| dc.description.abstract | The purpose of this study is to examine the unique role of team viability within an input-mediator-output-input (IMOI) framework of team effectiveness. Using meta-analytic estimates, I empirically tested the relationships between team viability and major team mediators, namely affective states, behavioral processes, and team cognition, as well as team performance. I also examined how differences in the measurement of team viability moderate these relationships. Results indicate that team viability is most strongly predicted by affective emergent states, followed by behavioral processes and team cognition. Viability is also incrementally predictive of future affective states beyond scores for past affective states but provides the most incremental validity in the prediction of future team cognition beyond scores for past team cognition. However, viability scores do not provide incremental validity in predicting future performance beyond scores for key team mediating variables. The temporal ordering of findings suggests a serial mediation model in which affective states predict viability, viability predicts team cognition, and team cognition is ultimately the strongest proximal predictor of team performance. Results of moderation analyses point to how differences in the measurement of viability confound the meaning of viability’s associations with other constructs in the empirical literature. The content of the viability measure produced meaningful differences in relationships between team viability, the key mediating mechanisms, and team performance, suggesting differences in the content of measures account for important differences in the strength of relationships. Together, these results indicate that viability taps unique variance in team effectiveness suggesting viability has the potential to meaningfully contribute to the team effectiveness literature, though additional refinement is needed for conceptual and measurement clarity. | en_US |
