When does performance management foster team effectiveness? A mixed‐method field study on the influence of environmental extremity

• Author: Mieke Audenaert,Alex Vanderstraeten,Tine Van Thielen,Adelien Decramer
• Published date: 01 July 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2297
• Date: 01 July 2018

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

When does performance management foster team

effectiveness? A mixed‐method field study on the influence of

environmental extremity

Tine Van Thielen |Adelien Decramer |Alex Vanderstraeten |Mieke Audenaert

Department HRM and Organizational Behavior,

Faculty of Economics and Business

Administration, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Correspondence

Tine Van Thielen, Department HRM and

Organizational Behavior, Ghent University,

Tweekerkenstraat 2, Ghent B‐9000, Belgium.

Email: tine.vanthielen@ugent.be

Summary

Organizations operating in extreme environments rely on teams to tackle the highly

demanding and complex situations. This study aims to provide new insights into the

management of such teams by exploring the influence of environmental extremity

on the relationship between performance management and team effectiveness.

Mixed‐method and multilevel analyses of police teams working in different levels of

environmental extremity suggest that environmental extremity moderates the rela-

tionship between performance management features and team effectiveness. Both

the vertical alignment of performance management and constructive feedback have

a positive effect on team effectiveness. However, these positive effects are

constrained in teams working in heightened levels of environmental extremity. The

effects of performance management consistency and two‐way communication on

team effectiveness are more nuanced and dependent on environmental extremity.

When teams operate in heightened levels of environmental extremity, both features

are positively related to team effectiveness. When teams operate in lower levels of

environmental extremity, performance management consistency is not significantly

related to team effectiveness and two‐way communication is negatively related to

team effectiveness. These results provide a nuanced understanding of how perfor-

mance management engenders team effectiveness in extreme environments.

KEYWORDS

extreme environments, performance management, team effectiveness

1|INTRODUCTION

Extreme environments entail high‐risk settings with severe conse-

quences when performance is poor. At the same time, they are char-

acterized by a high degree of demands (Bell, Fisher, Brown, & Mann,

2016; Driskell, Salas, & Driskell, 2017). Organizations working in such

environments must tackle challenges such as natural disasters, fires,

medical emergencies, wars, space work, or public violence (Bell et al.,

2016; Maynard & Kennedy, 2016; Williams, Christensen, LePere‐

Schloop, & Silk, 2015). Multiple theoretical and empirical studies

across disciplines have established that in such situations, team‐based

work arrangements are required to enable performance (Driskell et al.,

2017; Hällgren, Rouleau, & De Rond, 2018).

Organizations often implement the human resource management

(HRM) system of performance management to manage teams (Aguinis,

Gottfredson, & Joo, 2013). Performance management simultaneously

identifies, measures, and develops each team member's individual per-

formance and their contribution to the overall team outcomes (Aguinis

et al., 2013), which are aligned with the organization's strategic objec-

tives (Aguinis & Pierce, 2008). Performance management has become

a widely applied management tool in conventional (Aguinis & Pierce,

2008; Decramer, Smolders, Vanderstraeten, Christiaens, & Desmidt,

Received: 16 February 2017 Revised: 30 April 2018 Accepted: 2 May 2018

DOI: 10.1002/job.2297

766 Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J Organ Behav. 2018;39:766–782.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job

2012) and extreme environments (Coutts & Schneider, 2004; Hannah,

Uhl‐Bien, Avolio, & Cavarretta, 2009) as it comprises features that fos-

ter outcomes such as innovative behavior (Audenaert, Decramer,

George, & Van Waeyenberg, 2016), affective commitment (Van

Waeyenberg, Decramer, Desmidt, & Audenaert, 2017), and perfor-

mance (Aguinis et al., 2013). For teams, the promising effects of per-

formance management may be found in how it enables team

members to take their responsibility and direct their focus in the same

desired direction (Aguinis & Pierce, 2008). As such, performance man-

agement can make the difference between team success and failure

(Aguinis et al., 2013).

Despite these confident assertions of performance management's

success, not much is known about the effectiveness of performance

management for teams working in extreme environments. Even more,

the vast majority of research on extreme environment has established

that such teams do not “function similarly to those in ‘normal’settings”

(Driskell et al., 2017, p. 1), and, further, several compelling reasons

have been provided as to why they should not be managed in the

same way (Bell et al., 2016; Driskell et al., 2017). More specifically,

due to the high consequences when performance is poor (Bell et al.,

2016), teams in extreme environments experience higher situational

strength, which is found to affect predictor–outcome relationships

(Meyer, Dalal, & Bonaccio, 2009). Additionally, the salient characteris-

tics of extreme environments, such as physical threats or short action

times, are considered to activate, constrain, or amplify the effects of

management practices on desired outcomes (Bell et al., 2016; Hällgren

et al., 2018; Hannah et al., 2009).

The extremity of the environment may also influence the effects

of performance management. This assumption is supported by the

mixed findings of performance management effectiveness in organiza-

tions operating in extreme environments. Some scholars have found

desired positive effects generated by performance management such

as the perceived effectiveness of performance management (Kai‐ting,

2012). Others have highlighted undesired negative effects generated

by performance management such as frustration towards the system

in these settings (Coutts & Schneider, 2004).

The current study focuses on when performance management

fosters team effectiveness in extreme environments by applying a

multilevel mixed‐method exploratory research approach in the

extreme field of policing. Interviews established a rich description of

the features of performance management that foster team effective-

ness. Subsequently, survey and secondary data were collected to sta-

tistically examine how environmental extremity affects the

relationship between these performance management features and

team effectiveness. As such, the study follows recent calls for more

mixed‐method research to effectively examine extreme environments

(Bell et al., 2016).

This study further contributes to the existing literature on both

extreme environments (Bell et al., 2016; Driskell et al., 2017) and per-

formance management (Aguinis & Pierce, 2008) as it develops a

nuanced understanding of when performance management fosters

team effectiveness under the boundary condition of environmental

extremity. By examining different levels of environmental extremity

by means of a unique ratio based on secondary data, the study can

objectively incorporate the context during the analyses. As such, the

study provides solid insights on when performance management fos-

ters team effectiveness (Decramer et al., 2012; Haines III & St‐Onge,

2012) and addresses the need for more evidence‐based knowledge

in extreme environments (Bell et al., 2016).

2|THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 |Teams operating in extreme environments

We define extreme environments as high‐risk settings that involve

high consequences when performance is poor and that entail high

environmental demands in terms of both level (e.g., durations of inter-

ventions) and type (e.g., physical threats; Bell et al., 2016; Driskell

et al., 2017). Following recent efforts to provide a conceptualization

that covers the fragmented literature on extreme environments

(Hällgren et al., 2018; Hannah et al., 2009), we distinguish extreme

events from extreme environments. Organizations operating in

extreme environments are not permanently confronted with risky

and complex events. However, the chance of being involved with

them is far more common than in conventional work contexts (Driskell

et al., 2017; Hällgren et al., 2018). Teams are considered to be the

most effective work structure when organizations are confronted by

such extreme events (Bell et al., 2016). Rescue teams are composed

to mitigate the consequences of an accident; firefighters are organized

in groups to distinguish a fire and save as many people as possible

(Vera & Crossan, 2005); and soldiers are collectively sent on missions

to protect one another (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). These teams vary

from short‐time action teams with an interdisciplinary composition

(Klein, Ziegert, & Knight, 2006) to stable task teams with a similar dis-

ciplinary background (Fisher & Hutchings, 2012). However, they all

have in common that their effectiveness generates life‐changing

effects.

Police forces are also divided into teams due to the extremity of

their work environment. Police teams are necessary, not only for

protecting on another when interventions get out of hand (Bell

et al., 2016) but also because almost every crime event demands a dif-

ferent and agile reaction. For instance, when violence is being

reported, police teams immediately intervene, without knowledge of

the exact motive, the type of weapon(s) or the number of people

involved. A workforce that bundles their knowledge and skills is indis-

pensable to effectively solve such complex and highly demanding

events (Driskell et al., 2017). Only by working together are police offi-

cers able to maintain order, in varying situations from solving quarrels

between neighbors (Wehr, 2015) to unraveling human trafficking

gangs (Bechky & Okhuysen, 2011), to guarantee the safety and life

quality of inhabitants.

The research on extreme environments has established that the

teams in these environments do not benefit from a traditional man-

agement approach (Bechky & Okhuysen, 2011; Hannah et al., 2009),

which can be explained by two main reasons. First, a high‐conse-

quence environment increases situational strength in extreme teams

(Meyer et al., 2009). Situational strength refers to explicit or implicit

cues provided by external entities with regard to the appropriateness

of certain actions that implicate or constrain certain behaviors

VAN THIELEN ET AL.767