I need you, you need me: a model of initiated task interdependence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to address two gaps in the existing literature. The first is why some team members have peers depend on them for material, information, and support (referred to as initiated task interdependence) more so than do others, ceteris paribus. The second is the appropriateness of initiated interdependence given a team's composition. Design/methodology/approach In an ex post facto field study, task interdependence in 267 members of 18 intact teams were examined. The teams worked on complex and inherently interdependent tasks in a high‐technology manufacturing organization. Findings Whether team members perceived initiated task interdependence was explained by the degree to which members themselves depend on their peers (received interdependence), team members' belief in the value of teamwork, and team members' self‐efficacy for teamwork. As predicted, both collectivism and past job performance were associated with self‐efficacy for teamwork. The relationship between initiated interdependence and individual effectiveness was moderated by the team's collectivist orientation, such that team members were considered relatively effective by their peers when they were high in initiated task interdependence and when their team was composed of collectivists; or when they were low in initiated interdependence and when their team was composed of individualists. Research limitations/implications Although a one‐factor test suggests that common method bias is not an overriding concern in interpreting our findings, the possibility of common method bias inflating the associates tested cannot be rules out. Also, we cannot say with certainty that exogenous variables “caused” changes in endogenous variables. Practical implications Study findings suggest ways to resolve a lack of task interdependence and the importance of team composition when considering peer performance ratings. Originality/value This paper offers a significant contribution to the literature on task interdependence and person‐group fit.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".