Team Climate in Greece


Published on

Chatzi, S., Nikolaou, I. & Anderson, N. (2005). Team Climate Inventory: Four or five factors? 12th European Conference of Work & Organisational Psychology, Istanbul, Turkey.

Published in: Travel, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Team Climate in Greece

    1. 1. TEAM CLIMATE INVENTORY: FOUR OR FIVE FACTORS? SOFIA CHATZI Dr. IOANNIS NIKOLAOU Department of Management Science and Technology Athens University of Economics and Business Prof. NEIL ANDERSON Department of Work and Organizational Psychology University of Amsterdam
    2. 2. Team Climate for Innovation <ul><li>Teamwork Innovation </li></ul><ul><li>(Proximal Work Group) </li></ul>Team Climate
    3. 3. TEAM CLIMATE INVENTORY (ANDERSON & WEST, 1994) THE FOUR – FACTOR THEORY <ul><li>Research into both climate and innovation informed the development of a four – factor theory of climate for work group innovation. Summarizing these factors, West (1990) proposed a four – factor model of work group innovation, hypothesizing that the four major factors of climate are predictive of innovativeness (see West & Anderson, 1996) </li></ul><ul><li>The Four Factors: </li></ul><ul><li>VISION </li></ul><ul><li>PARTICIPAT ΙΟΝ SAFETY </li></ul><ul><li>TASK ORIENTATION </li></ul><ul><li>SUPPORT FOR INNOVATION </li></ul>Greek validation of Team Climate Inventory
    4. 4. HYPOTHESES <ul><li>Team tasks with a high requirement for innovation (position) will be associated with high levels of clarity and commitment to team objectives (vision), high levels of participation (participation safety), and emphasis on quality (task orientation) and support for innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Large teams will have less clear objectives (vision), lower levels of participation (participation safety), lower emphasis on quality (task orientation), and lower support for innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Team tenure will be negatively related to the four dimensions of team climate for innovation </li></ul>
    5. 5. STUDY VARIABLES <ul><li>INDEPENDENT </li></ul><ul><li>SEX </li></ul><ul><li>AGE </li></ul><ul><li>EDUCATION LEVEL </li></ul><ul><li>TENURE </li></ul><ul><li>POSITION </li></ul><ul><li>DEPENDENT </li></ul><ul><li>VISION </li></ul><ul><li>PARTICIPAT ΙΟΝ SAFETY </li></ul><ul><li>TASK ORIENTATION </li></ul><ul><li>SUPPORT FOR INNOVATION </li></ul>
    6. 6. METHOD - PROCEDURE <ul><li>Translation of TCI </li></ul><ul><li>Two bilingual I/O psychologists translated the original TCI into Greek, which was then back-translated by an interpreter specialist </li></ul><ul><li>Sample </li></ul><ul><li>236 participants members of 52 work teams in clerical and shopfloor working positions of both public and private sector </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Public: Banking, Greek Ministry of Justice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Private:Production Units </li></ul></ul>
    7. 8. RESULTS <ul><li>ITEM ANALYSIS </li></ul><ul><li>Satisfactory item-cases ratio 236:38 or 6:1 </li></ul><ul><li>All items should remain except for ONE item: “We all influence each other” </li></ul><ul><li>Intercorrelations between the item and the rest of the same scale ( participation safety ) were low </li></ul>
    8. 9. FACTOR ANALYSIS <ul><li>Five Principal Components accounted for 55,67% of total variance </li></ul><ul><li>Kaiser-Meyer Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy : 0,91 </li></ul><ul><li>Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity : 4163,65, p<0,001 </li></ul>
    9. 13. CFA results <ul><li>A 4-factor – correlated- solution provided the best fit to the data: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>x 2 = 1405,22 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CFI: .84 </li></ul></ul>
    10. 14. MEAN COMPARISONS <ul><li>Η1 </li></ul><ul><li>Support for Innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Task Orientation </li></ul><ul><li>Position </li></ul><ul><li>Clerical Shopfloor </li></ul><ul><li>Mean 28,91* 30,63 </li></ul><ul><li>Mean 24,91* 26,56 </li></ul><ul><li>*p<0,05 </li></ul>The Size of the Team was not related to the four Scales of TCI (rejection of H2 )
    11. 15. MEAN COMPARISONS <ul><li>Η3 </li></ul><ul><li>Participation Safety </li></ul><ul><li>Support for Innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Social Desirability </li></ul><ul><li>Team Tenure </li></ul><ul><li>5-10years 10-30years </li></ul><ul><li>Mean 41,33* 46,05 </li></ul><ul><li>Mean 27,92** 31,96 </li></ul><ul><li>*p<0,05 **p<0,01 </li></ul><ul><li>Position </li></ul><ul><li>Clerical Shopfloor </li></ul><ul><li>Mean 19,61* 21,05 </li></ul><ul><li>*p<0,05 </li></ul>
    12. 16. MEAN COMPARISONS <ul><li>Social Desirability </li></ul><ul><li>Support for Innovation </li></ul><ul><li>Task Orientation </li></ul><ul><li>Team Tenure </li></ul><ul><li>5-10years 10-30years </li></ul><ul><li>Mean 19,56*** 22,64 </li></ul><ul><li>***p<0,001 </li></ul><ul><li>Sex </li></ul><ul><li>Male Female </li></ul><ul><li>Mean 30,32* 28,61 </li></ul><ul><li>Mean 26,27* 24,61 </li></ul><ul><li>*p<0,05 </li></ul>
    13. 18. CONCLUSIONS <ul><li>The Greek Version of TCI resemble the Original Scale of Anderson & West (1994) and the theoretical concept that first introduced by West (1990) in the number of factors that were extracted. The order of extraction of the factors, however, differs from that of the English Version and the other versions across the countries </li></ul><ul><li>The Subscale of Interaction Frequency, the quantitative dimension of Participation Safety wasn’t extract, probably because our teams (both service and production teams) work in relatively simple (i.e. requiring low innovation) jobs </li></ul>
    14. 19. CONCLUSIONS <ul><li>The Internal Consistency is high for all scales, as shown by the fact that the Cronbach a values (range between 0,87 and 0,89) are above the threshold of acceptability and Discriminant Validity shows that all scales constitute the main components of a general concept of “Team Climate for Innovation” </li></ul><ul><li>The different factor structure could be attributed to cultural differences between the samples across the countries </li></ul>