previous narrative reviews of the effects of team building. First, there was a remarkable lack of convergence among these reviews regarding which studies to include in a review of team-building interventions. Of the 69 reports examined in at least one of these narrative reviews, on average only 4 studies (or 5.8%) were included by both of any two reviews. The point is that more than 90% of the literature summarized in each of these narrative

Salas et al. / TEAM BUILDING 313

reviews of team building was referred to in none of the other narra- tive reviews. This stunning lack of convergence on precisely what constitutes an includable study of team building is in part a reflec- tion of the complexity of the notion of team building (to be eluci- dated further).

It is useful to consider a few other intriguing facets of the studies considered in previous narrative reviews of the effects of team building. The most common type of report examined in these previ- ous reviews was the case study (20 out of 69 studies or 29%), describing the application of a team-building intervention in some organizational setting with no empirical examination of the effec- tiveness of the intervention (e.g., Beckhard, 1966; George, 1977). These case studies, although interesting and illuminating in an anecdotal way, can hardly be said to provide definitive, conclusive evidence in support of team building. The second most common type of report examined in these previous reviews reported the effects of team building on some affective, nonperformance out- come measure (15 out of 69 studies or 22%). This tendency for stud- ies of team-building interventions to focus on affective responses to the intervention while excluding genuine performance results of the intervention was recognized in some of the previous narrative reviews (notably Buller, 1986; DeMeuse & Liebowitz, 1981; Woodman & Sherwood, 1980). Only 6 of the 69 studies considered in the previous narrative reviews provided a precise statistical test of the effects of a team-building intervention on performance.

In sum, we cannot determine whether there is a beneficial effect of team building on performance based on previous narrative perusals of this research domain. Part of the problem lies in the ambiguity of what precisely is team building and what studies should be included in an effort to integrate the effect of team build- ing on performance. Part of the problem is that the team-building literature includes a variety of case studies, nonempirical reports, and tests of various types of outcome measures. Therefore, the first goal of the present effort was to establish the empirical significance and the strength of the effects of team building on performance.

314 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 1999

COMPONENTS OF TEAM BUILDING

Beer (1976, 1980), Dyer (1977), and Buller (1986) have dis- cussed four current models of team building: Goal setting, interper- sonal relations, problem solving, and role clarification. Goal set- ting emphasizes the setting of objectives and the development of individual and team goals. Team members exposed to a goal- setting team-building intervention are supposed to become involved in action planning to identify ways to achieve those goals. Interpersonal relations emphasizes an increase in team work skills, such as mutual supportiveness, communication, and sharing of feelings. Team members exposed to an interpersonal relations team-building intervention are supposed to develop trust in one another and confidence in the team. Problem solving emphasizes the identification of major problems in the team. Team members exposed to a problem-solving team-building intervention are sup- posed to become involved in action planning for the solution of those problems and for implementing and evaluating those solu- tions. Role clarification emphasizes increased communication among team members regarding their respective roles within the team. Team members exposed to a role-clarification team-building intervention are supposed to achieve better understanding of their and others’ respective roles and duties within the team.

These models might be best thought of as components of any given team-building intervention. That is, any team-building inter- vention might engage any or all of these various components in varying degrees. For example, Wegenast’s (1983) team-building intervention in child protective service workers involved a rela- tively high emphasis on problem solving, but relatively low empha- sis on interpersonal relations. Alternatively, Paul and Gross’s (1981) team-building intervention in the communications and elec- trical division of city government involved a relatively high empha- sis on role clarification but relatively low emphasis on goal setting.

This diversity in team-building interventions represents one of the major challenges to previous efforts to make sense of the re- search literature on team building. In the present effort, we viewed this diversity among team-building interventions as a unique

Salas et al. / TEAM BUILDING 315

opportunity to gauge the relative impact of the four components of team building delineated above (goal setting, interpersonal rela- tions, problem solving, and role clarification). To date, there is no evidence regarding which of these components of team building are more critical to the putative effects of team building on perform- ance. Therefore, another important goal of the present effort is to determine the relative contributions of these components of team building to the team building–performance effect.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF OPERATIONALIZATION OF PERFORMANCE

Two broad sets of operationalizations of performance typify research in the area of team performance. On one hand, objective indicators of performance include direct measures of countable behaviors, like the number of units sold or the tons of ore mined. On the other hand, subjective indicators of performance include ratings of the performance or effectiveness of the team. Two separate meta-analyses have reported relatively modest correlations between objective and subjective measures of performance (Bom- mer, Johnson, Rich, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 1995, r = .389; Heneman, 1986, r = .27). This led Heneman (1986) to conclude that objective and subjective measures of performance are not substitut- able, and that “when reviews of the literature are conducted, results should be grouped by the type of performance criteria” (p. 820). There is no a priori expectation for the effect of team building on performance to be greater for one or the other of these two opera- tionalizations. However, the relatively modest correlations previ- ously observed between objective and subjective measures of per- formance led us to examine the effect of team building on performance separately for each type of performance measure.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF TEAM SIZE

The size of social groups has been shown to affect the magnitude of several other group phenomena, including the participation- leadership effect (Mullen, Salas, & Driskell, 1989), the ingroup-

316 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 1999

bias effect (Mullen, Brown, & Smith, 1992), the cohesiveness- performance effect (Mullen & Copper, 1994), the groupthink effect (Mullen, Anthony, Salas, & Driskell, 1994), and the effect of stress inoculation training on performance (Saunders, Driskell, Johnston, & Salas, 1996) (for a discussion, see Mullen, 1991). Larger groups tend to encourage deindividuation among group members (e.g., Mullen, 1987). Moreover, it is well established that as group size increases, members’liking for the group (e.g., Indik, 1965) and per- formance (Mullen, 1987) tend to decrease. In larger groups, group members would be expected to be less engaged in the group, less open to the team-building intervention, and less likely to perform with any concern for excellence. Thus, we would expect that the effect of team building on performance would be weaker in larger teams and stronger in smaller teams.

In spite of the consistent tendency for the size of the group to affect several similar group phenomena, there has been no consid- eration to date of whether team size moderates the effect of team building on performance. Therefore, another important goal of the present effort was to determine the extent to which team size affects the impact of team building on performance.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF DURATION OF THE TEAM-BUILDING INTERVENTION

The duration of team-building interventions varies considerably in the extant literature, from 2 days (Smith, 1976) to 8 months (Bul- ler & Bell, 1986). Common sense might suggest that interventions of longer duration might exert greater effects: If a little of the inter- vention works, then a lot of the intervention might work even more. However, interventions of longer duration have paradoxically been found to render weaker effects in such diverse areas as mental prac- tice effects (Driskell, Copper, & Moran, 1994), self-help treatment groups (Gould & Clum, 1993), and group-work interventions with depressed older persons (Gorey & Cryns, 1991). However, the nature of the relationship between the duration of team building and the effect of team building on performance remains unclear. Therefore, another goal of the present effort is to determine the

Salas et al. / TEAM BUILDING 317

effect of the duration of the team-building intervention on the team building–performance effect.

A META-ANALYTIC INTEGRATION

In an effort to provide a clearer picture of the effects of team building on performance, a meta-analytic integration (Mullen, 1989; Mullen & Rosenthal, 1985; Rosenthal, 1991) was conducted. The goals of this effort were (a) to provide a precise summary of the significance, the strength, and the direction of the effects of team building on performance; (b) to examine different magnitudes of this effect of team building on performance as a function of the operationalization of performance; (c) to examine the possible moderation of the effect of team building on performance by the four components of team building (goal setting, interpersonal rela- tions, problem solving, and role clarification); (d) to determine whether the effect of team building on performance would decrease as a function of team size; and (e) to scrutinize the effects of the duration of the team-building intervention on the effects of team building.

PROCEDURE

Using all of the standard literature search techniques, an exhaus- tive search was conducted for studies testing the effect of team- building interventions on performance. First, on-line computer searches were conducted, using the keywords team(s), group(s), or crew(s) and building, development, performance, productivity, or effects. These computer searches were supplemented by ancestry approach and descendency approach searches, correspondence with researchers active in this domain (the invisible college), and manually examining the past 30 years of social psychology, applied psychology, and management journals (see Mullen, 1989, for a dis- cussion of literature search techniques). Second, we reviewed each of the team building studies included in the previous narrative

318 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 1999

reviews by Woodman and Sherwood (1980), DeMeuse and Lie- bowitz (1981), Buller (1986), Sundstrom, DeMeuse, and Futrell (1990), and Tannenbaum, Beard, and Salas (1992). Any studies that were available as of March 1998 were eligible for inclusion in this integration.

Studies were included if they met the following criteria: Team members in the studies had to be adolescents or adults not sampled from abnormal populations. Studies had to report (or allow the reconstruction of) a precise test of the effect of a team-building intervention either on an objective measure of performance (e.g., productivity data) or a subjective measure of performance (e.g., rat- ing of team effectiveness). Case studies were not included (e.g., “Teamwork Through Conflict,” 1971), nor were T-group (e.g., Argy- ris, 1962) or managerial grid (e.g., Blake & Mouton, 1966) inter- ventions. The effect of these criteria for inclusion was to focus on the effects of team building on performance in studies that were optimally homogeneous in methodological terms. Hypothesis tests were coded as having a positive direction of effect if team building increased performance, and they were coded as having a negative direction of effect if team building decreased performance.

These selection criteria rendered a total of 11 studies (Buller & Bell, 1986; Eden, 1986; Friedlander, 1967; Howard, 1979; Kim- berly & Nielsen, 1975; Paul & Gross, 1981; Smith, 1976; Wakeley & Shaw, 1965; Wegenast, 1983; Wexler, 1990; Woodman, 1978). These 11 articles yielded 16 separate tests of the effects of team building on performance, representing the responses of 2,806 team members in 307 teams.1 Attesting to the thoroughness of the litera- ture search, the included reports spanned a period of more than 30 years, and 4 of the 11 reports (36%) were unpublished dissertations.

In addition to the requisite statistical information, each hypothe- sis test was coded for seven predictors. The nature of the operation- alization of performance (objective vs. subjective), the size of the team, and the duration of the team-building intervention were all directly coded from each report by two judges with perfect reliabil- ity. In addition, each team-building intervention procedure was also scored for the extent to which that intervention would engage

Salas et al. / TEAM BUILDING 319

each of the components of team building. To be specific, two judges independently rated each team-building intervention on a scale from 0 (low) to 100 (high) for goal setting, interpersonal relations, problem solving, and role clarification (as defined above). Acceptably high levels of interjudge reliability were obtained for each of these components: Goal setting (interjudge reliability r = .693, Spearman-Brown Effective Reliability R = .819), interper- sonal relations (r = .822, R = .902), problem solving (r = .945, R = .972), and role clarification (r = .580, R = .734). The extent to which each intervention engaged each component of team building was set equal to the average of the judges’ ratings for each component. The hypothesis tests included in this meta-analysis, along with the corresponding statistical information and predictors for each hypothesis test, are presented in Table 1.

RESULTS

General effect. Overall, there was a nonsignificant, z = 0.132, p = .45, negligible, ZFisher = 0.007, r = .007, effect of team-building inter- ventions on performance. Thus, the weight of available evidence fails to substantiate the effectiveness of team-building interven- tions to increase performance.2

Objective versus subjective measures of performance. For the k = 8 hypothesis tests that used objective measures of performance, the effect of team building on performance was a nonsignificant, z = –0.511, p = .70, negative, ZFisher = –0.040, r = –.040. For the k = 8 hypothesis tests that used subjective measures of performance, there was a significant, z = 2.589, p = .004, albeit still weak, ZFisher = 0.140, r = .139, positive effect of team building on performance. These two effects were significantly different from one another, z = 3.398, p = .0003. Thus, although subjective reports indicate that team building appears to increase performance, objective indica- tors of performance reveal no genuine effect of team building on performance.

TA B

LE 1

: S

tu di

es In

cl ud

ed in

th e

M et

a- A

na ly

si s

D u

ra tio

n

S tu

d y

S ta

tis tic

r

N

D O

E b

M e

a su

re

S iz

e

(i n

d a

ys )

G S

IR

P

S

R C

B ul

le r

an d

B el

l ( 19

86 )

t( 16

) =

0 .3

99

–. 01

0 6/

18

– O

bj ec

tiv e

3 24

0 83

.5

32 .5

82

.5

10 .0

t(

16 )

= 1

.5 84

.3

68

4/ 8

+

O bj

ec tiv

e 2

24 0

87 .5

5.

0 10

.0

20 .0

t(

16 )

= 0

.0 05

–.

00 1

6/ 18

O bj

ec tiv

e 3

24 0

25 .0

32

.5

90 .0

10

.0

E de

n (1

98 6)

t(

29 )

= 1

.2 52

–.

22 6

7/ 22

0 –

S ub

je ct

iv e

31 .5

3

40 .0

77

.5

29 .0

35

.0

F rie

dl an

de r

(1 96

7)

F (1

, 8 8)

= 3

.9 8

.2 08

12

/9 1

+

S ub

je ct

iv e

7. 6

5 22

.5

70 .0

90

.0

20 .0

H

ow ar

d (1

97 9)

r(

17 )

= .0

40

.0 40

2/

19

+

O bj

ec tiv

e 9

14

30 .0

90

.0

40 .0

10

.0

K im

be rle

y an

d N

ie ls

en (

19 75

) t( 43

) =

0 .7

1 –.

10 8

45 /9

00

– O

bj ec

tiv e

20

2 25

.0

70 .0

80

.0

15 .0

t(

43 )

= 0

.3 8

–. 05

8 45

/9 00

O bj

ec tiv

e 20

2

25 .0

70

.0

80 .0

15

.0

P au

l a nd

G ro

ss (

19 81

) F

(1 , 3

5) =

3 6.

35

.7 14

37

/9 0

+

O bj

ec tiv

e 2.

5 3

25 .0

30

.0

70 .0

75

.0

S m

ith (

19 76

) t(

35 )

= 6

.5 52

.7

42

12 /3

6 +

S

ub je

ct iv

e 3

2 60

.0

70 .0

65

.0

80 .0

W

ak el

ey a

nd S

ha w

( 19

65 )

t( 5)

= 8

.4 28

.9

67

1/ 6

+

S ub

je ct

iv e

7 14

20

.0

60 .0

60

.0

85 .0

W

eg en

as t (

19 83

) F

(1 , 1

0) =

3 .5

4 .5

11

2/ 12

+

S

ub je

ct iv

e 6

42

27 .5

20

.0

75 .0

60

.0

W ex

le r

(1 99

0)

t( 80

) =

2 .0

68

.2 25

22

/1 32

+

S

ub je

ct iv

e 6

90

22 .5

32

.5

75 .0

20

.0

t( 80

) =

2 .0

04

.2 19

18

/1 08

+

S

ub je

ct iv

e 6

90

15 .0

90

.0

75 .0

20

.0

W oo

dm an

( 19

78 )

t( 64

) =

1 .1

10

–. 13

7 44

/1 24

O bj

ec tiv

e 3

14

57 .5

27

.5

60 .0

45

.0

t( 64

) =

1 .6

99

.2 08

44

/1 24

+

S

ub je

ct iv

e 3

14

57 .5

27

.5

60 .0

45

.0

N O

T E

: D O

E =

D ire

ct io

n of

E ffe

ct , G

S =

G oa

l S et

tin g,

IR =

In te

rp er

so na

l R el

at io

ns , P

S =

P ro

bl em

S ol

vi ng

, R C

= R

ol e

C la

rif ic

at io

n.

a. T

he fi

rs t n

um be

r re

pr es

en ts

th e

nu m

be r

of te

am s;

th e

se co

nd n

um be

r re

pr es

en ts

th e

nu m

be r

of te

am m

em be

rs .

b. T

he p

os iti

ve s

ig n

in di

ca te

s th

at te

am b

ui ld

in g

in cr

ea se

d pe

rf or

m an

ce ; t

he n

eg at

iv e

si gn

in di

ca te

s th

at te

am b

ui ld

in g

de cr

ea se

d pe

rf or

m an

ce .

320

Salas et al. / TEAM BUILDING 321

Contributions of components of team building. The mean judged level of each component of team building was used to examine the contributions of the various components of team building. The team building–performance effect did not vary as a function of the level of goal setting engaged by the team-building intervention, (r = –.164, z = 1.165, p = .12). In other words, the extent to which a given team-building intervention engaged the component of goal setting neither increased or decreased the magnitude of the effect of team building on performance. Similar to this, the extent to which a given team-building intervention engaged the component of interper- sonal relations (r = –.056, z = 0.485, p = .3138) or problem solving (r = –.049, z = 0.342, p = .37) neither increased or decreased the magnitude of the effect of team building on performance. The only component of team building to significantly predict the effect of team building on performance was role clarification (r = .759, z = 5.533, p < .001). In other words, the more a given team-building intervention engaged the component of role clarification, the stronger the magnitude of the effect of team building on performance.

It should be noted that there is no moderation of these patterns for components of team building by the operationalization of per- formance. That is, for both objective and subjective indices respec- tively, there was no effect of goal setting (r = –.060, z = 0.182, p = .43 and r = –.110, z = 0.972, p = .17), interpersonal (r = –.382, z = 1.258, p = .10 and r = –.035, z = 0.325, p = .37), or problem solving (r = –.305, z = 0.780, p = .22 and r = .088, z = 1.298, p = .10). How- ever, for both objective and subjective indices respectively, there was a significant effect of role clarification (r = .712, z = 4.565, p < .001 and r = .752, z = 4.594, p < .001).

Contributions of team size. Overall, the effects of team building on performance decreased as a function of the size of the team, r = –344, z = 5.965, p < .001. This inverse effect of team size on the effect of team building held for both objective measures of per- formance (r = –.400, z = 2.383, p = .009) and subjective measures of performance (r = –.407, z = 7.796, p < .001). Thus, whatever

322 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 1999

positive effect team building may have is most likely to emerge in small groups.

Contributions of duration of the team-building intervention. Over- all, there was a marginal tendency for the effects of team building on performance to decrease as a function of duration of the team- building intervention, r = –.197, z = 1.452, p = .07. This inverse effect of duration on the effect of team building did not obtain for objective measures of performance (r = –.056, z = 0.194, p = .42), but did obtain for subjective measures of performance (r = –.208, z = 2.562, p = .005). Thus, the negligible effects of team building on objective indices of performance are not influenced by the duration of the team-building intervention, but the appearance of benefits from team building on more subjective measures seems to dissipate for more lengthy team-building interventions.

DISCUSSION

One of the most important results to emerge from the present analyses is the documentation of the overall nonsignificant and negligible effect of team building on performance. These results suggest that the enthusiastic testimonials on behalf of team-build- ing interventions should be interpreted with caution. The overall magnitude of the effect of team building on performance of r = .007 indicates that approximately .005% of the variability in a team’s performance might be accounted for by knowing whether the team had gone through a team-building intervention. In other words, approximately 99% of the variability in a team’s performance is attributable to factors other than whether the team had gone through a team-building intervention. Relative to some rather bold proclamations regarding the beneficial effects of team building interventions (e.g., Shandler & Egan, 1996), future summaries of the effects of team building on performance should be a bit more modest.

When the data were disaggregated into objective performance indicators versus subjective performance indicators, it was shown

Salas et al. / TEAM BUILDING 323

that objective performance indicators rendered functionally no effect of team building on performance, whereas subjective per- formance indicators rendered a significant, albeit still weak, effect of team building on performance. This difference between results for objective performance indicators and subjective performance indicators is not surprising, given the modest convergence previ- ously observed between these different operationalizations (Bom- mer et al., 1995; Heneman, 1986). The analyses for these two dif- ferent performance indicators are even more sobering than the overall lack of beneficial effects of team building: Not only is there an overall lack of beneficial effects of team building, but there is not even much of a measurement-specific benefit of team-building interventions of which to speak.

The examination of the contributions of the four components of team building yielded a very intriguing result: The team building- performance effect did not vary as a function of the level of goal set- ting, interpersonal relations, or problem solving engaged by the team-building intervention. It was only role clarification that seemed to make a genuine contribution to the effect of team build- ing on performance, and this pattern emerged for both of the opera- tionalizations of performance. This significant effect for role clari- fication is entirely consistent with evidence from other quarters regarding the importance of role clarification and role ambiguity in team performance. For example, Abramis’s (1994) recent meta- analysis reported that the general weight of evidence indicates that role ambiguity exerts a negative impact on performance. The pres- ent results suggest that future research on team building and per- formance should further examine the positive effects of the role clarification component of team building.

The results for team size on the effects of team building are con- sistent with patterns documented in other group phenomena (e.g., Mullen et al., 1989; Mullen et al., 1992; Mullen et al., 1994; Mullen & Copper, 1994; Mullen, 1991). For years, researchers studying group and team performance have searched for the magic numbers that could summarize the effects of the group on the individual. It is interesting to note that Old (1946) long ago proposed that the opti- mum size for a group was 0.7 persons. This tongue-in-cheek

324 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 1999

proposal, although somewhat limiting in terms of implementing group training, keeps with the results of the present analyses: As the size of the team increases, the effectiveness of team-building inter- ventions decreases. Optimal benefit from a team-building interven- tion seems most likely to be obtained with relatively small teams.

The results for the effects of duration of the team-building inter- vention are more complex. Although there was a marginal ten- dency overall for longer team-building interventions to render weaker effects, this pattern was actually due only to the influence of duration on the effects of team building on subjective indicators of performance. Thus, although shorter duration team-building inter- ventions might be of some benefit to subjective performance mea- sures, there does not seem to be any difference between shorter and longer team-building interventions on objective performance measures.

Of course, there are limitations to our analysis and to the impli- cations that can be drawn from it. As noted earlier, the term team building has been defined somewhat broadly in the literature to include various types of group interventions that are conceptually quite dissimilar. As Lipsey and Wilson (1993) noted in a recent review of the general efficacy of psychological treatments, there are often gray areas as to what constitutes a certain intervention. Our approach was to cast a very narrow net, adopting a precise approach to defining team building and to including studies in the analysis. This decision resulted in a small, tightly-focused database of studies, yet one that we feel is highly representative of this research domain. Second, this analysis allowed us to examine sev- eral theoretically and practically interesting moderators of the effect of team building on performance, such as team size and dura- tion of training. There are other potentially informative modera- tors, such as the type or task (cf. Tannenbaum et al., 1992), that the literature did not allow us to examine. Further primary level research is needed to examine other conditions under which team building may be more effective. Finally, there are methodological limitations of this analysis. There were no studies in this database that reported reliability coefficients for the performance measures

Salas et al. / TEAM BUILDING 325

used, so adjustments for attenuation were not attempted. The fail- ure of the source information to report reliabilities for performance measures is not unique to this particular meta-analysis, but it repre- sents a common limitation of the research literature.

In summary, the present results indicate that overall there is no significant effect of team building on performance. Moreover, what little benefits team building might exert on performance are likely to be seen in interventions that emphasize role clarification in smaller groups (and perhaps, in interventions that are more brief). Future research might be directed toward further examinations of the relative contributions of the four components of team building and to scrutinizing the differential effects of team building on dif- ferent indicators of performance. Finally, we note that in examining team building almost 20 years ago, Scherer (1979) posed the ques- tion, “How can something that feels so good not be worthwhile?” (p. 335). Subsequent reviews of team-building research cautioned that evidence of an effect of team building on performance was “inconclusive” (Buller, 1986, p. 147), “unsubstantiated” (Wood- man & Sherwood, 1980, p. 166), “equivocal” (Tannenbaum et al., 1992, p. 146), and “mixed” (Sundstrom et al., 1990, p. 128). The present analysis of the effect of team building on performance pro- vides an empirical basis for the caution voiced by these reviewers.

NOTES

1. The included studies reported varying numbers of hypothesis tests, ranging from one per study (e.g., Eden, 1986) to three per study (e.g., Buller & Bell, 1986). In the meta- analysis reported, each hypothesis test was treated as an independent observation. This assumption of independence is patently false. For example, each of the three hypothesis tests included in Buller and Bell (1986) was derived from the same subject population at the same time. However, without making this assumption of nonindependence, one would be forced to select the best hypothesis test from a study such as Buller and Bell or to pool the results from the reported hypothesis tests into a single test. In the present context, these alternatives seem even more arbitrary and capricious than the present assumption of independence. The effects of this assumption of independence are examined later.

2. As indicated in Note 1, the assumption that each of the 16 hypothesis tests represented an independent observation is false. However, it can be seen that such an assumption does not seem to render a distorted summary of this research domain. Consider the results of a

326 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 1999

supplementary meta-analysis of wholly independent effects, in which multiple hypothesis tests obtained from a single study were combined into a single test. This heavy-handed solu- tion precludes the examination of the effects of any of the moderators considered above, but it does eliminate the problem of nonindependence. This produced 11 distinct, wholly inde- pendent hypothesis tests, one from each includable study. The results of this supplemental meta-analysis revealed the same patterns reported previously: There was a nonsignificant, z = 0.440, p = .33, negligible, ZFisher = 0.032, r = .032, effect of team-building interventions on performance. These results indicate that the degree of distortion engendered by the assumption of independence of the original 16 hypothesis tests is (at worst) tolerable.

REFERENCES

Abramis, D. J. (1994). Work role ambiguity, job satisfaction, and job performance: Meta- analyses and review. Psychological Reports, 75, 1411-1433.

Argyris, C. (1962). Interpersonal competence and organizational behavior. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Beckhard, R. (1966). An organization improvement program in a decentralized organiza- tion. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2, 3-25.

Beer, M. (1976). The technology of organization development. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 937-994). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Beer, M. (1980). Organization change and development: A systems view. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Bigelow, R. C. (1971). Changing classroom interaction through organization development. In R. A. Schmuck & M. B. Miles (Eds.), Organization development in schools. Palo Alto, CA: National Press.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1966). Some effects of managerial grid training on union and management attitudes towards supervision. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2, 387-400.

Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J. L., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1995). On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee perform- ance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 48, 587-605.

Buller, P. F. (1986). The team building–task performance relation: Some conceptual and methodological refinements. Group and Organization Studies, 11, 147-168.

Buller, P. F., & Bell, C. H. (1986). Effects of team building and goal setting on productivity: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 305-328.

DeMeuse, K. P., & Liebowitz, S. J. (1981). An empirical analysis of team building research. Group and Organization Studies, 6, 357-378.

Driskell, J. E., Copper, C. M., & Moran, A. (1994). Does mental practice enhance perform- ance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 481-492.

Druckman, D., & Bjork, R. A. (Eds.). (1994). Learning, remembering, believing: Enhancing human performance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Dyer, W. G. (1977). Team building: Issues and alternatives. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Eden, D. (1986). Team development: Quasi-experimental confirmation among combat com-

panies. Group and Organization Studies, 11, 133-146.

Salas et al. / TEAM BUILDING 327

Friedlander, F. (1967). The impact of organizational training laboratories upon effectiveness of ongoing work groups. Personnel Psychology, 20, 289-307.

George, W. W. (1977). Task teams for rapid growth. Harvard Business Review, 55, 71-80. Golembiewski, R. T., & Kiepper, A. (1976). MARTA: Toward an effective open giant. Public

Administration Review, 36, 46-60. Gorey, K. M., & Cryns, A. G. (1991). Group work as interventive modality with the older

depressed client: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 16, 137-157.

Gould, R. A., & Clum, G. A. (1993). A meta-analysis of self-help treatment approaches. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 169-186.

Halstead, L. S., Rintala, D. H., Kanellos, M., Griffin, B., Higgins, L., Rheinecker, N., White- side, W., & Healy, J. E. (1986). The innovative rehabilitation team: An experiment in team building. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 67, 357-361.

Hardy, C. J., & Crace, R. K. (1997). Foundations of team building: Introduction to the team building primer. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 1-10.

Heneman, R. L. (1986). The relationship between supervisory ratings and results-oriented measures of performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 811-826.

Howard, J. (1979). Organizational team building in church-related teams. Unpublished dis- sertation, California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego.

Indik, B. P. (1965). Operational size and member participation: Some empirical tests of alter- native explanations. Human Relations, 18, 339-350.

Kimberly, J. R., & Nielsen, W. R. (1975). Organization development and change in organiza- tional performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 191-206.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48, 1181-1209.

Mullen, B. (1987). Self-attention theory. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 125-146). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Mullen, B. (1989). Advanced BASIC Meta-analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Mullen, B. (1991). Group composition, salience, and cognitive representations: The phe-

nomenology of being in a group. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 297-323.

Mullen, B., Anthony, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1994). Group cohesiveness and quality of decision making: An integration of tests of the groupthink hypothesis. Small Group Research, 25, 189-204.

Mullen, B., Brown, R. J., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, rele- vance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103-122.

Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and perform- ance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227.

Mullen, B., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). BASIC Meta-analysis: Procedures and programs. Hills- dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mullen, B., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1989). Salience, motivation, and artifact as contribu- tions to the relation between participation rate and leadership. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 545-559.

Old, B. S. (1946). On the mathematics of committees, boards, and panels. Scientific Monthly, 63, 75-78.

328 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / June 1999

Paul, C. F., & Gross, A. C. (1981). Increasing productivity and morale in a municipality: Effects of organizational development. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17, 59-78.

Porras, J. I., & Berg, P. O. (1978). The impact of organization development. Academy of Management Review, 3, 249-266.

Robinson-Kurpius, S. E., & Keim, J. (1994). Team building for nurses experiencing burnout and poor morale. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 19, 155-161.

Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Saunders, T., Driskell, J. E., Johnston, J., & Salas, E. (1996). The effect of stress inoculation training on anxiety and performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 170-186.

Scherer, J. J. (1979). Can team building increase productivity? or How can something that feels so good not be worthwhile? Group and Organizational Studies, 4, 335-351.

Shandler, M., & Egan, M. (1996). VROOM! Turbo-charged team building. New York: American Management Association.

Smith, P. E. (1976). Management modeling training to improve morale and customer satis- faction. Personnel Psychology, 29, 351-359.

Smither, R. D., Houston, J. M., & McIntire, S. A. (1996). Organizational development: Strategies for changing environments. New York: HarperCollins.

Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effec- tiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120-133.

Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., & Salas, E. (1992). Team building and its influence on team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory, and research in industrial/organizational psychology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Teamwork through conflict. (1971). Business Week, 2168, pp. 44-50. Wakeley, J. H., & Shaw, M. F. (1965). Management training: An integrated approach. Train-

ing Directors Journal, 19, 2-13. Wegenast, D. P. (1983). Team building: An application of leadership skills to case manage-

ment in child protective services. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York, New York City.

Wexler, K. J. (1990). Team building: A multidimensional analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York.

Woodman, R. W. (1978). Effects of team development intervention: A field experiment. Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University.

Woodman, R. W., & Sherwood, J. J. (1980). The role of team development in organizational effectiveness: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 166-186.

Eduardo Salas, Ph.D., is a senior research psychologist at the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division. His research interests include team training, training effectiveness, and team performance.

Drew Rozell, Ph.D., is a personal and business coach with Evolution Coaching in Syracuse, New York. His interests include team building, management training, and executive success.

Salas et al. / TEAM BUILDING 329

James E. Driskell, Ph.D., is president of Florida Maxima Corporation and an adjunct professor of psychology at Rollins College, Winter Park, FL. His research interests include status processes, group dynamics, and performance under stress.

Brian Mullen, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Psychology at Syracuse University. His research interests include social cognition perspectives on (inter) group phenomena and meta-analysis.

  • Structure Bookmarks
    • Artifact
    • THE EFFECT OF TEAM BUILDING ON PERFORMANCE An Integration
      • THE EFFECT OF TEAM BUILDING ON PERFORMANCE An Integration
      • EDUARDO SALAS Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division
      • DREW ROZELL BRIAN MULLEN Syracuse University
      • JAMES E. DRISKELL Florida Maxima Corporation
      • In this article, meta-analytic integration of research examining the effects of team building on performance is reported. Overall, there was no significant effect of team building on performance. However, the effects of team building varied as a function of the type of operationalization of performance: On objective measures of performance, there was a nonsignificant tendency for team building to decrease performance, whereas on subjective measures of performance, there was a significant, albeit small, tend
        • -
        • -
        • -
        • -
        • -
        • -
      • Harry, you weren’t kidding when you said this Florida trip would be no vacation! Building a group like us into a high-performing team takes really hard work! But I wouldn’t have missed it for worlds!
      • —Jack, a participant in a team-building intervention (Shandler & Egan, 1996)
      • Team building, also called team development or group development, is an extremely popular and common intervention. In fact,
        • -
      • SMALL GROUP RESEARCH, Vol. 30 No. 3, June 1999 309-329 © 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
      • Porras and Berg (1978) observed that team building was one of the most frequently used organization development interventions. Enthusiastic reports can be found for the application of team building to such diverse settings as hotel management organizations (e.g., Beckhard, 1966), microwave cooking manufacturers (George, 1977), metropolitan rapid transit authorities (Golembiewski & Kiepper, 1976), medical rehabilitation teams (Halstead et al., 1986), and nursing teams (Robinson-Kurpius & Keim, 1994). A recen
        • -
        • -
        • -
        • -
        • -
      • In spite of this popularity of the concept of team building, however, several reviewers (e.g., Buller, 1986; Woodman & Sherwood, 1980) have observed that there is no conclusive evidence that team building renders an increase in team performance. Druckman and Bjork (1994) noted that the enthusiasm for these approaches among practitioners “is not matched by strong empirical support for their effect on team performance” (p. 125). Similar to this, Smither, Houston, and McIntire (1996) concluded that “Research f
        • -
      • Several issues need to be addressed in examining the effect of team building on performance. First, the significance and
      • AUTHORS’NOTE: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official position of their organizations. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eduardo Salas, Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division, Code 4961, 12350 Research Parkway, Orlando, FL 32826-3275.
        • -
      • magnitude—indeed, the very existence—of an effect of team building on performance needs to be established. Second, differences between objective and subjective indices of performance have been delineated in other domains, but there is no a priori determination of the extent to which team building would differentially affect these two different ways of operationalizing performance. Third, the degree to which a given team-building intervention engages different components of team-building might influence the
        • -
        • -
        • -
        • -
      • THE EXISTENCE OF A TEAM-BUILDING EFFECT
        • THE EXISTENCE OF A TEAM-BUILDING EFFECT
        • Team building has at its core the central notion that enlisting the participation of a group in planning and implementing change will be more effective than simply imposing change on the group from outside. The process by which the members of the team become able to effectively participate in the targeted change requires that the team acquire new skills and perceptions. The various definitions of team building that have been proposed in the research literature resonate to these elements of participation and
          • -
          • -
          • -
          • -
        • The effects of team building are often described in extremely sanguinary terms. For example, the epigram at the beginning of this
          • The effects of team building are often described in extremely sanguinary terms. For example, the epigram at the beginning of this
          • report is extracted from a primer on team building, entitled VROOM! Turbo-Charged Team Building (Shandler & Egan, 1996). Therein, the president of a high-tech research and development firm uses a team-building intervention to rescue his foundering company, ensure his promotion in the corporate hierarchy, and even save his failing marriage. It would seem that any intervention capable of such impressive effects would have generated an imposing body of evidence supporting its effectiveness.
            • -
        • Unfortunately, a clear summary of the effects of team building on performance apparently cannot be formulated from narrative readings of previous research. Indeed, several narrative literature reviews have been conducted in this domain within the past two decades, and the judgments rendered by these previous review efforts have been inconclusive. Woodman and Sherwood (1980) reviewed 30 papers and concluded that there were generally positive results for most of the studies but that there was no clear-cut evi
          • -
          • -
          • -
        • It is interesting to consider the nature of the body of studies considered in many previous narrative reviews of the effects of team building. First, there was a remarkable lack of convergence among these reviews regarding which studies to include in a review of team-building interventions. Of the 69 reports examined in at least one of these narrative reviews, on average only 4 studies (or 5.8%) were included by both of any two reviews. The point is that more than 90% of the literature summarized in each of
          • It is interesting to consider the nature of the body of studies considered in many previous narrative reviews of the effects of team building. First, there was a remarkable lack of convergence among these reviews regarding which studies to include in a review of team-building interventions. Of the 69 reports examined in at least one of these narrative reviews, on average only 4 studies (or 5.8%) were included by both of any two reviews. The point is that more than 90% of the literature summarized in each of
            • -
          • reviews of team building was referred to in none of the other narrative reviews. This stunning lack of convergence on precisely what constitutes an includable study of team building is in part a reflection of the complexity of the notion of team building (to be elucidated further).
            • -
            • -
            • -
        • It is useful to consider a few other intriguing facets of the studies considered in previous narrative reviews of the effects of team building. The most common type of report examined in these previous reviews was the case study (20 out of 69 studies or 29%), describing the application of a team-building intervention in some organizational setting with no empirical examination of the effectiveness of the intervention (e.g., Beckhard, 1966; George, 1977). These case studies, although interesting and illumina
          • -
          • -
          • -
          • -
        • In sum, we cannot determine whether there is a beneficial effect of team building on performance based on previous narrative perusals of this research domain. Part of the problem lies in the ambiguity of what precisely is team building and what studies should be included in an effort to integrate the effect of team building on performance. Part of the problem is that the team-building literature includes a variety of case studies, nonempirical reports, and tests of various types of outcome measures. Therefo
          • -
      • COMPONENTS OF TEAM BUILDING
        • COMPONENTS OF TEAM BUILDING
        • Beer (1976, 1980), Dyer (1977), and Buller (1986) have discussed four current models of team building: Goal setting, interpersonal relations, problem solving, and role clarification. Goal setting emphasizes the setting of objectives and the development of individual and team goals. Team members exposed to a goal-setting team-building intervention are supposed to become involved in action planning to identify ways to achieve those goals. Interpersonal relations emphasizes an increase in team work skills, suc
          • -
          • -
          • -
          • -
          • -
        • These models might be best thought of as components of any given team-building intervention. That is, any team-building intervention might engage any or all of these various components in varying degrees. For example, Wegenast’s (1983) team-building intervention in child protective service workers involved a relatively high emphasis on problem solving, but relatively low emphasis on interpersonal relations. Alternatively, Paul and Gross’s (1981) team-building intervention in the communications and electrica
          • -
          • -
          • -
          • -
          • -
        • This diversity in team-building interventions represents one of the major challenges to previous efforts to make sense of the research literature on team building. In the present effort, we viewed this diversity among team-building interventions as a unique
          • This diversity in team-building interventions represents one of the major challenges to previous efforts to make sense of the research literature on team building. In the present effort, we viewed this diversity among team-building interventions as a unique
            • -
          • opportunity to gauge the relative impact of the four components of team building delineated above (goal setting, interpersonal relations, problem solving, and role clarification). To date, there is no evidence regarding which of these components of team building are more critical to the putative effects of team building on performance. Therefore, another important goal of the present effort is to determine the relative contributions of these components of team building to the team building–performance effec
            • -
            • -
      • CONTRIBUTIONS OF OPERATIONALIZATION OF PERFORMANCE
        • CONTRIBUTIONS OF OPERATIONALIZATION OF PERFORMANCE
        • Two broad sets of operationalizations of performance typify research in the area of team performance. On one hand, objective indicators of performance include direct measures of countable behaviors, like the number of units sold or the tons of ore mined. On the other hand, subjective indicators of performance include ratings of the performance or effectiveness of the team. Two separate meta-analyses have reported relatively modest correlations between objective and subjective measures of performance (Bommer
          • -
          • -
          • -
          • -
          • -
      • CONTRIBUTIONS OF TEAM SIZE
        • CONTRIBUTIONS OF TEAM SIZE
        • The size of social groups has been shown to affect the magnitude of several other group phenomena, including the participation-leadership effect (Mullen, Salas, & Driskell, 1989), the ingroup
          • The size of social groups has been shown to affect the magnitude of several other group phenomena, including the participation-leadership effect (Mullen, Salas, & Driskell, 1989), the ingroup
            • -
          • bias effect (Mullen, Brown, & Smith, 1992), the cohesiveness-performance effect (Mullen & Copper, 1994), the groupthink effect (Mullen, Anthony, Salas, & Driskell, 1994), and the effect of stress inoculation training on performance (Saunders, Driskell, Johnston, & Salas, 1996) (for a discussion, see Mullen, 1991). Larger groups tend to encourage deindividuation among group members (e.g., Mullen, 1987). Moreover, it is well established that as group size increases, members’liking for the group (e.g., Indik,
            • -
        • In spite of the consistent tendency for the size of the group to affect several similar group phenomena, there has been no consideration to date of whether team size moderates the effect of team building on performance. Therefore, another important goal of the present effort was to determine the extent to which team size affects the impact of team building on performance.
          • -
      • CONTRIBUTIONS OF DURATION OF THE TEAM-BUILDING INTERVENTION
        • CONTRIBUTIONS OF DURATION OF THE TEAM-BUILDING INTERVENTION
        • The duration of team-building interventions varies considerably in the extant literature, from 2 days (Smith, 1976) to 8 months (Buller & Bell, 1986). Common sense might suggest that interventions of longer duration might exert greater effects: If a little of the intervention works, then a lot of the intervention might work even more. However, interventions of longer duration have paradoxically been found to render weaker effects in such diverse areas as mental practice effects (Driskell, Copper, & Moran, 1
          • The duration of team-building interventions varies considerably in the extant literature, from 2 days (Smith, 1976) to 8 months (Buller & Bell, 1986). Common sense might suggest that interventions of longer duration might exert greater effects: If a little of the intervention works, then a lot of the intervention might work even more. However, interventions of longer duration have paradoxically been found to render weaker effects in such diverse areas as mental practice effects (Driskell, Copper, & Moran, 1
            • -
            • -
            • -
          • effect of the duration of the team-building intervention on the team building–performance effect.
      • A META-ANALYTIC INTEGRATION
        • A META-ANALYTIC INTEGRATION
        • In an effort to provide a clearer picture of the effects of team building on performance, a meta-analytic integration (Mullen, 1989; Mullen & Rosenthal, 1985; Rosenthal, 1991) was conducted. The goals of this effort were (a) to provide a precise summary of the significance, the strength, and the direction of the effects of team building on performance; (b) to examine different magnitudes of this effect of team building on performance as a function of the operationalization of performance; (c) to examine the
          • -
      • PROCEDURE
        • PROCEDURE
        • Using all of the standard literature search techniques, an exhaustive search was conducted for studies testing the effect of team-building interventions on performance. First, on-line computer searches were conducted, using the keywords team(s), group(s), or crew(s) and building, development, performance, productivity, or effects. These computer searches were supplemented by ancestry approach and descendency approach searches, correspondence with researchers active in this domain (the invisible college), an
          • Using all of the standard literature search techniques, an exhaustive search was conducted for studies testing the effect of team-building interventions on performance. First, on-line computer searches were conducted, using the keywords team(s), group(s), or crew(s) and building, development, performance, productivity, or effects. These computer searches were supplemented by ancestry approach and descendency approach searches, correspondence with researchers active in this domain (the invisible college), an
            • -
            • -
          • reviews by Woodman and Sherwood (1980), DeMeuse and Liebowitz (1981), Buller (1986), Sundstrom, DeMeuse, and Futrell (1990), and Tannenbaum, Beard, and Salas (1992). Any studies that were available as of March 1998 were eligible for inclusion in this integration.
            • -
        • Studies were included if they met the following criteria: Team members in the studies had to be adolescents or adults not sampled from abnormal populations. Studies had to report (or allow the reconstruction of) a precise test of the effect of a team-building intervention either on an objective measure of performance (e.g., productivity data) or a subjective measure of performance (e.g., rating of team effectiveness). Case studies were not included (e.g., “Teamwork Through Conflict,” 1971), nor were T-group
          • -
          • -
          • -
        • These selection criteria rendered a total of 11 studies (Buller & Bell, 1986; Eden, 1986; Friedlander, 1967; Howard, 1979; Kimberly & Nielsen, 1975; Paul & Gross, 1981; Smith, 1976; Wakeley & Shaw, 1965; Wegenast, 1983; Wexler, 1990; Woodman, 1978). These 11 articles yielded 16 separate tests of the effects of team building on performance, representing the responses of 2,806 team members in 307 teams.Attesting to the thoroughness of the literature search, the included reports spanned a period of more than 3
          • -
          • 1
          • -
        • In addition to the requisite statistical information, each hypothesis test was coded for seven predictors. The nature of the operationalization of performance (objective vs. subjective), the size of the team, and the duration of the team-building intervention were all directly coded from each report by two judges with perfect reliability. In addition, each team-building intervention procedure was also scored for the extent to which that intervention would engage
          • In addition to the requisite statistical information, each hypothesis test was coded for seven predictors. The nature of the operationalization of performance (objective vs. subjective), the size of the team, and the duration of the team-building intervention were all directly coded from each report by two judges with perfect reliability. In addition, each team-building intervention procedure was also scored for the extent to which that intervention would engage
            • -
            • -
            • -
          • each of the components of team building. To be specific, two judges independently rated each team-building intervention on a scale from 0 (low) to 100 (high) for goal setting, interpersonal relations, problem solving, and role clarification (as defined above). Acceptably high levels of interjudge reliability were obtained for each of these components: Goal setting (interjudge reliability r = .693, Spearman-Brown Effective Reliability R = .819), interpersonal relations (r = .822, R = .902), problem solving (
            • -
      • RESULTS
        • RESULTS
        • General effect. Overall, there was a nonsignificant, z = 0.132, p = .45, negligible, ZFisher = 0.007, r = .007, effect of team-building interventions on performance. Thus, the weight of available evidence fails to substantiate the effectiveness of team-building interventions to increase performance.
          • -
          • -
          • 2
        • Objective versus subjective measures of performance. For the k = 8 hypothesis tests that used objective measures of performance, the effect of team building on performance was a nonsignificant, z = –0.511, p = .70, negative, ZFisher = –0.040, r = –.040. For the k =8 hypothesis tests that used subjective measures of performance, there was a significant, z = 2.589, p = .004, albeit still weak, ZFisher = 0.140, r = .139, positive effect of team building on performance. These two effects were significantly diff
          • -
        • TABLE 1: Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis
        • Duration Study Statistic rN DOEMeasure Size (in days) GS IR PS RC
          • b
        • Buller and Bell (1986) t(16) = 0.399 –.010 6/18 – Objective 3 240 83.5 32.5 82.5 10.0 t(16) = 1.584 .368 4/8 + Objective 2 240 87.5 5.0 10.0 20.0 t(16) = 0.005 –.001 6/18 – Objective 3 240 25.0 32.5 90.0 10.0 Eden (1986) t(29) = 1.252 –.226 7/220 – Subjective 31.5 3 40.0 77.5 29.0 35.0 Friedlander (1967) F(1, 88) = 3.98 .208 12/91 + Subjective 7.6 5 22.5 70.0 90.0 20.0 Howard (1979) r(17) = .040 .040 2/19 + Objective 9 14 30.0 90.0 40.0 10.0 Kimberley and Nielsen (1975) t(43) = 0.71 –.108 45/900 – Objective
        • NOTE: DOE = Direction of Effect, GS = Goal Setting, IR = Interpersonal Relations, PS = Problem Solving, RC = Role Clarification.
        • a. The first number represents the number of teams; the second number represents the number of team members.
        • b. The positive sign indicates that team building increased performance; the negative sign indicates that team building decreased performance.
        • Contributions of components of team building. The mean judged level of each component of team building was used to examine the contributions of the various components of team building. The team building–performance effect did not vary as a function of the level of goal setting engaged by the team-building intervention, (r = –.164, z = 1.165, p = .12). In other words, the extent to which a given team-building intervention engaged the component of goal setting neither increased or decreased the magnitude of t
          • -
        • It should be noted that there is no moderation of these patterns for components of team building by the operationalization of performance. That is, for both objective and subjective indices respectively, there was no effect of goal setting (r = –.060, z = 0.182, p = .43 and r = –.110, z = 0.972, p = .17), interpersonal (r = –.382, z = 1.258, p = .10 and r = –.035, z = 0.325, p = .37), or problem solving (r = –.305, z = 0.780, p = .22 and r = .088, z = 1.298, p = .10). However, for both objective and subject
          • -
          • -
          • -
        • Contributions of team size. Overall, the effects of team building on performance decreased as a function of the size of the team, r = –344, z = 5.965, p < .001. This inverse effect of team size on the effect of team building held for both objective measures of performance (r = –.400, z = 2.383, p = .009) and subjective measures of performance (r = –.407, z = 7.796, p < .001). Thus, whatever
          • Contributions of team size. Overall, the effects of team building on performance decreased as a function of the size of the team, r = –344, z = 5.965, p < .001. This inverse effect of team size on the effect of team building held for both objective measures of performance (r = –.400, z = 2.383, p = .009) and subjective measures of performance (r = –.407, z = 7.796, p < .001). Thus, whatever
            • -
          • positive effect team building may have is most likely to emerge in small groups.
        • Contributions of duration of the team-building intervention.Overall, there was a marginal tendency for the effects of team building on performance to decrease as a function of duration of the team-building intervention, r = –.197, z = 1.452, p = .07. This inverse effect of duration on the effect of team building did not obtain for objective measures of performance (r = –.056, z = 0.194, p = .42), but did obtain for subjective measures of performance (r = –.208, z = 2.562, p = .005). Thus, the negligible eff
          • -
      • DISCUSSION
        • DISCUSSION
        • One of the most important results to emerge from the present analyses is the documentation of the overall nonsignificant and negligible effect of team building on performance. These results suggest that the enthusiastic testimonials on behalf of team-building interventions should be interpreted with caution. The overall magnitude of the effect of team building on performance of r = .007 indicates that approximately .005% of the variability in a team’s performance might be accounted for by knowing whether th
          • -
        • When the data were disaggregated into objective performance indicators versus subjective performance indicators, it was shown
          • When the data were disaggregated into objective performance indicators versus subjective performance indicators, it was shown
          • that objective performance indicators rendered functionally no effect of team building on performance, whereas subjective performance indicators rendered a significant, albeit still weak, effect of team building on performance. This difference between results for objective performance indicators and subjective performance indicators is not surprising, given the modest convergence previously observed between these different operationalizations (Bommer et al., 1995; Heneman, 1986). The analyses for these two
            • -
            • -
            • -
            • -
        • The examination of the contributions of the four components of team building yielded a very intriguing result: The team building-performance effect did not vary as a function of the level of goal setting, interpersonal relations, or problem solving engaged by the team-building intervention. It was only role clarification that seemed to make a genuine contribution to the effect of team building on performance, and this pattern emerged for both of the operationalizations of performance. This significant effec
          • -
          • -
          • -
          • -
          • -
          • -
        • The results for team size on the effects of team building are consistent with patterns documented in other group phenomena (e.g., Mullen et al., 1989; Mullen et al., 1992; Mullen et al., 1994; Mullen & Copper, 1994; Mullen, 1991). For years, researchers studying group and team performance have searched for the magic numbers that could summarize the effects of the group on the individual. It is interesting to note that Old (1946) long ago proposed that the optimum size for a group was 0.7 persons. This tongu
          • The results for team size on the effects of team building are consistent with patterns documented in other group phenomena (e.g., Mullen et al., 1989; Mullen et al., 1992; Mullen et al., 1994; Mullen & Copper, 1994; Mullen, 1991). For years, researchers studying group and team performance have searched for the magic numbers that could summarize the effects of the group on the individual. It is interesting to note that Old (1946) long ago proposed that the optimum size for a group was 0.7 persons. This tongu
            • -
            • -
          • proposal, although somewhat limiting in terms of implementing group training, keeps with the results of the present analyses: As the size of the team increases, the effectiveness of team-building interventions decreases. Optimal benefit from a team-building intervention seems most likely to be obtained with relatively small teams.
            • -
            • -
        • The results for the effects of duration of the team-building intervention are more complex. Although there was a marginal tendency overall for longer team-building interventions to render weaker effects, this pattern was actually due only to the influence of duration on the effects of team building on subjective indicators of performance. Thus, although shorter duration team-building interventions might be of some benefit to subjective performance measures, there does not seem to be any difference between s
          • -
          • -
          • -
          • -
        • Of course, there are limitations to our analysis and to the implications that can be drawn from it. As noted earlier, the term team building has been defined somewhat broadly in the literature to include various types of group interventions that are conceptually quite dissimilar. As Lipsey and Wilson (1993) noted in a recent review of the general efficacy of psychological treatments, there are often gray areas as to what constitutes a certain intervention. Our approach was to cast a very narrow net, adoptin
          • Of course, there are limitations to our analysis and to the implications that can be drawn from it. As noted earlier, the term team building has been defined somewhat broadly in the literature to include various types of group interventions that are conceptually quite dissimilar. As Lipsey and Wilson (1993) noted in a recent review of the general efficacy of psychological treatments, there are often gray areas as to what constitutes a certain intervention. Our approach was to cast a very narrow net, adoptin
            • -
            • -
            • -
            • -
          • used, so adjustments for attenuation were not attempted. The failure of the source information to report reliabilities for performance measures is not unique to this particular meta-analysis, but it represents a common limitation of the research literature.
            • -
            • -
        • In summary, the present results indicate that overall there is no significant effect of team building on performance. Moreover, what little benefits team building might exert on performance are likely to be seen in interventions that emphasize role clarification in smaller groups (and perhaps, in interventions that are more brief). Future research might be directed toward further examinations of the relative contributions of the four components of team building and to scrutinizing the differential effects o
          • -
          • -
        • (p. 335). Subsequent reviews of team-building research cautioned that evidence of an effect of team building on performance was “inconclusive” (Buller, 1986, p. 147), “unsubstantiated” (Woodman & Sherwood, 1980, p. 166), “equivocal” (Tannenbaum et al., 1992, p. 146), and “mixed” (Sundstrom et al., 1990, p. 128). The present analysis of the effect of team building on performance provides an empirical basis for the caution voiced by these reviewers.
          • -
          • -
      • NOTES
        • NOTES
        • 1.
          • 1.
            • 1.
            • The included studies reported varying numbers of hypothesis tests, ranging from one per study (e.g., Eden, 1986) to three per study (e.g., Buller & Bell, 1986). In the meta-analysis reported, each hypothesis test was treated as an independent observation. This assumption of independence is patently false. For example, each of the three hypothesis tests included in Buller and Bell (1986) was derived from the same subject population at the same time. However, without making this assumption of nonindependence,
          • 2.
            • 2.
            • As indicated in Note 1, the assumption that each of the 16 hypothesis tests represented an independent observation is false. However, it can be seen that such an assumption does not seem to render a distorted summary of this research domain. Consider the results of a
        • supplementary meta-analysis of wholly independent effects, in which multiple hypothesis tests obtained from a single study were combined into a single test. This heavy-handed solution precludes the examination of the effects of any of the moderators considered above, but it does eliminate the problem of nonindependence. This produced 11 distinct, wholly independent hypothesis tests, one from each includable study. The results of this supplemental meta-analysis revealed the same patterns reported previously:
          • -
          • -
      • REFERENCES
        • REFERENCES
        • Abramis, D. J. (1994). Work role ambiguity, job satisfaction, and job performance: Meta-analyses and review. Psychological Reports, 75, 1411-1433. Argyris, C. (1962). Interpersonal competence and organizational behavior. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Beckhard, R. (1966). An organization improvement program in a decentralized organization. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2, 3-25.
          • -
        • Beer, M. (1976). The technology of organization development. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 937-994). Chicago: Rand McNally.
        • Beer, M. (1980). Organization change and development: A systems view. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
        • Bigelow, R. C. (1971). Changing classroom interaction through organization development. In R. A. Schmuck & M. B. Miles (Eds.), Organization development in schools. Palo Alto, CA: National Press.
        • Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1966). Some effects of managerial grid training on union and management attitudes towards supervision. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2, 387-400.
        • Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J. L., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1995). On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 48, 587-605.
          • -
        • Buller, P. F. (1986). The team building–task performance relation: Some conceptual and methodological refinements. Group and Organization Studies, 11, 147-168. Buller, P. F., & Bell, C. H. (1986). Effects of team building and goal setting on productivity: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 305-328. DeMeuse, K. P., & Liebowitz, S. J. (1981). An empirical analysis of team building research. Group and Organization Studies, 6, 357-378. Driskell, J. E., Copper, C. M., & Moran, A. (1994). Does
          • -
        • human performance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Dyer, W. G. (1977). Team building: Issues and alternatives. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Eden, D. (1986). Team development: Quasi-experimental confirmation among combat com
          • -
        • panies. Group and Organization Studies, 11, 133-146.
        • Friedlander, F. (1967). The impact of organizational training laboratories upon effectiveness of ongoing work groups. Personnel Psychology, 20, 289-307.
        • George, W. W. (1977). Task teams for rapid growth. Harvard Business Review, 55, 71-80.
        • Golembiewski, R. T., & Kiepper, A. (1976). MARTA: Toward an effective open giant. Public Administration Review, 36, 46-60.
        • Gorey, K. M., & Cryns, A. G. (1991). Group work as interventive modality with the older depressed client: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 16, 137-157.
        • Gould, R. A., & Clum, G. A. (1993). A meta-analysis of self-help treatment approaches. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 169-186.
        • Halstead, L. S., Rintala, D. H., Kanellos, M., Griffin, B., Higgins, L., Rheinecker, N., White-side, W., & Healy, J. E. (1986). The innovative rehabilitation team: An experiment in team building. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 67, 357-361.
        • Hardy, C. J., & Crace, R. K. (1997). Foundations of team building: Introduction to the team building primer. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 1-10.
        • Heneman, R. L. (1986). The relationship between supervisory ratings and results-oriented measures of performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 811-826.
        • Howard, J. (1979). Organizational team building in church-related teams. Unpublished dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego.
          • -
        • Indik, B. P. (1965). Operational size and member participation: Some empirical tests of alternative explanations. Human Relations, 18, 339-350.
          • -
        • Kimberly, J. R., & Nielsen, W. R. (1975). Organization development and change in organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 191-206.
          • -
        • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48, 1181-1209.
        • Mullen, B. (1987). Self-attention theory. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 125-146). New York: Springer-Verlag.
        • Mullen, B. (1989). Advanced BASIC Meta-analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
        • Mullen, B. (1991). Group composition, salience, and cognitive representations: The phenomenology of being in a group. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 297-323.
          • -
        • Mullen, B., Anthony, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1994). Group cohesiveness and quality of decision making: An integration of tests of the groupthink hypothesis. Small Group Research, 25, 189-204.
        • Mullen, B., Brown, R. J., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103-122.
          • -
        • Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227.
          • -
        • Mullen, B., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). BASIC Meta-analysis: Procedures and programs. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
          • -
        • Mullen, B., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1989). Salience, motivation, and artifact as contributions to the relation between participation rate and leadership. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 545-559.
          • -
        • Old, B. S. (1946). On the mathematics of committees, boards, and panels. Scientific Monthly, 63, 75-78.
        • Paul, C. F., & Gross, A. C. (1981). Increasing productivity and morale in a municipality: Effects of organizational development. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17, 59-78.
        • Porras, J. I., & Berg, P. O. (1978). The impact of organization development. Academy of Management Review, 3, 249-266.
        • Robinson-Kurpius, S. E., & Keim, J. (1994). Team building for nurses experiencing burnout and poor morale. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 19, 155-161.
        • Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
        • Saunders, T., Driskell, J. E., Johnston, J., & Salas, E. (1996). The effect of stress inoculation training on anxiety and performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 170-186.
        • Scherer, J. J. (1979). Can team building increase productivity? or How can something that feels so good not be worthwhile? Group and Organizational Studies, 4, 335-351.
        • Shandler, M., & Egan, M. (1996). VROOM! Turbo-charged team building. New York: American Management Association.
        • Smith, P. E. (1976). Management modeling training to improve morale and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 29, 351-359.
          • -
        • Smither, R. D., Houston, J. M., & McIntire, S. A. (1996). Organizational development: Strategies for changing environments. New York: HarperCollins.
        • Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120-133.
          • -
        • Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., & Salas, E. (1992). Team building and its influence on team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory, and research in industrial/organizational psychology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
        • Teamwork through conflict. (1971). Business Week, 2168, pp. 44-50.
        • Wakeley, J. H., & Shaw, M. F. (1965). Management training: An integrated approach. Training Directors Journal, 19, 2-13.
          • -
        • Wegenast, D. P. (1983). Team building: An application of leadership skills to case management in child protective services. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York, New York City.
          • -
        • Wexler, K. J. (1990). Team building: A multidimensional analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York.
        • Woodman, R. W. (1978). Effects of team development intervention: A field experiment. Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University.
        • Woodman, R. W., & Sherwood, J. J. (1980). The role of team development in organizational effectiveness: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 166-186.
        • Eduardo Salas, Ph.D., is a senior research psychologist at the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division. His research interests include team training, training effectiveness, and team performance.
        • Drew Rozell, Ph.D., is a personal and business coach with Evolution Coaching in Syracuse, New York. His interests include team building, management training, and executive success.
        • James E. Driskell, Ph.D., is president of Florida Maxima Corporation and an adjunct professor of psychology at Rollins College, Winter Park, FL. His research interests include status processes, group dynamics, and performance under stress.
        • Brian Mullen, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Psychology at Syracuse University. His research interests include social cognition perspectives on (inter) group phenomena and meta-analysis.