Abstracts
Résumé
Cette étude propose et vérifie un modèle expliquant, d’une part, la relation entre un programme de consolidation d’équipe mené en contexte récréatif et les antécédents de la performance d’une équipe, et, d’autre part, la relation entre ces derniers et la performance d’une équipe. Selon le modèle proposé, un programme de consolidation mené en contexte récréatif intérieur influence positivement quatre antécédents de la performance d’une équipe, soit le sentiment de cohésion sociale, le sentiment de cohésion lié à la tâche, la capacité d’une équipe à gérer les conflits et le sentiment de compétence collective d’une équipe. De plus, ce modèle suggère que ces quatre antécédents influencent positivement la performance d’une équipe. Les résultats de cette étude démontrent qu’un programme de consolidation mené en contexte récréatif influence positivement quatre antécédents de la performance d’une équipe, tant sur le plan individuel que groupal. En outre, les résultats révèlent que ces quatre antécédents influencent positivement la performance d’une équipe et que cette relation est modérée par le niveau d’analyse utilisé. Les résultats de chacune des deux hypothèses du modèle sont discutés selon des implications conceptuelles, méthodologiques et théoriques. Enfin, des pistes de recherches futures sont proposées.
Abstract
This study proposes and tests a model for explaining the relationship between a program for building the strength of a team in a recreational context, the preconditions of the performance of a team as well as the relationship between the preconditions and the performance itself. According to the model, such a program has a positive influence on four preconditions of the performance of a team : a feeling of social cohesion, task-related cohesion, the team’s capacity for conflict-management and a feeling of collective competence. The model also suggests that these four preconditions have a positive influence on the performance of a team and this applies to both the individual and the group. Results show that this influence may be moderated by the level of analysis used. The results are discussed in light of their conceptual, methodological and theoretical implications. Avenues for future research are also proposed.
Resumen
Este estudio propone y verifica un modelo explicando la relación entre un programa de consolidación de equipo dirigido en contexto recreativo, los antecedentes del rendimiento de un equipo, así como la relación entre los antecedentes del rendimiento y el rendimiento de un equipo. Según el modelo propuesto, un programa de consolidación dirigido en contexto recreativo interior influencia positivamente cuatro antecedentes del rendimiento de un equipo, sea el sentimiento de cohesión social, el sentimiento de cohesión ligado a la tarea, la capacidad de un equipo a administrar los conflictos y el sentimiento de competencia colectiva de un equipo. Además, este modelo sugiere también que estos cuatro antecedentes influencian positivamente el rendimiento de un equipo. Los resultados de este estudio demuestran que un programa de consolidación dirigido en contexto recreativo influencia positivamente cuatro antecedentes del resultado de un equipo, tanto a nivel individual que en grupo. También, los resultados demuestran que estos cuatro antecedentes influencian positivamente el rendimiento de un equipo y que esta relación es moderada por el nivel de análisis utilizado. Los resultados de cada una de las dos hipótesis del modelo son discutidos según las implicaciones conceptuales, metodológicas y teóricas. Así como, algunas pistas de investigaciones futuras son propuestas.
Appendices
Bibliographie
- Anderson, N.R. (1992). Work group innovation : A state-of-the-art review. Dans D.M. Hosking, et N.R. Anderson, (dir.). Organizational change and innovation : Psychological perspectives and practices in Europe. Londres : Routledge
- Anderson, N.R., et West, M.A. (1996). The Team Climate Inventory : The development of the TCI and its application in team-building for innovativeness. European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, 5, 53-66.
- Anderson, N.R., et West, M.A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation : Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 19, 235-258.
- Arkin, A. (1995). Breathing fresh air into training. People Management, 1, 34-37.
- Badger, B., Sadler-Smith, E., et Michie, E. (1997). Outdoor management development : Use and evaluation. Journal of European Industrial Training, 21, 318-325.
- Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall.
- Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directionsin Psychological Science, 9, 75-78
- Bank, J. (1983). Outdoor development : A new perspective in management education. Leadershipand Organization Development Journal, 4, 3-44.
- Beaudin, G., et Savoie, A. (1995). L’efficacité des équipes de travail : Définition, composantes et mesures. Revue québécoise de psychologie, 16, 185-201.
- Bronson, J., Gibson, S., Kichar, R., et Priest, S. (1992). Evaluation of team development in a corporate adventure training program. The Journal of Experimental Education, 15, 50-53.
- Carron, A.V., Wildemeyer, W.N., et Brawley, L.R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sports teams : The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244-266.
- Carron, A.V., et Spink, K.S. (1993). Team building in an exercise setting. The SportPsychologist, 7, 8-18.
- Devine, J.D., Clayton, L.D., Philips, J.L., Dunford, B.B., et Melner, S.B. (1999). Teams in organizations : Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30, 678-711.
- Deutsch, (1949). An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition upon group process. Human Relations, 2, 199-232.
- Evans, C.R., et Dion, K.L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance : A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22, 175-186.
- Festinger, L., Schachter, S., et Back, K. (1963). Social pressures in informal groups. Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press. (première édition en 1950).
- George, J.M. et Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover : A group level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698-709.
- Gully, S.M., Devine, D.J., et Whitney, D.J. (1995). A Meta-Analysis of cohesion and performance : Effects of level of analysis and task interdependance. Small Group Research,26, 497-520.
- Guzzo, R.A., Yost, P.R., Campbell, R.J., et Shea, G.P, (1993). Potency in groups : Aticulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 87-106.
- Hackman, J.R. (dir.) (1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t) : Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
- Hogg, M.A. (1992). The social psychology of Group Cohesiveness : From attraction to social identity. Londres : Harvester Wheatsheaf ; New York : New York University Press.
- Huberty, C.J., et Morris, J.D. (1989). Multivariate analysis versus multiple univariate analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 302-308.
- Ibbetson, A., et Newell, S. (1999). A comparison of a competitive and non-competitive outdoor management development program. Personnel Review, 28, 58-76.
- Irvine, D., et Wilson, J. (1994). Outdoor management development : Reality or illusion. Journal of Management Development, 13, 53-58.
- Janis, I.L. (1972). Victims of group think. Boston : Houghton Mifflin.
- Jehn, K.A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness : An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 223-238.
- Jones, P.J., et Oswick, C. (1993). Outcomes of outdoor management development « Articles of faith ? ». Journal of European Industrial Training, 17, 10-18.
- Kirchmeyer, C. et Cohen, A. (1992). Multicultural groups : Their performance and reactions with constructive conflict. Group et Organization Management, 17, 153-170.
- Little, L., et Madigan, R.M. (1997). The relationship between collective efficacy and performance in manufacturing work teams. Small Group Research, 28, 517-534.
- Mark, D.R. (1994). Outdoor adventure and organizational development : A ropes courses intervention. Public Administration Quarterly, 18, 237-245.
- Mazany, P., Francis, S., Sumich, P. (1993). Evaluating the effectiveness of an outdoor workshop for team building in an MBA program. Journal of Management Development, 3, 97-115.
- Mazany, P., Francis, S., et Sumich, P. (1997). Evaluating the effectiveness of an experiential « hybrid » workshop : Strategy development and team building in a manufacturing organization. Team Performance Management, 3, 76-88.
- Mazany, P., et Francis, S. (1997). Developing elements of a learning organization in a metropolitan ambulance service : Strategy, team development and continuous improvement. Health Manpower Management, 23, 17-26.
- McEvoy, G.M. (1997).Organizational change and outdoor management education. Human Resource Management, 36, 235-250.
- Miquelon, P., et Perreault, S. (2000). La motivation comme déterminant de réussite des équipes autonomes. Dans D. Boisvert (dir.), L’autonomie des équipes d’intervention communautaire (p. 138-160). Sainte Foy : Presses de l’Université du Québec.
- Moos, R.H., (1981). Group Environment Scale. Palo Alto : Consulting Psychologist Press, Inc.
- Mullen, B., et Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance : An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 155, 210-227.
- Mulvey, P.W., et Ribbens, B.A. (1999). The effects of intergroup competition and assigned group goals on group efficacy and group effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30, 651-677.
- Prussia, G.E., et Kinicki, A.J. (1996). A motivational investigation of group effectiveness using social-cognitive theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8, 187-198.
- Riggs, M.L., et 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., Rozell, D., Mullen, B., et Driskell, J.E. (1999). The effect of team building on performance : An integration. Small Group Research, 30, 309-329.
- Schweiger, D.M., Sandberg, W.R., et Rechner, P.L. (1989). Experiential effects of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 745-772.
- Spink, K.S. (1990). Group cohesion and collective efficacy of volleyball teams. Journal of Sportand Exercise Psychology, 12, 301-311.
- Tarullo, G.M. (1992). Making outdoor experiential training work. Training, 29, 47-53.
- Turoff, M. et Linstone, H. A. (1975). The Delphi method : techniques and applications. Menlo Park, Cal. : Addison-Wesley.
- Vallerand, R.J. (1989). Vers une méthodologie de validation trans-culturelle de questionnnaires psychologiques : implications pour la recherche en langue française. Psychologie canadienne, 30, 662-680.
- Veal, B. (1991). Developing teams outdoors. Executive Excellence, 8, 16-18.
- Vinokur-Kaplan, D. (1995). Treatment teams that work (and those that don’t : Anapplication of Hackman’s group effectiveness model to interdisciplinary teams in psychiatric hospitals. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31, 303-327.
- Wagner, R.J., Baldwin, T., et Roland, C.C. (1991). Outdoor training : Revolution or Fad ? Training and Development Journal, 45, 50-57.
- Wagner, R.J., et Roland, C.C. (1992). How effective is outdoor training ? Training andDevelopment, 46, 61-66.
- Widemeyer, W.N, et Williams, J.M. (1991). Predicting cohesion in a coacting sport. Small GroupResearch, 22, 548-570.
- Widemeyer, W.N., Brawley, L.R., et Carron, A.V. (1993). Group dynamics in sport. Dans Thelma S Horn (dir.) Advances in sport psychology (p. 163-180). Champaign, Ill : Human Kinetics Publishers.
- Zaccaro, S.J. (1991). Nonequivalent association between forms of cohesiveness and group-related outcomes : Evidence for multidimensionality. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 387-399.