High-Performance-Team-Survey (HPTS)

1. Abstract

The High-Performance-Team-Survey (HPTS) is an empirically validated psychometric instrument designed to capture and evaluate the core determinants of effectiveness, collaboration quality, and collective efficacy in organizational teams. Grounded conceptually in the findings of Google’s large-scale internal investigation “Project Aristotle” as well as decades of foundational scholarship in industrial and organizational psychology (I-O psychology), the HPTS operationalizes five essential dimensions of high-functioning work units: Psychological Safety (Psychologische Sicherheit), Performance Orientation & Standards (Leistungsorientierung), Structure & Clarity of Roles, Processes, and Goals (Klarheit über Rollen, Prozesse & Ziele), Meaningfulness of Work (Bedeutsamkeit der Arbeit), and Impact on the Organization (Einfluss auf die Organisation).

The instrument was engineered across three distinct structural editions to facilitate operational flexibility: a comprehensive 27-item Long Version (Langversion; administration duration approximately 8 minutes), a 16-item Medium Version (Mittelversion; approximately 4 minutes), and an ultra-economical 5-item Short Version (Kurzversion; approximately 1 minute) tailored for organizational pulse surveys and agile retrospective diagnostics. Responses are captured utilizing a balanced 5-point Likert agreement scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). Psychometric evaluation across a heterogeneous validation sample of corporate employees (N = 323) established robust structural and measurement properties. Internal consistency estimates across subscales and versions demonstrated high reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha (α) values spanning .79 to .92 and McDonald’s omega (ω) ranging from .81 to .92. Confirmatory structural equation modeling (SEM) substantiated the five-factor latent structure (Long Version: χ² = 795.32, df = 314, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .07; Medium Version: χ² = 265.64, df = 94, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .08). Significant bivariate correlations with shared vision, strategic alignment, self-reported team performance, and team innovation support convergent and criterion-related validity.

2. Keywords

High-Performance-Team-Survey, HPTS, psychological safety, team effectiveness, Project Aristotle, goal clarity, performance orientation, task significance, team diagnostic, organizational psychology

3. Authors

The High-Performance-Team-Survey was developed through an academic-practitioner collaboration between organizational scholars and applied organizational development specialists:

• Dr. Josef A. Fischer — Independent Organizational Scientist and Management Consultant. Correspondence: [email protected].
• Dr. Hendrik Hüttermann — Senior Research Fellow and Lecturer, Institute for Leadership and Human Resource Management (I.FPM-HSG), University of St. Gallen (Universität St. Gallen), Switzerland. Correspondence: [email protected].
• Dr. Tom Siebenaler — People Analytics Specialist and Organizational Psychologist. Correspondence: [email protected].

4. Purpose

Modern economic environments are increasingly characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA), necessitating interdependent team structures rather than isolated individual contributors to solve non-routine, multi-faceted problems. Despite substantial investments in leadership seminars and team-building exercises, organizations frequently lack standardized, psychometrically grounded diagnostics capable of continuously profiling team functioning across theoretically critical dimensions. The primary purpose of the High-Performance-Team-Survey (HPTS) is to address this methodological gap by providing an empirically robust, theoretically unified diagnostic tool that captures the psychological underpinnings of high-performing teams.

Theoretical and Practical Rationale

Historically, team diagnostic instruments have suffered from either extreme commercial proprietary opacity or narrow theoretical fragmentation. In commercial contexts, tools frequently measure idiosyncratic categories that lack empirical validation, published factor structures, or clear psychometric benchmarks. Conversely, academic research tools are often hyper-specialized, isolating single constructs such as psychological safety (e.g., Edmondson, 1999) or role ambiguity (e.g., Rizzo et al., 1970) without offering an overarching operational index of collective team health. The HPTS bridges this divide by synthesizing the empirical discoveries of Google’s landmark enterprise study, Project Aristotle (Google, 2020; Duhigg, 2016), with foundational models of team dynamics and effectiveness (Hackman, 1987; Kozlowski & Bell, 2013; Mathieu et al., 2017).

Research Applications

Within empirical organizational science, the HPTS serves several methodological functions:

• Multilevel Team Research: Facilitates the measurement of team-level emergent states and collaborative processes. By aggregating individual team member responses, researchers can compute team-level means and examine within-group agreement (r_wg) alongside intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC[1], ICC[2]) to model cross-level interactions between organizational climate and individual outcomes.
• Intervention Evaluation and Longitudinal Tracking: Because of its tripartite structural design (long, medium, and short forms), the instrument is uniquely suited for pre-test/post-test experimental designs, cross-lagged panel models, and continuous time-series evaluations assessing the efficacy of strategic leadership coaching, agile restructuring, or cultural transformation initiatives.
• Nomological Net Exploration: The HPTS provides a standardized operational framework to analyze how interpersonal team climates interact with structural inputs (e.g., functional diversity, remote/hybrid work modalities) to predict objective output metrics (e.g., objective performance metrics, patent production, organizational retention).

Applied Organizational and Clinical Diagnostic Applications

In practitioner settings, organizational development consultants, human resource executives, and agile team coaches utilize the HPTS across varied operational scenarios:

• Comprehensive Baseline Profiling: Utilizing the 27-item Long Version, human resource departments can map team strengths and dysfunctions across entire divisions to pinpoint specific developmental deficits (e.g., distinguishing whether low team output stems from affective fear of reprisal vs. structural role ambiguity).
• Pulse Surveys and Continuous Feedback: The 5-item Short Version enables automated, high-frequency pulse measurements embedded into digital workplace communication tools, yielding real-time alerts regarding sudden drops in perceived psychological safety or strategic impact.
• Team Retrospectives and Facilitated Workshops: The 16-item Medium Version supplies an optimal balance between testing economy and dimensional depth, providing team leaders and external facilitators with granular subscale scores to anchor constructive group feedback sessions.

5. Psychological Construct

The High-Performance-Team-Survey measures team functioning as a multi-component emergent state. Rooted in systemic input-process-output (IPO) and input-mediator-output-input (IMOI) paradigms, the instrument operationalizes five distinct yet complementary psychological sub-constructs:

1. Psychological Safety (Psychologische Sicherheit)

Psychological safety reflects a shared cognitive and affective climate wherein team members tacitly believe that the collective will not penalize, ridicule, or reject individuals for speaking up, asking questions, offering novel ideas, or highlighting process errors (Edmondson, 1999). It is not an indicator of mere agreeableness or unconditional warmth; rather, it denotes interpersonal candor, mutual vulnerability, and constructive dissent. In high-psychological-safety teams, members openly address operational failures as collective learning opportunities rather than individual vulnerabilities. Conversely, teams low in this construct exhibit pervasive impression management, silence regarding critical organizational risks, and passive compliance.

2. Performance Orientation & Standards (Leistungsorientierung)

This subscale captures the collective endorsement of excellence, mutual accountability, and peer-to-peer dependability (Anderson & West, 1994; de Jong & Elfering, 2010). High-performance work units do not merely foster psychological comfort; they balance psychological safety with rigorous execution standards. This dimension reflects shared vigilance regarding project progress, continuous quality monitoring, and the refusal to normalize mediocrity. Team members assume reciprocal responsibility for fulfilling ambitious objectives, ensuring that individual contributions are delivered reliably and on schedule without requiring continuous supervisory intervention.

3. Structure & Clarity of Roles, Processes, and Goals (Klarheit über Rollen, Prozesse & Ziele)

Drawing on classical role theory (Rizzo et al., 1970) and contemporary task architecture models (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006), this dimension gauges the degree to which members share unambiguous mental models regarding operational objectives, tactical workflows, and individual boundaries of responsibility. In the 27-item version, this factor is stratified into three distinct sub-facets:

• Goal Clarity: Transparency regarding short-term milestones and overarching group targets.
• Process Clarity: Explicit understanding of workflow sequences, coordination protocols, and operating procedures.
• Role Clarity: Clearly delineated divisions of labor, mitigating role ambiguity, operational overlaps, and conflicting stakeholder expectations.

Shared clarity drastically diminishes coordination loss, prevents cognitive overload, and provides directional focus during ambiguous or crisis scenarios.

4. Meaningfulness of Work (Bedeutsamkeit der Arbeit)

Anchored in Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) Job Characteristics Model and Kirkman and Rosen’s (1999) conceptualization of team empowerment, this dimension assesses the shared perception that the team’s daily activities possess intrinsic value, ethical importance, and personal significance. Meaningfulness operates as a vital motivational driver; when team members collectively perceive their collective tasks as inherently worthy, they exhibit higher persistence, affective commitment, and group-level resilience when confronted with organizational obstacles or tedious technical challenges.

5. Impact on the Organization (Einfluss auf die Organisation)

Impact measures the group’s collective efficacy belief regarding the external consequence of its outputs (Hackman, 1987; Wageman et al., 2005). While meaningfulness is internally directed (how work resonates with member values), impact is externally oriented: it measures whether the team’s work outputs tangibly influence broader business outcomes, downstream stakeholders, customer satisfaction, or macro-organizational goals. High scores reflect teams whose members directly witness how their work integrates into and advances the corporate mission, mitigating the alienating sense of working in an isolated organizational silo.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the HPTS is rooted in the intersection of contemporary people analytics and established academic organizational research. It integrates three major theoretical pillars:

1. The Empirical Legacy of Google’s “Project Aristotle”

In 2012, Google embarked on an extensive, multi-year internal research initiative dubbed Project Aristotle to determine why certain work units succeeded while others floundered despite possessing comparable individual talent (Duhigg, 2016; Google, 2020). Examining hundreds of software engineering and sales teams, Google’s people analytics researchers analyzed demographic composition, personality traits, technical expertise, leadership styles, and meeting frequency. Surprisingly, conventional input variables—such as individual intelligence, educational prestige, or optimal team size—showed minimal predictive power regarding collective effectiveness.

Instead, the study revealed that how team members interacted formed the primary determinant of high performance. Five overarching psychological dynamics were identified: (1) Psychological Safety, (2) Dependability, (3) Structure and Clarity, (4) Meaning, and (5) Impact. Crucially, statistical modeling established psychological safety as the foundational baseline; without psychological safety, the remaining four drivers could not flourish. The HPTS formally adapts these five empirical observations into a standardized psychometric instrument designed to conform to scientific test-construction guidelines.

2. The Input-Mediator-Output-Input (IMOI) Paradigm

From an academic psychometric standpoint, the HPTS reflects modern revisions of team effectiveness models, specifically the Input-Mediator-Output-Input (IMOI) framework advanced by Ilgen et al. (2005) and expanded by Mathieu et al. (2008, 2017). Classic IPO models treated team processes as simple, unidirectional conduits connecting organizational inputs to final outputs. The IMOI framework recognizes that high-performance factors act as emergent cognitive, affective, and motivational mediators (states) that evolve cyclically.

As illustrated in psychological theory, dimensions such as psychological safety and goal clarity do not function merely as static traits; they are dynamic emergent states that mediate the relationship between organizational resources (leadership behavior, compensation systems) and behavioral outputs (innovation, team viability). In turn, high team performance creates feedback loops that reinforce collective pride, psychological safety, and organizational impact.

3. Formative vs. Reflective Measurement Models at the Macro Level

An essential psychometric premise outlined by Fischer, Hüttermann, and Siebenaler concerns the measurement ontology of the overall “High Performance Team Index.” While individual subscales (e.g., psychological safety) are conceptualized reflectively—meaning the underlying latent state causes member responses to manifest items—the overarching construct of a “High-Performance Team” is operationalized as a mixed reflective-formative model (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006; MacKenzie et al., 2005). The five dimensions act as formative components whose sum constitutes the high-performance state. A team can exhibit high role clarity yet moderate psychological safety; each dimension contributes independently to the overarching profile, justifying the computation of a composite non-weighted index alongside distinct multidimensional profiling.

7. Validity

The construct, convergent, and criterion-related validity of the High-Performance-Team-Survey was examined across an empirical validation sample of 323 corporate participants working within diverse team structures across Germany.

Convergent Construct Validity

To assess convergent construct validity, the authors correlated the overall HPTS index and its five subscales against two established organizational team constructs: Shared Vision (measured via marker items such as “Our team has an attractive vision”) and Strategic Alignment (measured via items such as “Our team has a clear strategy for the future”) (Hackman, 2002; Kozlowski & Bell, 2013). High-performing teams that cultivate clarity, safety, and impact are theoretically expected to exhibit substantial shared strategic direction.

Pearson bivariate correlation analyses confirmed statistically significant positive associations (all p < .01) across all three instrument lengths:

• Long Version (27 items):
  • HPTS Total Index: r = .70 with Shared Vision; r = .58 with Strategic Alignment.
  • Psychological Safety: r = .56 (Shared Vision); r = .38 (Strategic Alignment).
  • Performance Orientation: r = .41 (Shared Vision); r = .45 (Strategic Alignment).
  • Clarity of Roles, Processes & Goals: r = .60 (Shared Vision); r = .51 (Strategic Alignment).
  • Meaningfulness of Work: r = .61 (Shared Vision); r = .50 (Strategic Alignment).
  • Impact on the Organization: r = .58 (Shared Vision); r = .42 (Strategic Alignment).
• Medium Version (16 items):
  • HPTS Total Index: r = .71 with Shared Vision; r = .59 with Strategic Alignment.
  • Individual subscale correlations closely mirrored the long version, ranging from r = .41 to .63.
• Short Version (5 items):
  • HPTS Total Index: r = .67 with Shared Vision; r = .53 with Strategic Alignment.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

Criterion validity was established by examining the instrument’s capacity to predict critical team effectiveness benchmarks: Team Performance Potential Utilization and Team Innovation Potential Utilization (Hackman, 2002; Kunze et al., 2015). Participants evaluated the extent to which their work unit realized its latent performance and innovative capacity on single-item standardized evaluation metrics.

Empirical analyses confirmed robust, highly significant positive relationships (all p < .01):

• Long Version: Overall HPTS correlated strongly with Team Performance (r = .60) and Team Innovation (r = .56). Subscale associations ranged from r = .37 (Performance Orientation with Innovation) to r = .55 (Meaningfulness with Performance).
• Medium Version: Overall HPTS demonstrated correlations of r = .61 with Team Performance and r = .58 with Team Innovation.
• Short Version: Despite comprising only five items, the short form preserved strong predictive power, correlating r = .59 with Team Performance and r = .53 with Team Innovation.

Discriminant Validity and Face Validity

During exploratory principal axis factor analysis with oblique Promax rotation, cross-loadings across alternative factors did not exceed .30, demonstrating clear factor separation and minimal conceptual contamination. Expert evaluations by industrial psychologists and corporate consultants affirmed high face validity; items reflect realistic work encounters without academic jargon, fostering participant transparency and engagement.

8. Reliability

The HPTS exhibits strong internal consistency across its full, medium, and shortened iterations. Given the known mathematical limitations of Cronbach’s alpha under violations of tau-equivalence, the authors systematically computed both Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω across all sub-dimensions.

Internal Consistency by Version

• Long Version (27 Items, 5 Subscales):
  • Psychological Safety (5 items): α = .90, ω = .90
  • Performance Orientation (5 items): α = .89, ω = .89
  • Clarity (Roles, Processes, Goals) (7 items): α = .90, ω = .91
  • Meaningfulness of Work (5 items): α = .92, ω = .92
  • Impact on Organization (5 items): α = .92, ω = .92
• Medium Version (16 Items, 5 Subscales):
  • Psychological Safety (3 items): α = .84, ω = .84
  • Performance Orientation (3 items): α = .80, ω = .82
  • Clarity (Roles, Processes, Goals) (4 items): α = .85, ω = .85
  • Meaningfulness of Work (3 items): α = .85, ω = .85
  • Impact on Organization (3 items): α = .88, ω = .89
• Short Version (5 Items, 1 Composite Index):
  • Composite Score (5 items): α = .81, ω = .81

Corrected Item-Total Correlations (Discriminative Power)

Item discrimination parameters (part-whole-corrected item-total correlations, r_it) were benchmarked against classical test theory standards (Bortz & Döring, 2009), which designate values ≥ .50 as high and < .30 as problematic. In the HPTS:

• Long Version: Corrected item-total correlations ranged between r_it = .62 and .84 across all 27 indicators, indicating exceptional discriminatory precision.
• Medium Version: Corrected item-total correlations ranged between r_it = .52 and .80.
• Short Version: Values ranged from r_it = .56 to .65, confirming that each single-item indicator reliably taps the composite construct without generating redundant variance.

9. Factor Analysis

The latent dimensionality of the HPTS was investigated through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) within a structurally diverse corporate cohort (N = 323).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial item extraction on the 27 items was performed using principal axis factoring with oblique Promax rotation (κ = 2), accounting for expected theoretical intercorrelations among team effectiveness dimensions. Application of the Kaiser-Guttman criterion (eigenvalues > 1.0) and visual examination of the scree plot yielded an unambiguous five-factor solution. Collectively, the five extracted factors accounted for 72.0% of the total variance. Manifest item communalities (h²) were substantial, ranging from .57 to .83. An ideal simple structure was achieved, as no manifest item exhibited secondary cross-loadings exceeding .30 on any non-target factor.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent testing utilized linear structural equation modeling (SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation (Williams et al., 2009) to confirm the five-factor latent structure. In accordance with Schermelleh-Engel et al. (2003), goodness-of-fit was judged acceptable if CFI ≥ .90, TLI ≥ .90, RMSEA ≤ .08, and SRMR ≤ .08, and excellent if CFI/TLI > .95, RMSEA < .05, and SRMR ≤ .08.

For the Long Version, standardized factor loadings ranged from λ = .65 to .89. For the Medium Version, standardized loadings ranged between λ = .60 and .86. Both measurement models displayed good overall fit, validating the independence of the five dimensions. The Short Version comprises a single manifest indicator per latent construct; hence, a full CFA model is mathematically under-identified and its validity is established primarily through convergent and criterion analyses.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The High-Performance-Team-Survey is standardized for administration via computer-assisted self-interviewing (CASI/CSAQ online surveys) as well as paper-and-pencil formats.

Structural Attributes

• Test Type: Multidimensional team diagnostic rating inventory (self-administered; aggregated to team level).
• Target Population: Members of functional, project, or executive teams across public, private, and non-profit sectors.
• Available Formats:
  • Long Version: 27 items across 5 dimensions (8-minute average completion time).
  • Medium Version: 16 items across 5 dimensions (4-minute average completion time).
  • Short Version: 5 items tapping each core dimension once (1-minute completion time).
• Response Scale: Symmetrical 5-point Likert scale:
  • (1) “stimme überhaupt nicht zu” — Strongly disagree
  • (2) “stimme eher nicht zu” — Somewhat disagree
  • (3) “teils/teils” — Neither agree nor disagree
  • (4) “stimme eher zu” — Somewhat agree
  • (5) “stimme voll und ganz zu” — Strongly agree

Scoring Guidelines and Normative Benchmarks

• Item Polarity: All items in the HPTS are positively coded (no reverse-coded items), preventing cognitive response friction.
• Subscale Index Calculation: For the Long and Medium versions, independent subscale scores are generated by calculating unweighted arithmetic means across the designated items.
• High-Performance Team Index (Total Score): A composite overall metric can be derived by calculating the unweighted arithmetic mean across all completed items (or across the five subscale scores).
• Handling Missing Data: Scale and composite indices should only be calculated for individual participants who provide valid answers for at least 50% of the respective scale items. In team-level aggregations, standard within-team agreement statistics (e.g., r_wg ≥ .70) are recommended before pooling individual scores into unit averages.
• Normative Reference Values: In the validation sample (N = 323), the overall HPTS mean was M = 3.71 (SD = 0.72) for the Long Version, M = 3.70 (SD = 0.73) for the Medium Version, and M = 3.82 (SD = 0.84) for the Short Version. Subscale norms for the Long Version showed: Psychological Safety M = 3.73 (SD = 0.96); Performance Orientation M = 3.68 (SD = 0.88); Clarity M = 3.63 (SD = 0.84); Meaningfulness M = 3.78 (SD = 0.92); Impact M = 3.75 (SD = 0.96).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The High-Performance-Team-Survey was developed and empirically validated in 2020 by Dr. Josef A. Fischer, Dr. Hendrik Hüttermann (University of St. Gallen), and Dr. Tom Siebenaler. The scale was created to supply the German-speaking academic and organizational community with an open, psychometrically validated adaptation of the principles uncovered during Google’s Project Aristotle.

The instrument is made available for academic research and educational applications without commercial license fees. Organizational consultants, corporate practitioners, and researchers wishing to employ the proprietary full 27-item or 16-item item inventories in proprietary diagnostic interventions or commercial benchmarking systems should direct inquiries to the corresponding authors regarding licensing conditions and administrative authorization.

12. References

• Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1994). The Team Climate Inventory: Development of the TCI and its applications in teambuilding and organizational change. In European Conference on Psychological Assessment. Technical Manual, Assessment Psychology Press.
• Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2009). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler (4th ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-33306-7
• de Jong, R. D., & Elfering, A. (2010). Team feedback, communication, and performance: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 577–597. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X468874
• Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of Management, 17(4), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00500.x
• Duhigg, C. (2016, February 25). What Google learned from its quest to build the perfect team. The New York Times Magazine. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html
• Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
• Frazier, M. L., Fainschmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Peachey, A., & Rathert, C. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183
• Google. (2020). re:Work – Guide: Understand team effectiveness to improve work teams (Project Aristotle). Google LLC. https://rework.withgoogle.com/guides/understanding-team-effectiveness/steps/introduction/
• Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior (pp. 315–342). Prentice-Hall.
• Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Harvard Business School Press.
• Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7
• Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015978
• Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250
• Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/256874
• Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2013). Work groups and teams in organizations. In N. W. Schmitt & S. Highhouse (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 12, pp. 412–469). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop212017
• Kunze, F., de Jong, S. B., & Bruch, H. (2015). Consequences of collective-focused impression management: A multilevel investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 853–863. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038276
• MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 710–730. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.710
• Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316061
• Mathieu, J. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., van Knippenberg, D., & Ilgen, D. R. (2017). A century of work teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 452–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000128
• Maynard, M. T., Gilson, L. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2013). Empowering teams: A review of theoretical and empirical advancements. Human Resource Management Review, 23(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2012.06.002
• Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321
• Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and role ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391486
• Sawyer, J. E. (1992). Goal and process clarity: Specification of multiple constructs of role ambiguity and a structural equation model of their antecedents and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(2), 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.2.130
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.
• Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022676
• Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32(1), 29–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305277792
• Wageman, R., Hackman, J. R., & Lehman, E. (2005). Team Diagnostic Survey: Development of an instrument. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(4), 373–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886305281984
• West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 309–333). John Wiley & Sons.
• Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. (2009). 12 structural equation modeling in management research: A guide for improved analysis. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 543–612. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520903065683
• Zickar, M. J. (2020). Measurement development and evaluation. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7, 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-044957

13. Items of the Scale