Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Organizational Behavior.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 121.52.150.74 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 04:23:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of OrganizationalBehavior
J. Organiz.Behav. 22, 903-917 (2001)
DOI: 10.1002/job.121
Summary
Thispaperreportsthedevelopment
of
of a teamrewardattitudeconstructandintialvalidation
a measurein a longitudinal
factoranastudyof teammembers(initialn = 566).Confirmatory
lysis resultsprovidesupportfora revised9-itemscalein twodifferenttimeperiodsseparated
attitudes(preference
by fourmonths.Themeasurewaspositivelyrelatedto otherteam-related
forgroupworkandperceivedefficacyof teams)andlocusof control,andnegativelyrelatedto
a proxyforability.Implications
of theresearchandfutureresearchdirectionsareaddressed.
Copyright0 2001 JohnWiley& Sons,Ltd.
Introduction
The use of team-basedrewardsis possibly the fastestgrowingrewardpractice,with up to 70 per cent of
US organizationsnow using some type of team-basedrewards(DeMatteoet al., 1998; Ledfordet al.,
1995). Conceptually,team-basedrewardsare often arguedto have positive effects on cooperationand
collective motivation(e.g., Shamir,1990), behaviorscritical to the success or 'smooth functioning'of
the group(DeMatteoet al., 1998: 144). But line of sight issues (MilkovichandWigdor,1991), the limits
of team-based rewards in fostering individual motivation (DeMatteo et al., 1998), and potential
increasedcompetitionbetweengroups(Mohrmanet al., 1992) areprevalentcontrarianarguments.Thus,
the argumentthatinterdependentrewardsareuniversallyeffective (or not so) has conceptuallimitations,
althoughsuch treatmentscontinueto appear(e.g., Campionet al., 1993). Interestingly,otherresearchers
have long noted the contingencies involved in developing effective rewardsystems (e.g., Miller and
Hamblin,1963), with particularattentionpaid to the consistencyof rewardand task structures.Designs
that incorporateeither interdependentrewardsand tasks, or independentrewardsand tasks, tend to be
more effective than mismatcheddesigns (e.g., see Cotton and Cook, 1982 for a review).
With exceptions (e.g., Cable and Judge, 1994; DeMatteo and Eby, 1997-paper presentedat the
Annual Meetings of the Academy of Management,Boston, U.S.A.; Yamagishi, 1988), little research
attentionhas been paid to individualdifferences in rewardpreferencesor receptivity to team-based
rewards. The few studies that have examined reward attitudes tend to focus on satisfaction with
team-based rewards as an outcome, using personal characteristics,individual difference variables,
* Correspondenceto: J. D. Shaw,
Universityof Kentucky,GattonCollege of Business and Economics, School of Management
445L, Lexington, KY 40506-0034, U.S.A.
E-mail:jdshaw@uky.edu
2001
Accepted13 September
This content downloaded from 121.52.150.74 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 04:23:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
904
J. D. SHAW ETAL.
and personality as predictorsof such satisfaction (see DeMatteo et al., 1998 for a review). These
studies tend to overlook an importantlink in the process of forming team-basedrewardsatisfaction,
namely, individual attitudes about receiving team- or individually-basedrewards.Individualdifferences such as personalcharacteristics,other attitudes,priorpositive or negative experiences in teams,
andpersonalityvariableslikely contributeto the formationof rewardattitudeswhich, in turn,influence
satisfactionor dissatisfactionwith this type of reward.We begin to addressthese issues by: (1) describing the team rewardattitude(TRA) construct;(2) distinguishingit from related,but conceptuallydistinct, constructs;(3) outlininga potentialset of correlatesof TRA; (4) describingthe developmentof a
TRA measure;and (5) conducting tests for discriminantand convergentvalidity of the construct.
This content downloaded from 121.52.150.74 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 04:23:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TEAMREWARD
ATTITUDE 905
personalityas correlatesof rewardattitudes;high ability team membersandthose concernedwith individual productivityshould favour equity-basedrewardsystems. Moreover, since team-basedreward
structuresinvolve a certain loss of control at the individuallevel, personalitydimensions that relate
to stable individualdifferencesin controlshouldalso be associatedwith TRA. These criteriawere used
to guide the generationof variablesthat could logically be expected to relate to TRA. The initial set
includes ability and experience factors, other team-relatedattitudes, and two personality variables
(locus of control and proactivepersonality).
Correlatesof TRA
Personal and experience factors
Severalauthorshave proposedthatindividualability levels may be the most importantindividualcharacteristicin formingreactionsto team-basedrewardsystems (e.g., DeMatteoet al., 1998). The reasoning here is two-fold. First,high abilitymembersmay reactnegativelyto equality-basedrewardsystems
since theirperformanceis likely to be higherthan the averagegroupmember,yet undersuch systems,
the rewardsare equal (DeMatteoet al., 1997). Rewardsystems in teams thatensurethathigh-performing membersget a greaterproportionof the rewardsare likely to be viewed more positively by high
performers.High ability individualsmay also be more concerned than those of average ability with
free-ridereffects in equality-basedsystems (Albanese and Van Fleet, 1985). The second aspect of the
role of ability in forming TRA is one of individual recognition (DeMatteo et al., 1998), i.e., higher
ability individualsmay preferenvirons where the cognizance associated with their individualcontributions is not masked by equality-basedrewards (see Bretz and Judge, 1994). While not directly
relatedto rewardattitudes,two recent studies provideevidence in supportof this position. In a laboratory study,Yamagishi(1988) found that high-performinggroupmembersoften chose to leave a group
and work individuallywhen rewardswere distributedequally to all groupmembers.Parket al. (1994)
found that turnoverwas greateramong high performingindividualsunder a group incentive system,
and greateramong low performerswhen incentives were individuallybased.
The quality of one's prior team experiences is also a factor that, interestingly,has not received a
great deal of attentionas a predictorof reactionsto team-basedrewardsystems, but the theoryof allocation preferencessuggests thatpriorexperiences are centralin mouldingallocationattitudes.Experience shapes perceptions of the utility of an attitudinalobject such that those seen as furthering
importantgoals are preferred(Brief, 1998). Individualswith priorpositive team experiencesare likely
to have developedmorepositive attitudestowardteam-basedrewards.Thus, the following two hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Ability will be negatively related to TRA.
Hypothesis2: Quality of prior team experiences will be positively related to TRA.
Other team-related attitudes
Two dimensions of the broader individualism/collectivism construct specific to work in teams
(preferencefor group work and perceived efficacy of teams) may also relate to TRA. Preferencefor
group work refers to the degree to which individuals have strong preferences for group ratherthan
independentwork. More specifically,preferencefor groupwork concernsthe relativeimportancethat
an individualholds for work design or structure,ratherthan the structureof rewardsystems, per se.
While we expect that preferencefor group work will be positively related to TRA, the variablesare
conceptuallydistinct. Most important,the object of TRA is the design of rewardstructures,while the
CopyrightC 2001 JohnWiley& Sons,Ltd.
This content downloaded from 121.52.150.74 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 04:23:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
906
J. D. SHAWETAL.
This content downloaded from 121.52.150.74 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 04:23:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TEAMREWARD
ATTITUDE 907
Method
Samples
Pilot test sample
The pilot sample consisted of 101 junior and senior undergraduatebusiness studentsat a universityin
the southern US. The factor structureof an initial set of items was examined using this sample.
Participantscompleted questionnairesduringclass time and responses were anonymous.The sample
comprised 75 males and 26 females with an average age of 24.21 years.
Primary sample
The primarysample comes from a largerstudy of team-membereffectiveness (e.g., Duffy et al., 2000;
Shaw et al., 2000). The participantswere 566 upper-divisionundergraduatestudentsenrolled in business administrationcourses at a large universityin the southernUnited States. Permissionwas granted
by 11 instructors(a total of 17 classes) employing a group-basedclassroom style for the researchteam
to solicit participationfrom students.To more fully simulate actualwork teams, a class was eligible if
the instructorrequiredgroupsto complete several projects/assignmentsthroughoutthe term, assigned
groupsremainedintactthroughoutthe term, and substantialgroup-memberinteractionswere assured
by the class design. Participantswere guaranteedconfidentialityand were assured that participation
was voluntary.Three phases of self-reportdata were collected. Participantscompleted an initial questionnaire during the first week of class (Time 1; backgroundand demographicinformation,course
expectations, personality and attitudevariables, including TRA items). Time 2 transpiredthe week
following mid-term exams (group processes including task interdependenceitems). Time 3 data
(includingTRA items) were collectedjust priorto finalexaminations(8 weeks afterTime 2; 16 weeks
afterTime 1). The initial sample (n = 566) was 39 per cent female with an averageage of 22 years.The
modal class standingwas junior level. Groupsrangedin size from threeto seven memberswith a mean
size of 4.77 members (SD 1.07).
Measures--independent
variables (Time 1)
Ability was measuredwith a commonly used proxy, grade point average (GPA) (e.g., Wagner,1995).
Participantsreportedtheir cumulativeuniversity GPA on the Time 1 questionnaire.Quality of prior
Copyright? 2001 JohnWiley& Sons,Ltd.
This content downloaded from 121.52.150.74 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 04:23:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
908
J. D. SHAW ETAL.
team experiences was measuredon the Time 1 questionnairewith the question: 'Not including sports
teams, have your experiences as a member of work teams been negative or positive?' The item has
seven response options ranging from (1) very negative to (7) very positive. Following Wagner's
(1995) approach,we used seven items taken from several sources (Barberet al., 1996-paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management,Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.; Erez and
Earley, 1987; Wagnerand Moch, 1986; Wagner,1995) to measurepreferencefor group work.A sample item is: 'When I have a choice, I try to work in a group insteadof by myself.' Perceivedefficacyof
teams was measuredwith a 3-item scale from Barberet al. (1996-paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Academy of Management,Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.). A sample item is: 'Teams can
more thoroughlyevaluate options than any one individualcan.' Locus of control was measuredusing
six items from James (1973). Higher scores on the measure indicate a more external orientation.A
sample item is: 'I have found that what will happenwill happen,regardlessof my actions.' Proactive
personality was assessed with six items from Bateman and Crant(1993). A sample item is: 'If I see
somethingI don't like, I fix it.' Because of space and time constraints,we includedonly a subsetof the
items from these measures;preferencewas given to items with higheraverage factor loadings in prior
research.
Results
Initial scale developmentand item selection
The development of the TRA measure proceeded using attitude scale constructiontechniques for
Likert-typescales. After a literaturereview to determineif similarscales existed, 13 initial TRA items
were developed.Each item in the scale was an evaluativestatement,agreementwith which would indicate either a positive or negative attitude regardingreceiving rewardsbased on team performance.
Nine items were worded in a positive direction (i.e., a high score would suggest a positive attitude
Copyright? 2001 JohnWiley& Sons,Ltd.
This content downloaded from 121.52.150.74 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 04:23:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TEAM REWARDATTITUDE
909
This content downloaded from 121.52.150.74 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 04:23:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
910
J. D. SHAWETAL.
Item
TRAl
0.75
0.76
0.57
0.73
0.76
0.66
0.67
0.62
0.66
0.63
0.69
0.69
0.60
0.56
0.45
0.58
0.52
0.45
0.56
0.51
0.54
0.52
0.66
0.56
0.50
0.51
0.55
42.49
62.70
0.39
0.39
X2
df
x2/df
GFI
AGFI
NFI
RMSEA
27
1.57
0.984
0.970
0.973
0.060
27
2.32
0.972
0.937
0.948
0.072
*Standardized
factorloadingsshown.Analyses1 and2 (n= 566).Analysis3 (n= 460).
tItemsdroppedfromfinalscale.
Hypothesis tests
Descriptive statistics and correlationsfor all study variables are shown in Table 3. The tests of the
hypotheses are shown in Table 4. The hypotheses were tested using predictorvariables from Time
1 and Time 3 TRA. A hierarchicalregression approachwas used; instructordummy variables and
Copyright( 2001 JohnWiley& Sons,Ltd.
This content downloaded from 121.52.150.74 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 04:23:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TEAMREWARD
ATTITUDE 911
Table2. Confirmatoryfactoranalysisresultsfor TRA, preferencefor groupwork, andperceivedefficacy of teams
items*'t
Item
Factor 1
Given the choice, I would ratherdo a job where I can work alone
ratherthan do a job
where I have to work with others in a group (r)
I like to interactwith others when working on projects
I preferto do my own work and let others do theirs (r)
I believe teamworkcan producebetter results than individualefforts
Teams can more thoroughlyevaluate options than any
one individualcan
Workingin teams stimulatesinnovation
Factor 2
Factor 3
0.75
0.74
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.59
0.55
0.55
0.54
0.87
0.78
0.72
0.72
0.71
0.71
0.58
0.79
0.64
0.63
*Model fit (3-factor solution): X2=397.63 (149 df; p<0.000); X2/df=2.67, GFI=0.931; AGFI=0.913; NFI=0.920;
RMSEA= 0.09.
Model fit (1-factor solution): X2= 1561.61 (152 df; p <0.000); X2/df= 10.27, GFI= 0.677; AGFI= 0.596; NFI= 0.665;
RMSEA= 0.26.
Model fit (2-factor solution, TRA items loading with preference for group work items): X2 = 1430.31 (151 df; p <0.000);
x2/df= 9.47, GFI= 0.694;AGFI= 0.614;NFI= 0.693;RMSEA= 0.18.
Model fit (2-factor solution, TRA items loading with perceived efficacy of teams items): X2= 987.55 (151 df; p <0.000);
tn= 566.
othercontrolswere enteredon the firststep, ability andpersonalityon step 2, and qualityof priorteam
experiences and team-relatedattitudeson the final step. As Table 4 shows, ability and personality
explained 9 per cent of the variancein Time 3 TRA, while experience and attitudesexplained 6 per
cent. Hypothesis I was supported as ability was negatively related to TRA (3 = - 0.23, p < 0.01).
Quality of prior team experiences was not related to TRA (/3= 0.02, n.s.) and thus Hypothesis 2
was not supported.The two team-relatedattitudes were significant predictorsof TRA [preference
for group work (/3= 0.21, p < 0.01); perceived efficacy of teams (/ = 0.09, p < 0.05)]. Hypotheses
3 and 4 were thus supported.Hypothesis5 was supportedas external locus of control was associated
with a higherTRA (/ = 0.10, p < 0.05), but proactivepersonality(Hypothesis6) was not significantly
related (/3= - 0.03, n.s.).
Copyright(0 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This content downloaded from 121.52.150.74 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 04:23:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
k)
?
o
ca
0"
00
as
0
SD
n/a
- 0.13t n/a
0.03
0.15t n/a
0.01
0.04
0.03 (0.70)
-0.04
0.25t 0.41t 0.15t n/a
0.01 -0.12t
0.23t - 0.13t -0.05
-0.07 -0.14t -0.02 -0.02
-0.06
n/a
-0.16t
0.00
0.06
0.03
- 0.10t
n/a
0.06
0.00
0.05
0.04 - 0.17t
0.44t -0.10*
-0.16t -0.04
- 0.22t 0.07
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.08* -0.29t
0.16t - 0.39t
0.31t
0.21t
-0
0.08* -0
0.14t -0
in parenthesis
testsreported.
in thediagonalwhereappropriate.
Coefficient
Pairwisedeletio
*p< 0.05;tp < 0.01. One-tailed
cz'sarereported
(n's-=288-566).
a-..
This content downloaded from 121.52.150.74 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 04:23:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TEAMREWARD
ATTITUDE 913
Table4. Regressionresults
Time3 TRA
Instructor
controls
Age
Gender
Class standing
Team size
Taskinterdependence
Rewardinterdependence
Ability(GPA)
Locusof control
Model1
Model2
Model3
t
- 0.04
t
- 0.04
t
0.02
- 0.23t
- 0.06
- 0.08
- 0.15t
- 0.07
- 0.08
- 0.13t
- 0.07
- 0.05
0.06
0.05
0.07
0.08
- 0.31t
0.08
0.06
0.06
- 0.23t
0.10*
- 0.04
- 0.03
Proactivepersonality
Qualityof priorteamexperiences
Preferencefor groupwork
Perceivedefficacyof teams
0.02
0.21t
0.09*
TotalR2
0.16t
0.25t
0.31t
A R2 Block
0.16t
0.09t
0.06t
locusscored
3 = Senior);
locusof control(external
scoredhigher),
qualityof priorteamexperiences
(positive
experiences
higher).
Discussion
The results of this study provide initial supportfor a 9-item TRA measure including evidence of its
unidimensionalityand high internal consistency reliability in two time periods separated by four
months. When examined in isolation, the nine TRA items loaded on a single factor, with acceptable
factorloadings and generallyacceptableindicationsof model fit. More important,in CFA analyses,the
TRA items could be empiricallydistinguishedfrom conceptually distinct, but related, preferencefor
groupwork and perceivedefficacy of teams items. TRA was stronglyand negativelyrelatedto a proxy
for individualability (GPA)as predicted,i.e., higherability individualspreferreceiving rewardsbased
on their own performance.Also, as predicted,other team-relatedattitudeswere significantlyrelated
and a significantrelationshipwas also found with locus of controlsuch thatexternalshad morepositive
evaluationsof team-basedrewards.Two predictionswere not supported.Proactivepersonalitywas not
a significantpredictorof TRA at Time 3, and while qualityof priorteam experiencesrelatedto TRA in
bivariatecorrelations,the relationshipbetween quality of team experiences and Time 3 TRA was not
significantwhen other team-relatedattitudeswere taken into account.
Several interestingareas for future research are possible in light of this study. Researcherscould
examine the dynamics of individualattitudesconcerning team-basedrewardsin team contexts with
varying types of tasks and interdependence.In this study, the type of task and the natureof the interdependencewere generally consistent across teams and classes, althoughthere was some variationin
the degree of interdependence.While we would argue that individualshold general evaluationsconcerning how rewardsshould be distributed,differentialreactionsto team-basedrewardsdependingon
type of task being completed and the type of task interdependence(e.g., reciprocal,pooled, or sequential) are certainlypossible. Severalresearchpathsare possible in this regard.More specific measuresof
Copyright(0 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This content downloaded from 121.52.150.74 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 04:23:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
914
J. D. SHAW ETAL.
TRA could be developed that tap situationally-specificrewardattitudes,i.e., the type of rewardindividuals preferin differentsituationalcontexts. Our measuretaps a general evaluationin a broadcontext (work teams), but individualsmay make finer-graineddistinctions.More specific measuresmay
providemore predictivepower. Second, as Leventhalet al. (1980) discuss, rewardallocation attitudes
may vary to the extent that the goals of the team vary.Again, while individualsmay have general attitudes aboutreceiving team-basedrewards,these attitudesmay be embeddedin a system of situational
cues tied to collective goals. Third,rewardallocation attitudesmay be influencedby other individual
differencesnot includedin our study,includingone's perspectiveon self-interestand otherpersonality
variables.
Futureresearchcould also explore how TRA operatesin the predictionof individualand team performancein differentcontexts. This researchwill likely focus on the interactiveeffects between TRA
and situationalor contextualvariables.A growing body of researchhighlightsthat the main effects of
individualdifferencesin groupcontexts are not particularlystrongand individualdifferencesby situational factorinteractionsprovidemoreexplanatorypower (e.g., Wagner,1995). Developing interactive
predictionsbetween TRA and situationalvariablesmay lead to more precise theoriesof team functioning. It follows that the most powerful effects of TRA will be evidenced in interactiveeffects with
rewardcontingency variables.As such, investigationsof TRA may also be of practicaluse. Designing
and implementingcompensationand rewardsystems which caterto attitudesof currentorganizational
membersmay improveemployee motivationandperformanceandreduceundesirableworkbehaviors.
Researchon TRA could also be conductedat the group-or team-level. For example, much research
investigatesthe implicationsof diversityprofiles, both in terms of social categoryand value diversity,
on team effectiveness outcomes. It is possible that divergence of team-memberattitudesconcerning
rewards,task preference, and other specific attitudinalvariables may play a role in predictingteam
effectiveness. In this sense, TRA may have implications for the functioning of work teams and
possibly affect the behaviorof other team members.
Some of the hypotheses presentedhere may be culturebound. Kirkmanand Shaprio(1997) argue
that cultural values predict reactions to team-relatedorganizationalinterventions(see also Earley,
1989). Norms about allocation schemes are built into the familial, educational,and political systems
of society and thereforeaffect individual'sattitudesabout allocations (Leventhalet al., 1980). Thus,
while ability may negativelyrelateto TRA in the US culture,the relationshipmay be reversedin more
collectivistic cultures.In general, it seems reasonablethat differences in TRA will appearacross cultures, and that these differences should be investigated.Finally, futureresearchcould also explore the
role of gender in rewardallocation situations,as it was a consistentcorrelateof TRA in our analyses.'
The weaknesses of the study should also be highlighted.This study was an initial step in the validation of TRA and, thus, the measure should be examined across several samples and in differentcontexts. The findings(e.g., modest factor loadings on some items) may suggest thatminormodifications
or perhapsadditionalitems are needed. TRA was also developed using the tripartiteview, although
some researchershave argued that the three aspects will not necessarily apply to all attitudes (e.g.,
Brief, 1998). Futureinvestigationsshould carefullyexamine if this structureis appropriatefor reward
attitudes.While we used studentsamples, the participantsin the primarystudy were within a year of
entering the job market or graduateprogrammesand reportedhaving significant work experience.
These factors should ameliorate concerns about the development of team-relatedattitudes to some
extent. We also used GPA, a common proxy for ability, althoughGPA could be considereda measure
of motivation,or an amalgamof motivationand ability.Futureresearchcould improveon this studyby
including more direct measuresof ability such as cognitive ability or complexity. Moreover,practical
concernsdictatedthatonly a limited set of correlates,personalitycharacteristicsin particular,could be
'We thankan anonymousreviewer for many of these ideas.
This content downloaded from 121.52.150.74 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 04:23:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TEAM REWARDATTITUDE
915
Acknowledgements
The authorswish to thankJon Johnson,Matt Bowler, Scott Droege, Jon Anderson,ConsultingEditor
Linn Van Dyne, and four reviewers for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.
Author biographies
Jason D. Shaw is an Assistant Professor in the Gatton College of Business and Economics at the
University of Kentucky.He received his Ph.D. from the Universityof Arkansas.His currentresearch
interests include individual and organizationalconsequences of rewardsystems, work force stability
and turnover,and person-environmentcongruence issues.
Michelle K. Duffy is an Assistant Professorin the GattonCollege of Business and Economics at the
Universityof Kentucky.She received her Ph.D. from the Universityof Arkansas.Her currentresearch
interestsinclude employee stress and well-being, social undermining,and moral disengagement.
Eric M. Stark is an AssistantProfessorin the Programof Managemntat JamesMadison University.
He received his Ph.D. from the University of Arkansas.His currentresearchinterests include team
decision making and performanceand individual-differencecongruenceissues.
References
AlbaneseR, VanFleetDD. 1985.Rationalbehaviorin groups:thefree-riding
Academyof Management
tendency.
Review 10: 244-255.
This content downloaded from 121.52.150.74 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 04:23:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
916
J. D. SHAWETAL.
This content downloaded from 121.52.150.74 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 04:23:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TEAMREWARD
ATTITUDE 917
Mohrman AM, Mohrman SA, Lawler EE. 1992. The performance management of teams. In Performance
Measurement,Evaluation, and Incentives, Bruns Jr WJ (ed.). HarvardBusiness School Press: Boston, MA;
217-241.
ParkHY, Ofori-DankwaJ, Bishop DR. 1994. Organizationaland environmentaldeterminantsof functional and
dysfunctionalturnover:practicaland researchimplications.HumanRelations 47: 353-366.
Rotter JB. 1966. Generalizedexpectancies for internalversus externalcontrol of reinforcement.Psychological
Monographs80: (1, whole no. 609).
Rubin JZ, Brown BR. 1975. The Social Psychology of Bargainingand Negotiation. Academic Press: New York.
Shamir B. 1990. Calculations, values and identities: the sources of collectivistic work motivation. Human
Relations 43: 313-332.
Shaw JD, Duffy MK, Stark EM. 2000. Interdependenceand preference for group work: main and congruence
effects on the satisfactionand performanceof group members.Journal of Management26: 259-279.
WagemanR. 1995. Interdependenceand group effectiveness. AdministrativeScience Quarterly40: 145-180.
Wagner JA III. 1995. Studies of individualism-collectivism: effects cooperation in groups. Academy of
ManagementJournal 38: 152-172.
Wagner JA III, Moch MK. 1986. Individualism-collectivism:concept and measure. Group and Organization
Studies 11: 280-303.
Witting MA, MarksG, Jones GA. 1981. Luck versus effort attributions:effect on rewardallocations to self and
other.Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin 7: 71-78.
YamagishiT. 1988. Exit from the groupas an individualisticsolution to the free-riderproblemin the United States
and Japan.Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology 24: 530-542.
This content downloaded from 121.52.150.74 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 04:23:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions