THE ROLE OF GOAL CLARITY, TEAM COMMITMENT AND SUPPORT

FOR INNOVATION IN TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

ABSTRACT
This study intents to explore the role of team commitment, goal clarity and support for

innovation in team effectiveness (performance) of middle level employees in a telecom sector i.e

PTCL, Pakistan. Therefore, it is important to understand that how innovation plays beneficial

role in team effectiveness. Similarly, this effect is also influenced by the way team member view

their goals in the team because the innovation process in team effectiveness or performance is

stronger when team goals are clear and members are more committed to their goals. It is

observed that the relation between innovation processes and team effectiveness to be positive, it

is important to provide clear goals so that team members are committed to their goals. As team

effectiveness is dependent on so many factors so it is very important for PTCL to take all these

factors into consideration which in turn have an impact on overall performance and identity of

organization. Questionnaires related to these variables were made and filled by 100 middle level

employees which are analyzed by using statistical techniques and theoretical and managerial

implications are then discussed.

Keywords

Team commitment, clear goals, innovation, team effectiveness, performance, telecom sector

PTCL, Nayatel, Pakistan.

Team innovation processes are basically very important for team as well organizational

effectiveness in such a rapidly changing dynamic environments (Pearce & Ensley, 2004; West

& Anderson, 1996). The idea or opinion that innovation processes mostly gives positives results

has led many researchers to deal this variable as an important and standard variable, examining

how and when various precursors or predecessor either accelerate or inhibit team innovation

processes (Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004; George, 2007; Hulsheger, Anderson, &

Salgado, 2009). A little while back, researchers have raised arguments about these positively

influencing supposition (Anderson & Gasteiger, 2007; Janssen, Van De Vliert, & West, 2004)

and discovers some negative and mix results about the association or connection between

innovation processes and various outcomes (Janssen, 2003).

As innovation processes enhance performance, so teams that are interested in innovations

processes are always struggling for applying new and creative ways of doing things (Cohen,

Ledford, & Spreitzer, 1996; West, 2002), and these processes have been purely and conceptually

related to team effectiveness (Gilson, Mathieu, Shalley, & Ruddy, 2005; Janssen et al., 2004).

Although, studies that have explore the connections between innovation and team effectiveness

have established very slight or poor relationships (Sarin & McDermott, 2003; Sung & Choi,

2012) . Amusingly, research that were not emphasizing on this particular relationship but

computed both forms or concepts have revealed positive (De Dreu, 2002; Somech, 2006),

insignificant (Bain, Mann, & Pirola-Merlo, 2001) and even negligible negative effects (De Dreu,

2006). What these results proposed is that, giving value on innovation processes , it is essential

to conceptually lighten the association between innovation processes and team effectiveness and

to recognize other vital or important elements that might have an impact on this relationship.
As innovation process plays a vital role in team effectiveness, therefore in this study, we are

considering and analyzing the relationship between team effectiveness and team innovation

processes by representing on existing presupposed team processes and constructs that

characterize properties of the team (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001), and on the multifaceted

approaches of team effectiveness (Mathieu & Gilson, 2012; Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson,

2008; Sundstrom, McIntyre, Halfhill, & Richards, 2000). In such a case, we put forward that the

impact of innovation processes on team effectiveness will be dependent on emergent states.

According to Marks et al. (2001), emergent states are ‘cognitive, motivational, and affective

states of teams, as opposed to the nature of their member interaction’ (p. 357). Therefore,

emergent states are reliable and balanced states that keep in touch with team processes (Bradley,

Postlethwaite, Klotz, Hamdani, & Brown, 2012). In this research, we discover two emergent

states that are team goals clarity and team commitment.

As we stated that team effectiveness is a multifaceted approach that focuses on performance,

reputation and a person`s voluntary commitment within organization that is not part of his or her

contractual tasks, among other dimensions. Since the various approaches have been established

to have their own characteristics (Cohen et al., 1996; Cropanzano, Li, & Benson, 2011; Oetzel &

Bolton-Oetzel, 1997; Tyran & Gibson, 2008), the impact of innovation processes, emergent

states ( goal clarity and commitment), and their following associations may vary based on which

approach of effectiveness is being examining. In this study, we are considering both emergent

states and team innovation processes because these are decisive , determining and justifiable

measures of team effectiveness. In addition, performance is a context transversal standard

(Mathieu & Gilson, 2012), while reputation play a part in team and organizational image (Tyran

& Gibson, 2008). During the research on teams, performance is a dimension of effectiveness that
is frequently studied and the final objective of many innovation inventiveness (Cohen et al.,

1996). Team needs to maintan internal (performance) and external (reputation) measures of

effectiveness to remain successful. For example team that are not successful in achieving its

objectives may be disperse because of poor performance and a team that do not considers its

image may lose its integrity or reliability and an essential assistance from external and internal

parties. Work by Dixon, Freeman, and Toman (2010) found that 48% of people who had poor

practices with the service provided by a call center service spread their negatives views with 10

or more people. Last but not the least, performance and reputation are of conceptual, applied and

reasonable important for these studies because it has been suggested that both can be affected by

innovation processes (Mathieu & Gilson, 2012; Tyran & Gibson, 2008).

The objective of this study is to increase our understandings of the team innovation process-

effectiveness relationship by determining the role of goal clarity and commitment. While doing

so, we examine the views that focuses on the main effects of innovation processes and claim that

essential variables needs to be examined (Anderson et al., 2004; Janssen et al., 2004). To make

sure the validity of our findings, we test our hypothesis using different middle level employees in

PTCL and Nayatel who worked in teams.

3. Literature Review

3.1. Goal clarity and Team effectiveness

According to Locke and Latham`s goal setting theory, there are many goal setting principles that

can improve our chances of success in team in which one of the principle is goal clarity. In team,

it is very important for all members to knows what exactly they are trying to achieve. So it is

very necessary for team`s success or performance to set clear goals that are based on specific
and measurable standards so that every member of a team understand how team`s success will be

measured. Team performance could also be enhanced by giving team members additional

trainings before they start working towards their goals.

Research proved that those who are working towards well-specified goals performed better than

those working with no goals or undefined goals (Dossett, Latham, and Mitchell 1979; Ivancevich

1976; Latham, Mitchell, and Dossett 1978). At the same time, some research (Seijts and Latham

2001) proved that some aspects of goal clarity causes deficiency in performance due to focusing

on a single or limited objective or view but the revelations of early researches remains strong.

Terborg (1976) examined that those who are working to acquire very specific goals try to devote

more work time toward the particular small tasks and duties related to their goals. Likewise,

goals clarity make it easier for managers to assess performance and then provide assessment or

comments (Sawyer 1992), and make it possible for employees self starting efforts (Latham and

Locke 1991). These techniques or processes add to the goal setting theory (Locke and Latham

2002), which proposed that specific , accessible and clear goals causes to increase performance

than no goals or a command to “do your best” through directing action (Locke, Cartledge, and

Knerr 1970), increase work struggle ( Latham and Locke 1975), increase preserverance (LaPorte

and Nath 1976), encouraging strategy development and learning (Kolb and Boyatzis 1970).

Therefore, goals clarity is positively related with team effectiveness as it increases performance

due to goals and directions clarity.

H1: Goal clarity also plays positive role in team effectiveness.

According to Locke and Latham`s goal setting theory, to be an effective team, its very necessary

for team members to understand the goals and committed to the goals. For this purpose, team

members should involved in setting goals by allowing them to set their own goals that will

increase their commitments and will create a sense of empowerment. Therefore, set those goals

to which every person are agree to achieve that. This does`nt mean that you have to take

approvals for each and every goal from team members but at least set those goals to which team

members are agreed and the goals that can be attainable and which are aligned with company`s

goals also.

As team commitment has been defined as how clearly defined, shared, achievable and important

are team`s goals and objectives (Anderson & West, 1996). It shows how much team members

are motivated and how much team member`s mental states (Farr, Sin, & Tesluk, 2003) are ready

to achieve those goals or objectives. Further, team commitment increases team effectiveness

(Pearce & Ensley, 2004) which leads to participation and opens an effective line of

communication (Gladstein, 1984; Saavedra, Earley, & Van Dyne, 1993) which finally enhance

team effectiveness i.e performance. Therefore, team commitment is very important for team

effectiveness.

H2: Team commitment also plays positive role in team effectiveness.

3.3. Support for innovation and Team effectiveness:

Work team defined as group of individuals who are working together by sharing knowledge and

responsibilities for accomplishing common goals (Cohen & Bailey, 1997) usually enrolled in
innovation processes to enhance their competitive edge (Eisenbeiss, Knippenberg, & Boerner,

2008). Innovation processes encourages and promote adjustments and changes (West, Hirst,

Richter, & Shipton, 2004). When facilitating innovation processes, team members shared tasks,

ideas and knowledge and discuss different views and prospects (Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart,

2001; Taggar, 2002). Through innovation processes, team members try to find new ideas and

solutions for unclear problems, revise preceding methods of doing tasks and search for creative

and productive ways of doings tasks and solving problems (Cohen et al., 1996; Pirola-Merlo,

2010).

According to the Input Process Output Model, innovation processes generate more best results

when a systematic innovation method is followed which is a process that transforms inputs in to

outputs. Theory and studies suggests that innovation can be consider both as an output and as a

process. As a process, team innovation requires team members strongly create and shared ideas,

examining and debating all possible solutions for a problem and finally execute the most

effective solution (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2011). These includes action, purpose and

cooperation. Furthermore, team output or innovation processes consists of creativity and

innovation (Cohen et al., 1996; George, 2007; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Somech & Drach-Zahavy,

2011; West, 2002). Now creativity involves generation of new and effective ideas and solutions

(West, 2002; West et al., 2004), whereas innovation includes both idea generations and

implementation of idea and solutions (Klein & Knight, 2005; Klein & Sorra, 1996). Some

researchers differentiate between creativity and innovation (Baer, 2012) and said that these

subprocesses occur at different phases and have different predictors (Axtell et al., 2000). Our

studies focus on the relationship between team innovation processes and different approaches of

team effectiveness. So we are using innovation processes as a single variable (De Dreu & West,
2001; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Taggar, 2002) that consists of both creativity and innovation i.e idea

or solution implementation. As innovation processes focuses on bring new ideas and techniques

that enhance performance and team effectiveness, therefore it is an important variable that have a

high impact on team effectiveness.

H3: Support for innovation also plays positive role in team effectiveness.

4. Research Model

Problem Statement

How innovation plays positive role in team effectiveness of middle level employees in PTCL and

Nayatel and how this effect is influenced when team goals or objectives are clear and team

members are committed to their goals.

Team
Team
Commitment
Commitment

Clear goals Team

Support for
Innovation
5. Hypothesis

H 1: Team commitment plays positive role in team effectiveness.

H 2: Goal clarity also plays positive role in team effectiveness.

H 3: Support for innovation also plays positive role in team effectiveness.

6. Methodology

In order to organize this study in a systematic way, the quantitative research method was used to

collect data for further action and discussions.

6.1. Research Design

We collect data from middle line managers of Telecom sectors that are PTCL and Nayatel by

taking because they mostly do their work in teams with upper and lower level employees

therefore they have an idea about how different variables plays roles in team effectiveness. We

filled data from them through questionnaires by taking approval from the senior Deputy

Managers. So it is basically a descriptive based technique in which we persue our research

through surveys.

6.2. Population

We choose to address the problem of middle level employees of Telecom sector in PTCL and

Nayatel through conducting surveys. The survey design was put forward by collecting cross

sectional data through questionnaires.

The regular middle level employees of PTCL and Nayatel were targeted to analyze the

relationship between innovation processes, clear goals, team commitment and team

effectiveness. The representative sample of employees was selected because they mostly do their

work in teams in the Telecom sectors and they are facing team effectiveness problems which we

are addressing. The purposive sampling was applied to the representative sample comprises of

age, gender, education, Income and designation of these regular middle level employees in PTCL

and Nayatel.

6.4. Measures

In line with the scope of this study the following measuring instruments were adopted and

adapted to manage the culture differences and accurate data collection:

Team commitment

This variable is measured with the help of adopted and adapted questionnaire developed by

Bishop, James W. (2000) whose sample item is “I talk up (brag about) this team to my friends as

a great team to work on”

Clear goals

This variable is measured with the help of adopted and adapted questionnaire developed by

Aladwani, Adel M. (2002) whose sample item is “The basic goals of this project were clear for

all of us”.
Support for innovation

This variable is measured with the help of adopted and adapted questionnaire developed by

Zhang, Zhi-Xue, Dean Tjosvold, and Paul S. Hempel (2007) whose sample item is “This team is

always moving toward the development of new answers”.

Team Effectiveness

This variable is measured with the help of adopted and adapted questionnaire developed by De

Dreu, Carsten, K.W. (2007) whose sample item is “This team is good in coming up with ways to

complete their tasks”.

Procedure

After obtaining the approval from respective senior managers of PTCL and Nayatel to gather

data from middle level employees, all targeted participants were briefed regarding nature of the

research being carried out, to obtain their consent and cooperation. The questionnaires were

handed over to them and they were asked to filled the questionnaires. The employees were

assured that their responses would remain confidential and they were appealed to give their

honest responses and not to leave any question unanswered. The questionnaires were distributed

among 60 employees but data was received from 50 participants only, thereby yielding a

response rate of 83% as a whole.

6.5. Demographics
The demographics ( age, gender, designation, income and education ) of participants shown in

table 1 were used in this study to show the composition of participants for better understanding

of their feedback for current study.

Table 1 : Demographic Characteristics of Respondents (N = 50)

Variables f %

20-25years 16 32
26-30years 20 40
age 31-35years 10 20
36-40years 4 8
gender male 35 70
female 15 30
designation customer care executive 5 10
business unit manager 11 22
AM HR 4 8
FOP Agent commercial
team 4 8
field scheme 1 2
team load of north 1 2
network support engineer 5 10
AM finance 3 6
SCr. HRM 2 4
OE 4 8
AM sale 1 2
Sale executive 9 18
income 15-25 23 46
26-35 2 4
36-45 19 38
46-55 5 10
56 and above 1 2
education bachelors 37 74
masters 12 24
ACCA and ICMA 1 2
7. Analysis

Table 2 shows that there is significant positive relationship between team commitment, clear goals, support

for innovation and team effectiveness.

Table 2:
Correlation Coefficients between team commitment, clear goals, support for

innovation and team effectiveness. Reliabilities statistics in (bold).

Variables M SD TC CG SFI TE
Team

commitment 1.5575 0.56425 0.871

Clear goals 1.512 0.50815 0.600** 0.83

Support for

innovation 1.5857 0.50672

Team

effectiveness 1.6333 0.58805 0.644** 0.577** 0.709** 0.698

**p< .01

The multiple regression analysis (Table 3) shows that team effectiveness is highly dependent on support for

innovation which is the independent variable. Therefore we accept our third hypothesis H3 that Support for

innovation plays positive role in team effectiveness. The team effectiveness would thus significantly

effected in Telecom sectors ( PTCL and Nayatel) of Pakistan by giving due importance to support for

innovation in more objective and pragmatic manner

Multiple regression analysis predicting team effectiveness from team commitment,

clear goals and support for innovation.

Predictor β R square ∆R
square
Step 1
Control
variable 0.499 1.499
Step 2
Team
commitment 0.024
Clear Goals 0.184
Support for
innovation 0.537*** 0.685 1.685

First hypothesis proposed a significantly positive relationship between team commitment and team

effectiveness. This presumption was supported in study as significant positive correlation was found.

Second hypothesis proposed that clear goals relates positively with team effectiveness. The findings had

been supported in study as significant positive correlation was found. Third hypothesis also proposed a

positive relationship between support for innovation and team effectiveness which was supported in study

as significant positive correlation was found. Further, table 3 shows that team effectiveness is not dependent

on team commitment and clear goals therefore we reject our first and second hypothesis but as team

effectiveness is highly dependent on support for innovation. So we accept our third hypothesis.
8. Discussion
The purpose of this research was to investigate the relationship of team effectiveness with team commitment,

clear goals and support for innovation. This is important because teams are important work units in modern

organization and it is the need of such a dynamic environment to develop innovative product and services

which is only possible when organizations enhance innovation processes for achieving effective team

performances (Pearce & Ensley, 2004; West & Anderson, 1996). The results also provide support that team

effectiveness is highly dependent on innovation processes and a significant positive relationship between them.

So now the managers of telecom sectors the problem of team effectiveness of whom we are addressing are

needed to understand that how innovation processes could be enhanced and how different variables plays role

in accelerating innovation processes within team (Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004; George, 2007;

Hulsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009).

Further our analysis shows that team commitment and clear goals are positively related with team effectiveness

but the team effectiveness is not dependent on them. This may be due to the fact that when team members

strictly follow their goals, it leads to underperformance (Seijts and Latham 2001) because then team members

put all their effort and times to achieve that goal and do not think about creative ways of doing things that

hinders innovation processes within team. But the researchers also suggested that ambiguity in goals may lead

to performance disadvantages while clear goals and specified goals leads to greater performance (Dossett,

Latham, and Mitchell 1979; Ivancevich 1976; Latham, Mitchell, and Dossett 1978) because when managers

clearly defined the meaning, purpose and objectives of the goals , why and how to achieve that goals, it causes

a shared vision and common interest (Anderson & West, 1996) for which all the employees start running to

achieve the goal that causes team commitment also due to the reason that all employees get agreed on the some

or common point of interest and everyone consider that goal as his or her own personal goal.
Further our findings that team effectiveness is highly dependent on innovation processes is also supported by a

theory called diffusion of innovation that explains that when individual exposed to innovation, they lack

information about innovation which creates an interest to seek the related information so that they can do tasks

in novel ways (Cohen, Ledford, & Spreitzer, 1996; West, 2002). When the individual get all the information

about the concept and usefulness of change, they try to implement that change according to the situation and try

to search more information about it. So it is obvious that innovation enhances the performance and develop an

urge for searching new ideas, information and knowledge.

In the telecom sector, team innovation processes could be enhanced through bringing diversity in organization,

through enhancing knowledge, ideas sharing and problem solving ability. The managers of PTCL and Nayatel

needs to understand that differences in skills, information and expertise enhances performance because they

causes discussions, sharing knowledge, creativity and improve problem solving . Also heterogeneity is very

beneficial for challenging tasks that needs creativity and innovation because it creates an environment where

ideas resolve into higher level outcomes. Similarly goals are more effective when they used to evaluate team

performance because when employees think that their team performance will be evaluated in terms of how well

they attained their goals, the impact of goals increases. Therefore managers should consider goals as a base to

evaluate performance to increase the impact of goals in team effectiveness and to increase team commitment

managers should develop a shared vision where each and every employee understand that what is the meaning

or purpose of the goal , why they needed to achieved that and how they could achieved that.

9. Conclusion

The organization should focuses on innovation process to bring new ideas and techniques that improves the

quality of their products and services, improve the problem solving abilities of their employees, develop points

of differentiation from the competitors by introduce new products services and processes into market place.

Further, the organizations should be people oriented where they consider their employees as an asset because
these are the people that works in team innovation processes and improve the overall image of organization,

therefore the managers should facilitate team learning processes that causes creativity and innovation in teams

and organization. In future, I am intended to persue my research on this topic with large sample size and with

more quality so that my research could be more authentic and reliable and can publish in JCR to get my

recognition worldwide.
10. References

Pearce, C. L., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the innovation

process: The central role of shared vision in product and process innovation teams (PPITs). Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 25, 259–278.

West, M. A., & Anderson, N. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology,

81, 680–693.

Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A

constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 147–173.

George, J. M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1, 439–477.

Hulsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: € A

comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1128–

1145.

Anderson, N., & Gasteiger, R. M. (2007). Helping creativity and innovation thrive in organizations:

Functional and dysfunctional perspectives. In J. Langan-Fox, C. L. Cooper & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.),

Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms (pp. 422–

440). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Janssen, O., Vliert, E.V.D., & West, M. (2004). The bright and dark sides of individual and group

innovation: A special issue introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 129–145.

Janssen, O. (2003). Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and less satisfactory

relations with co-workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 347–364.

Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing work team
effectiveness. Human Relations, 49, 643–676.

West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and

innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology, 51(3), 355-424.

Gilson, L. L., Mathieu, J. E., Shalley, C. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (2005). Creativity and standardization:

Complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 521–

531.

Sarin, S., & McDermott, C. (2003). The effect of team leader characteristics on learning, knowledge

application, and performance of cross-functional new product development teams. Decision Sciences, 34,

707–739.

Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2012). Effects of team knowledge management on the creativity and financial

performance of organizational teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118, 4–13.

De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Team innovation and team effectiveness: The importance of minority dissent

and reflexivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 285– 298.

Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in

functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management, 32, 132–157.

Bain, P. G., Mann, L., & Pirola-Merlo, A. (2001). The innovation imperative: The relationships between

team climate, innovation, and performance in research and development teams. Small Group Research, 32,

55–73.

De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship

between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32, 83– 107.

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of

team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376.

Oxford Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 910–930). London, UK: Oxford Press.

Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of

recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–476.

Sundstrom, E., McIntyre, M., Halfhill, T., & Richards, H. (2000). Work groups: From the Hawthorne

studies to work teams of the 1990s and beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 44–

67.

Bradley, B. H., Postlethwaite, B. E., Klotz, A. C., Hamdani, M. R., & Brown, K. G. (2012). Reaping the

benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological safety climate. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 97, 151–158.

Cropanzano, R., Li, A., & Benson, L. (2011). Peer justice and teamwork process. Group & Organization

Management, 36, 567–596.

Oetzel, J. G., & Bolton-Oetzel, K. (1997). Exploring the relationship between self-construal and dimensions

of group effectiveness. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 289–315.

Tyran, K. L., & Gibson, C. B. (2008). Is what you see, what you get?: The relationship among surfaceand

deep-level heterogeneity characteristics, group efficacy, and team reputation. Group & Organization

Management, 33, 46–76.

Dixon, M., Freeman, K., & Toman, N. (2010). Stop trying to delight your customers. Harvard Business

Review, 88, 116–122.

Dossett, D. L., Latham, G. P., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Effects of assigned versus participatively set goals,

knowledge of results, and individual differences on employee behavior when goal difficulty is held

constant. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(3), 291-298.

Ivancevich, J. M. (1976). Effects of goal setting on performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 61(5), 605-612.

Latham, G. P., Mitchell, T. R., & Dossett, D. L. (1978). Importance of participative goal setting and

anticipated rewards on goal difficulty and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(2),163-171.

Seijts , G.H. and Latham, G.P. (2001). The effect of distal learning, outcome, and proximal goals on a

moderately complex task. Journal of Organizational Behavior,22(3),291–307.

Terborg, J. R. (1976). The motivational components of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology. 61.5.

613-621.

Sawyer, J. E. (1992). Goal and process clarity: Specification of multiple constructs of role ambiguity and a

structural equation model of their antecedents and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology.77.2.130–

142.

Latham, G.P., and Locke, E.A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Journal of Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 212–47.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task

motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.

Locke, E.A., Cartledge, N., and Knerr, C.S. (1970). Studies of the relationship between satisfaction, goal-

setting, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 5,135–58.

Latham, G. P., and Locke E.A. (1975). Increasing productivity and decreasing time limits: A field

replication of Parkinson’s law. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 524.

LaPorte, R. E., and Nath, R. (1976). Role of performance goals in prose learning. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 68,260–4.

Kolb, D.A., and Boyatzis, R.E. (1970). Goal-setting and self-directed behavior change. Journal of Human

Relations, 23(5), 439–457.

Farr, J. L., Sin, H.P., & Tesluk, P. E. (2003). Knowledge management processes and work group
innovation. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook on innovation (pp. 574–586). New York,

NY: Elsevier Science.

Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 29, 499-517.

Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61–72.

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop

floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290.

Eisenbeiss, S. A., Knippenberg, V.D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team

innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1438-1446.

West, M. A., Hirst, G., Richter, A., & Shipton, H. (2004). Twelve steps to heaven: Successfully managing

change through developing innovative teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,

13, 269–299.

Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’

innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management

Journal, 44, 779–793.

Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A

multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 315–330.

Pirola-Merlo, A. (2010). Agile innovation: The role of team climate in rapid research and development.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 1075–1084.

Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2011). Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: The

role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of Management, 39, 684–708.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual
innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607.

West, M. A., Hirst, G., Richter, A., & Shipton, H. (2004). Twelve steps to heaven: Successfully managing

change through developing innovative teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,

13, 269–299.

Klein, K. J., & Knight, A. P. (2005). Innovation implementation: Overcoming the challenge. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 243–246.

Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management

Review, 21, 1055–1080.

Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: The implementation of creative ideas in organizations.

Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1102–1119.

Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson, P. E., & Harrington, E. (2000).

Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 73, 265–285.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of

participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201.

Bishop, James W. (2000), "An Examination of Organizational and Team Commitment in a Self-Directed

Team Environment", Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 439-450.

Aladwani, Adel M. (2002), "An Integrated Performance Model of Information Systems Projects", Journal

of management Information Systems, 19, 185-210.

Zhang, Zhi-Xue, Dean Tjosvold, and Paul S. Hempel (2007), "Transactive Memory System Links Work

Team Characteristics and Performance", Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1722-1730.

De Dreu, Carsten, K.W. (2007), "Cooperative Outcome Interdependence, Task Reflexivity, and Team
 Effectiveness: A Motivated Information Processing Perspective", Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 628-

638.

11. Appendix

Questionnaire

Team Commitment

 I talk up (brag about) this team to my friends as a great team to work on.

 I would accept almost any job in order to keep working with this team.

 I find that my values and the team’s values are very similar.

 I am proud to tell others that I am part of this team.

 This team really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance.

 I am extremely glad that I chose this team to work with over other teams.

 I really care about the fate of this team.

 For me this is the best of all possible teams with which to work.

Clear Goals:

 The basic goals of this project were clear for all of us.

 The goals of the project were in line with the general goals of the organization.

 I was enthusiastic about the chances for success of this project.

 The results of the project benefited the organization.

 I could identify the benefits to the organization of the success of this project.

Support for innovation:

 This team is open and responsive to change.

 People in this team are always searching for fresh, new ways of looking at problems.

 In this team we take the time needed to develop new ideas.

 People in this team cooperate in order to help in the application of new ideas.

 Team members provide practical support for new ideas and their application.

Team Effectiveness:
 This team is good in coming up with ways to complete their tasks.

 This team effectively deals with uncertainty and unexpected events.

 At times, this team fails to approach its task adequately.

Scale: The scale which I used :

1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree