Team Self-Managing Behaviors and Team Effectiveness: The Moderating Effect of Task Routineness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the role of team members’ self-managing behaviors in regard to three dimensions of team effectiveness. Furthermore, this study examines the moderating effect of task routineness on these relationships. The sample consists of 97 work teams (341 members and 97 immediate supervisors) drawn from a public safety organization. Results show that team self-managing behaviors are positively related to team performance, team viability, and team process improvement. Results also indicate that task routineness moderates the relationships that team self-managing behaviors have with team performance and team viability such that these relationships are stronger when the level of task routineness is low. However, this moderating effect is not significant in regard to the relationship between team self-managing behaviors and team process improvement. Taken together, these findings suggest that emphasis on team self-managing behaviors may enhance team effectiveness, but this enhancement effect is contingent on task routineness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it