Measuring Team
Effectiveness
Presented by Jill A. Marsteller, PhD, MPP
Based on work by Stephen Shortell, Jill Marsteller, Michael Lin, Marjorie
Pearson, Shinyi Wu, Peter Mendel, Shan Cretin, and Mayde Rosen. “The Role
of Team Effectiveness in Improving Chronic Illness Care,” RAND/ UC Berkeley
Improving Chronic Illness Care Evaluation. Medical Care, November 2004.
Outline of presentation
Define team effectiveness
Situate in team performance theory
Context
Factors, items & reliability
Show associations -- “antecedents” and
“consequences”
Conclusion
Team Effectiveness
Perceived organizational support
Team self-assessed skill
Goal agreement and participative norms
Team autonomy/process ownership
Information/help available
Figure 2.1--A Heuristic Model of Group Effectiveness
Task Design
e.g. autonomy,
interdependence
Group Composition
e.g. size, tenure
Organizational Context
e.g. rewards,
supervision
Internal Processes
e.g. conflict,
communication
External Processes
e.g. conflict,
communication
Environmental
Factors
e.g. turbulence,
industry
characteristics
Group Psychosocial
Traits
e.g. norms,
shared mental models
Source: Cohen, S.G., Bailey, D.E., Journal of Management, Vol. 23, No. 3, 1997, page 244
Effectiveness
-Performance
Outcomes
e.g. quality
productivity
-Attitudinal
Outcomes
e.g. job
satisfaction,
trust
-Behavioral
Outcomes
e.g. turnover
absenteeism
Context in which measures were tested
40 teams participating in the Improving Chronic
Illness Care Evaluation (ICICE)
Surveyed members of multi-disciplinary teams
As many as 12 occupational categories
Size 1 to 14 members
One disease-specific team per organization
Organizations are hospitals, physician groups,
clinics, health plans, or health systems
Participation was voluntary
Team Effectiveness Instrument
Original creator: G. Ross Baker at U. Toronto
(ross.baker@utoronto.ca) (32)
We reduced number of items (23), defined own
factors
ANOVA confirmed aggregation of individuallevel responses to team level
Responses 1-7 (strongly agree to strongly
disagree)
Varimax rotation, eigenvalues ≥1.0, clean
loading ≥0.4
Factors, Items & Reliability
Organizational support (Alpha=0.85)
This organization makes sure people have the skills and
knowledge to work in teams
A team that does a good job in this organization does not
get any special rewards or recognition (reverse coded)
Senior management in the organization strongly supports
our work
Senior management regularly reviews our progress in
making change
Senior managers in my organization see success in this
project as a high priority for the organization
Factors, Items & Reliability
Team Self-Assessed Skill (Alpha=0.90)
Our team has been able to use measurement very
effectively to design and test changes
After we have completed a change, team members are
excellent in reflecting and learning from the results
Members of our team were very successful in using
information from our change cycles to design new tests
of change
In making changes, our team was able to easily adapt
change ideas to match the needs of our organization
Our team applied enough knowledge and skill to the
work to get the work done well
Factors, Items & Reliability
Goal Agreement & Participative Norms
(Alpha=0.90)
Project team members agreed on the project’s
overall goals
The project’s goals were understood by all the
project team members
Most members of my team got a chance to
participate in decision-making
Certain individuals in this group had special skills
and knowledge that the rest of us count on
The contribution of every group member was
listened to and considered
Factors, Items & Reliability
Overall Perceived Team Effectiveness
(Alpha=0.95)
Organizational support
Team self-assessed skill
Goal agreement and participative norms
Team autonomy (Alpha=0.81)
Information/help available
Descriptives
Measure
N
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Min
Max
Team Size
40
6.53
3.04
3
14
Team Skill
40
5.03
0.90
3.13
6.73
Goal Agree and Partic Norms
40
5.85
0.64
4.57
7
Organizational Support
40
4.78
0.93
2.20
6.27
Overall Perceived Team
Effectiveness
40
5.24
0.74
3.47
6.64
Predicting Team Effectiveness
Independent Variable
Overall Perceived Team
Effectiveness
Coefficient (sig. lvl)
Constant
1.11
Team Size
-0.06*
Team Champion
0.69***
Patient Satisfaction Focus
0.49**
Cultural Balance
3.10*
Asthma
0.09
Physician Percentage on Teams
1.27*
N
40
F
5.29
p-value
0.0006
Adj R-Sq
0.4
*indicates p<0.10; ** indicates p<0.05; *** indicates p<0.01
Predicting Quality Improvement Activity
Independent Variable
Number of Changes
Depth of Changes
Coefficient (sig. lvl)
Coefficient (sig. lvl)
Constant
-49.62
-11.13
Team Size
5.79
3.90***
Team Size Squared
-0.22
-0.19**
-21.58***
-4.79**
118.85*
17.54
-10.75
-3.52**
12.00***
4.69***
Patient Satisfaction Focus
Cultural Balance
Asthma
Overall Perceived Team
Effectiveness
N
40
40
F
3.28
5.66
0.0122
0.0004
0.26
0.42
p-value
Adj R-Sq
* indicates p<0.10; ** indicates p<0.05; *** indicates p<0.01
Change in QI Clinical Process Score
Patient Survey~1300 patients, 29
organizations
Higher score greater improvement in
process measures than average
Team effectiveness and team skill are
consistently associated with greater process
improvement
Conclusion
Applies to multiple settings
Versatile
Appropriate measures of team-level phenomena
Easily understood questions
High Cronbach’s Alphas
Well supported by theory
Relate as expected to QI
Questions are “actionable”
Available free on the web,
www.rand.org/health/icice