Cohesion and performance: A meta-analytic review of disparities between project teams, production teams, and service teams

Small Group Research

Volumn 40, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 382-420

  Chiocchio, François ^a   Essiembre, Hélène ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cohesion; Performance; Production teams; Project teams; Service teams

Indexed keywords

EID: 68949164662     PISSN: 10464964     EISSN: 15528278     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1046496409335103     Document Type: Article

References (138)

1. Aitken, A., & Crawford, L. (2007). Coping with stress: Dispositional coping strategies of project managers. International Journal of Project Management, 25, 666-673.
2. *Bakeman, R., & Helmreich, R. (1975). Cohesiveness and performance: Covariation and causality in an undersea environment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 478-489.
3. Baker, D. P., & Salas, E. (1997). Principles for measuring teamwork: A summary and look toward the future. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement (pp. 331-355). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. *Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377-391.
5. 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.
6. Belout, A. (1997). Effects of human resource management on project effectiveness and success: Toward a new conceptual framework. International Journal of Project Management, 16, 21-26.
7. Bernardin, H. J., Hagan, C. M., Kane, J. S., & Villanova, P. (1998). Effective performance management. In J. W. Smither (Ed), Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice (pp. 3-48). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8. Biostats. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 2.2). Englewood, NJ: Author.
9. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99-109.
11. Bowers, C. A., Pharmer, J. A., & Salas, E. (2000). When member homogeneity is needed in work teams: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 31, 305-327.
12. Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the "planning fallacy": Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 366-381.
13. Careless, S. A., & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31, 71-88.
14. Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research, 31, 89-106.
15. Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 168-188.
16. Casey-Campbell, M. R. (2005). Temporal aspects of the group cohesion-group performance relationship in an experiential computerized business simulation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.
17. Chiocchio, F. (2007). Project team performance: A study of electronic task and coordination communication. Project Management Journal, 38, 97-109.
18. Chiocchio, F., & Lafrenière, A. (in press). A project management perspective on student's declarative commitments to goals established within asynchronous communication. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.
19. 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.
20. *Colarelli, S. M., & Boos, A. L. (1992). Sociometric and ability-based assignment to work groups: Some implications for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 187-196.
21. Cooper, H. M. (1982). Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative research reviews. Review of Educational Research, 53, 291-302.
22. Cooper, H. M. (1998). Synthesizing research (3rd ed.). Applied Social Research Methods Series No. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. Cooper, H. M., & Hedges, L. V. (1994). Research synthesis as a scientific enterprise. In L. V. Hedges, & H. M. Cooper (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 3-14). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
24. Craig, T. Y., & Kelly, J. R. (1999). Group cohesiveness and creative performance. Group Dynamics, 3, 243-258.
25. Curseu, P. L., Schruijer, S., & Boros, S. (2007). The effects of groups' variety and disparity on groups' cognitive complexity. Group Dynamics, 11, 187-206.
26. *Darley, J. G., Gross, N., & Martin, W. C. (1952). Studies of group behavior: Factors associated with the productivity of groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 36, 396-403.
27. &z.ast;Deep, S. D., Bass, B. M., & Vaughan, J. A. (1967). Some effects on business gaming of previous quasi-T group affiliations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 426-431.
28. Devine, D. J. (2002). A review and integration of classification systems relevant to teams in organizations. Groups Dynamics, 6, 291-310.
29. Dinsmore, P. C., & Cabanis-Brewin, J. (2006). The AMA handbook of project management. New York: Amacom American Management Association.
30. Dion, K. L., &. Evans, C. R. (1992). On cohesiveness: Reply to Keyton and other critics of the construct. Small Group Research, 23, 242-250.
31. Duch, B. J., Groh, S. E., & Allen, D. E. (2001). The power of problem-based learning: A practical "How to" for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
32. &z.ast;Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2000). The Salieri syndrome: Consequences of envy in groups. Small Group Research, 31, 3-23.
33. Edum-Fotwe, F. T., & McCaffer, R. (2000). Developing project management competency: Perspectives from the construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 18, 111-124.
34. Enberg, C., Lindkvist, L., & Tell, F. (2006). Exploring the dynamics of knowledge integration: Acting and interacting in project teams. Management Learning, 37, 143-165.
35. Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22, 175-186.
36. Evans, C. R., & Jarvis, P. A. (1980). Group cohesion: A review and re-evaluation. Small Group Behavior, 11, 359-370.
37. Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-282.
38. Fiore, S. M., & Schooler, J. W. (2004). Process mapping and shared cognition: Teamwork and the development of shared problem models. In E. Salas, & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 133-152). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
39. Fleming, Q. W., & Koppelman, J. M. (2000). Earned value project management (2nd ed.). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
40. Friedkin, N. E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 409-425.
41. Gardiner, P. D., & Stewart, K. (2000). Revisiting the golden triangle of cost, time and quality: The role of NPV in project control, success and failure. International Journal of Project Management, 18, 251-256.
42. Gareis, R. (2002). Competencies in the project-oriented organization. In D. P. Slevine, D. I. Cleland, & J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The frontiers of project management research (pp. 213-224). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
43. *Gekoski, N. (1952). Predicting group productivity. Personnel Psychology, 5, 281-292.
44. &z.ast;George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698-709.
45. Gillespie, D. F., & Birmbaum, P. H. (1980). Status concordance, coordination, and success in interdisciplinary research terms. Human Relations, 33, 41-56.
46. Gonzalez, M. G., Burke, M. J., Santuzzi, A. M., & Bradley, J. (2003). The impact of group process variables on the effectiveness of distance collaboration groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 629-648.
47. Greene, C. N. (1989). Cohesion and productivity in work groups. Small Group Behavior, 20, 70-86.
48. Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of levels of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26, 497-520.
49. Hackman, R. J. (1976). Group influence on individuals. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1455-1525). Chicago: Rand-McNally.
50. Hackman, R. J. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
51. Hackman, R. J. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don't): Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
52. Hall, J. A., Tickle-Degnen, L., Rosenthal, R., & Mosteller, F. (1994). Hypothesis and problems in research synthesis. In L. V. Hedges, & H. Cooper (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 17-28). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
53. Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199-1228.
54. Hecht, T. D., Allen, N. J., Klammer, J.D., & Kelly, E.C. (2002). Group beliefs, ability, and performance: The potency of group potency. Group Dynamics, 6, 143-152.
55. Hedges, L. V. (1994). Fixed effect models. In L. V. Hedges, & H. Cooper (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 285-299). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
56. Hochwarter, W. A., Witt, L. A., Treadway, D. C., & Ferris, G.R. (2006). The interaction of social skill and organizational support on job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 482-489.
57. Hoegl, M., & Parboteeah, P. (2006). Autonomy and teamwork in innovative projects. Human Resource Management, 45, 67-79.
58. Hoffman, E. J., Kinlaw, C. S., & Kinlaw, D. C. (2002). Developing superior project teams: A study of the characteristics of high performance in project teams. In D. P. Slevine, D. I. Cleland, & J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The frontiers of project management research (pp. 237-248). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
59. 2 index. Psychological Methods, 11, 193-206.
60. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61. Jaffe, E. D., & Nebenzahl, I. D. (1990). Group interaction and business game performance. Simulation & Gaming, 21, 133-146.
62. Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.
63. Jehn, K. A., & Shah, P. P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 775-790.
64. &z.ast;Keller, R.T. (1986). Predictors of the performance of project groups in R&D organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 715-726.
65. Kerzner, H. (1998). In search of excellence in project management: Successful practices in high performance organizations. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
66. Kerzner, H. (2003). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (8th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
67. *Klein, H. J., & Mulvey, P. W. (1995). Two investigations of the relationships among group goals, goal commitment, cohesion, and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61, 44-53.
68. Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195-229.
69. Kloppenborg, T. J., & Opfer, W. A. (2002). Forty years of project management research: Trends, interpretations, and predictions. In D. P. Slevine, D. I. Cleland, & J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The frontiers of project management research (pp. 3-29). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
70. Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Stevens, C. K. (2001). Goal congruence in project teams: Does the fit between members' personal mastery and performance goals matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1083-1095.
71. Labianca, G., Brass, D. J., & Gray, B. (1998). Social networks and perception of intergroup conflict: The role of negative relationships and third parties. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 55-67.
72. Lambert, L. R. (2006). R&D project management: Adapting to technological risk and uncertainty. In P. C. Dinsmore, & J. Cabanis-Brewin (Eds.), The AMA handbook of project management (pp. 458-468). New York: Amacom American Management Association.
73. *Langfred, C. W. (2000). The paradox of self-management: Individual and group autonomy in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 563-585.
74. &z.ast;Lee, C., & Farh, J.-L. (2004). Joint effects of group efficacy and gender diversity on group cohesion and performance. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 136-154.
75. *Lee, C., Tinsley, C. H., & Bobko, P. (2002). An investigation of the antecedents and consequences of group-level confidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1628-1652.
76. *Lent, R. W., Schmidt, J., & Schmidt, L. (2006). Collective efficacy beliefs in student work teams: Relation to self-efficacy, cohesion, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 73-84.
77. Locke, E. A. (1986). Generalizing from laboratory to field settings. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath/ Lexington Books.
78. *Lodahl, T. M., & Porter, L. W. (1961). Psychometric score patterns, social characteristics, and productivity of small industrial work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 45, 73-79.
79. MacCoun, R. J. (1996). Sexual orientation and military cohesion: A critical review of the evidence. In G. Herek, J. Jobe, & R. E. Carney (Eds.), Out in force: Sexual orientation and the military (pp. 157-176). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
80. Markham, T., Larmer, J., & Ravitz, J. (2003). Handbook of project based learning (2nd ed.). Novato, CA: Buck Institute for Education.
81. 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.
82. *Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2003). Identifying group task satisfaction at work. Small Group Research, 34, 413-442.
83. Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273-283.
84. McPherson, M. A., & Nunes, J. B. (2008). Critical issues for e-learning delivery: What may seem obvious is not always put into practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 1-13.
85. Michalisin, M. D., Karau, S. J., & Tangpong, C. (2004a). The effects of performance and team cohesion on attribution: A longitudinal simulation. Journal of Business Research, 57, 1108-1115.
86. Michalisin, M. D., Karau, S. J., & Tangpong, C. (2004b). Top management team cohesion and superior industry returns an empirical study of the resource-based view. Group & Organization Management, 29, 125-140.
87. Midler, C. (2002). Project management for intensive, innovation-based strategies: New challenges for the 21st century. In D. P. Slevine, D. I. Cleland, & J. K. Pinto (Eds.), The frontiers of project management research (pp. 135-147). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
88. Molleman, E., & Slomp, J. (2006). The impact of team and work characteristics on team functioning. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 16, 1-15.
89. Motowidlo, S. J. (2003). Job performance. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, R. J. Klimoski, & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 39-53). London: Wiley.
90. Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475-480.
91. Mudrack, P. E. (1989). Group cohesiveness and productivity: A closer look. Human Relations, 42, 771-785.
92. Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227.
93. *Mulvey, P. W., & Klein, H. J. (1998). The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy in group goal processes and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74, 62-87.
94. Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
95. *Neubert, M. J. (1999). Too much of a good thing or the more the merrier? Exploring the dispersion and gender composition of informal leadership in manufacturing teams. Small Group Research, 30, 635-646.
96. *Ng, K. Y., & Van Dyne, L. (2005). Antecedents and performance consequences of helping behavior in work groups. Group & Organization Management, 30, 514-540.
97. Oliver, L. W., Harman, J., Hoover, E., Hayes, S. M., & Pandhi, N. A. (1999). A quantitative integration of the military cohesion literature. Military Psychology, 11, 57-83.
98. *Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Ahearne, M. (1997). Moderating effects of goal acceptance on the relationship between group cohesiveness and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 974-983.
99. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
100. *Porter, T. W., & Lilly, B. S. (1996). The effects of conflict, trust, and task commitment on project team performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 7, 361-376.
101. Project Management Institute. (2004). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (3rd ed.). Newtown Square, PA: Author.
102. Pulakos, E. D. (2007). Performance measurement. In D. L. Whetzel, & G. R. Wheaton (Eds.), Applied Measurement (pp. 293-318). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
103. Rasmussen, T. H., & Jeppesen, H. J. (2006). Teamwork and associated psychological factors: A review. Work & Stress, 20, 105-128.
104. *Raver, J. L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2005). Beyond the individual victim: Linking sexual harassment, team processes, and team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 387-400.
105. Reilly, R. R., & McGourty, J. (1998). Performance appraisal in team settings. In J. W. Smither (Ed), Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice (pp. 244-277). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
106. *Riolli-Saltzman, L. (1999). Group member explanatory style as a predictor of group performance and turnover intentions in a manufacturing setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
107. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The "file drawer problem" and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641.
108. Russel, T. L., & Peterseon, N. G. (2007). Measurement plans and specifications. In D. L. Whetzel, & G. R. Wheaton (Eds.), Applied Measurement (pp. 97-130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
109. *Seers, A., Petty, M. M., & Cashman, J. F. (1995). Team-member exchange under team and traditional management: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Group & Organization Management, 20, 18-38.
110. Selwyn, N. (2007). The use of computer technology in university teaching and learning: A critical perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 83-94.
111. Sense, A. J. (2003). Learning generators: Project teams re-conceptualized. Project Management Journal, 34, 4-12.
112. Sheikh, A. A., & Koch, R. J. (1977). Recall of group tasks as a function of group cohesiveness and interruption of tasks. Psychological Reports, 40, 275-278.
113. Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., O'Banon, D. P., & Scully, J. A. (1994). Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 412-438.
114. Stajkovic, A. D., Locke, E. A., & Blair, E. S. (2006). A first examination of the relationships between primed subconscious goals, assigned conscious goals, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1172-1180.
115. *Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32, 29-54.
116. Stewart, G.L., Fulmer, I.S., & Barrick, M.R. (2005). An exploration of member roles as a multilevel linking mechanism for individual traits and team outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58, 343-365.
117. Stretton, A. M. (2006). Bodies of knowledge and competency standards in project management. In P. C. Dinsmore, & J. Cabanis-Brewin (Eds.), The AMA handbook of project management (pp. 15-24). New York: Amacom American Management Association.
118. Sundstrom, E. (1999). The challenges of supporting work team effectiveness. In E. Sundstrom, & Associates (Eds.), Supporting work team effectiveness: Best management practices for fostering high performance (pp. 3-23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
119. Sundstrom, E., McIntyre, M., Halfhill, T., & Richards, H. (2000). Work groups: From the Hawthorne studies to work teams of the 1990s and beyond. Group Dynamics, 4, 44-67.
120. *Terborg, J. R., Castore, C., & DeNinno, J. A. (1976). A longitudinal field investigation of the impact of group composition on group performance and cohesion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 782-790.
121. Tesluk, P., Mathieu, J. E., Zaccaro, S. J., & Marks, M. (1997). Task and aggregation issues in the analysis and assessment of team performance. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement (pp. 197-224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
122. *Tesluk, P. E., & Mathieu, J. E. (1999). Overcoming roadblocks to effectiveness: Incorporating management of performance barriers into models of work group effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 200-217.
123. Tindale, R. S., Meisenhelder, H. M., Dykema-Engblade, A. A., & Hogg, M. A. (2001). Shared cognition in small groups. In M. J. Hogg, & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 1-30). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
124. Treadwell, T., Laverture, N., Kumar, V. K., & Veerarghavan, V. (2001). The group cohesion scale-revised: Reliability and validity. International Journal of Action Methods: Psychodrama, Skill Training, and Role Playing, 54, 3-12.
125. Tziner, A. (1985). How team composition affects task performance: Some theoretical insights. Psychological Reports, 57, 1111-1119.
126. *Villeneuve, M. (1997). Vérification de la relation entre les différentes dimensions de la cohésion et la performance des équipes de travail. [Verification of the relation between dimensions of cohesion and performance in work teams]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.
127. Vinokur-Kaplan, D. (1995). Treatment teams that work (and those that don't): An application of Hackman's group effectiveness model to interdisciplinary teams in psychiatric hospitals. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31, 303-327.
128. Webber, S. S., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Crews: A distinct type of work team. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 261-279.
129. Webster, F. M., & Knutson, J. (2006). What is project management? Project management concepts and methodologies. In P. C. Dinsmore, & J. Cabanis-Brewin (Eds.), The AMA handbook of project management (pp. 1-12). New York: Amacom American Management Association.
130. Wech, B. A., Mossholder, K. W., Steel, R. P., & Bennett, N. (1998). Does work group cohesiveness affect individuals performance and organizational commitment? A cross-level examination. Small Group Research, 29, 472-494.
131. White, K. R. J. (2006). Why IT matters: Project management for information technology. In P. C. Dinsmore, & J. Cabanis-Brewin (Eds.), The AMA handbook of project management (pp. 433-443). New York: Amacom American Management Association.
132. Winter, M., Andersen, E. S., Elvin, R., & Levene, R. (2006). Focusing on business projects as an area for future research: An exploratory discussion of four different perspectives. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 699-709.
133. Wintre, G. M., North, C., & Sugar, L. A. (2001). Psychologists' response to criticisms about research based on undergraduate participants: A developmental perspective. Canadian Psychology, 42, 216-225.
134. Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis (Sage University Papers on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences No. 07-059). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
135. Zaccaro, S. J. (1991). Nonequivalent associations between forms of cohesivness and group-related outcomes: Evidence of multidimensionality. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 387-399.
136. Zaccaro, S. J., & Lowe, C. A. (1986). Cohesiveness and performance on an additive task: Evidence for multidimensionality. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 547-558.
137. Zika-Viktorsson, A., Hovmark, S., & Nordqvist, S. (2003). Psychosocial aspects of project work: A comparison between product development and construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 563-569.
138. Zika-Viktorsson, A., Sundström, P., & Engwall, M. (2006). Project overload: An exploratory study of work and management in multi-project settings. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 385-394.