• Category:
  • Document type:
  • Level:
  • Page:
  • Words:

Team Task Independence and Engagement

Team Task Independence and Team Engagement

Team task independence influence the nature of team techniques since it forms the relations among various responsibilities in the team and the organization necessities from the team members (Kozlowski et al, 1999). The curvilinear relationship is realized between team engagement and team interdependence when teams work together on different tasks which necessitates for a high level of coordination and interaction (Saavedra, et al., 1993). However, this relationship is reversed in the event when teams work altogether in behavioral aspects that need little interaction hence are subjected to less interpersonal difficulties.

The JD-R models seek to integrate two independent research approaches; the motivation research tradition and the stress research tradition. Simply put, the model suggest that job demands are predicators of health impairment process, whereas, job resources are initiators of a motivation process (Barrick, 2013). High job demands appears to make full integration of the available resource which creates a high level of organizational commitment and task enjoyment. Integrating available resources, enables a team to integrate their full potential in realizing the desired outcome; hence creating a higher engagement (Mathieu et al 2014). As the JD-R theory suggest resources play an imperative role since it fosters employees learning, growth and development- tentatively, they may play an extrinsic role since they are important in the achievement of work goals. For example, effective feedback enhances job competence, while social support and decision latitude satisfies the need to integrate autonomy and sense of belonging (Van den Broeck et al., 2008).

Job resources, is an imperative motivational role, given that, according to the effort recovery model, work environment that presents more resources enhances the willingness to dedicate one’s abilities in the designated tasks. In such a case it is likely that employees will be more engaged given that tasks will be completed. It is predicted that job resources are imperative in maintaining work engagement in conditions of high job demands.

Teams whose members are of the idea that they are dependent on each other to complete assigned tasks engage in a greater amount of the teamwork activities. In a team, for instance, that is typified by higher verbal communication medium of interaction an increased effort of such dependency upon each other should create increased communication amongst members. Focusing on engagement, Saks suggest that the social exchange theory can showcase how people in teams respond to work conditions typified by different engagement level with respect to the norms of interdependencies and reciprocity (Tims, et al., 2013). In highlighting this attribute, when individuals receive socio-economic and economic benefits for example, the employees are compelled to respond in a way to repay the organization; and one way of doing so is through engagement (Saks, 2006). Social Exchange Theory offers insights on Khan’s assertions where a clear social dimension to engagement is linked to the willingness to work collaboratively. Arguably, teams will opt to engage themselves in different degrees with respect to the resources they receive from a given organization. These bring an individual’s roles and devoting a greater amount of emotional, cognitive ad physical resources in response to an organization’s actions (Guzzo and Shea, 1992).


Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Li, N. (2013). The theory of purposeful work behavior: The role of personality, job characteristics, and experienced meaningfulness. Academy of Management38, 132-153.

Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and inter group relations in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.),Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 269–313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Kahn, W.A. (1990) ‘Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 33, pp692-724.

Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2014). A review and integration of team composition models moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management40(1), 130-160.

Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., Derks, D., & van Rhenen, W. (2013). Job crafting at the team and individual level: Implications for work engagement and performance. Group & Organization Management.

Saks, A.M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21 (6), 600-619.

Saavedra. R., Earley, PC., Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61-72

Kozlowski, W and IIgen, D. (1999). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams.

Psychological Science In The Public Interest (7) 3.

Van Den Broeck., Vansteenkiste, M., Witte H., Lens, W., (2008). Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of the Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction scale.