Department of Psychology.
Psychol Bull. 2021 May;147(5):504-534. doi: 10.1037/bul0000251.
This preregistered meta-analysis theoretically and empirically integrates the two research strands on effort gains and effort losses in teams. Theoretically, we built on Shepperd's (1993) framework of productivity loss in groups and Karau and Williams' (1993) Collective Effort model (CEM) and developed the Team member Effort Expenditure model (TEEM), an extended Expectancy × Value framework with the explicit addition of an individual work baseline. Empirically, we included studies that allowed calculating a relevant effect size, which represents the difference between an individual's effort under individual work and under teamwork conditions. Overall, we included 622 effect sizes (N = 320,632). We did not find a main effect of teamwork on effort. As predicted, however, multilevel modeling revealed that the (in-)dispensability of the own contribution to the team performance, social comparison potential, and evaluation potential moderated the effect of teamwork versus individual work on expended effort. Depending specifically on the level of (in-)dispensability and the potential to engage in social comparisons, people showed either effort gains or losses in teams. As predicted, we also found that people's self-reports indicated effort gains when they had objectively shown such gains, whereas their self-reports did not indicate effort losses when they had shown such losses. Contrary to our hypotheses, team formation (i.e., ad hoc vs. not ad hoc teams) and task meaningfulness did not emerge as moderators. Altogether, people showed either effort gains or losses in teams depending on the specific design of teamwork. We discuss implications for future research, theory development, and teamwork design in practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
本预先注册的荟萃分析从理论和实证两个方面综合了团队中努力收益和努力损失这两个研究分支。从理论上讲，我们借鉴了 Shepperd（1993）关于群体生产力损失的框架和 Karau 和 Williams（1993）的集体努力模型（CEM），并开发了团队成员努力投入模型（TEEM），这是一个扩展的期望×价值框架，明确增加了个人工作基准。从实证上讲，我们纳入了可以计算出相关效应大小的研究，该效应大小代表了个体在个体工作和团队工作条件下的努力差异。总体而言，我们纳入了 622 个效应大小（N=320632）。我们没有发现团队合作对努力有主要影响。然而，正如预测的那样，多层次建模显示，对团队绩效的贡献的（可）分配性、社会比较潜力和评价潜力，调节了团队合作与个体工作对投入努力的影响。具体而言，根据（可）分配性和社会比较的潜力水平，人们在团队中会表现出努力收益或损失。正如预测的那样，我们还发现，当人们客观地表现出收益时，他们的自我报告表明努力收益，而当他们表现出损失时，他们的自我报告并没有表明努力损失。与我们的假设相反，团队形成（即临时团队与非临时团队）和任务意义性并没有成为调节因素。总的来说，人们在团队中表现出努力收益或损失，具体取决于团队合作的具体设计。我们讨论了对未来研究、理论发展和团队合作设计实践的启示。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2021 APA，保留所有权利）。
