Many business ventures are started by entrepreneurial teams, and an extensive theoretical literature suggests that the interpersonal process of these teams impact venture performance. Whereas some work has been done to identify key issues in how well such teams work together, there has been no in-depth research to develop an instrument to measure specific dimensions of interpersonal process effectiveness. This article documents the importance of venture business, develops a measure to evaluate venture team interpersonal process effectiveness, and shows the relationship of interpersonal process effectiveness and partner agreement on specific aspects of interpersonal process to reports of venture success. Over 190 venture dyads were surveyed such that each partner evaluated themselves and their partner on items describing team interpersonalprocess. We found four dimensions for team interpersonal process: leadership, interpersonal flexibility, team commitment, and helpfulness. Leadership involved partners who contributed to the leadership functions of problem-solving, setting quality standards, continually improving, and setting goals. Interpersonal flexibility described partner exchange with the other partner. Team commitment meant having enthusiasm for team performance and focusing on common team goals. The final element was helpfulness, which involved helping their partner beyond what was required and being friendly and cooperative. We defined successfully perceived ventures as those in which the two partners independently agreed on evaluating the business to be both growing and profitable. Venture businesses that were described by the partners as not growing and/or not profitable were defined as less successfully perceived ventures. Teams that evaluated themselves as more effective on team interpersonal process also regarded themselves as more successful venture businesses. The factors that were evaluated as more effective in successfully perceived ventures were leadership, team commitment, and their mutual interaction. Our agreement hypothesis held for all three interpersonal perception perspectives. The first agreement correlation is a comparison of partner self-evaluations. The more successfully perceived ventures rated themselves similarly; the less successfully perceived ventures did not. The second agreement correlation was a comparison of what partners thought of each other and is the source of many interpersonal assumptions (Wilmot 1979). Partners from successfully perceived ventures agreed with each other, whereas the less successfully perceived ventures did not. The third agreement analysis was particularly noteworthy. It involved a comparison of one partner's self-rating with how the other partner rated him/her. In addition to mere agreement, this represents an interpersonal verification or validity check between separate perceptual systems. As partners, this correlation suggests that you understand my contribution to the team in the same way that I understand my contribution to the team. When there is agreement on this perspective, miscommunication and interpersonal conflict may become less likely. As with the other two agreement indices, partners from successfully perceived ventures showed more agreement than partners in less successfully perceived ventures. An important notion is the use of these three perspectives to more fully utilize the team effectiveness instrument. Each of the perceptual perspectives is different, and a breakdown in one perspective may not always show in the others. However each view is critical to maintaining effective team interpersonal process. To develop a venture dyad, we suggest using our instrument as a tool to enhance a team's interpersonal process. When using an interpersonal method with venture dyads, there are several issues we should consider. First, team interpersonal process issues can be sensitive topics for discussion. In some cases, relationship building with a third party may be needed for this approach to be constructive. Second, a third party, familiar with team interpersonal process, should have a team meeting with the participants to establish a common vocabulary regarding our team concepts. Third, additional team interpersonal process items could be provided by the team to better fit the idiosyncrasies of each dyad.
Read full abstract
Apr 1, 2002
Larry W Chang + 6
Open Access
