Today, more and more project teams are formed to achieve organisational objectives as organisations generally recognized the importance and benefits of project teams. Rationales for this study include: (a) it is unclear from literature what kind of relationships among performance outcomes, team attitudinal outcomes and team behavioural outcomes in a project setting, (b) it is unclear from literature what are the team outcome factors that can predict project performance, and (c) what kind of result team outcome factors can produce in a project setting whereby there is resource and time constraints compare to normal work teams which are ongoing and operational in nature. This study developed a research model underpinned on Cohen & Bailey’s (1997) Team Effectiveness Framework to empirically analyze some team outcome factors. Result showed that when project team trust is high, this will improve project performance, team satisfaction, team effectiveness and team cohesion. At the same time, strong team cohesion also increases team satisfaction. However, strong team cohesion is not predicting project performance and team effectiveness positively. On the contrary, strong team cohesion is actually deteriorating the project performance. The intervention of team satisfaction can improve project performance and team effectiveness. Insignificant relationship between team effectiveness and project performance suggests that team effectiveness alone cannot predict project performance directly. Discussion, conclusion and limitations are also included in this article.

1. Relationships among TeamRelationships among Team
Trust, Team Cohesion, TeamTrust, Team Cohesion, Team
Satisfaction, TeamSatisfaction, Team
Effectiveness & ProjectEffectiveness & Project
Performance as Perceived byPerformance as Perceived by
Project Managers in MalaysiaProject Managers in Malaysia
Han-Ping FUNGHan-Ping FUNG
PMP, ITIL v3 Expert, ITIL v2 Mgr, CISSP, CCSK,PMP, ITIL v3 Expert, ITIL v2 Mgr, CISSP, CCSK,
IPv6 Forum Gold Certified Network EngineerIPv6 Forum Gold Certified Network Engineer
Hewlett-Packard Malaysia, Technology ConsultingHewlett-Packard Malaysia, Technology Consulting
5-Oct-20135-Oct-2013

2. 10/05/1310/05/13 FUNG Han PingFUNG Han Ping 22
OverviewOverview
1.1. Operational DefinitionOperational Definition
2.2. Research Model & HypothesesResearch Model & Hypotheses
3.3. Research ProblemResearch Problem
4.4. Research Objectives, Questions &Research Objectives, Questions &
Knowledge ContributionKnowledge Contribution
5.5. Literature ReviewLiterature Review
6.6. Research MethodResearch Method
7.7. Research FindingsResearch Findings
8.8. Discussion & ConclusionDiscussion & Conclusion
9.9. Limitation & Future ResearchLimitation & Future Research
10.10. Q&AQ&A

3. 10/05/1310/05/13 FUNG Han PingFUNG Han Ping 33
1. Operational Definition1. Operational Definition
1.1. Project Performance –Project Performance – degreedegree ofof project deliveryproject delivery thatthat meets stakeholders’meets stakeholders’
requirementsrequirements on a negotiatedon a negotiated timetime within negotiatedwithin negotiated budgetbudget, meeting, meeting
specificspecific qualityquality requirements &requirements & accepted by customersaccepted by customers (Gallegos et al.,(Gallegos et al.,
2004; Shenhar, 2004; Parsons, 2006)2004; Shenhar, 2004; Parsons, 2006)
2.2. Team Trust –Team Trust – project manager’sproject manager’s perceptionperception on theon the willingnesswillingness of aof a teamteam
membermember (e.g. named A) to be(e.g. named A) to be vulnerablevulnerable to theto the actionsactions ofof other teamother team
membersmembers based on thebased on the expectationexpectation that thethat the other team members willother team members will
perform particular action important to the trustorperform particular action important to the trustor (i.e. A), irrespective of the(i.e. A), irrespective of the
ability to monitor or control of the other team members (Mayer at al., 1995)ability to monitor or control of the other team members (Mayer at al., 1995)
3.3. Team Cohesion –Team Cohesion – project manager’sproject manager’s perceptionperception on theon the degreedegree ofof
attractivenessattractiveness of aof a teamteam to itsto its membersmembers & the& the closenesscloseness of theof the
interpersonal bondsinterpersonal bonds between team members (Cook et al., 1997)between team members (Cook et al., 1997)
4.4. Team Satisfaction –Team Satisfaction – project manager’sproject manager’s perceptionperception on how team memberson how team members
feelfeel aboutabout eventsevents within the project team which includeswithin the project team which includes satisfactionsatisfaction withwith
projectproject worksworks, satisfaction with, satisfaction with team membersteam members & satisfaction with& satisfaction with beingbeing
part of the project teampart of the project team (Dailey, 1993; Nguyen et al., 2008)(Dailey, 1993; Nguyen et al., 2008)
5.5. Team Effectiveness –Team Effectiveness – project manager’sproject manager’s perceptionperception onon team members’team members’
performanceperformance inin task completion, goal achievement, empowerment,task completion, goal achievement, empowerment,
information sharinginformation sharing && team’s ability to create & sustain a good workingteam’s ability to create & sustain a good working
environmentenvironment (Bourgault et al., 2008)(Bourgault et al., 2008)

4. 10/05/1310/05/13 FUNG Han PingFUNG Han Ping 44
2. Research Model & Hypotheses2. Research Model & Hypotheses
Proposed Research Model to evaluate Team Outcome Factors influencing ProjectProposed Research Model to evaluate Team Outcome Factors influencing Project
Performance underpinned on Cohen & Bailey’s (1997) Team EffectivenessPerformance underpinned on Cohen & Bailey’s (1997) Team Effectiveness
FrameworkFramework

5. 10/05/1310/05/13 FUNG Han PingFUNG Han Ping 55
3. Research Problem3. Research Problem
Team Outcome
Factors e.g. trust,
cohesion, satisfaction,
effectiveness
Team Input
Factors
e.g. team
composition, team
structure
Research
Gap
Proposed ResearchProposed Research
AreaArea
Project Performance
(Gladstein, 1984)(Gladstein, 1984)
Team Process
Factors e.g. team
communication,
conflict resolution
(Cohen & Bailey,(Cohen & Bailey,
1997)1997)
Project Context in a Malaysia SettingProject Context in a Malaysia Setting

6. 10/05/1310/05/13 FUNG Han PingFUNG Han Ping 66
4. Research Objectives, Questions &4. Research Objectives, Questions &
Knowledge ContributionKnowledge Contribution
 Research Objective:Research Objective:
1.1. Explore what are the team outcome factors & their relationships that predictExplore what are the team outcome factors & their relationships that predict
project performance as perceived by project managers in Malaysiaproject performance as perceived by project managers in Malaysia
 Research Questions:Research Questions:
1.1. What are the team outcome factors that predict project performance?What are the team outcome factors that predict project performance?
2.2. Which is the most significant predictor for project performance?Which is the most significant predictor for project performance?
 Contribution to Knowledge:Contribution to Knowledge:
1.1. Provide understanding on what & how team outcome factors are related toProvide understanding on what & how team outcome factors are related to
and predict project performance in a Malaysia contextand predict project performance in a Malaysia context
2.2. Enable management & project manager to focus on activities or tasks thatEnable management & project manager to focus on activities or tasks that
can improve project’s team trust, team cohesion and team satisfaction ascan improve project’s team trust, team cohesion and team satisfaction as
these team outcome factors can impact the overall project performancethese team outcome factors can impact the overall project performance

7. 10/05/1310/05/13 FUNG Han PingFUNG Han Ping 77
5. Literature Review5. Literature Review
 Cohen & Bailey’s (1997) Team Effectiveness Framework serves asCohen & Bailey’s (1997) Team Effectiveness Framework serves as underpinning theoreticalunderpinning theoretical
framework for this studyframework for this study

8. 10/05/1310/05/13 FUNG Han PingFUNG Han Ping 88
6. Research Method6. Research Method Approach – Cross Sectional Quantitative Research with Online Survey MethodApproach – Cross Sectional Quantitative Research with Online Survey Method
based on deductive research questionsbased on deductive research questions
 Total 420 emails sent out to all project managers in PMI Malaysia Chapter withTotal 420 emails sent out to all project managers in PMI Malaysia Chapter with
structured questionnaire hyperlink embedded in each emailstructured questionnaire hyperlink embedded in each email
 Randomly select 201 sample from project managers respondedRandomly select 201 sample from project managers responded
 SmartPLS for Partial Least Squares (PLS) which cover CFA, reliability test,SmartPLS for Partial Least Squares (PLS) which cover CFA, reliability test,
hypotheses testinghypotheses testing
 PLS or Variance-based SEM is used because: 1) predictive nature of thisPLS or Variance-based SEM is used because: 1) predictive nature of this
exploratory research which is not confirming previous theoretical model, 2) PLSexploratory research which is not confirming previous theoretical model, 2) PLS
can tolerate smaller sample size like 200+can tolerate smaller sample size like 200+

9. 10/05/1310/05/13 FUNG Han PingFUNG Han Ping 99
7. Research Findings7. Research Findings

10. 10/05/1310/05/13 FUNG Han PingFUNG Han Ping 1010
7. Research Findings (cont’d)7. Research Findings (cont’d)

11. 10/05/1310/05/13 FUNG Han PingFUNG Han Ping 1111
7. Research Findings (cont’d)7. Research Findings (cont’d)

12. 10/05/1310/05/13 FUNG Han PingFUNG Han Ping 1212
8. Discussion & Conclusion8. Discussion & Conclusion
1.1. Project manager needs to develop trust among team members &Project manager needs to develop trust among team members &
trustworthiness with the project team in order to improve projecttrustworthiness with the project team in order to improve project
performance & team effectivenessperformance & team effectiveness
2.2. Higher team trust promotes team interaction, collaboration & sharing ofHigher team trust promotes team interaction, collaboration & sharing of
more information whereby this will improve team satisfaction – throughmore information whereby this will improve team satisfaction – through
Theory of Reciprocity (Falk & Fischbacher, 2000), satisfied teamTheory of Reciprocity (Falk & Fischbacher, 2000), satisfied team
members respond with more positive reactions e.g. more effort,members respond with more positive reactions e.g. more effort,
productivity & problem resolution to improve project performance & teamproductivity & problem resolution to improve project performance & team
effectivenesseffectiveness
3.3. Despite team trust positively predict team cohesion, but team cohesionDespite team trust positively predict team cohesion, but team cohesion
doesn’t predict team effectiveness directly & negatively impacted projectdoesn’t predict team effectiveness directly & negatively impacted project
performance directly – these might due to groupthink (Dailey, 1993; Pinto,performance directly – these might due to groupthink (Dailey, 1993; Pinto,
2007) which is detrimental & dysfunctional to the project team – project2007) which is detrimental & dysfunctional to the project team – project
manager needs to cautious & use all resources e.g. performancemanager needs to cautious & use all resources e.g. performance
appraisal, recognition, reward system etc to induce the project team toappraisal, recognition, reward system etc to induce the project team to
achieve project goals. However, team cohesion indirectly & positivelyachieve project goals. However, team cohesion indirectly & positively
predict project performance & team effectiveness via team satisfactionpredict project performance & team effectiveness via team satisfaction
4.4. Effective project team doesn’t improve project performance – there mightEffective project team doesn’t improve project performance – there might
be other constructs mediating or moderating this relationship that warrantbe other constructs mediating or moderating this relationship that warrant
further researchfurther research

13. 10/05/1310/05/13 FUNG Han PingFUNG Han Ping 1313
8. Discussion & Conclusion (cont’d)8. Discussion & Conclusion (cont’d)
5.5. This study reminds management and project managers to focus onThis study reminds management and project managers to focus on
activities that can improve team trust, team cohesion & teamactivities that can improve team trust, team cohesion & team
satisfaction e.g. team building, conflict resolution, exhibiting leadershipsatisfaction e.g. team building, conflict resolution, exhibiting leadership
roles, team design with reasonable team size & composition etc –roles, team design with reasonable team size & composition etc –
these might directly / indirectly predict project performance & teamthese might directly / indirectly predict project performance & team
effectivenesseffectiveness
6.6. Only project duration (1 of the control variables) negatively related toOnly project duration (1 of the control variables) negatively related to
project performance – longer project duration, project performance willproject performance – longer project duration, project performance will
be deteriorated – hence, project manager needs to take charge tobe deteriorated – hence, project manager needs to take charge to
minimize project timeline extension.minimize project timeline extension.
7.7. Team cohesion & team effectiveness representing team behavioralTeam cohesion & team effectiveness representing team behavioral
whereby the former negatively predicted project performance & thewhereby the former negatively predicted project performance & the
latter didn’t predict project performance at all – future research mightlatter didn’t predict project performance at all – future research might
consider other team behavioral outcomes like team conflict,consider other team behavioral outcomes like team conflict,
absenteeism, turnover etc.absenteeism, turnover etc.
8.8. Team effectiveness only contributing to organizational effectiveness butTeam effectiveness only contributing to organizational effectiveness but
not project performancenot project performance

14. 10/05/1310/05/13 FUNG Han PingFUNG Han Ping 1414
9. Limitation & Future Research9. Limitation & Future Research
1.1. Lack of time to conduct qualitative interview & data analysis toLack of time to conduct qualitative interview & data analysis to
understand how & why team trust, team cohesion & team satisfactionunderstand how & why team trust, team cohesion & team satisfaction
are directly / indirectly predicting project performance – for moreare directly / indirectly predicting project performance – for more
complete & deeper insight knowledge contributioncomplete & deeper insight knowledge contribution
2.2. Only surveyed project managers, future research to include projectOnly surveyed project managers, future research to include project
team membersteam members
3.3. Only team trust & team satisfaction were used as team attitudinalOnly team trust & team satisfaction were used as team attitudinal
outcomes – future research include team commitment, team loyalty,outcomes – future research include team commitment, team loyalty,
team expectation etc.team expectation etc.
4.4. Only team outcome factors were used to predict project performance,Only team outcome factors were used to predict project performance,
future studies can include other factors in Cohen & Bailey’s (1997)future studies can include other factors in Cohen & Bailey’s (1997)
Team Effectiveness Framework e.g. design factors, team processes,Team Effectiveness Framework e.g. design factors, team processes,
psychosocial traits etc.psychosocial traits etc.

15. 10/05/1310/05/13 FUNG Han PingFUNG Han Ping 1515
10. Questions & Answers?10. Questions & Answers?
hpfung2001@yahoo.comhpfung2001@yahoo.com