GENERAL DECISION MAKING STYLE AND NEED PATTERN AS PREDICTORS OF TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

Abstract

“Effectiveness” is one of the main focus areas of contemporary research studies and the researchers are interested in identifying the predictors of effectiveness to devise ways of improvements. This study explores the General Decision Making Style (GDMS), Need Pattern (NP) and Team Effectiveness (TE) of Executives in select Indian organizations, and the effect of GDMS and NP on TE. The constructs of GDMS include Rational, Intuitive, Dependent, Avoidant and Spontaneous styles. The NP constructs are the secondary motives/psychological needs of Achievement (nAch), Affiliation (nAff), Power (nPow) and Security (nSec). The framework of TE constitutes the team functions like Cohesion, Confrontation, Collaboration, and the task functions like Task Clarity, Autonomy, Support and Accountability. The novel contribution of this study is the choice of unique predictor variables (GDMS and NP) to predict Team Effectiveness. The independent and dependent variables have been defined with literal text and explained with the help of relevant work done by other researchers. This research adopts a cross sectional research design with the use of primary data based on survey using standardized scales, wherein 607 Executives (Senior, Middle and Junior-level) from select Indian organizations participated in the survey. The final sample comprises 541 executives from Industries of PME (Power, Mining and Exploration); IT-ITES (Informational Technology and IT Enabled Services); Telecom; Manufacturing and Service. Primarily, the data have been analyzed using SPSS v17.0 Software. After normalization process, the Intra Class Coefficients on the three Scales were obtained to ensure the aggregated analysis of 541 samples. Further, Exploratory Factor Analysis using Principal Component Method, Reliability Analysis and Validity Analysis were carried out. Afterwards, Descriptive Statistics, Correlation Analysis, Independent Sample t-tests, ANOVA Analysis and Regression Analysis were used for testing the research hypotheses. Additionally, Structure Equation Modeling (SEM) was performed using AMOS v20.0 to compare the Original Model (Styles and Needs as predictors of TE) and the Alternate Model (TE as a predictor of the Styles and Needs). The findings show that from highest to lowest the average GDMS of the executives is Rational, Intuitive, Dependent, Spontaneous and Avoidant. The average NP from highest to lowest is iv nAch, nPow, nAff and nSec. Average Team Functioning (TF) is found higher than the Average Task Function/Team Empowerment (TEmp). The highest TF constituent is Collaboration, followed by Cohesion and then Confrontation. Amongst the TEmp constituents, the highest is Task Clarity followed by Accountability, then Support and then Autonomy. The average TE of Executives is 68.04%. Significant differences are observed in Dependent style across Industries, Experience-levels, Sector and Gender; in Rational style across the Education and Sectors; in Spontaneous style across Industry and Sectors; in Intuitive style across Gender, and in Avoidant style across Experience-levels and Sectors. The significant difference in the motives/needs is in nAch across Industry and in nSec across Experience. TF varies across Industry, TEmp varies across Experience-levels and TE varies across Industry. The GDMS and NP independently as well as together explain significant variance in TE. Rational style, nAch, nAff and nPow are positive and Avoidant style & nSec are observed as negative predictors of TE. Dependent style positively predicts TE of IT-ITES executives, while negatively predicts TE of Public sector executives. The values of model fits and regression coefficients primarily remain significant in Industry-wise, Sector-wise and Experience-level wise analysis, except for certain exceptions. The results of goodness of fit indices for the original model have come out to be better and acceptable as compared to the alternate model. The results have been discussed in the light of literature. Conclusions and Implications have been derived on the basis of the discussion. Future research scope has also been elaborated. TE researches have considered personality as predictor of TE but the variables of needs and decision making styles have not been sought in previous researches. Hence, based on the mean value researches, this study provides empirical evidence that GDMS and NP together as well as independently explain significant variance in TE.