Impact of Vision and Role Clarity on Team Performance

Table of Contents

Abstract

Acknowledgement

Table of Contents

List of Tables

List of Figures

Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background of the Study
1.2 Research Objectives
1.3 Scope of the Study
1.4 Methodology and Methods
1.5 Structure of the Thesis

Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Team Performance
2.3 Vision Clarity
2.4 Role Clarity
2.5 Relationship of Vision and Role Clarity with Team Performance
2.6 Findings from the Literature Review
2.7 Theoretical Framework
2.8 Research Objectives and Hypothesis
2.9 Conclusion

Chapter 3: Methodology and Methods
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Research Methodology
3.3 Variables to be Studied
3.4 Research Methods
3.4.1 Data Collection Tool
3.4.2 Sampling Technique and Sample Size
3.4.3 Respondents
3.4.4 Data Analysis Tool and Technique
3.5 Conclusion

Chapter 4: Analysis and Discussions
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Descriptive Analysis
4.3 Vision Clarity and Team Performance
4.4 Role Clarity and Team Performance
4.5 Discussions
4.6 Conclusion

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Conclusions
5.2 Significance of the Study
5.3 Limitations of the Study
5.4 Recommendations for Researchers
5.5 Recommendations for Practitioners

References

Appendix

Abstract

The main purpose of this study is to discuss vision clarity, role clarity, and further elaborate and research their impacts on team performance. The study is conducted on a number of almost 20 different NGOs in the developmental sector of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (specifically Peshawar and FATA Federally Tribal Administered Areas). The importance of vision and role clarity cannot be neglected in NGOs sector. These NGOs spanned across a number of areas - humanitarian, education, environment, human rights, construction, public policy and others. This research relied on both primary data and secondary data. Primary data was collected through questionnaires and for secondary data, previous literature was reviewed on similar studies. Our literature reviewed the interdependence and relationship of each variable through forward and backward referencing methods. After having studied vision, role clarity and team performance on two various groups - administrative and team level - of each team, an empirical test was done of the data and the influence on overall team performance was evaluated. The respondents from whom the data was collected comprised a total of 100 members (sample size). Besides, other similar studies in the literature, we relied on non­probability sampling technique to identify our sample size due to lack of time, resources and efforts. After the data was collected from the sample through an adopted questionnaire from literature - drawn and modified after a pilot test - it was processed and analyzed through SPSS and regression was used to find the relationship among the variables. As a result of the research study, a positive relationship was found between vision clarity, role clarity and team performance. They both were significantly related to performance of the team. These findings were consistent with previous research scholarship. The most important recommendation is to compose a team with the necessary capabilities and skills, but should also be offered with a clearly stated vision.

Keywords: Vision clarity, role clarity, team performance, vision, relationship

Acknowledgement

I dedicate my research to my supervisor and my colleagues who encouraged me to keep my efforts intact throughout the research process.

List of Tables

Table: 4.4 The Key Services Offered by the Responding NGOs

List of Figures

Figure: 4.1 The Respondents’ Gender Distribution

Figure: 4.2 The Age Brackets of Respondents

Figure: 4.3 Qualifications of Respondents

Figure: 4.5 Key Stakeholders of NGOs

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Background of the Study

A team is that group of members who work together to achieve the goals given to them. It is defined by Leigh Thompson who is a professor at Kellogg School of Management that a team is the group of people who depend on one another for skills, resources, and information. They use their combined efforts to achieve the standard and shared goal (Thompson, 2008). The studies of (Salas et al., 1992 and Montoya-Weiss et al., 2001) state that dependence on teams have significantly increased in the last few decades. It raised more than ever before in the first half of the 1980s. Through these years, research on the development of the team has not been in competition with that of understanding about how teams can improve or increase their performance. This received most of the scholarship over the years following that decade and continued to do so (Tannenbaum et al., 1991; Stout et al., 1997).

Team performance is defined by (Business Dictionary, 2018) as the fulfillment of the tasks which are measured with a pre-determined set of standards. These standards are accuracy, cost, completeness, and speed. The performance in a contract is considered to be an obligation fulfillment in a way to release the doer from the liabilities under that contract. When the preset standards are achieved, it means the performance has been up to the mark otherwise it is not.

Moreover, the firms perform much better when there is an element of team efforts combined. This working as a team makes it more likely to give a good performance overall. They are more effective due to teamwork. Better and effective collaboration always produces synergy - which means that working together as a team has a more significant impact than working alone. Teamwork and collective effort is the only differentiating element between an individual and team performance.

Team members typically have good teamwork and synergy when their vision and roles are clearly explained to each member of their team then that helps them to achieve the objectives which are expected of them. The performance of the entire team depends on the clearly defined vision and clarity of roles for each on the team. Vision clarity is defined by Gary (2015) which is articulating the target in the most natural way possible to make everyone understand that. Only then will the target provide direction to all the members of the organization. Whereas, role clarity refers to the extent to which role expectations are clear and fully understood by the employee in their job (Rizzo et al., 1970).

Conflict is an inevitable part of any society. Therefore, a team is no exception. However, the vision and role clarity minimize the chances of disagreement amongst the members because frequently problems arise when there is ambiguity in the vision and roles of the team leader and the team members. This is so because they haven't been cascaded down to each member of the team appropriately. This ambiguity results in a lack of understanding regarding the expectations of the management. The failure of the project due to poor team performance surfaces a blame game in the team. They all do not own the fault of project failure or poor team performance. The whole combination is shattered. However, according to Bass et al. (2003), the research regarding the achievement of the higher level performance by the team has not been researched widely - receiving limited attention and more precisely received limited or no research in the area of the non-governmental sector. This paper has been an effort to scratch the surface of the relationship between vision and role clarity with team performance in non-governmental organizations. Indeed, NGO Sector in Pakistan has a number of its peculiar challenges which are entirely different from a commercial or for-profit sector.

The importance of teams and their performance are much more in the NGO Sector because the success of the projects is solely dependent on the performance of individuals in the group. The projects undertaken in NGOs are always carried out in teams which need to be appropriately handled to effectively provide the desired results. The organizations in this non-profit sector thoroughly rely on the quality of successful completion of their projects and get future projects based on their past performance. These organizations, at times, work under harsh conditions in areas prone to a lot of dangers. That is where they need their teams to perform well enough to complete the project in time. For example, some of them have undertaken projects in FATA (Federally Tribal Administrative Areas) where there is a constant threat of lack of security. Besides, they need to satisfy the needs and stakes of multiple stakeholders, namely, beneficiaries, donors and government. They should incorporate their interests in the vision and roles of the team to keep them all satisfied and make the entire project a success. Therefore, there is a need to find out whether vision and role clarity have their impact on team performance or not in the NGO Sector in Pakistan.

1.2 Research Objectives

Objectives of the research are as follows;

- To investigate the influence of vision clarity on team performance.
- To investigate the influence of role clarity on team performance.

1.3 Scope of the Study

- This research conceptually focuses only on examining the relationship amongst three variables, namely, vision clarity, role clarity, and team performance. No other variable is included within the scope of the study.
- To investigate this relationship of the variables, the data collected and analyzed is from NGO Sector only and particularly those NGOs working in Peshawar and FATA regions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
- Respondents include both the administrative employees of the project team in each NGO and their project team members who go to the field to carry out the task and target given to them.

1.4 Methodology and Methods

This research thesis relied mainly on quantitative methodology and more precisely, we used a survey as our principal methodology. The survey is a popular method or strategy involving a collection of data in a structured manner from a large population (Saunders, 2009). Surveys are famously used in research studies where mostly quantitative data is collected, and they help to collect a massive amount of data in large quantity in a short period with less cost. The received data has been processed and analyzed by using SPSS 16. The test used for the study was a regression analysis.

1.5 Structure of the Thesis

The thesis developed as a result of this study consists of the following chapters:

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Chapter 3: Methodology and Methods

Chapter 4: Analysis and Discussions

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

This chapter is organized into nine different headings and talks about three significant variables, namely, team performance, vision clarity, and role clarity. For each variable, first of all, the origins were discussed, then definitions are presented from different research writers about each variable, later the importance of them has been elaborated, and finally the variables which affect and are affected by other variables. All the three variables are discussed in the same manner. Then, the relationship between these three variables is elaborated. Besides that, the findings from the whole literature have been presented, and finally, a conclusion is provided for the entire chapter. The information came from a couple of databases which have been searched a lot for data gathering on the literature, namely, googlescholar.com, and HEC digital library. In addition, some of the papers were from the Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Innovative Assessment of Collaboration, The Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Organizational Change Management/ Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, Frontiers in psychology, Journal of Global Strategic Management, American Journal of Sociology, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, The International Journal of Conflict Management and Journal of Business, Economics & Finance. To write the literature, almost 50 papers have been reviewed.

2.2 Team Performance

Team performance and effectiveness are surprisingly researched pretty scarcely. Ancona and Caldwell (1992) defined team performance as the ability of team members for meeting the targeted objectives. These goals or objectives are quality, functionality, and reliability of outputs. The team members should also meet the expectations of its members. The expectations are both related to cost and time. Teams according to Salas et al. (1992) is a group of people which consist of at least two or more members whose roles are defined clearly and are dependent on each other for a shared goal. Complex tasks can easily be accomplished through teams. To understand how teams work and subsequently perform, Rosen et al. (2008) state that it is essential to know about the knowledge level of the team, the necessary skills that they have, and their attitude with which they have to perform in the team. These elements are referred to as competencies of the team. Team performance is accomplishing the desired tasks or goals which are set according to pre-known standards of accuracy, cost, completeness, and speed. Business dictionary (2018) defines that a team performance within a contract or agreement is fulfilling the required obligation, in a way which will release the performer from every liability stated in the contract. It is always a challenge to assess team performance, but we have to do it because it is connected to the ultimate effectiveness of the team.

Team effectiveness as per Salas et al. (2007) is the result of a judgment process whereby we compare the output with the subjective and objective standards. The results of the team are then, mostly, checked concerning team's inputs and processes. Therefore, if you want the accuracy to be ensured, we have to match the outcome with the correct methods of measurement (Rosen et al., 2012). The outcomes of the team are produced both at individual levels and team levels. The results on team level require all team members' efforts. The team members' efforts are the coordination and communication among team members. Furthermore, individual-level outcomes contain the attitude of a team member towards his/her team, which subsequently relates to the performance of the team.

Teams help organizations to provide efforts that are more directed and collaborative when addressing complex tasks in the organizations. Therefore, the importance of teams cannot be neglected, and nowadays organizations rely greatly on teams and continue to increase over the years (Salas et al., 1992; Montoya-Weiss et al., 2001). Complex tasks can easily be accomplished through teams. Montoya-Weiss et al. (2001) and Salas et al. (1992) state that we have been more dependent on teams in the last few decades. It increased more than ever before in the first half of the 1980s. Through these years, research on the development of the team has not been in competition with that of understanding about how teams can improve or increase their performance. This received most of the scholarship over the years following that decade and continued to do so (Tannenbaum et al., 1991; Stout et al., 1997). However, according to Bass et al. (2003), the research regarding the achievement of the higher level performance by the team has not been researched widely - receiving limited attention. Many amongst them considered team performance in the literature as only a generalized framework which consists of an input, processes and an outcome. The inputs are the resources, the processes are the collective effort of the team, and the outcome is the specific performance indicator (Hackman, 1992; Guzzo and Shea, 1992).

Team performance as per Kozlowski and Ilgen (2006) is a collection of efforts which the entire team makes to achieve the shared goal. It is a group of people working combined to produce a shared goal which is beyond the self-interests of the individuals on the team. However, do not confuse every group for a team because it is not always a team, but a mere group of people. Jon R. Katzenbach and Douglas K. Smith's book The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization gives a very simple yet a fantastic description regarding a team and what it is. A team can either have a small or a large number of people. They are people with complementary skills who show commitment to achieving a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they are holding themselves responsible.

Ilgen and Kozlowski (2006) define team performance that it is a function and aggregation of the entire team’s efforts. The literature has referred to team performance to be a general framework including inputs, processes, and outcomes whereby the inputs consist of resources; processes include the collective effort of the entire team, and the outcome is their specific performance indicators (Hackman, 1992; Guzzo and Shea, 1992). It is also defined to be an extent to which can meet its output goals given to them by the team leaders which are by the roles and vision of the team project. These output goals are the reliability of outputs, functionality, and quality, members’ expectations, or its cost objectives and time objectives (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992). Every team must at least consist of more than a couple of members whose sole objective is to achieve the shared goals of the team which usually is beyond the self-interests of the individuals on the team (Salas et al., 1992).

The elements of team competencies that are brought to the table by team members are the team’s knowledge, skills, and attitudes which assist to understand how the team can work and subsequently perform (Rosen et al., 2008). These competencies are important elements in determining their better performance and differentiating that from poor performance.

The performance of the teams is improved by helping them in establishing measurements which are effective. These effective measurements provide them the necessary information for improving their performance. As Jack Zigon states that team performance measurement may not be easy, but it is possible. Better measurements produce quality results, reduced cycle times, and greater satisfaction of customers. However, the assessment of team performance is a great challenge for organizations, it must be assessed (Zigon, 1997). This assessment is pivotal because of their link to team effectiveness and teamwork. This teamwork and team performance are necessary for every firm. It shows that:

- Team members work for a common and shared goal.
- And to do so, they need to share their various skills in complementary roles and in cooperation with each other.

Organizations perform considerably well when the members on the team are effective enough to work as a team. This teamwork of the team members results in a synergy - which means that teams collective efforts have better results than the efforts of individuals. It is more helpful and effective to put your efforts together rather than working alone on solving the complex problems. By working as a collective team combines the individual experience, perspectives, and skills to solve the complex problems. It also creates novel solutions and better ideas which in other ways would be beyond the scope of individuals. It is impossible to match the quality of effectiveness of teams with individuals. Besides improving the performance of the organization, effective teamwork also gives benefits to individuals on the team. These individual benefits will enable mutual learning and support, and also generates commitment and a belonging sense amongst the members. The individuals own the team and are much more committed to performing effectively because they draw their inspiration from one another on the team.

Stephen Covey says that it is the synergy that should be considered as the highest activity of life. New untapped alternatives are created due to it. Moreover, the emotional, psychological and mental differences are valued and exploited by it. If you want the team's effectiveness, Morgan (1986) and Burke et al. (2003) assert that then the team should not only do the task work but also the teamwork successfully. Only then, the team is deemed to be effective. To achieve the goals of the team, the specific tasks should be performed by the team. These specific tasks are the part of the task work. Reaching team goals without successfully performing these tasks is very unlikely. According to Wildman et al. (2012) work, related activities are represented by tasks which the individuals on the team need to perform because these tasks are the necessary functions of their roles in the organization.

On the other hand, teamwork according to Morgan et al (1994) focuses more on the shared behaviors (i.e., what team members do), attitudes (i.e., what team members feel or believe), and cognition (i.e., what team members think or know) that are necessary for teams to accomplish these tasks. The task work and teamwork are both essential elements for teams to perform successfully. Here one facilitates the other to result in better team performance. Effective team performance is not possible without effective task work and teamwork because these two define the tasks and the goals to be achieved in the team's context.

Teams are everywhere existing in any type of organization because it is nowadays a fact of life. From aviation to management to those policemen who are on the beat, from super bowl clash to modern conflicts, teams are everywhere to carry out most of the work - including even recreation in the world. In general, teams’ performance measures are broadly available in the literature. For example, on time and safe landing of the plane; or one team winning six games, losing nine show the measurement of team performance. The tasks of the individuals on the team need to be clearly and completely defined so that their performance can be evaluated. For example, a no-hitter is pitched, or a detailed briefing is given to the crew are examples of performance. In spite of the fact that that the reliance on the team in the society has increased, but there is still limited knowledge about the processes taking place within teams which help in differences amongst the outcomes (Brannick et al., 1997).

In spite of plenty of research, there are still difficulties for companies to measure team performance. Eisman (1995) asserts that there was a study conducted on almost 100 companies of Fortune 500 by Human Resources Planning Society. It was found that almost 80% of the companies’ respondents faced problems in the evaluation of the teams’ work. Similarly, Shaw and Schneier (1995) conducted a research study and showed that companies are struggling with measuring and rewarding team performance. These are the two main components of success in teams. Few companies feel the actual satisfaction in the methods that they follow for measurement and rewarding. Another study which surveyed almost 88 companies having teams was conducted by Tippett and Peters (1995) concluded that majority of the companies do not even have an effective system for rewards, lacking in mechanisms for feedback on performance, skills for project management, and skills for goal-setting.

Measuring performance of team is not a perfect science as of yet. However, there has been great learning over the past three decades and has been gathered a lot of literature on this 9 topic of measurement. It was in an effort in order to solve the issues that practitioners and researchers face in this area Brannick and Prince (1997); Wildman et al (2012); Kozlowski and Bell (2003); Cooke et al (2001) and Rosen et al (2012). To summarize, we know about why, how, when, and what to measure, but gaps remain.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

At the same time, (Faraj and Sproull 2000; Kanawattanchai and Yoo 2007; Liang et al. 1995; Moreland 1999) in some research studies on teams concluded that socio-cognitive process plays an important role to affect the performance of the team. These studies also showed when the team management system (TMS) is developed well; it improves team performance under some conditions. Bishop & Scott (1997, 2000) and Ellemers et al. (1998) resulted that the literature on applied psychology and organizational behavior claims that if commitment and resources of high, then it results in higher team (or organizational) performance. These two in the previous literature are considered to play a vital role and are emphasized a great deal. They also provide help in group decisions as well as learning (Ducoffe et al., 2006; Moon et al., 2003). When materials, equipment, and resources are scarce Moss et al. (2007) states that the ability to collect creative ideas and also engaging in new teamwork is highly restricted that reduces the performance of the team.

However, out of all these factors, according to Gary (2015), the vision has the highest impact on team performance. Whenever we want our teams to be more effective and perform better, then it should be driven forward by its shared vision whether implicit or explicit. That vision always comes from inside the group and each member values that. It should be attainable and also realistic. A communicative vision can increase individuals' creativity which affects teams and organizational conditions leading to better innovations (Shalley and Gilson, 2004). However, if there is a difference in priorities amongst team members, then a conflict arises between them. These conflicts can surface on data collection, interpretation, and dissemination. Zhang and Doll, (2001) asserted that the conflict could also arise because the same event can be differently interpreted by each member of the team. Clear vision directly hits the prime goals and comes right down to the main point which is the purpose of the team. Everyone can understand them without providing them with a detailed presentation or discussion. It even only takes five minutes to explain and make every member understand (Kantabutra and Avery, 2010). Niemes (1996) asserts that vision clarity is pivotal and critical for any team and their better performance eventually.

2.3 Vision Clarity

The positive relationship between the characteristics of vision and organization performance was first found by Robert Baum and his colleagues. These vision characteristics are brevity future orientation, challenge, aspiring, clarity, abstractness, vision content and stability which positively influences performance in the organization (Baum et al., 1998). They researched on these factors and their interrelationship in entrepreneurial firms. Firms' CEOs of architectural woodwork were surveyed and found a direct relationship between the characteristics of the vision and growth of the firm. They used sales revenues, employment, and profits and net worth as their measurement metrics in their study of these firms.

Vision has not been clearly defined which is further complicating the research on the vision for future researchers (Kantabutra and Avery, 2002). The terms, such as mission, vision, philosophy, and core values have frequently been used interchangeably. To avoid this confusion about the definition, Baum et al. (1998) accepted the definition of the vision given by leaders, who argue that the leaders' vision is guiding the behavior of everyone including himself. We also chose the same approach in our study because vision is developed by leaders and each leader has his/her vision which guides his policies or procedures (Nanus, 1992). It happens so due to the differences in styles of leaders, their vision content and operating context. They all vary widely from leader to leader and situation to situation (Westley and Mintzberg, 1989).

Team efforts can only be successful when there is a vision clarity which is referring to recognition, the extent of communication and also to understand project objectives to guide your team efforts of development (Hong et al., 2004). According to Kantabutra (2003), it is clarity that is considered to be an important attribute of vision. Messick and Mackie (1989), state that sometimes vision is too abstract and at other times it is too clear and concrete which makes it difficult for leaders to create their groups for effectively carrying out the vision. In addition, the stability of the vision comes through abstractness because this does not imply any huge change with the passage of time (Tichy and Devanna, 1986; Gabarro, 1987).

Organizational performance needs vision and is considered important for performance (Mendall and Gerguoy, 1984; Maccoby, 1981; Daft, 2005; Isenberg, 1987; Peters, 1987; Slater, 1993). However, many scholars are of the opinion that it needs both vision support and vision clarity. They come together and help in developing a vision for the team which guides the efforts of the entire team in a shared and common direction in spite of the differences which exist in team members. Similarly, the components of vision are also given emphasis by a number scholars in the literature. For example, Hamel and Prahalad (1989) emphasize the view that if an organization or a team wants its vision to be effective, then it should contain these three elements. The vision needs to be (a) clear, (b) supported by others in the organization, and (c) stable. It is also asserted in the study of Niemes (1996) that clarity of vision is significant and crucial for teams. In addition, Giordan (1995) gave stress on clarity of vision as well as organizational support because only clarity does not make impact when organizational members in different positions do not show their support for it. Likewise, Similarly, Vaughan (1997) and McAlister (1998) also stressed vision clarity and goals agreement and support to be significant for effective performance. The ways through which the objectives and goals are achieved are numerous in number. Therefore, in such 12 cases vision stability on team levels may be less crucial. However, due to changing conditions of the environment, the ways may not be known in the early phase of the projects because it is a time where the level of ambiguity is usually high in terms of environmental conditions. In other words, vision stability is impossible to be a determining factor at this highly unclear stage of the development process of vision. It takes time to make sense out of everything and understand the entire vision. Therefore, our study excludes the stability component as to be relevant to vision.

The first step to creating a vision for the team which is effective requires you to be clear on the vision. With vision clarity, everyone on the team is aware of what they support. After this, they are more likely to support team vision. For example, if you want to increase the job focus of each team member, then you need to clearly define the vision for them which will enable the members in learning everything faster and will also help in arranging their varied priorities (Lucas, 1998). Moreover, this clarity assists them to better focus their attention on the inherent changes in the environment, developments in technology, and the market. These are often the main problems and obstacles in learning quickly to succeed as a team. Teams which have got clarity in their vision has a very little cycle time (Eisenhardt, 1989).

Conversely, Kessler and Chakrabarti (1996) emphasize that if the visions of the team are not clear - vagueness in objectives of the project - leads to conflict and suspicion amongst members of the team. The conflict can arise on what should the team do, and what they need to produce. These conflicts and suspicions on each other can end up in wastage of time, many readjustments and continuous but unproductive debates.

The components of vision, namely, clarity, support, and communication within the team have been measured across many studies. The clarity component was measured by using seven items in the study of (Gary, 2015). They used a Likert Scale from 0 to 10 whereby 0 = strongly agree and 10 = strongly disagree. Moreover, they measured the dependent variable of team performance by using cumulative profits of the firm and calculated it in terms of dollars (Gary and Kalay, 2015).

Backoff (1997) asserted that transformational and radical change comes through a vision. Vision is triggering the abrupt change. Vision creation and communication of it are the two of the main steps of all the eight steps that Kotter put forth in his study in 1995. These steps result in a radical transformation of the organization. He also argues that vision content needs to make sense and should be understood by all the employees in the organization. Indeed, the vision content - if unclear - is not effective.

Similarly, Collins and Porras (1996) advised the leaders that they “must translate the vision from words to pictures with a vivid description of what it will be like to achieve your goal." This clear description is necessary for a team's better performance and ultimate success. Therefore, the change that is supported by vision clarity encourages results that are both effective and positive.

Robert Baum together with his colleagues researched on vision components. Among these components, one of them was vision clarity. The study argued that that clarity of vision has a positive effect on the performance of the organization in their entrepreneurial firms (Baum et al., 1998).

However, besides vision clarity, another critical variable that profoundly impacts team performance is role clarity (Gary, 2015). The team members within the team need to have clarity in the vision which they are committed with for good results. Inside the teams, each member need be to clear about his or her roles and understand the interaction of these roles with other team members. These two together with vision clarity are important for teams. Feistritzer and Jones (2014) put forward that clarity of roles is also a significant element in team effectiveness. There should be a vision which is clear and also has support from the entire team. These points are important for a team's higher level performance. However, if there is a lack of clarity in the roles given to the team members, it is possibly leading to conflict amongst the team members. The ambiguity and subsequent conflict not only confusing but also frustrate the team members (Gladstein, 1984).

2.4 Role Clarity

Hickson (1966) studied role clarity, role ambiguity, and specificity through many different labels. Besides, other researchers also studied the same variables under different names and concepts. Rizzo et al. (1970) argue that whenever employees know their jobs and expectations is termed as role clarity. They need to fully comprehend these job expectations. The concepts of role ambiguity and clarity are commonly used instead of each other. These two are usually placed on the opposite sides of the continuum. The extremes discuss the importance of the two variables in detail in the literature. In certain situations, when the employees have clarity in the roles and are less ambiguous about them, that is when they are more confident of organizational expectations in their jobs. This is the time of having more knowledge of all the sources to put them into use to carry out the expected tasks. In contrast, if there is low clarity of roles or a high level of ambiguity, which is the time when they do not know the expected performance from management. The processes are also unknown to them. They feel myopic about carrying out the tasks successfully. Therefore, the goals of the team become difficult or at the time impossible to attain. These types of ambiguities limit the understanding of employees regarding the core tasks of the job. Core tasks or aspects need to be carried out otherwise these ambiguous contexts also limit your capacities to perform effectively as an individual and as a team. It is so because employees are unable to match their appropriate behaviors with the requirements of the role. This results in a lower level of performance (Tubre and Collins, 2000).

The clearer the goals and roles are, the greater the satisfaction you get in performing the tasks. Normally, it is reported that an unclear situation creates more tension amongst the members of the team, but the difference was not significant. There was another experiment in which Cohen (1959) studied telephone operators who worked for a telecommunication firm. As the situation got more ambiguous and unclear, their anxiety level progressively increased with that. Also, research in a communication network firms, Collins et al. (1964) discovered about employees who knew about their reward mechanisms, showed a pretty positive attitude towards their jobs and subsequently performed better than those who were oblivious about them. They came to know about the direct relationship between their behaviors and knowledge about rewards mechanisms. They showed more satisfaction than their other counterparts who did not know about their reward systems. Moreover, one study states that ambiguous roles also had a positive relationship with feelings of threat (Wispe and Thayer, 1957).

Studies that have been conducted so far in this area propound that role clarity is highly important in organizations. More clarity in roles is related to

(a) High job satisfaction and satisfaction with the organization.
(b) reduced level of tension or stress
(c) low chances of leaving the organization
(d) low level of voluntary turnovers from the organization

The role clarity assessment was done in various studies. Rizzo et al. (1970) assess role clarity with five items on the Likert Scale. After that study, multiple Chinese studies and some non­Chinese also validate that scale (Newman and Sheikh, 2012; Malhotra et al., 2007). The respondents of the study responded on a scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. The items on the sample contained "I know exactly what is expected of me in my job."

Teas, 1980 concluded that role clarity has a positive and significant influence on employee job satisfaction. His study also included organizational commitment, low level of tension on the job, lower burnout, lower intensions for turnover, high satisfaction with other team members (Agnihotri et al., 2012; Bauer et al., 2007; Foote et al., 2005). However, clarity of roles has also a positive relationship with improving the team performance.

Newman et al. (2015) assert the positive relationship in these two variables. There exists a positive influence of role clarity on responses and behavior of employees in the organization. The investigation further goes on to study the impact of role clarity perception of employees on the relationship of both employees’ behavior and ethical leadership. These clearly defined roles helped them find whether subordinate behaviors are affected by them. They also tried to find leader ethical standards due to role clarity. The conclusions of the study of social learning and social exchange predict that when participants feel lower role clarity, its impact on the helping subordinates will be weak. This results in a deviant behavior of all the employees involved.

Another study which was conducted on 156 nurses, where there was a negative relation between role clarity and turnover, the inclination to leave, and also anxiety on the job. However, it had a positive impact on employees' satisfaction at the workplace (Lyons, 1971). However, role clarity has a direct relationship with team performance as well. The more clearly the roles have been identified by the employees within the team, the better their overall team performance will be.

2.5 Relationship of Vision and Role Clarity with Team Performance

Researchers have already given the relationship between the variables at different times in various sectors. Their findings have been discussed here. Researchers tried to understand potential interrelationships among vision clarity, role clarity and team performance. Most of their finding concluded that vision clarity had a direct and significant impact on team performance which consistently presented by many other researchers. There cannot possibly be any study that negates the relationship in totality. A great deal of scholarship and business related studies, cite the significance of the vision and connects it with success (Revilla and Rodriguez, 2011; Revilla and Cury, 2009 Lynn and Akgun, 2001; Patanakul et al., 2012). For example, the study conducted empirically by Revilla and Cury (2009) reveals that project clarity is positively influencing new product performance with respect to their process outcomes and teamwork. Patanakul et al., (2012) studied almost 555 projects regarding new product development. They revealed vision clarity as significantly affecting team performance. This clarity of vision has the highest level of impact on it as per the study on 555 projects. Then a research study conducted by Lynn and Akgun (2001) defined components of project vision. These components were three in number. They also developed a scale for them all. The three components under study were clarity, stability, and support. Their impact was also checked on performance in abrupt innovations. They checked whether these three variables have any influence on the performance of innovation teams. The results were amazing. They also emphasized resultantly that the impact of vision clarity was positive and significant with teams' success. These teams which were made for new product development at that time performed beyond their expectations. Cole (2006) also tried to explore whether there is any relation between vision and commitment of employees for changing the initiative. They addressed these initiatives in their vision earlier on which they checked later in the study. At the end of the study, their findings were similar to the previous scholarship too. They also related vision clarity with an increase in job satisfaction, low ambiguity in roles, and fewer turnover intentions. The turnover intention was considered even amongst those employees to consider that the execution of the changes had been poor. Similarly, Revilla and Rodriguez (2011) studied 78 teams in this regards, and they also studied their visions. They found that even if the organization pursuing strategies with a low level of skills, can also perform better. Here a dimension of clarity has a significant association with teamwork. In the same vain, teams need to be driven by vision clarity and flexibility in their project plans. Only then, the organization can come with a radical innovation (Rice et al., 1998)

2.6 Findings from the Literature Review

The findings from the literature are that no doubt all the three variables are very important in one way or the other. However, there had been less research done regarding the relationship between the three variables (vision clarity, role clarity, and team performance). Furthermore, the variables have been defined in many different ways, which confuses the reader to fully grasp the subject area. There is still a lot to be researched on regarding these variables and their interdependencies in various sectors. It is evident that better team performance requires not only vision and role clarity but also the coordinated efforts of all the team members with increased communication. Every organization will provide better results when the members perform effectively as a team. Moreover, clarity has been described as the most significant yet complicated attribute of vision in this literature review. As Lucas (1998) points it out that vision when clearly defined keeps the entire team focused on their job. Finally, role clarity is when roles have been clearly known to every member of the team, and they understand the expectation of their team leader. Only then, can their performance meet or even go beyond the expectation? Role clarity gives team members a greater satisfaction regarding their tasks. If role clarity isn’t there—resulting into role ambiguity—then team members are in constant conflict with one another as well as the administration. That eventually ends in a blame game.

The relationship between vision, role and team performance have received limited attention. Gary Lynn and Faruk Kalay researched on it in America and Turkey and chose tech industry from which they researched in three companies, namely, Apple, IBM, and HP. Their research article was published in 2015. The main reason for which they conducted their study was discussing the components of vision and clarity of roles and study the influence that they have on the performance of teams. They studied many innovations teams. There were 9 teams selected from three different companies in the tech industry. The companies were Apple, HP, and IBM. The impact of the aforementioned components is tested on team performance. The study collected data from almost 75 respondent scattered on those nine teams. The team members were all selected from the US working for the three mentioned companies.

The research conducted on the relationship of these variables so far have all been conducted outside Pakistan, and we didn't find any paper that could be related to the context of NGOs Sector in Pakistan. According to Brown and Eisenhardt (1995), the criticality of team performance with team vision cannot be neglected. However, our study found a link between the two. It is a very weak link. The surprising thing in the study of Crawford and Di Benedetto (2000) was claimed to be the scarcity of research conducted on vision in teams. However, there have been very little or no research conducted in Pakistan specifically which discusses the relationship and impact of vision and role in teams of development sector organizations. The non-governmental organizations have their peculiar challenges, regarding administration and management; and performance challenges. In light of these challenges, some studies Campbell and Yeung (1991); Matejka et al. (1993); Rigby (1994); Campbell (1997); Mullane (2002) elaborated that teams can use vision and mission to develop a shared purpose and target. These two also shape the focus of employees on the team. There are others who believe that vision and mission statements are helpful in motivating employees and shaping their behaviors. They are more committed and finally affects the performance of employees (Mullane, 2002; Collins and Poras, 1991; Daniel, 1992, Campbell, 1989; Ireland and Hitt, 1992, Klemm et al., 1991, Drucker 1959).

According to Fowler (1997), they should not only have a vision clarity but how do they connect this vision clarity with mission and roles in the non-governmental organization. Also, the most pressing challenge to non-governmental organizations is to link their vision, mission, and roles and ultimately see their impact on overall performance. When the team member knows and understands the roles of one another, this affects their attitudes in the team. They become more coordinated as a result of this. The knowledge of everyone's roles and attitudes finally improves the cohesiveness amongst the team. They are more collectively oriented. There is a high level of autonomy with job satisfaction and ownership. They consider themselves accountable for everything. These all factors produces higher team success (Braun and Avital, 2007).

Furthermore, Damanpour and Schneider (2006) emphasize that a culture of change is created by a leader through giving his vision to the team which is facilitating innovativeness and creativity in the organization. These two elements further improve the performance. The findings suggested the leaders’ vision is an important component of transformational leadership whose clear articulation is necessary both individually and organizationally. The team leader is not there to only give a vision to the team, but they also have a responsibility to have their visions accepted and acted upon as it is expected. These two things are utterly different from each other. Besides, based on the findings given here, the vision creations and implementing it varies from organization to organization and sector to sector. They are propositions in nonprofit organizations and also for-profit organizations. It is proposed that non-governmental organizations take more benefits out of a leader's vision because it is a type of ‘ buy-in' which means that commercial organizations have their motives of earning profits. This end purpose of a nonprofit sector is not the same because they work to have a social impact rather than earning profits. These examples illustrate that there is a high need to study the link between vision clarity, role clarity and team performance in the context of NGOs sector owing to the aforementioned challenges of administration and management. However, on this too we didn’t find any research conducted as of yet specifically in the context of Pakistan’s development sector. The only paper that discusses the relationship amongst them was conducted by Gary and Kalay in 2015 which studies three tech companies in the United States. Therefore, how do we know that those findings can be valid in the development sector in Pakistan because the context here is completely different; the development challenges here are different; the environment is different; the people are different; the administrative culture is entirely different; and how the organizations are run and managed is totally different than that of the US. Due to all these contextual differences, we can’t be certain on the available information about vision, role and team performance in the literature to be applicable in totality in the context of the developmental sector of Pakistan. As a result, there is a high need to study relationship of these variables (vision clarity, role clarity and team performance) in the context of NGOs sector and how do they impact each other.

2.7 Theoretical Framework

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

2.8 Research Objectives and Hypothesis

The research objectives of this study are given in the following:

- To investigate the influence of vision clarity on team performance.
- To investigate the influence of role clarity on team performance.

Hypotheses Based on a review of the literature (Gary, 2015; Lynn, Abel, Valentine, and Wright, 1999; Rizzo et al., 1970; Feistritzer and Jones, 2014; and Gladstein, 1984) and conceptual framework, two hypotheses have been formulated. It is theorized that if the roles are clear along with the vision, then the team could perform better and it positively affects performance.

The specific hypotheses to be tested are shown below:

Alternative hypothesis (H 1a): Vision clarity has a significantly positive impact on team performance.

Alternative hypothesis (H 1b): Role clarity has a significantly positive impact on team performance.

Alternative hypothesis (II1J: Vision clarity has a greater impact on team performance than role clarity (Gary, 2015)

All hypotheses are going to be tested at a minimum of the .05 significance level.

2.9 Conclusion

This chapter presented the definitions and understanding of team performance, vision clarity, and role clarity. It also elaborated the relationship between them from various research works. It also presented the theoretical framework, research objectives and hypotheses.

Chapter 3: Methodology and Methods

3.1 Introduction

This chapter has its focus on the methodology of the research used for it. It also includes methods and procedures for the collection and analysis of the data. It discusses the methodology, variables to be studied, research methods and data collection tools, sampling technique along with sample size, the respondents from whom the data was collected, data analysis tool and technique, quality issues and finally a conclusion to the chapter.

3.2 Research Methodology

This research has broadly relied on quantitative methodology. More specifically, it has used survey methodology. Saunders (2009) asserts that a survey is a method or strategy in research through which data is collected from a large population. This collection is done in a way considered to be a structured in nature. Normally survey is considered a collection of data through questionnaires. However, there other ways and techniques as well. For examples, the two others are structured observations and structured interviews. Deductive researches normally use Survey methodology. In the research of business and management, a survey is one of the most common and popular strategies used. It finds the answers to many questions, such as who, where, what, how many and how much. One could use it for exploratory or descriptive research. Surveys are popular because through a survey a researcher could collect a great amount of data from a large number of population within less time, cost and efforts. You are allowed to use a questionnaire for data of quantitative nature. Then their quantitative analysis is very easy and simple. Additionally, the collection through surveys is based on the relation between the variables and their results are produced accordingly. In surveys, data is often obtained through the use of questionnaires which is sent out to a sample. This sample is derived from the population (Saunders et al., 2009).

Research that uses survey methodology relies on a sample that is drawn from a population. Since the sample drawn from the population does not contain every member, therefore, it is at least important to take the representativeness element of the sample under consideration while drawing a sample. It needs to represent the population to a greater extent. Your research success is dependent on how better the sample represents the population. The population targeted in most researches can vary from country level to a group existing in an organization. Professional groups such as those in organizations can also be a target population for a study. The selection of this population depends on the needs of the researcher. The target population could even students of a school or college (Groves et al., 2009)

There are a number of activities which are considered as surveys. However, the below mentioned are the main characteristics of a survey:

1) Gathering information by questions from people.
2) Gathering information either through interviews or by reading and recording answers.
3) The information is gathered from a sample taken from the entire population (Groves, Fowler, Couper, Lepkowski, Singer, and Tourangeau, 2009).

We used the survey methodology because our research objectives and hypotheses are of quantitative nature and the variables required us to collect data from the field. Since data collection is from the field, therefore, a questionnaire has been developed to collect the relevant data on the given variables. Moreover, survey methodology is ideal because the research requires data to be gathered through asking questions from only a sample of the selected and targeted population. A sample is easy to gather data from in comparison to the entire population which is a hectic job.

3.3 Variables to be Studied

This research has followed the operational definition of the three variables as per the following:

Team performance as defined by Kozlowski and Ilgen (2006) and Man and Lam (2003) is “a function, an aggregation of the efforts made by the entire team.”

Gary (2015) defines that “vision clarity (VC), refers to having a well-articulated, easy-to- understand target- a very specific goal that provides direction to others in the organization.”

According to Rizzo et al. (1970) and Gary (2015) role clarity refers to ‘‘the degree to which required information is provided about how the employee is expected to perform his or her job.’’

3.4 Research Methods

3.4.1 Data Collection Tool

The hypotheses were tested by using questionnaires that we adopted from previous studies and then further modified them. These variables have already been tested in other researches. Therefore, they don't have any issues regarding the analysis of the data.

We first pilot tested the survey with a couple of NGOs team staff consisting of both the team members who are on the field and their concerned administrative members. When the surveys were received, we made the necessary corrections into it especially those questions were either removed or rephrased were difficult for the respondent. This difficulty and lack of clarity in questions could potentially lead to confusion on the part of the respondents. They were pilot surveys which were removed from the final data collected. Once the surveys were refined, we sampled 100 respondents who were in thirteen NGOs in two levels: one in the administration and the other in actual team level. We received a 95-98% response rate. At the end of the data collection process, data derived from 100 team members were analyzed by using SPSS statistical packet program, and two formulated hypotheses were tested using regression analysis.

The variables (vision clarity, role clarity and team performance) in this study were measured using 5-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). These Likert scales were taken from past literature and then modified them as per requirement. After conducting a pilot test of the scale, they necessary changes were made into the questions. Some were rephrased, and others were removed because they were less appropriate. The important thing is that these selected items are not used for the first time, but have been extensively used in past studies. They were commonly used to measure the collective performance of teams, such as innovation teams (Lin & Chen, 2016; Tsai, Joe, Lin, Huang, & Ma, 2015; Gary, 2015).

Vision clarity is measured across seven items which have been adopted from Gary (2015) whereby:

- Item 1 projects guidelines
- Item 2 is vision & service clarity
- Item 3 is the target market understanding
- Item 4 is stakeholders’ understanding
- Item 5 is funding target clarity
- Item 6 is organizational goal clarity
- Item 7 is service delivery clarity.

Role clarity is measured across three items which have been adopted from Gary (2015) whereby:

- Item 1 is clear expectations
- Item 2 is clear team roles
- Item 3 is clear team responsibilities.

Team performance is measured across five items which have been adopted from Man and Lam (2003) and Chou-Kang Chiu et al. (2016)

- Item 1 is project team competency
- Item 2 is team effectiveness
- Item 3 is the good performance
- Item 4 is quality results
- Item 5 is continuous improvement.

3.4.2 Sampling Technique and Sample Size

The sampling process is used to select units regarding organizations or people from the large population. It is always selected from the area of interest for generalizability. It is so because the researcher needs to finally generalize the results of the study on the population from which the sample has been drawn. There should be a fair generalization of results back to the population (Trachoma, 2006). Orodho & Kombo (2002) defines the sampling technique that it is a method used for gathering information about places, people and things who are further studied. Then the researcher selects a final sample through this sampling technique. A sample is that selected number of people, places or things taken from the targeted population which is selected through a procedure. This sample should represent that population which is further studied to get information regarding the entire population. This research has relied on a non­probability sampling technique because of impracticability in surveying the entire population. Besides, there a time limitation which prevented us to survey the total population.

There was a need for quick results too. There is possibly no source to identify the actual number of population. Even if found out, the sample derived through probability sampling would have been impossible to collect data from. That was why alternative technique (non­probability sampling) opted to select the sample based on our subjective judgment. We had resource limitation and were unable to identify the actual sampling frame. These all forced us to go for nonprobability sampling technique. The nonprobability sampling technique chosen for the study was snowball sampling. Once we contacted one of the development sector organizations, then they helped us to identify further contacts and so on (Saunders, 2009).

In case of the data collection for our own study, the first two non-governmental organizations were contacted through a reference of a friend because NGOs were not willing to allow us in and fill in the questionnaires. After that, the NGO referred us to another NGO with a contact number of reference member. We then contacted the person to get an appointment and address of their organization and this snowball sampling technique enabled us to collect all the required data. The sample size used for this study has been derived from the study of Gary (2015) and Kalay (2016) whereby for assessing or investigating team performance, a total of 75 and 87 respondents were selected respectively. Therefore, this research chose to gather the data from 100 respondents in the development sector organizations.

3.4.3 Respondents

The respondents consisted of two various levels of employees in the development sector organizations. They were from top management positions, usually the team management level employees who are mostly concerned with giving the vision and assigning the roles to each project team member. The second was the members on the project teams at these different development sector organizations. Their responses helped in crosschecking them against each other for more accuracy.

At the time of surveying, the study was supported by each firm, which helped in identifying further contacts and distributing the questionnaires to both of the groups which were team members and their leaders. They all volunteered in filling out the questionnaires. The leaders more specifically helped us to trace the status of the returned questionnaires.

Since the respondents volunteered in filling out the questionnaires, we only received a few questionnaires in which the responses for a couple of questions were missing. The missing responses were about the demographic of the respondents, such as (age etc). The demographics had little or no impact on the analysis of the study.

3.4.4 Data Analysis Tool and Technique

According to (Kombo and Tromp, 2006) the examination of the collected data and experimenting the data to draw further inferences and deductions is called data analysis. In addition, Denscombe (2003) illustrates that quantitative analysis comprises of a process that presents and interprets the data of numerical nature and drawing descriptive and inferential statistics from it. The numerical data which is analyzed is called quantitative analysis.

For this study, we used quantitative techniques. First of all the questionnaires were developed and the data was collected through them. Then that data was edited completely. Then we checked whether the data was complete and comprehensible. After that, the data was summarized and coded in order to easily classify and tabulate it. SPSS Software was used to analyse the quantitative data which helped in explaining the relationship among data of statistical nature. The data was checked for regression and correlation which made it easier for us in order to understand and interpret the results of the study. The technique was a regression test which was used in order to analyze the data.

Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

3.4 Addressing Quality Issues

The other step was the reliability of scale measures. This ensures whether all the constructs are correct or not. The alpha is used for the purpose of measuring that reliability. It is also estimating consistency internally amongst multiple scales of measurement (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). As Tables above indicate, the reliability given there shows that the scales of the research are reliable according to (Hair et al., 1998) who explains that the lowest limit for Alpha value is 0.70 and it sometimes can even go down to 0.60 in cases of exploratory researches. The value of Cronbach’s Alpha is (0.898) in the above tables which is above the .70 (the lowest limit). This indicates strong reliability and internal consistency amongst the items used in the questionnaire.

3.5 Conclusion

This chapter discussed the research methodology and why did we choose quantitative research and survey methodology. It also gave the operational definitions of the variable under study in this research. Moreover, in the research methods, the data collection tool, sampling techniques, and sample size have also been discussed in details along with respondents from whom the data was collected. The data analysis tool and technique was also presented. Besides, a paragraph talked about the measures taken to address the quality issues. Finally, it ended with a brief conclusion of the chapter.

Chapter 4: Analysis and Discussions

4.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the descriptive analysis of the demographic data and other two open- ended questions asked at the beginning of the questionnaire. Then the relationship of vision clarity and team performance is analyzed and supported with the data. After that, the discussion moves to the relationship of role clarity and team performance. Besides, it gives a detailed explanation in the discussion part where the relationship has been compared with other studies conducted in the same vein. At last, a short conclusion on the main points in the chapter has been provided.

4.2 Descriptive Analysis

The data regarding the genders of the respondents is given in the pie chart given below. The respondents from whom the required data was collected in the NGO Sector consisted of both males and females in various number.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 4.1: The Respondents' Gender Distribution

The 100 respondents were categorized under five various age groups which are displayed diagrammatically in the following pie chart.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 4.2: The Age Brackets of Respondents

The qualifications of all the respondents are given in the following bar chart.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

The following table illustrates the division of non-governmental organizations based on their key services that they offer to their beneficiaries/community.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 4.4: The Key Services Offered by the Responding NGOs

The key stakeholders of the responding non-governmental organizations were government, donors and the beneficiaries that they served in almost all the cases.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 4.5: The Key Stakeholders of the NGOs

4.3 Vision Clarity and Team Performance

As it is given in the previous discussion, our research study emphasizes that there is a strong influence of vision clarity and role clarity on team performance inside the non-governmental sector. The level of performance in project teams is greatly influenced by the clarity of these two mentioned terms. For the purpose of assessing and testing the developed hypotheses, our study used regression as a test. This regression analysis was done through SPSS 16 software. From regression, we recognized relationship in the variables as well as whether the data was statistically significant.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

a. Predictors: (Constant), role_clarity, vision_clarity

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

a. Dependent Variable: team_performance

As a result of the SPSS regression analysis, the tables above reflect the results of the regression analysis. The results of the regression analysis indicated significant effects of vision clarity on team performance (ß = .501). They provide the relationship of vision clarity, role clarity, and team performance. As can be seen, the coefficient of vision clarity is 0.501 which is positive. It means that there is a positive relationship between clarity of vision with team performance. Our findings were supporting the first hypothesis (H1) of the study. It is clear that NGO workers in teams who had higher clarity regarding their vision are indicated to have effectiveness and improvement in performance. Thus, if vision clarity increases, the team performance will also increase. Also, the value of significance in the coefficient table is .000 which is less than 5%, which states that this variable is significant and the positive relationship is very strong between vision clarity and team performance. Hence, H1 was supported.

4.4 Role Clarity and Team Performance

Likewise, the second hypothesis was talking about the impact of role clarity on the performance of employees in teams. The coefficient of role clarity in the above table is 0.397 which is also positive. This signifies the relation to be positive between team performance and role clarity. These types of conclusions show that the higher levels on clarity in roles are directly and positively affecting team performance (ß=. 397). When team members in the NGO sector felt that their roles are clearly articulated to them and they understood them well, the likeliness for improving their team performance also increased with that. Furthermore, the value of significance is .002 which is also less than 5%. It shows that the relationship between team performance and role clarity is positive as well as very strong. Team members whose perception regarding their roles was clear and less ambiguous were having better and improved team performance. In addition, the more the roles became clear, the better the performance of NGO teams got. It is also supported by the data.

The value of R Square in the model summary table given above is .377 which equals 37%. It means that 37% of the effect on team performance comes from both vision and role clarity. The remaining 63% impact comes from variables other than understudy variables. Hence, H2 was also supported.

4.5 Discussions

This paper has tested the relation between vision clarity, role clarity and team performance in non-governmental organizations.

The relationship between vision clarity and team performance is positive. The scholarship also supported this finding because of its consistency with the business press and literature which is continuously delineating and emphasizing the importance of success due to vision (Revilla and Cury, 2009; Lynn and Akgun, 2001; Revilla and Rodriguez, 2011; Patanakul et al., 2012). However Baum et al (1998) was the first to identify this relationship. He studied a number of other things together with clarity. They were components of vision characteristics. These components happened to be aspiring, brevity, abstractness, clarity, stability, challenge, future orientation, vision content, and their impact on performance of the organization. The clearer you make the vision for all the team members, the better they can steer their way forward to achieve the desired performance. Kantabutra (2003) also gives his due significance and stress on clarity of the vision for the entire team members and their subsequent performance. According to him, clarity is a significant attribute of vision.

Likewise, Rice et al (1998) also discussed that the team can get radical innovation when their vision is clear to them. Only clarity is just not good enough, but it should be supported by element of flexibility in the projects. Clarity of vision gives you an idea of where you are going but flexibility helps in changing project plans when they are not working or producing the desired results. This flexibility in project plans coupled with the clarity of vision help them with a clear path to follow to reach the end of their goal and successfully end the project. A more vital set of points to be incorporated at NGO sector are flexibility and vision clarity because they need to be agile enough to respond to the disastrous incidents on time and effectively. Therefore, the influence of diversity as well as better communication in teams can be minimized by clarity of vision. There is a high chance of team success. The clearer the purpose of the project is, the more influence it has on teamwork and outcomes (Revilla and Cury, 2009). Kotter (1995) stated that members of the organization need to be given sensible vision. They also need to understand that clearly too because Kotter believes if there is no clarity in content, it is of no use. If that content of the vision is ineffective, it does not produce the desired fruitful performance of the team. The team needs to know what they are expected of and how to go by achieving it.

In another empirical study, Patanakul et al. (2012) studied 555 new product development teams. Their findings were that vision clarity produces the highest team performance. This is the most influential variable in control variables. Hence, it played the very same role when the NGOs form their project teams and send them to fields. The members at the team level now solely rely on and turn to their team leaders, or more specifically project managers for the vision that they have and their roles they need to undertake to carry out the project target successfully. This reliance is evidence of vision to be a significant part of the team’s success on projects. Lynn and Akgun (2001) for their project-level research, they had to develop and define the three components of project vision. The three components were support, stability, and clarity. Then the influence of these was tested on radical innovation's team performance. They concluded that the clarity of vision has a positive impact and it is also significantly related with the success of new product development teams.

In our study, we also found a direct relationship with role clarity and team performance. Though this finding has both supporting research papers in the current scholarship as well as a few of the studies unlike the others found no significant relationship between the two variables. It can be like this because of the contextual differences amongst the studies and the areas where the research has been conducted. Therefore, our study may have differentiating results on this. Most of the scholarship supports the importance of role clarity with both team level performance and overall organizational level performance. The study of (Savelsbergh et al., 2012) found that the relation between role ambiguity and team performance do not have any significance.

On the other hand, the findings of (Drach-Zahavy and Freund, 2007) are different to them. They suggest that role ambiguity and role stress and conflict are having adverse effect on processes of the team as well as performance. Pearsall et al. (2009) had similar findings. These findings talk about the direct effect of role clarity however, since this area has received limited research. A strong body of scholarship talks about the indirect effect of role clarity on team performance where role clarity affects some other variable in between leading to a conflict of at least three different nature.

Likewise, according to (Jehn, 1997) differentiated between three conflict types. These conflicts were related to task, process, and relationship. These three conflicts arise from various things. The conflicts arising due to relationship involve tensions in interpersonal relations. These conflicts create frictions and resentments. They damage the performance of the team. The second one is task conflict. Task conflict arises due to a difference in ideas, and opinions about the work that is performed. They can potentially improve the performance in the team. The last one is processing conflict. Process conflict arises dues the methods that are considered to perform the tasks — the work methods which need to be adopted for carrying out the task. Therefore, the conflicting situation is created due to workload distribution and tasks order. They can harmfully affect the performance of teams.

The literature even further makes such findings difficult and complicated. The surprising thing is that this area was not researched a lot and received lesser attention from research studies. The direct relationship is close to none. However, the role stress received a great amount of research (Savelsbergh et al., 2012; Drach-Zahavy and Freund, 2007; Pearsall et al., 2009). Besides, (Jehn, 1997; De Wit, Greer, and Jehn, 2012; O’Neil et al., 2013; Hülsheger, Anderson, and Salgado (2009) studied the influence of role stress on team conflict. Their study was a further addition in the same vein. Thus, it can clearly be argued from the results of the studies above that there is a high chance of stressful environment on team levels in the NGO sector or any other sector if it is not sorted out in time which can even lead to conflict amongst the team members and the administration. Stress always is a pivotal point to be under consideration when clarifying the roles to every member on the team.

The findings in the area of role clarity suggest that it affects the behaviors of subordinates. These subordinates show their helping behavior due to the leaders who have created this situation for them. They are positive in their attitudes and go about getting their goals set to them by the leaders. On the contrary, when the subordinates are not provided with clear roles, then the subordinates start to believe that their supervision is substandard. Their belief in leaders who lead them is shattered. These leaders’ skills and competencies are doubted by everyone. This is the time when the subordinates do not show their helping behavior. These findings are substantiated by previous literature as well. The previous work is also suggesting the supervisors are usually blamed when they cannot clearly state the roles to subordinates. The supervisors are normally considered to be the responsible people in the organization. They are the ones who should take the responsibility of interpreting the procedures and rules inside the organization (O’Driscoll and Beehr, 1994).

Tubre and Collins (2000) emphasize that role clarity has a positive attribute for individuals who perform their jobs. It is positively in relation to the job performance. According to (Danes and Olson, 2003) tension is created due to lacking clarity in roles. The positive organizational performance due to role clarity in our research study has suggested that role clarity also makes the team flexible and is therefore significant to any project team performance in an NGO.

The study of Terry et al. (2008) suggested that role clarity does not only affect the internal dynamics of the team (logistics teams), but it also affects the perceptions of the team members. They perceive each other's effectiveness level on the team in the organization. The one who is understanding their roles better has better concentration regarding their tasks. This consumes less energy and takes little time to understand the roles that they take in the team. They know their actions well enough and are not indulging in the wrong tasks. These eventually reduce the inefficiencies and redundancies though they are at a very low level. They increase chances of success in the team. This becomes the responsibility of team managers in organizations to provide the team members with clarity in their roles. These roles when clear, make it easy for them to increase intra-team relations. This also increases the team's effectiveness as a whole.

Particularly, the role ambiguousness results in a task conflict. These task conflicts have got their consequences. The role ambiguity leading to task conflicts is defined as the differences of individuals in the group regarding the tasks to be performed. Jehn and Bendersky (2003) are not clear on this matter. However, in the literature, there are a number of research scholars who emphasized the beneficial effect of task conflict (Jehn, 1997; Behfar et al., 2011) other researchers, on the other hand, found a negative effect of it (Langfred, 2007). These are mixed research findings of various researchers where dominant view is that clarity of roles have their strong effects on performance of team members and it also assists in avoiding team conflict which occurs due to lack of clarity in individual roles.

4.6 Conclusion

The chapter presented all the demographic related data on various pie charts, bar chart, and tables. Then, the relationships amongst the three variables of vision, and role clarity and their due influence on team performance was elaborated which was either supported or not. Finally, a detailed discussion section was written to presents the various views of researchers in the literature.

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusions

The importance of role clarity and vision clarity is paramount both on a team level and organizational level. They play their due part in both of the cases fairly well. Though, there is surprisingly little known about the relationship amongst these variables in the context of teams. Therefore, this research study mainly focused their relationship on teams in organizations of the developmental sector. These components understudies were the teams' vision, teams' role clarity, and teams' performance. The for-profit sector has received more research in this area as compared to the non-profit sector. There was a need to study the inter­relationship of these variables in non-profit organizations due to having peculiar management challenges which are different than a for-profit organization. These two variables (vision and roles) are delineated that they are used to build a common purpose and share a purpose. It also a source through which the focus and attention of all the employees in the team are formed (Rigby, 1994; Matejka et al., 1993; Campbell and Yeung, 1991).

To address the three research objectives regarding vision clarity, role clarity and team performance, three hypotheses were developed. Hypothesis one stated the relationship between vision clarity and team performance. As it was mentioned in chapter four, hypothesis one was accepted and states the significant relationship. This finding is aligned with the research study of (Revilla and Rodriguez, 2011; Lynn and Akgun, 2001; Revilla and Cury, 2009; Patanakul et al., 2012).

Similarly, hypothesis two stating the relationship of role clarity with team performance was also accepted. It had a significant relationship with team performance as well. This finding has both been strengthened by already established scholarship (Drach-Zahavy and Freund, 2007; Pearsall et al., 2009; Jehn, 1997). There also was research that did not study these two variables directly. However, they studied role ambiguity with team performance and found no significant correlation with team performance (Savelsbergh et al., 2012).

Third and finally, this study concludes from the results and analyses - the SPSS tables provided in chapter four - that vision clarity is significantly more influencing than role clarity on team performance.

5.2 Significance of the Study

This research study is one of the first of its kind that has extended the previous framework of the study which was conducted mostly in the business sector. However, we investigated the three variables (Vision Clarity, Role Clarity, and Team Performance) on new data gathered from non-governmental organizations located in Peshawar and FATA. The theories and hypotheses had been developed from the literature, but the significance of this research is that those frameworks were contextually applied in NGOs inside Peshawar and FATA and further extends the theory. These NGOs worked in various sectors to help the community. These sectors in which they operated were education, humanitarian, health, policy, social, human rights, and the environment. Their main focus was to have a greater influence on the communities that they served. This was clearly stated in their objectives.

Another significance of the study is that the findings of this study carry a lot of importance for those managers, planners or strategists and more specifically the ones who deal with HR related issues in the organization. They can learn much regarding how the teams can effectively be managed by providing a clear vision and roles to the team.

5.3 Limitations of the Study

Our research study has identified some limitations. These limitations provide an opportunity for future researchers to keep them under consideration while conducting their research. The following are the identified areas of limitations-cum-opportunities.

- First, the sample size we took for this study was 100 respondents taken through a non-probability technique which is limited sample size. The sample size here is probably too small. Therefore, we can not find the significance in the relationships from the given data because statistical tests always need a healthy size of the sample for better representativeness of the population. The results are to be generalized on the population from which the sample is taken.
- Second, the research used non-probability sampling technique which is not statistically significant too. This technique was adopted due to the efforts, and time required for a probability sampling technique. Also, there was no reliable source from where the actual size and number of NGOs could be confirmed within the limited time. The research, therefore, relied on the data collected from respondents hailing from Peshawar and FATA region. So another point of concern here would be that we cannot generalize these findings to the whole of Pakistan.
- Third, studies in the past regarding team performance also included some control variables, such as characteristics of the team (e.g. team size, team tenure) and socio­demographic (e.g. team age) and (e.g. task interdependence) which affect team success (Rico et al., 2008; Choi et al., 2010). The other variables that could impact team performance are coordination among team members and the increased communication. This study hasn’t used these control variables as part of the research. Researchers in the future are suggested that these control variables need to be taken under consideration if they want to study the impact of these control variables on team performance.
- Fourth, this study used only three items to measure role clarity. These items do not seem to show enough psychometric properties which may create problems in measuring the variable as we expect it. Therefore the items need to increase to be more helpful in calculating the variable perfectly.

5.4 Recommendations for Researchers

It is suggested that the researchers interested in the similar field may carry out this research who will try to expand the existing body of knowledge in this area. They could do so through incorporating more variables rather than relying on only three - as in this study. They need to include other control variables because team performance is not only impacted by mere vision and role clarity, but there could be other control variables that too can have a significant impact on it. The possible control variables suggested for future researchers could be coordination among team members and increased communication. They need to include the impact of these variables in their study. The other variables, such as task interdependence, team size, and team tenure should also be considered in their studies. These control variables will possibly help the researchers for clear identification of the relationship among the independent and dependent variables. They need to add those factors to their frameworks to have a more comprehensive study in this field.

The researchers could also change the area of study and conduct their research in other areas, such as the public or private sector organizations could be studied, and the impact of these variables is evaluated in them. Since each sector has got its peculiar management styles and challenges, there should be a research study to comparatively evaluate the results in each of these sectors.

The future studies should also extend their sample size from 100 to more to improve the significance and generalizability characteristic of their research findings. The more data they gather and increase the size of their study, the better findings will bring in more improvements in the study.

The researchers can also measure team performance by using objective measures rather than through a questionnaire as in this study. They can take profits as a metric of good or bad performance of teams and evaluate the relationship between these variables.

5.5 Recommendations for Practitioners

This research study has concluded with a number of implications and recommendations for practitioners who are there in practical operations of the firms. There are three main recommendations to them which can be derived from this study. First and foremost, the human resource managers could take help from building better teams by looking into all the necessary components for an effective and efficient team, such as coordination, communication, and clarity of roles and visions. More precisely, our findings of vision clarity's impact on team performance could assist practitioners to provide a clear vision and set clear goals for the team members. This is going to pay off with having less conflict within team members and improved performance from the team.

Second, the clearer the team is on the visions, the better they will eventually perform. For this to happen, either the team leader has to clearly put forth the vision or force the team to come up with a vision of their own. However, that vision then needs to be mutually agreed upon. This all will inculcate in the team a sense of responsibility and at the same time creativity. The team will learn how to develop a vision and be successful with it. These two characteristics make teams more successful than those who passively listen and act upon the given visions. In other words, the objectives should be clearly stated to the team, and timely feedbacks need to be provided on the achievement of objectives. Otherwise, the lack of these two can result in a conflict amongst team members which impedes the integrated and coordinated efforts of the team.

Third, the relationship between role clarity and team performance was also positive and significant. Though, it was significantly lesser than that of vision clarity. There is enough body of research work conducted on the detrimental effect of role conflicts and unclarity of roles on both team performance and organizational performance. So contextually, the practitioners need to consider these points and try to remove the ambiguities from the roles within team members. The division of roles in team members and resource allocation will push them to perform better as an individual and a team. The members need to have well- defined roles entrusted to them with properly allocated resources. This all will lead the team members to see the bigger picture and increase collaborative efforts.

References

- Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization science, 3 (3), 321-341.
- Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of applied psychology, 88 (2), 207.
- Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. A. (1998). A longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms. Journal of applied psychology, 83 (1), 43.
- Brannick, M. T., Salas, E., & Prince, C. W. (Eds.). (1997). Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications. Psychology Press.
- Brannick, M. T., & Prince, C. (1997). An overview of team performance measurement. Team performance assessment and measurement. Theory, methods, and applications, 3.
- Braun, F., & Avital, M. (2007). Good project management practices drive more than project success: Learning, knowledge sharing and job satisfaction in IT project teams. AMCIS 2007proceedings, 297.
- Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995). Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of management review, 20 (2), 343­378.
- Cooke, N. J., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Stout, R. J. (2000). Measuring team knowledge. Human Factors, 42 (1), 151-173.
- Cooke, N. J., Kiekel, P. A., & Helm, E. E. (2001). Measuring team knowledge during skill acquisition of a complex task. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 5 (3), 297-315.
- Cole, M. S., Harris, S. G., & Bernerth, J. B. (2006). Exploring the implications of vision, appropriateness, and execution of organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27 (5), 352-367.
- Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1996). Building your company's vision. Harvard business review, 74 (5), 65.
- Crawford, M.C., and Di Benedetto, A.C. (2000). New Product Management, (sixth ed.), New York: The McGraw-Hill companies.
- Dictionary, B. (2018). Business Dictionary. Business Dictionary.
- Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations: effects of environment, organization and top managers 1. British journal of Management, 17 (3), 215-236.
- Denscombe, M. (2003). The good research guide Maidenhead.
- Drach-Zahavy, A., and Freund, A. (2007), ‘Team Effectiveness Under Stress: A Structural Contingency Approach,’ Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 423-450.
- Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management journal, 32 (3), 543-576.
- Feistritzer, N. R., & Jones, P. O. (2014). A proof-of-concept implementation of a unit-based advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) role: structural empowerment, role clarity and team effectiveness. Nursing Clinics of North America, 49, 1-13.
- Fowlkes, J. E., Lane, N. E., Salas, E., Franz, T., & Oser, R. (1994). Improving the measurement of team performance: The TARGETs methodology. Military Psychology, 6 (1), 47-61.
- Giordan J. C. (1995), ‘That Vision Thing,’ Research-Technology Management, 38, 8­9.
- Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative science quarterly, 499-517.
- Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau, R. (2009). Survey methodology. Wiley. New York.
- Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. McNally, Chicago, IL, Vol. 3, pp. 268-313.
- Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. Consulting Psychologists Press.
- Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. 1998. Upper Saddle River.
- Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. (1989). Strategic intent, Harvard Business Review. http://hbr . org/1989/05/strategic-intent/ar/(25. oktobar 2012. godine).
- Hickson, D. J. (1966). A convergence in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 224-237.
- Hong, P., Doll, W. J., Nahm, A. Y., & Li, X. (2004). Knowledge sharing in integrated product development. European journal of innovation management, 7 (2), 102-112.
- Kantabutra, S., & Avery, G. C. (2002). Proposed model for investigating relationships between vision components and business unit performance. Journal of Management & Organization, 8 (2), 22-39.
- Kantabutra, S. (2003). An Empirical Examination of Relationships between Vision Components, & Customer and Staff Satisfaction in Retail Apparel Stores in Sydney, Australia (Doctoral dissertation, Macquarie University (Macquarie Graduate School of Management)).
- Kantabutra, S., & Avery, G. C. (2010). The power of vision: statements that resonate. Journal of Business Strategy, 31 (1), 37-45.
- Kendall, D. L., & Salas, E. (2004). Measuring team performance: Review of current methods and consideration of future needs. In The science and simulation of human performance (pp. 307-326). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
- Kessler, E. H., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (1996). Innovation speed: A conceptual model of context, antecedents, and outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 21 (4), 1143­1191.
- Kombo, D. K., & Tromp, D. L. (2006). Proposal and thesis writing: An introduction. Nairobi: Paulines Publications Africa, 5, 814-30. Paulines publication. Nairobi, Kenya.
- Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological science in the public interest, 7 (3), 77-124.
- Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. Handbook of psychology, 333-375.
- Lucas, J.R. (1998), ‘Anatomy of a Vision Statement,’ Management Review, 87, 22­26.
- Lynn, G., & Kalay, F. (2015). The effect of vision and role clarity on team performance. Journal of Business Economics and Finance, 4 (3).
- Lynn, G. S., & Akgun, A. E. (2001). Project visioning: Its components and impact on new product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management: AN INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATION OF THE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT & MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, 18 (6), 374-387.
- Lynn, G. S., Abel, K. D., Valentine, W. S., & Wright, R. C. (1999). Key factors in increasing speed to market and improving new product success rates. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(4), 319-326.
- Lyons, T. F. (1971). Role clarity, need for clarity, satisfaction, tension, and withdrawal.
- Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007). Leading virtual teams. Academy of Management perspectives, 21 (1), 60-70.
- Man, D. C., & Lam, S. S. (2003). The effects of job complexity and autonomy on cohesiveness in collectivistic and individualistic work groups: a cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 24 (8), 979­1001.
- Messick, D. M., & Mackie, D. M. (1989). Intergroup relations. Annual review of psychology, 40 (1), 45-81.
- McAlister, J.M. (1998), ‘Vision precedes success,’ Military Review,’ 78, 24-29.
- Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. (2001). Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Academy of management Journal, 44 (6), 1251-1262.
- Morgan Jr, B. B., Glickman, A. S., Woodard, E. A., Blaiwes, A. S., & Salas, E. (1986). Measurement of team behaviors in a Navy environment. Battelle Columbus Labs Research Triangle Park Nc.
- Measurement of team behaviors in a Navy environment (Technical Report No. NTSC TR-86-014). Orlando, FL, USA: Naval Training Systems Center.
- Morgan, B.B. Jr and Lassiter, D.L. (1992), “Team composition and staffing”, in Swezey, R.W. and Salas, E. (Eds), Teams: Their Training and Performance, Ablex Publishing Corporation, Westport, CT, pp. 75-100.
- Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary Leadership: Creating a Compelling Sense of Direction for Your Organization. Jossey-Bass Inc., 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94104-1310.
- Newman, A., & Sheikh, A. Z. (2012). Organizational rewards and employee commitment: a Chinese study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27 (1), 71-89.
- Niemes, J. (1996). Team member must have vision, trust, confidence. Orlando Business Journal, 12 (42), 15.
- Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (McGraw-Hill Series in Psychology) (Vol. 3). New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Nutt, P. C., & Backoff, R. W. (1997). Facilitating transformational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22 (4), 490-508.
- Orodho, A. J., & Kombo, D. K. (2002). Research methods. Nairobi: Kenyatta University, Institute of Open Learning.
- Patanakul, P., Chen, J., & Lynn, G. S. (2012). Autonomous teams and new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(5), 734-750.
- Rayne, S. (2012). Measuring team dynamics in the wild. Research methods for studying groups and teams: A guide to approaches, tools, and technologies, 386. New York, NY, USA: Taylor & Francis.
- Revilla, E., & Cury, T. (2009). Antecedents and Consequences of Team Vision in Product Development: An Empirical Evidence. IE Business School Working Paper, WP09-01.
- Revilla, E., & Rodriguez, B. (2011). Team vision in product development: How knowledge strategy matters. Technovation, 31 (2-3), 118-127.
- Rice, M. P., O'Connor, G. C., Peters, L. S., & Morone, J. G. (1998). Managing discontinuous innovation. Research-Technology Management, 41(3), 52-58.
- Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 150-163.
- Rosen, M. A., Salas, E., Wilson, K. A., King, H. B., Salisbury, M., Augenstein, J. S., ... & Birnbach, D. J. (2008). Measuring team performance in simulation-based training: adopting best practices for healthcare. Simulation in Healthcare, 3 (1), 33-41.
- Rosen, M. A., Wildman, J. L., Salas, E., & Rayne, S. (2012). Measuring team dynamics in the wild. In A. Hollingshead & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research methods for studying groups: A guide to approaches, tools, and technologies (pp. 386-417). New York, NY, USA: Taylor & Francis.
- Rosen, M. A., Schiebel, N., Salas, E., Wu, T., Silvestri, S., & King, H. (2012). How can team performance be measured, assessed, and diagnosed. Improving patient safety through teamwork and team training, 59-79. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.
- Rouse, W. B., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1992). The role of mental models in team performance in complex systems. IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics, 22 (6), 1296-1308.
- Salas, E., Burke, C. S., Fowlkes, J. E., & Priest, H. A. (2004). On measuring teamwork skills. Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment, 4, 427-442. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.
- Salas, E. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. Teams: Their training and performance, 3-29.
- Salas, E., Stagl, K. C., Burke, C. S., & Goodwin, G. F. (2007, January). Fostering team effectiveness in organizations: Toward an integrative theoretical framework. In Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 52, p. 185).
- Salas, E., Priest, H. A., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Teamwork and team performance measurement. In Evaluation of Human Work, 3rd Edition (pp. 790-805). CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
- Salas, E., Burke, C. S., Fowlkes, J. E., & Priest, H. A. (2004). On measuring teamwork skills. Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment, 4, 427-442. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.
- Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. Pearson education.
- Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The leadership quarterly, 75 (1), 33-53.
- Shaw, D. G., & Schneier, C. E. (1995). Team measurement and rewards: How some companies are getting it right. People and Strategy, 18(3), 34.
- Stout, R. J., Salas, E., & Fowlkes, J. E. (1997). Enhancing teamwork in complex environments through team training. Group Dynamics: Theory, research, and practice, 1 (2), 169.
- Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., & Salas, E. (1992). Team building and its influence on team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. In Advances in psychology (Vol. 82, pp. 117-153). North-Holland.
- Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986). The transformational leader. Training & Development Journal.
- Tippett, D. D., & Peters, J. F. (1995). Team building and project management: How are we doing?. Project Management Institute.
- Thompson, L. L., & Thompson, M. (2008). Making the team: A guide for managers. Pearson/Prentice Hall.
- Tubre, T. C., & Collins, J. M. (2000). Jackson and Schuler (1985) revisited: A meta­analysis of the relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict, and job performance. Journal of management, 26(1), 155-169.
- Vaughan, J.A. (1997), ‘Vision And Meaning,’ Executive Excellence, 14, 11-12.
- Westley, F., & Mintzberg, H. (1989). Visionary leadership and strategic management. Strategic management journal, 10 (S1), 17-32.
- Wispe, L. G., & Thayer, P. W. (1957). Role ambiguity and anxiety in an occupational group. The Journal of Social Psychology, 46 (1), 41-48.
- Wildman, J. L., Thayer, A. L., Pavlas, D., Salas, E., Stewart, J. E., & Howse, W. R. (2012). Team knowledge research: Emerging trends and critical needs. Human Factors, 54 (1), 84-111.
- Zigon, J. (1997). Team performance measurement: a process for creating team performance standards. Compensation & Benefits Review, 29(1), 38-47.
- Zhang, Q., & Doll, W. J. (2001). The fuzzy front end and success of new product development: a causal model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 4 (2), 95-112.

Appendix

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

[...]