The importance of team functioning to natural resource planning outcomes

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 106, Issue , 2012, Pages 30-39

  Stern, Marc J ^a   Predmore, S Andrew ^a,b  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT SPRINGFIELD   (United States)

Author keywords

Leadership; National environmental policy act; Natural resource planning; Public relations; Teams; U.S. forest service

Indexed keywords

EMPOWERMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; FEDERAL SYSTEM; FOREST RESOURCE; INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH; LAND MANAGEMENT; NATURAL RESOURCE; PERCEPTION; PLANNING PROCESS; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT;

ACT; ARTICLE; AUTHORITY; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; HUMAN; LEADERSHIP; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PUBLIC RELATIONS; RESPONSIBILITY; TEAMWORK;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84860322645     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.03.049     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Amason A.C. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal 1996, 39(1):123-148.
2. Baron R.M., Kenny D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986, 51(6):1173-1182.
3. Bear D. Some modest suggestions for improving implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act. Natural Resources Journal 2003, 43(4):931-960.
4. Brugnach M., Dewulf A., Henriksen H.J., van der Keur P. More is not always better: coping with ambiguity in natural resources management. Journal of Environmental Management 2011, 92(1):78-84.
5. Cashmore M. The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2004, 24(4):403-426.
6. Cohen J., Cohen P. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Science 1975, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey.
7. Davenport M.A., Anderson D.H., Leahy J.E., Jakes P.J. Reflections from USDA forest service employees on institutional constraints to engaging and serving their local communities. Forestry 2007, 105(1):43-48.
8. DeVellis R.F. Scale Development: Theory and Applications 2003, Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA. second ed.
9. Dirks K.T. The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 1999, 84(3):445-455.
10. Druskat V.U., Wheeler J.V. Managing from the boundary: the effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal 2003, 46(4):435-457.
11. Fisher B.A., Ellis D.G. Small Group Decision Making: Communications and the Group Process 1990, McGraw Hill, New York. third ed.
12. Freeman J., Stern M.J., Mortimer M., Blahna D.J., Cerveny L.K. Collaboration and leadership in interdisciplinary planning teams in the U.S. Forest Service. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2011, 54(5):597-615.
13. Gay L.R. Educational Evaluation and Measurement: Competencies for Analysis and Application 1991, MacMillan Publishing Company, New York.
14. Hackman R. Groups That Work and Those That Don't 1990, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
15. Ilgen D.R., Hollenbeck J.R., Johnson M., Jundt D. Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology 2005, 56:517-543.
16. Innes J.E., Booher D.E. Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice 2004, 5(4):419-436.
17. Keele D.M., Malmsheimer R.W., Floyd D.W., Perez J.E. Forest Service land management litigation 1989-2002. Journal of Forestry 2006, 104(4):196-202.
18. Kirkman B.L., Rosen B. Beyond self-management: antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal 1999, 42(1):58-74.
19. Leach W.D. Public involvement in USDA Forest Service policymaking: a literature review. Journal of Forestry 2006, 104(1):43-49.
20. MacGregor D.G., Seesholtz D.N. Factors Influencing Line Officers' Decisions about National Environmental Policy Act Project Design and Development 2008, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-766, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
21. Management Analysis, Inc Feasibility Study of Activities Related to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance in the US Forest Service 2007, Management Analysis, Incorporated, Vienna, VA.
22. Marks M.A., Mathieu J.E., Zaccaro S.J. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review 2001, 26(3):356-376.
23. Mason D. Forest guardians vs. forsgren and NFMA planning reform: the return of maximum forest service discretion. Denver University Law Review 2008, 85:653-684.
24. Mathieu J.E., Gilson L.L., Ruddy T.M. Empowerment and team effectiveness: an empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology 2006, 91(1):97-108.
25. Mathieu J.E., Maynard M.T., Rapp T., Gilson L. Team effectiveness 1997-2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management 2008, 34(3):410-476.
26. McGrath J.E. Social Psychology: A Brief Introduction 1964, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.
27. Menon S.T. Employee empowerment: an integrative psychological approach. Applied Psychology: An International Review 2001, 50:153-180.
28. Mortimer M.J., Stern M.J., Malmsheimer R.W., Blahna D.J., Cerveny L.K., Seesholtz D.N. Environmental and social risks: defensive National Environmental Policy Act in the U.S. Forest Service. Journal of Forestry 2011, 109(1):27-33.
29. Pearce C.L., Sims H.P. Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: an examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 2002, 6(2):172-197.
30. Predmore S.A., Stern M.J., Mortimer M.J., Seesholtz D. Perceptions of legally mandated public involvement processes in the U.S. Forest Service. Society and Natural Resources 2011, 24(12):1286-1303.
31. Predmore S.A., Stern M.J., Mortimer M.J. Constructing the public: the substantive sieve and personal norms in U.S. Forest Service planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2011, 54(3):403-419.
32. Putnam L.L. Productive conflict: negotiation as implicit coordination. International Journal of Conflict Management 1994, 5(3):285-299.
33. Rafferty A.E., Griffin M.A. Refining individualized consideration: distinguishing developmental leadership and supportive leadership. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 2006, 79(1):37-61.
34. Reed M.S. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 2008, 141(10):2417-2431.
35. Robson M., Rosenthal J., Lemelin R.H., Hunt L.M., McIntyre N., Moore J. Information complexity as a constraint to public involvement in sustainable forest management. Society & Natural Resources 2010, 23(12):1150-1169.
36. Sabatier P.A., Loomis J., McCarthy C. Hierarchical controls, professional norms, local constituencies, and budget maximization - an analysis of United States Forest Service planning decisions. American Journal of Political Science 1995, 39(1):204-242.
37. Sarin S., O'Connor G.C. First among equals: the effect of team leader characteristics on the internal dynamics of cross-functional product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management 2009, 26(2):188-205.
38. Scardina A.V., Mortimer M.J., Dudley L. Getting past the who and how many to the how and why in USDA Forest Service public involvement processes. Forest Policy and Economics 2007, 9(8):883-902.
39. Simons T.L., Peterson R.S. Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology 2000, 85(1):102-111.
40. Spreitzer G.M. Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal 1996, 39(2):483-584.
41. Stern M.J. Payoffs vs. process: expanding the paradigm for park/people studies beyond economic rationality. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 2010, 29(2-4):174-201.
42. Stern M.J., Blahna D.J., Cerveny L.K., Mortimer M.J. Visions of success and achievement in recreation-related USDA Forest Service NEPA processes. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2009, 29(4):220-228.
43. Stern M.J., Mortimer M.J. Exploring NEPA Processes Across Federal Land Management Agencies 2009, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-799, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
44. Stern M.J., Predmore S.A. Decision making, procedural compliance, and outcomes definition in U.S. Forest Service planning processes. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2011, 31(3):271-278.
45. Stern M.J., Predmore S.A., Mortimer M.J., Seesholtz D.N. The meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act in the U.S. Forest Service. Journal of Environmental Management 2010, 91(6):1371-1379.
46. Stern M.J., Predmore S.A., Mortimer M.J., Seesholtz D.N. From the office to the field: areas of tension and consensus in implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act in the U.S. Forest Service. Journal of Environmental Management 2010, 91(6):1350-1356.
47. Tzoumis K. Comparing the quality of draft environmental impact statements by agencies in the United States since 1998 to 2004. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2007, 27(1):26-40.
48. USDA Forest Service The Process Predicament: How Statutory, Regulatory, and Administrative Factors Affect National Forest Management 2002, Washington, DC.
49. Waugh W.L., Streib G. Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency management. Public Administration Review 2006, 66:131-140.
50. Wilson J.Q. Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It 1989, Basic Books, Inc., New York.
51. Wright B.E. Public service and motivation: does mission matter?. Public Administration Review 2007, 67(1):54-64.
52. Yang K., Callahan K. Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality. Public Administration Review 2007, 67(2):249-264.