Prior research evidence shows that within-team interdependence moderates the process-performance relationship in small groups. Data collected from 94 top management teams (TMTs) replicated and extended the small groups finding. Specifically, TMTs with high interdependence (i.e., real teams) had higher team and subsequent firm performance when the team was more cohesive and had more communication. However, teams with low interdependence (i.e., working groups) had higher performance when communication and cohesion were lower. This constructive replication provides the first examination of the moderating effect for team interdependence within TMTs on both team and firm performance.


  • Aiken and West, 1991 Aiken L. S., West S. C. 1991. Multiple regression testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
  • Bass, 1985 Bass B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Freeman. Google Scholar
  • Beal, Cohen, Burke and McLendon, 2003 Beal D. J., Cohen R. R., Burke M. J., McLendon C. L. 2003. Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 989–1004. Google Scholar
  • Bedian and Mossholder, 2000 Bedian A. G., Mossholder K. W. 2000. On the use of the coefficient of variation as a measure of diversity. Organizational Research Methods, 3: 285–297. Google Scholar
  • Campion, Medsker and Higgs, 1993 Campion M. A., Medsker G. J., Higgs A. C. 1993. Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46: 823–850. Google Scholar
  • Campion, Papper and Medsker, 1996 Campion M. A., Papper E. M., Medsker G. J. 1996. Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49: 429–452. Google Scholar
  • Carpenter, Geletkanycz and Sanders, 2004 Carpenter M. A., Geletkanycz M. A., Sanders W. G. 2004. Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30: 749–778. Google Scholar
  • Certo, Lester, Dalton and Dalton, 2006 Certo S. T., Lester R. H., Dalton C. M., Dalton D. R. 2006. Top management teams, strategy and financial performance: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Management Studies, 43: 813–839. Google Scholar
  • Cohen and Cohen, 1984 Cohen J., Cohen P. 1984. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  • Cohen and Bailey, 1997 Cohen S. G., Bailey D. E. 1997. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23: 239–290. Google Scholar
  • Eden, 2002 Eden D. 2002. Replication, meta-analysis, scientific progress, and AMJ's publication policy. Academy of Management Journal. 45: 841–846.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Festinger, 1950 Festinger L. 1950. Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57: 271–282. Google Scholar
  • Finkelstein and Hambrick, 1990 Finkelstein S., Hambrick D. C. 1990. Top-management team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 484–503. Google Scholar
  • Glick, Miller and Huber, 1993 Glick W. H., Miller C., Huber G. P. 1993. The impact of upper-echelon diversity on organizational performance. In Huber G. P.Glick W. H. (Eds.), Organizational change and redesign: 176–214. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Gully, Devine and Whitney, 1995 Gully S. M., Devine D. J., Whitney D. J. 1995. A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26: 497–520. Google Scholar
  • Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi and Beaubien, 2002 Gully S. M., Incalcaterra K. A., Joshi A., Beaubien J. M. 2002. A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 819–832. Google Scholar
  • Hackman, 1987 Hackman J. R. 1987. The design of work teams. In Lorsch J. W. (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior: 315–342. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
  • Hambrick, 1994 Hambrick D. C. 1994. Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration of the “team” label. In Staw B. M.Cummings L. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 16: 171–213. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Google Scholar
  • Hambrick, 1995 Hambrick D. C. 1995. Fragmentation and the other problems CEOs have with their top management teams. California Management Review, 37(3): 110–127. Google Scholar
  • Hambrick and Mason, 1984 Hambrick D. C., Mason P. A. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9: 193–206.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Harrison and Sin, 2006 Harrison D. A., Sin H.-S. 2006. What is diversity and how should it be measured? In Konrad A. M.Prasad P.Pringle J. K. (Eds.), Handbook of work-place diversity: 191–216. London: Sage. Google Scholar
  • Hyatt and Ruddy, 1997 Hyatt D. E., Ruddy T. M. 1997. An examination of the relationship between work group characteristics and performance: Once more into the breech. Personnel Psychology, 50: 553–585. Google Scholar
  • Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson and Jundt, 2005 Ilgen D. R., Hollenbeck J. R., Johnson M., Jundt D. 2005. Teams in organizations: From I-P-O models to IMOI models. In Fiske S. T.Kasdin A. E.Schacter D. L. (Eds.), Annual review of psychology, vol. 56: 485–516. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Google Scholar
  • Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1996 Jöreskog K. G., Sörbom D. 1996. LISREL 8 user's reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International. Google Scholar
  • Katzenbach and Smith, 1993 Katzenbach J. R., Smith D. K. 1993. The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review, 71(7/8): 111–121. Google Scholar
  • Kirkman and Rosen, 1999 Kirkman B. L., Rosen B. 1999. Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 58–75.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Kozlowski and Bell, 2003 Kozlowski S. W. J., Bell B. S. 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations. In Borman W.Liden R.Klimoski R. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 12: 333–375. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  • Lawrence, 1997 Lawrence B. S. 1997. The black box of organizational demography. Organizational Science, 8: 1–22. Google Scholar
  • Lester, Meglino and Korsgaard, 2002 Lester S. W., Meglino B. M., Korsgaard M. A. 2002. The antecedents and consequences of group potency: A longitudinal investigation of newly formed work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 352–368.AbstractGoogle Scholar
  • Marks, Mathieu and Zaccaro, 2001 Marks M. A., Mathieu J. E., Zaccaro S. J. 2001. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26: 356–376.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • McGrath, 1964 McGrath J. E. 1964. Social psychology: A brief introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Google Scholar
  • McGrath, 1984 McGrath J. E. 1984. Group interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall. Google Scholar
  • McGrath, Arrow and Berdahl, 2000 McGrath J. E., Arrow H., Berdahl J. L. 2000. The study of groups: Past, present and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4: 95–105. Google Scholar
  • Michel and Hambrick, 1992 Michel J. G., Hambrick D. C. 1992. Diversification posture and top management team characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 9–29.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Mullen and Copper, 1994 Mullen B., Copper C. 1994. The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115: 210–227. Google Scholar
  • O'Reilly, Snyder and Boothe, 1993 O'Reilly C. A., Snyder R. C., Boothe J. N. 1993. Effects of executive team demography on organizational change. In Huber G. P.Glick W. H. (Eds.), Organizational change and redesign: 147–175. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  • Pelled, Eisenhardt and Xin, 1999 Pelled L. H., Eisenhardt K. M., Xin K. R. 1999. Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 1–28. Google Scholar
  • Pfeffer, 1983 Pfeffer J. 1983. Organizational demography. In Cummings L. L.Staw B. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 5: 299–357. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Google Scholar
  • Seashore, 1954 Seashore S. E. 1954. Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Google Scholar
  • Simsek, Veiga, Lubatkin and Dino, 2005 Simsek Z., Veiga J. F., Lubatkin M. H., Dino R. N. 2005. Modeling the multilevel determinants of top management team behavioral integration. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 69–84.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Smith, Smith, Olian, Sims and O'Bannon, 1994 Smith K. G., Smith K. A., Olian J. D., Sims H. P., O'Bannon D. P., Scully J. A. 1994. Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administration Science Quarterly, 39: 412–438. Google Scholar
  • Steiner, 1972 Steiner I. D. 1972. Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  • Stewart, 2006 Stewart G. L. 2006. A meta-analytic review of the relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32: 29–54. Google Scholar
  • Stewart and Barrick, 2000 Stewart G. L., Barrick M. R. 2000. Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 135–148.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Teachman, 1980 Teachman J. D. 1980. Analysis of population diversity. Sociological Methods and Research, 8: 341–362. Google Scholar
  • Thompson, 1967 Thompson J. D. 1967. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
  • Tsui and Gutek, 1999 Tsui A. S., Gutek B. A. 1999. Demographic difference in organizations: Current research and future directions. Lanham, MD: Lexington Press. Google Scholar
  • Wageman, 1995 Wageman R. 1995. Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 145–180. Google Scholar
  • Wageman, 2001 Wageman R. 2001. The meaning of interdependence. In Turner M. E. (Ed.), Groups at work—Theory and research: 197–217. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  • Webber and Donahue, 2001 Webber S. S., Donahue L. M. 2001. Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27: 141–162. Google Scholar
  • West and Schwenk, 1996 West C. T., Schwenk C. R. 1996. Top management team strategic consensus, demographic homogeneity and firm performance: A report of resounding non-findings. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 571–576. Google Scholar
  • Zaccaro and Marks, 1999 Zaccaro S. J., Marks M. A. 1999. The roles of leaders in high-performing teams. In Sundstrom E.Associates (Eds.), Supporting work team effectiveness: Best management practices for fostering high performance: 95–125. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
Academy of Management
  Academy of Management
  555 Pleasantville Road, Suite N200
  Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510-8020, USA
  Phone: +1 (914) 326-1800
  Fax: +1 (914) 326-1900