International Journal of Business, Economics and Management

Published by: Conscientia Beam
Online ISSN: 2312-0916
Print ISSN: 2312-5772
Quick Submission    Login/Submit/Track

No. 1

Relationships among Team Trust, Team Cohesion, Team Satisfaction and Project Team Effectiveness as Perceived by Project Managers in Malaysia

Pages: 1-15
Find References

Finding References

Relationships among Team Trust, Team Cohesion, Team Satisfaction and Project Team Effectiveness as Perceived by Project Managers in Malaysia

Search :
Google Scholor
Search :
Microsoft Academic Search

Citation: 7

Han-Ping Fung

Export to    BibTeX   |   EndNote   |   RIS

  1. Alexander, M., 1985. The team effectiveness critque, the 1985 annual: Developing human resources. University Associates. Available from [Accessed January 2010].
  2. Bagozzi, R.P., Y. Yi and L.W. Phillips, 1991. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3): 421-458.
  3. Belbin, M., 1993. Team roles at work. Butterworth/Heinemann 0750609257.
  4. Bourgault, M., N. Drouin and E. Hamel, 2008. Decision making within distributed project teams: An exploration of formalization and autonomy as determinants of success. PMI Project Management Journal, 39(Supplement): S97-S110.
  5. Budman, S.H., S. Soldz, A. Demby, M. Davies and J. Merry, 1993. What is cohesiveness?  An empirical examination. Small Group Research, 24(2): 199-216.
  6. Chidambaram, L., 1996. Relational development in computer-supported groups. MIS Quarterly, 20(2): 143-166.
  7. Chin, W.W., 1998. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling, In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.). Modern methods for business research. Mahway, New Jersey: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates. pp: 295-336.
  8. Chua, Y.P., 2008. Basic research statistics – Book3 (In Malay version). McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
  9. Chuang, W.W., H.W. Chou and Y.J. Yeh, 2004. The impacts of trust, leadership and collective efficacy on cross-functional team performance. Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Knowledge Economy and Electronic Commerce, Oct 2-3, Taiwan.
  10. Cohen, S.G. and D.E. Bailey, 1997. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3): 239-290.
  11. Cook, C.W., P.L. Hunsaker and R.E. Coffey, 1997. Management and organizational behavior. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
  12. Costa, A.C., 2003. Work team trust and effectiveness. Personnel Review, 32(5): 605-622. DOI 10.1108/00483480310488360.
  13. Dailey, R.C., 1993. Organizational behavior. Pitman Publishing. pp: 15-21.
  14. Falk, A. and U. Fischbacher, 2000. A theory of reciprocity. Institute for empirical research in economics. University of Zurich, Working Paper No. 6, ISSN 1424-0459.
  15. Finnegan, A.M., 2002. Teamwork in Australia middle management: A study to investigate attitude of team members, team member effectiveness perception and team environment. PhD Thesis, University of Western Sydney, Australia.
  16. Gefen, D., D.W. Straub and M.C. Boudreau, 2000. Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of AIS, 4(7).
  17. Gladstein, D.L., 1984. Group in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 499-517.
  18. Harter, J.K., F.L. Schmidt and T.L. Hayes, 2002. Business-unit level relationship, between employee satisfaction, employee engagement and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology: 268-279.
  19. Hoegl, M. and H.G. Gemuenden, 2001. Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, INFORMS, 12(4): 435-449.
  20. Hoevemeyer, V.A., 1993. How effective is your team? Training and Development, 47(9): 67-71.
  21. Hsu, J.S.C., J.J. Jiang, N. Parolia and G. Klein, 2007. The impact of team mental models on IS project teams’ information processing and project performance. EProceedings of the 2nd International Research Workshop on Information Technology Project Management (IRWITPM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  22. Judge, T.A., C.J. Thoresen, J.E. Bono and G.K. Patton, 2001. The job satisfaction-job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin: 376-407.
  23. Larson, E.W. and D.H. Gobeli, 1989. Significance of project management structure on development success. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 36(2): 119-125.
  24. Mayer, R.C., J.H. Davis and F.D. Schoorman, 1995. An integrated model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20: 709-739.
  25. McShane, S. and T. Travaglione, 2003. Organizational behavior on the pacific rim. Australia: McGraw-Hill.
  26. Mumbi, C.K., 2007. An investigation of the role of trust in virtual project management success. PhD Thesis, Murdoch University, Australia.
  27. Nguyen, N.T., A. Seers and N.S. Hartman, 2008. Putting a good face on impression management: Team citizenship and team satisfaction. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 9(2): 148-168.
  28. Parker, C. and T. Case, 1993. Management information systems: Strategy and action. Watsonville, CA: Mitchell McGraw-Hill.
  29. Pearce, J.L., S.M. Sommer, A. Morris and M. Frideger, 1992. A configurational approach to interpersonal relations: Profiles of workplace social relations and task interdependence. Working paper. Graduate School of Management, University of California, Irvine, CA.
  30. Peterson, R.A. and Y. Kim, 2013. On the relationship between coefficient alpha and composite reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1): 194-198. DOI 10.1037/a0030767.
  31. Pinto, J.K., 2007. Project management: Achieving competitive advantage. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
  32. Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie, J.Y. Lee and N.P. Podsakoff, 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879-903.
  33. Project Management Institute, 2008. A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) – 4th Edn., Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute, Inc.
  34. Quick, J.C. and D.L. Nelson, 2009. Principles of organizational behavior – realities and challenges. 6th Edn., South-Western: Cengage Learning.
  35. Ring, P.S., 1996. Fragile and resilient trust and their roles in economic exchange. Business and Society, 35(2): 148-175.
  36. Robbins, S.P. and T.A. Judge, 2008. Essentials of organizational behavior. 9th Edn., Pearson, New Jersey: Upper Saddle River.
  37. Short, J.C., G. Piccoli, A. Powell and B. Ives, 2005. Investigating multilevel relationships in information systems research: An application to virtual teams research using hierarchical linear modeling. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application (JITTA), 7(3): 1-26.
  38. Smith, P.C., L.M. Kendall and C.L. Hulin, 1969. The measurement of satisfaction n work and retirement. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.
  39. Standing, C., A. Guilfoyle, C. Lin and P.E.D. Love, 2006. The attribution of success and failure in IT projects.  Industrial Management & Data Systems, 106(8): 1148-1165.
  40. Starcevich, M.M., 1993. A model of an effective team. Available from [Accessed January 2010].
  41. Vroom, V.H., 1964. Work and motivation, New York: John Wiley and Sons. pp:  99.
  42. Webber, S.S., 2002. Leadership and trust facilitating cross-functional team success. Journal of Management Development, 21(3): 201-214.
  43. Webber, S.S., 2008. Blending service provider – client project teams to achieve client trust: Implications for project team trust, cohesion and performance. PMI Project Management Journal, 39(2): 72-81.
  44. Woerkom, M.V. and K. Sanders, 2009. The romance of learning from disagreement – the effect of cohesiveness and disagreement on knowledge sharing behavior and individual performance within teams. Journal of Business and Psychology. Available from [Accessed January 2010].
  45. Yukl, G., 2010. Leadership in organizations. 7th Edn., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
No any video found for this article.
Han-Ping Fung (2014). Relationships among Team Trust, Team Cohesion, Team Satisfaction and Project Team Effectiveness as Perceived by Project Managers in Malaysia. International Journal of Business, Economics and Management, 1(1): 1-15. DOI:
Today, more and more project teams are formed to achieve organizational objectives as organizations generally recognized the importance and benefits of project teams. There is a compelling reason to study what are the team outcome factors that can predict project team effectiveness as it is unclear whether these team outcome factors can yield the same result in project setting whereby there is resource and time constraint compare to normal work teams which are ongoing and operational in nature.  This study has developed a research model underpinned on Cohen and Bailey (1997) Team Effectiveness Framework to empirically analyze some team outcome factors in which result showed that team trust is directly predicting team cohesion, team satisfaction and project team effectiveness. However, team cohesion is not directly predicting project team effectiveness but it is directly predicting team satisfaction. In turn, team satisfaction is directly and positively predicting project team effectiveness. In other words, team cohesion indirectly predicting project team effectiveness via team satisfaction. Discussion, limitation and conclusion are also included in this article.

Contribution/ Originality