STRUCTURAL AND INTERPERSONAL ANTECEDENTS OF PERCEIVED TEAM EFFECTIVENESS IN CONSTRAINED-FUNCTIONING TEAMS: A CROSS-SECTOR EXAMINATION

Rani OKHOMINA

doi:10.61796/ijss.v2i4.133

Authors

Rani OKHOMINA
[email protected]
Independent Researcher, United Kingdom

Vol. 2 No. 4 (2025): Journal of Social Science

Articles

November 10, 2025

Downloads

View Article

Abstract
How to Cite
Metrics
References
License

Objective: Purpose: Despite limited research on teams functioning under constrained conditions, this study examines how role clarity, psychological safety, and accountability jointly associate with perceived team effectiveness across three UK sectors. Method: Design/methodology/approach: A cross-sectional survey of 690 employees across healthcare, service, and manufacturing sectors was analysed using Pearson correlations, one-way ANOVA, hierarchical multiple regression, and ANCOVA. Results: Findings: All three predictors were significantly associated with perceived team effectiveness. Role clarity showed the strongest association (β = .27), followed by psychological safety (β = .19) and accountability (β = .13), together explaining 22% of variance. Team learning behaviours contributed an additional 3% (ΔR² = .03). Psychological safety retained significance after ANCOVA adjustment, though with reduced effect size. Novelty: Originality: This study offers the first cross-sector examination of these antecedents within a constrained-functioning team context, integrating the IMOI framework to demonstrate their distinct, additive contributions to perceived effectiveness.

OKHOMINA, R. (2025). STRUCTURAL AND INTERPERSONAL ANTECEDENTS OF PERCEIVED TEAM EFFECTIVENESS IN CONSTRAINED-FUNCTIONING TEAMS: A CROSS-SECTOR EXAMINATION. Journal of Social Science, 2(4), 400–421. https://doi.org/10.61796/ijss.v2i4.133

Download Citation

J. R. Hackman, Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2002.

J. E. Mathieu, M. T. Maynard, T. Rapp, and L. Gilson, “Team effectiveness 1997--2007: A review and integration of recent research,” J. Manage., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 410–476, 2008, doi: 10.1177/0149206308316061.

S. G. Cohen and D. E. Bailey, “What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite,” J. Manage., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 239–290, 1997, doi: 10.1177/014920639702300303.

M. A. West, Effective Teamwork: Practical Lessons from Organizational Research, 3rd ed. Oxford: BPS Blackwell, 2012.

A. Edmondson, “Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams,” Adm. Sci. Q., vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 350–383, 1999, doi: 10.2307/2666999.

E. Salas, D. E. Sims, and C. S. Burke, “Is there a `Big Five’ in teamwork?,” Small Gr. Res., vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 555–599, 2005, doi: 10.1177/1046496405277134.

R. L. Kahn, D. M. Wolfe, R. P. Quinn, J. D. Snoek, and R. A. Rosenthal, Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York, NY: Wiley, 1964.

M. R. Beauchamp, S. R. Bray, M. A. Eys, and A. V Carron, “Role ambiguity, role efficacy, and role performance: multidimensional and mediational relationships within interdependent sport teams,” Gr. Dyn. Theory, Res. Pract., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 229–242, 2002, doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.6.3.229.

M. L. Frazier, S. Fainshmidt, R. L. Klinger, A. Pezeshkan, and V. Vracheva, “Psychological safety: a meta-analytic review and extension,” Pers. Psychol., vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 113–165, 2017, doi: 10.1111/peps.12183.

L. Argote and E. Miron-Spektor, “Organizational learning: from experience to knowledge,” Organ. Sci., vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 1123–1137, 2011, doi: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0621.

D. D. Frink and R. J. Klimoski, “Toward a theory of accountability in organisations and human resources management,” Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag., vol. 16, pp. 1–51, 1998.

J. S. Lerner and P. E. Tetlock, “Accounting for the effects of accountability,” Psychol. Bull., vol. 125, no. 2, pp. 255–275, 1999, doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255.

V. R. Stewart, D. G. Snyder, and C. Y. Kou, “We hold ourselves accountable: A relational view of team accountability,” J. Bus. Ethics, vol. 183, no. 3, pp. 691–712, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10551-021-04969-z.

J. R. Rizzo, R. J. House, and S. I. Lirtzman, “Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organisations,” Adm. Sci. Q., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 150–163, 1970, doi: 10.2307/2391486.

J. Cohen, P. Cohen, S. G. West, and L. S. Aiken, Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003.

R. C. MacCallum, S. Zhang, K. J. Preacher, and D. D. Rucker, “On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables,” Psychol. Methods, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 19–40, 2002, doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.19.

R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny, “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1173–1182, 1986, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.

A. F. Hayes, Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2018.

K. E. Grailey, E. Murray, T. Reader, S. J. Brett, and D. L. Bhatt, “The presence and potential impact of psychological safety in the healthcare setting: an evidence synthesis,” BMC Health Serv. Res., vol. 21, p. 773, 2021, doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06740-6.

P. M. Podsakoff, S. B. MacKenzie, J.-Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff, “Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies,” J. Appl. Psychol., vol. 88, no. 5, pp. 879–903, 2003, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.