La rellevància de la potència de grup en l´efectivitat dels equips virtuals

Referencias bibliográficas

• Akgün, A. E., Keskin, H., Byrne, J. i Imamoglu, S. Z. (2007). Antecedents and consequences of team potency in software development projects. Information & Management, 44, 646-656.
• Alcover, C. M. (2003). Equipos de trabajo y dinámicas grupales en contextos organizacionales. En F. Gil i C. M. Alcover de la Hera (coords.), Introducción a la Psicología de las Organizaciones. Alianza Editorial.
• Alcover, C. M. i Gil, F. (2000). Potencia en grupos: un constructo entre la autoeficacia y la motivación colectiva. Apuntes de Psicología, 18, 123-143.
• Andriessen, J. H. E. (2003). Working with groupware: Understanding and evaluating collaboration technology. Londres: Springer Verlag.
• Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I. i Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207-218.
• Borgogni, L., Petitta, L. i Mastrorilli, A. (2010). Correlates of collective efficacy in the Italian Air Force. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59, 515-537.
• Chen, G. i Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 549-556.
• Chen, G., Kanfer, R., DeShon, R. D., Mathieu, J. E. i Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2009). The motivating potential of teams: Test and extension of Chen & Kanfer’s (2006) cross-level model of motivation in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 45-55.
• Cohen, S. G. i 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.
• Dixon, K. R. i Panteli, N. (2010). From virtual teams to virtuality in teams. Human Relations, 63, 1177-1197.
• Driskell, J., Radtke, P. i Salas, E. (2003). Virtual Teams: Effects of Technological Mediation on Team Performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 297-323.
• Earley, P. C. (1999). Playing follow the leader: Status-determining traits in relation to collective efficacy across cultures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 192-212.
• Edmonds, W. A., Tenenbaum, G., Kamata, A. i Johnson, M. (2009). The role of collective efficacy in adventure racing teams. Small Group Research, 40, 163-180.
• Ensley, M., Carr, J. C. i Sajasalo, P. (2004). A social cognitive model of founding team dynamics. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Babson Park, MA: Babson Press.
• Gibson, C. B. i Earley, P. C. (2007). Collective cognition in action: Accumulation, interaction, examination and accommodation in the development and operation of group efficacy beliefs in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 32, 438-458.
• González, M. G., Burke, M. J., Santuzzi, A. M. i Bradley, J. C. (2003). The impact of group process variables on the effectiveness of distance collaboration groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 629-648.
• Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., i Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A metaanalysis of team efficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819-832.
• Guzzo, R. A. (1986). Group decision making and group effectiveness in organizations. En P. S. Goodman & Associates (eds.), Designing Effective Work Groups (p. 34-71). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J. i Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups: articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87-106.
• Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. En J. Lorsch (ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (p. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t): Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Hackman, J. R. i Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. En L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (p. 1-55). NYC: Academic Press.
• Hecht, T. D., Allen, N. J., Klammer, J. D. i Kelly, E. C. (2002). Group Beliefs, Ability, and Performance: The Potency of Group Potency. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 143-152.
• Hernández, B., Jiménez, J. i Martín, M. J. (2007). Business Acceptance of Information and Communication Technologies: An Study of the Service Sector. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 4, 3-22.
• Hogg, M. A., Hains, S. C. i Mason, I. (1998). Identification and leadership in small groups: Salience, frame of reference, and leader stereotypicality effects on leader evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1248-1263.
• Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M. i Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From I-P-O models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517-544.
• Jong, A., Ruyter, K. i Wetzels, M. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of group potency: a study of self-managing service teams. Management Science, 51, 1610-1625.
• Jung, D. I. i Sosik, J. J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work group: The role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research, 33, 313-336.
• Kayworth, T. R. i Leidner, D. E. (2000). The global virtual manager: a prescription for success. European Management Journal, 18, 183-194.
• Kirkman, B. L. i Rosen, B. (1997). A model of work team empowerment. En R. Woodman & W. Pasmore (eds.), Research in organizational change and development (p. 131-167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Kozlowski, S.W.J. i Bell, B.S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. En W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, i R. J. Klimoski (wds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (p. 333-375). Londres: Wiley.
• Kozlowski, S. W. J. e Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77-124.
• Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T. i Jensen, J. M. (2009). Building an infrastructure for organizational learning: A multilevel approach. En S. W. J. Kozlowski i Salas (eds.), Learning training and development in organizations (p. 361- 400). Nova York, NY: Routledge Academic.
• Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R. i Smith, E. M. (1999). Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. En D. R. Ilgen i E. D. Pulakos (eds.), The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, personnel actions, and development (p. 240-292). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Larson, C. E. i LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Teamwork: What Must Go Right/What Can Go Wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Lee, C., Tinsley, C. H. i Bobko, P. (2002). An investigation of the antecedents and consequences of group-level confidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1628-1652.
• Lester, S. W., Meglino, B. M. i Korsgaard, M. A. (2002). The antecedents and consequences of group potency: a longitudinal investigation of newly formed groups. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 352-368.
• Lira, E. M. (2011). El rol de la potencia de grupo en el funcionamiento de los equipos virtuales. Un estudio longitudinal [The role of group potency on virtual teams functioning. A longitudinal study]. Tesi doctoral no publicada, Universitat de València, València.
• Lira, E. M., Peiró, J. M., Ripoll, P. i Orengo, A. (2008). How do different types of intragroup conflict affect group potency in virtual compared with face-toface teams? A longitudinal study. Behaviour and Information Technology, 27, 107-114.
• Lira, E.M., Ripoll, P., Peiró, J. M. i Zornoza, A. (2008). The role of information and communication technologies in the relationship between group effectiveness and group potency. Small Group Research, 39, 728-745
• Lira, E. M., Ripoll, P., Peiró, J. M. i Zornoza, A. (2013). The role of information and communication technologies in the relationship between group potency and group maintenance outcomes. A longitudinal study. Behaviour and Information Technology, 32, 147-155.
• Manz, C. C. i Sims, H. P. (1991). Superleadership: Beyond the myth of heroic Leadership. Organizational. Dynamics, 19(4), 18-35.
• Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E. i Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.
• Mathieu J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T. i Gilson, L. (2008). Team Effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse into the Future. Journal of Management, 34, 410-476.
• McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. Nova York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
• Pearce, C. L., Gallagher, C. A. i Ensley, M. D. (2002). Confidence at the group level of analysis: a longitudinal investigation of the relationship between potency and team effectiveness. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 115-119.
• Riggs, M. L. i Knight, P. A. (1994). The impact of perceived group success-failure on motivational beliefs and attitudes: a causal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 755-766.
• Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A. i Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. En R. W. Swezey i E. Salas (eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (p. 3-29). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Sayles, L. R. (1958). Behavior in Industrial Work Groups: Prediction and Control. Nova York: Wiley.
• Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K. i Cha, S. A. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1020-1030.
• Shamir, B. (1990). Calculations, values, and identities: The sources of collectivistic work motivation. Human Relations, 43, 313-332.
• Shea, G. P. i Guzzo, R. A. (1987), Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review, 28, 25-31.
• Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W. D., Avolio, B. J. i Jung, D. I. (2002). A longitudinal model of the effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance. Group & Organization Management, 27, 66-96.
• Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J. i Kahai, S. S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 89-103.
• Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S. S. i Jung, D. I. (1998). Computer-supported work group potency and effectiveness: The role of transformational leadership, anonymity, and task interdependence. Computers in Human Behavior, 14, 491-511.
• Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D. i Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 814-828.
• Werner, J. M. i Lester, S. W. (2001). Applying a team effectiveness framework to the performance of student case teams. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 385-402.
• West, B. J., Patera, J. L. i Carten, M. K. (2009). Team level positivity: investigating positive psychological capacities and team level outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 249-267.
• Whiteoak, J. W. (2007). The Relationship among Group Process Perceptions, Goal Commitment and Turnover Intention in Small Committee Groups. Journal of Bussiness Psychology, 22, 11-20
• Wong, A., Tjosvold, D. i Liu, C. (2009). Innovation by Teams in Shanghai, China: Cooperative Goals for Group Confidence and Persistence. British Journal of Management, 20, 238-251.
• World Economic Forum (2011-2012). Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012. K. Schwab. Palgrave Macmillan.