Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
Korean Academic Society of Business Administration
[ Article ]
korean management review - Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.533-559
ISSN: 1226-1874 (Print)
Print publication date 30 Apr 2019
Received 01 Feb 2019 Accepted 07 Mar 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17287/kmr.2019.48.2.533

A Comprehensive Framework for Determining Measurement Types of Group-Level Construct

Hyun Sun Chung* ; Hyunjee Hannah Kim** ; Jihye Lee*** ; Jaeun Lim**** ; Won-Woo Park*****
*(Corresponding Author) Seoul National University chunghsunny@snu.ac.kr
**(Co-Author) Seoul National University hjeekim@snu.ac.kr
***(Co-Author) Seoul National University wisdom0405@snu.ac.kr
****(Co-Author) Cornell University jl3828@cornell.edu
*****(Co-Author) Seoul National University wwpark@snu.ac.kr
그룹수준의 변수측정 방법결정을 위한 종합적 체계
정현선* ; 김현지** ; 이지혜*** ; 임자은**** ; 박원우*****
*서울대학교 경영대학, 교신저자
**서울대학교 경영대학, 공저자
***서울대학교 경영대학, 공저자
****Cornell University, 공저자
*****서울대학교 경영대학, 공저자

Abstract

Although group-level studies are increasing, methods of measuring group-level constructs have remained quite simple because researchers assume compositional conceptualization of group-level constructs. Authors of many studies simply aggregate individual responses to team responses; however, simple aggregation can hinder research by creating significant barriers for conducting group-level studies and impeding our understanding of group microdynamics. That is, simple aggregation cannot represent group dynamics well became composition of individual responses might result in biased estimation. In this paper, we defined a comprehensive list of measurement methods that exist for measuring group-level constructs by reviewing 141 articles from organizational behavior literature published between 2012 and 2016. Based on the literature review, we show how much previous research on group-level studies has relied on skewed methodologies for measuring group-level constructs, and we urge using more diverse ways of measuring them.

초록

조직관련 연구에서 그룹수준의 연구가 증가하고 있음에도 불구하고, 국내·외적으로 그룹수준의 변수를 측정함에 있어서는 비교적 단순한 방법론을 채택하여 진행하고 있다. 그 이유는 연구자들이 개인수준에서 측정한 것을 집산·종합한 것이 그룹수준의 변수를 의미한 것으로 가정하기 때문이다. 하지만 이러한 방법론은 그룹 내의 미세한 역학관계를 인지하지 못하는 등 연구의 이해도를 저하시킬 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 측정된 변수에 편향된 오류를 발생시킬 수 있다. 본 연구는 그룹수준의 변수측정을 위한 방법론을 9개로 분류한 종합적 체계를 제시하였다. 2012년부터 2016년까지 조직행동론분야의 대표적 국제학술지의 논문들을 중 그룹수준의 변수를 다룬 141편의 논문들의 검토하여 그룹수준의 변수측정 방법을 9가지 체계에 맞춰 분류 및 정리하였다. 그 결과, 다수의 그룹수준의 연구들이 편중된 방법론을 채택하여 연구를 진행한 것으로 확인되었기에, 본 연구는 보다 다양한 방법론을 채택하여 그룹수준의 변수를 측정할 것을 권하는 바이다.

Keywords:

Group-level, team, group dynamics, aggregation, measurement

키워드:

그룹수준, 팀, 측정방법

Acknowledgments

본 연구는 서울대학교 노사관계연구소 연구비 지원에 의하여 작성되었습니다. 본 연구에 대해 귀중한 조언을 주신 두 분의 심사자님께 감사드립니다.

References

  • Allen, N. J., and O’Neill, T. A. (2015). The trajectory of emergence of shared group-level constructs. Small Group Research, 46, 352-390. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496415584973]
  • Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., and Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40, 1297-1333. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128]
  • Bashshur, M., Rupp, D. E., and Christopher, J. (2004). Theoretically-based strategies for defining and measuring justice climate: Implications for multilevel research in organizational justice. In 64th annual meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans, Louisiana.
  • Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., and McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989-1004. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989]
  • Belbin, R. M. (1981). Management teams: Why They Succeed or Fail. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
  • Belbin, R. M. (1993). Team Roles at Work. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
  • Bliese, P. D., Chan, D., and Ployhart, R. E. (2007). Multilevel methods: Future directions in measurement, longitudinal analyses, and nonnormal outcomes. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 551-563. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107301102]
  • Carron, A. V. and Brawley, L. R. (2000). “Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues.” Small Group Research, 31(1), 89-106. [https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100105]
  • Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234-246. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234]
  • Chen, G., Mathieu, J. E., and Bliese, P. D. (2004). A framework for conducting multilevel construct validation. In F. J. Yammarino and F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in multilevel issues: Multilevel issues in organizational behavior and processes (Vol. 3, pp. 273-303). Oxford: Elsevier. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-9144(04)03013-9]
  • Chun, J. S., and Choi, J. N. (2014). Members’ needs, intragroup conflict, and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 437-450. [https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036363]
  • Cole, M. S., Bedeian, A. G., Hirschfeld, R. R., and Vogel, B. (2011). Dispersion-composition models in multilevel research: A data-analytic framework. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 718-734. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110389078]
  • Cole, M. S., Carter, M. Z., and Zhang, Z. (2013). Leader-team congruence in power distance values and team effectiveness: The mediating role of procedural justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 962-973. [https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034269]
  • Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., and Jackson, C. L. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55, 83-109. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00104.x]
  • Cronin, M. A., Weingart, L. R., and Todorova, G. (2011). Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet? The Academy of Management Annals, 5, 571-612. [https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.590297]
  • Dansereau, F., Yammarino, F. J., and Kohles, J. C. (1999). Multiple levels of analysis from a longitudinal perspective: Some implications for theory building. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 346–357. [https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.1893940]
  • De Dreu, C. K. W., and West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191-1201. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1191]
  • Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 51-100. [https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1029]
  • Gajendran, R. S., and Joshi, A. (2012). Innovation in globally distributed teams: The role of LMX, communication frequency, and member influence on team decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1252-1261. [https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028958]
  • Gibson, C. B., Randel, A. E., and Earley, P. C. (2000). Understanding group efficacy: An empirical test of multiple assessment methods. Group and Organization Management, 25, 67-97 [https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601100251005]
  • Goncalo, J. A., and Duguid, M. M. (2012). Follow the crowd in a new direction: When conformity pressure facilitates group creativity (and when it does not). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118, 14-23. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.12.004]
  • Hargadon, A. B., and Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17, 484-500. [https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0200]
  • Henderson, D. J., Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., and Tetrick, L. E. (2008). Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and psychological contract fulfillment: A multilevel examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1208-1219. [https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012678]
  • Humphrey, S. E., and Aime, F. (2014). Team microdynamics: Toward an organizing approach to teamwork. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 443-503. [https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.904140]
  • James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219-229. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.2.219]
  • Jehn, K. A., and Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238-251. [https://doi.org/10.2307/3069453]
  • Klein, K. J., and House, R. J. (1995). On fire: Charismatic leadership and levels of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 183-198. [https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90034-9]
  • Klein, K. J., and Kozlowski, S. W. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 211-236. F [https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810033001]
  • Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., and Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195-229. [https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1994.9410210745]
  • Kozlowski, S. W., and Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In Klein, K. J. and Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.), (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Kozlowski, S. W., Chao, G. T., Grand, J. A., Braun, M. T., and Kuljanin, G. (2013). Advancing multilevel research design: Capturing the dynamics of emergence. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 581-615. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113493119]
  • Kozlowski, S. W., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., and Smith, E. M. (1999). Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. Pulakos (Eds.), (1999). The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development, 240-292.
  • Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., and Allen, J. A. (2014). How fun are your meetings? Investigating the relationship between humor patterns in team interactions and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1278-1287. [https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038083]
  • Litrico, J. B., and Choi, J. N. (2013). A look in the mirror: Reflected efficacy beliefs in groups. Small Group Research, 44, 658–679. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496413506943]
  • Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., and Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376. [https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4845785]
  • McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H., and Berdahl, J. L. (2000). The study of groups: Past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 95-105. [https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_8]
  • Meade, A. W., and Eby, L. T. (2007). Using indices of group agreement in multilevel construct validation. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 75-96. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106289390]
  • Mohammed, S., and Nadkarni, S. (2014). Are we all on the same temporal page? The moderating effects of temporal team cognition on the polychronicity diversity–team performance relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 404-422. [https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035640]
  • Morrison, E. (2010). OB in AMJ: What is hot and what is not? Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 932-936. [https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.54533166]
  • Peeters, M. A. G., van Tuijl, H. F. J. M., Rutte, C. G., and Reymen, I. M. M. J. (2006). Personality and team performance: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 20, 377-396. [https://doi.org/10.1002/per.588]
  • Resick, C. J., Murase, T., Randall, K. R., and DeChurch, L. A. (2014). Information elaboration and team performance: Examining the psychological origins and environmental contingencies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124, 165-176. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.03.005]
  • Roberson, Q. M., Sturman, M. C., and Simons, T. L. (2007). Does the measure of dispersion matter in multilevel research? A comparison of the relative performance of dispersion indexes. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 564-588. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106294746]
  • Stigler, G. J. (1973). General economic conditions and national elections. The American Economic Review, 63, 160-167.
  • Stoverink, A. C., Umphress, E. E., Gardner, R. G., and Miner, K. N. (2014). Misery loves company: Team dissonance and the influence of supervisor-focused interpersonal justice climate on team cohesiveness. Journal of Applied psychology, 99, 1059-1073. [https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037915]
  • Sundstrom, E. D. (1999). Supporting work team effectiveness: Best management practices for fostering high performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Troth, A. C., Jordan, P. J., Lawrence, S. A., and Tse, H. H. M. (2012). A multilevel model of emotional skills, communication performance, and task performance in teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 700-722. [https://doi.org/10.1002/job.785]
  • Van Mierlo, H., Vermunt, J. K., and Rutte, C. G. (2009). Composing group-level constructs from individual-level survey data. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 368-392. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107309322]
  • Wallace, J. C., Edwards, B. D., Paul, J., Burke, M., Christian, M., and Eissa, G. (2013). Change the referent? A meta-analytic investigation of direct and referent-shift consensus models for organizational climate. Journal of Management, 83, 234-246.
  • Whiteoak, J. W., Chalip, L., and Hort, L. K. (2004). Assessing group efficacy comparing three methods of measurement. Small Group Research, 35, 158-173. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403258495]
  • Yang, H. L., and Tang, J. H. (2004). Team structure and team performance in IS development: a social network perspective. Information & Management, 41(3), 335-349. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(03)00078-8]

• 저자 정현선은 현재 서울대학교 경영대학 박사과정에 재학 중이다. 주요 연구 관심분야는 innovation, motivation, change management, organizational culture 등이다.

• 저자 김현지는 현재 서울대학교 경영대학 박사과정에 재학 중이다. 주요 연구 관심 분야는 creativity, innovation, team process, culture 등이다.

• 저자 이지혜는 현재 서울대학교 경영대학 박사과정에 재학 중이다. 주요 연구 관심 분야는 leadership, motivation, efficacy 등이다.

• 저자 임자은은 현재 미국 Cornell 대학 박사과정에 재학 중이다. 주요 연구 관심분아는 social network, economic sociology, organization 등이다.

• 저자 박원우는 서울대 경영대학에서 학사, 석사를 취득한 후, 미국정부의 Fulbright 장학금을 받고 Pittsburgh대학에서 수학하여 경영학(인사조직) 박사(1989년)를 취득하였다. Pittsburgh대학에서 조교수로 근무한 후 귀국하여 중앙대와 경희대 교수를 거쳐 1998년부터 서울대 교수로 근무하고 있다. 학계에선 한국경영학회 부회장, 한국인사조직학회 부회장, 한국윤리경영학회 회장 등으로 봉사하였으며, 응용과학자로서 다양한 영리/비영리조직의 발전을 지원하여 왔다. 주요 연구분야는 groupthink, empowerment, trust, efficacy, goal orientation, culture change, 및 happiness인데, 그간 130여 편의 국내외 학술논문과 16편의 단행본 도서를 출간하였고, 서울대학교 경영대학의 우수강의상을 수차례, 2018년엔 서울대학교 교육상을 수상하였다.