Team Autonomy, Performance, and Member Job Strain: Uncovering the Teamwork KSA Link

En raison du développement des équipes de travail dans les organisations, on souhaite obtenir des informations sur la meilleure façon de structurer les groupes pour les rendre efficients. Cette étude porte sur la relation de l'expérience de l'autonomie et du travail en équipe, des capacités et des compétences (KSAs) avec la performance du groupe et l'effort émanant de ses membres. Deux modèles ont été mis à l'épreuve à partir d'une recherche théorique et empirique continue. Des données provenant d'un échantillon de 41 équipes de production (174 participants) apportèrent des éléments en faveur du modèle de médiation selon lequel l'autonomie est associée à la perfomance et à l'effort par l'intermédiaire des KSAs. Le modèle alternatif de modération qui suppose que l'autonomie et les KSAs interagissent pour déboucher sur la performance et l'effort ne fut pas corroboré.
Given the increasing use of work teams in organizations, interest exists in identifying the best ways to design teams so that they lead to positive outcomes. This study examined how team autonomy and teamwork knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) relate to team performance and member job strain. Based on extant empirical and theoretical work, two models were tested. findings from a sample of 41 production teams (174 team members) showed support for the mediation model—that autonomy is associated with performance and strain through teamwork KSAs. The alternative moderation model, suggesting that autonomy and teamwork KSAs interact in predicting performance and strain, was not supported.     

The relationship between anomalistic belief,misperception of chance and the base rate fallacy

Abstract

A poor understanding of probability may lead people to misinterpret every day coincidences and form anomalistic (e.g., paranormal) beliefs. We investigated the relationship between anomalistic belief (including type of belief) and misperception of chance and the base rate fallacy across both anomalistic and control (i.e., neutral) contexts. Greater anomalistic belief was associated with poorer performance for both types of items; however there were no significant interactions between belief and context. For misperception of chance items, only experiential (vs. theoretical) anomalistic beliefs predicted more errors. In contrast, overall anomalistic belief was positively related to the base rate fallacy but no specific subtype of anomalistic belief was a significant predictor. The results indicate misperception of chance may lead people to interpret coincidental events as having an anomalistic cause, and a poor understanding of base rates may make people more prone to forming anomalistic beliefs.