87 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 1, February 2024 Research Papers 1 Received: 20th February 2023; Accepted: 10th August 2023 Having Each Other’s Back: The Mediating Role of Supportive Behaviours in the Relationship Between Team Autonomy and Team Effectiveness Joana ALEXANDRINO 1 , Paulo Renato LOURENÇO 2 , Teresa REBELO 2 , Isabel Dórdio DIMAS 3 1 Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, joana.fals@gmail.com 2 Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Coimbra, Centre for Business and Economics Re- search (CeBER), Coimbra, Portugal, prenato@fpce.uc.pt, terebelo@fpce.uc.pt 3 Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Centre for Business and Economics Research (CeBER), Coimbra, Portugal, idimas@fe.uc.pt Background and Purpose: Incorporating autonomy in teams has been an increasingly popular practice, but the mechanisms that make autonomous teams effective still need to be completely understood. Adopting a multidimen - sional approach to team effectiveness, the aim of this study was to analyse the mediating role of team members’ supportive behaviours in the relationship between team autonomy and team effectiveness (team performance, team viability, quality of group experience and team process improvement). Methods: This research adopts a group-level analysis with a sample of 90 teams of 40 organisations from different sectors. Regression analysis was used to analyse the data, namely the product of the coefficients method. Results: A positive relationship between team autonomy and supportive behaviours, which, in turn, is positively re- lated to the four criteria of team effectiveness, was found, suggesting that supportive behaviours are a team process that explains the relationship between team autonomy and team effectiveness. Conclusion: This research enriches our knowledge of the antecedents of team effectiveness and explains the mechanisms through which team autonomy relates to team effectiveness, encouraging organisations to incorporate autonomy into teams’ design to enhance supportive behaviours and team effectiveness. Keywords: Work teams, Team autonomy, Team effectiveness, Supportive behaviours, Quality of group experience, Team performance DOI: 10.2478/orga-2024-0006 1 Introduction Teams have become crucial for almost everything we do in modern life, particularly in organisations (Ko- zlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Cohen and Bailey (1997) define work teams as groups of at least three members who are perceived by themselves and others as a team and who in- teract regularly and interdependently to achieve a common goal. As a system of organising and managing the work, using teams became one of the answers to the complex and uncertain environment we live in nowadays by fos- 88 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 1, February 2024 Research Papers tering innovation in organisations (Rico et al., 2011) and maximising the value of their human capital. Teams can provide diversity in knowledge, attitudes, abilities, skills and experience, and their integration makes it possible to offer rapid, flexible, and innovative responses to the prob- lems and challenges organisations face nowadays. Teams can be seen as a key element for the success of organisa- tions; however, this success depends on the effectiveness of teams (Rico et al., 2011). Team effectiveness is the core focus of much of the research on teams. However, there is still much to uncover regarding modern-day teams’ arrangement and effective- ness. Team autonomy, conceived as the control that the team has over task-related decisions (Haas, 2010), was identified as one of the primary characteristics that influ- ence team effectiveness (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; van Zijl et al., 2019). Incorporating autonomy in team design has become an organisation’s new guiding star, promising in- creased creativity, innovation, and productivity (Hoegl & Parboteeah, 2006). However, what exactly are the mecha- nisms that make autonomous teams effective? We intend to shed some light on this issue. Our study is grounded on the I-P-O model (McGrath, 1984), which suggests that different team interaction pro- cesses influence team results, such as team efficiency and team performance (Wang, 2018). In this model, different inputs (individual, team and organisational factors) di- rectly affect team interaction processes, affecting the team outputs. Considering the I-P-O framework in this study, we intend to test a mediation model where team autonomy will be considered an input of team functioning, support- ive behaviours (a team process) will be the mediator and team effectiveness will be the output variable. Several authors agree that team autonomy can be seen as an input of team functioning (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; van Zijl et al., 2019). Autonomy in teams focuses the team member’s attention on the team as a unit, increasing the perceived group identity and the team members’ commit- ment to the team and their goals. Team autonomy moti- vates helping behaviours among team members in order to accomplish the task and overcome difficulties (Langfred, 2000). Therefore, supportive behaviours between team members are expected to increase in autonomous teams. Supportive behaviours, a team process defined as the ex- tent to which team members voluntarily provide assistance to each other when needed during the task accomplishment (Aubé & Rousseau, 2005), were found to mediate the rela- tionship between several variables and team effectiveness, like leadership (Pessoa et al., 2018) or team goal commit- ment (Aubé & Rousseau, 2005). Moreover, Campion et al. (1993) found that cooper- ation and social support are related to the functioning of effective work groups. Therefore, helping behaviours and positive social interactions, called supportive behaviours in this study, may enhance team effectiveness. Relying on the premise that effectiveness depends heavily on team members’ interpersonal competence and their abili- ty to maintain healthy working relationships (Medsker & Campion, 1998 cit. in Leach, 2005) and considering that supportive behaviours can contribute to increasing team effectiveness, we can assume that this variable may act as a mediator in the relationship between team autonomy and team effectiveness. This research brings several contributions to the lit- erature. First, focusing on the relationship between team autonomy and team effectiveness, considering the role of supportive behaviours contributes to explaining how team design characteristics may affect team effectiveness. Fur - thermore, as far as we know, no studies investigate the re- lationship between team autonomy and team effectiveness with supportive behaviours as mediators. Second, when it comes to supportive behaviours, the literature mainly fo- cuses on the supportive actions of the team leader (Pes- soa et al., 2018), and there needs to be more studies that rely on team members’ supportive behaviours. The present study also adds knowledge to help fill this gap. Third, our research studies how these characteristics relate to team effectiveness criteria in a field setting with organisational work groups. Focusing on real groups as productive units in organisations is also an added value of this study. Fi- nally, this research contributes to the research line, which adopts a multidimensional team effectiveness approach, including four different team effectiveness criteria. At the intervention level, our research contributes to helping managers and team leaders understand better how they can increase the effectiveness of their teams based on a team design characterised by team autonomy. 2 Literature Review 2.1 The mediating role of team supportive behaviours in the relationship between team autonomy and team effectiveness With the increasing need for more flexible, innovative, and agile organisational structures, companies have found new ways of distributing authority between those who do the work and those who are in managerial positions, rais- ing the popularity of concepts such as autonomous and empowered teams (Moe et al., 2021). Team autonomy can be defined as the extent to which a team has considerable discretion and freedom in deciding how to carry out tasks (Langfred, 2005). Autonomy in teams gives the employees the responsibility to make decisions related to task assign- ments, methods for carrying out their work and scheduling activities (Cohen & Ledford, 1994). Autonomy has shown many positive outcomes for groups and organisations, influencing team effectiveness in 89 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 1, February 2024 Research Papers different dimensions. Cohen and Ledford (1994) and Lang- fred (2005) showed that by allowing employee self-regu- lation or self-control over changing conditions facing the group, team autonomy contributes to increasing team per- formance, which can be defined overall as the extent to which a team accomplishes its goal or mission (Devine & Philips, 2001). Cohen and Ledford (1994) also showed the influence of team autonomy on employees’ quality of work life. Hackman and Oldham (1976) stressed the importance of team autonomy as one of the characteristics of job de- sign responsible for motivation and satisfaction at work. Therefore, beyond team performance, team autonomy is related to the quality of group experience, which is the extent to which the relationships between team members are positive and promote their professional and personal development (Aubé et al., 2011). As it allows flexible in- formation processing, team autonomy also enhances the sense of responsibility and self-determination, improving team creativity and the team’s ability to manage the work and adapt to change (Chen et al., 2015). In autonomous teams, a decrease in shirking is also to be expected because employees will tend to have greater commitment and feel- ings of belonging to the group, which will improve the ability of the team to adapt and function effectively over time (Pearce & Ravlin, 1987). Therefore, we can state that team autonomy has an impact on team process improve- ment, the team’s ability to enhance task outputs by inno- vation and by the introduction of new or refined practices (Rousseau & Aubé, 2010), and on team viability, which can be defined as the team’s ability to adapt to changes and deal with the challenges of a dynamic environment (Aubé & Rousseau, 2005). To sum up, previous research points to a positive relationship between team autonomy and different criteria of team effectiveness, namely team performance, team viability, quality of group experience and team process improvement. Supportive behaviours in teams can be defined as the extent to which team members voluntarily provide assis- tance to each other when needed during the task accom- plishment, considering that these behaviours reflect the support that team members provide to each other (Aubé & Rousseau, 2005). Over the years, different scholars have found evidence of the positive relationship between team autonomy and supportive behaviours. Langfred (2000) pointed out that autonomy at the team level focuses the team member’s attention on the team as a unit, increasing group identity and members’ commitment to the team and motivating helping behaviours between team members to accomplish the task and overcome difficulties. Better ways of conflict handling, non-evaluative listening, use of ac- tive listening techniques, and managing work in an effec- tive and timely way can also be effects of team autonomy (Leach, 2005). Choi and Cho (2019) found that teams with more autonomy have greater trust and collaboration, even in virtual teams. Thus, we can state that team autonomy is an antecedent of supportive behaviours among team mem- bers. Supportive behaviours allow team members to deal efficiently with different events or situations that could de - crease their will to contribute to task accomplishment, ena- bling team members to complete a task in situations where they would have difficulty doing it individually. Support- ive behaviours improve the social climate in work teams, boosting self-esteem, strengthening morale and providing a sense of affiliation (Aubé & Rousseau, 2005). Team members committed to the team goals are likely to adopt more supportive behaviours, increasing team performance and the quality of group experience (Aubé & Rousseau, 2005). Support between team members helps individuals become more productive (Janz et al., 1997). Also, it helps the team to cope with internal and external changes that may occur, improving team viability (Aubé & Rousseau, 2005). Jassawalla and Sashittal (2006) also found that dif- ferent dimensions of collaboration in teams are associated with learning increasingly more complex ways of thinking and behaving and with higher levels of efficiency and ef- fectiveness in product innovation processes. In this way, we can state that collaboration and support between team members are related to the capacity of teams to enhance existing processes and find innovative ways to improve team outcomes, defined as team process improvement (Kirkman et al., 2004). Considering the previous findings, we can argue that supportive behaviours improve team ef- fectiveness in different dimensions. Since team autonomy is related to team effectiveness (Langfred, 2005; Haas, 2010) and to higher levels of sup- portive behaviours, and, in turn, supportive behaviours lead to higher team effectiveness (Aubé & Rousseau, 2005; Janz et al., 1997), we can hypothesise that sup- portive behaviours can play a mediating role in the rela- tionship between team autonomy and team effectiveness. Therefore, in this study, based on the I-P-O model, we will test a mediation model including team autonomy as the input variable, supportive behaviours as the mediator and team effectiveness (measured by team performance, team viability, quality of group experience and team process im- provement) as the output (Fig. 1) Accordingly, we formulate the following hypothesis: H1: Supportive behaviours mediate the relationship between team autonomy and team effectiveness, namely quality of group experience (H1a), team viability (H1b), team performance (H1c) and team process improvement (H1d). 90 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 1, February 2024 Research Papers Figure 1: Model under analysis (Based on (Ilgen et al., 2005; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006) 3 Method 3.1 Sample This research adopts a group-level analysis. Follow- ing Cohen and Bailey (1997), the criteria for considering and selecting teams for this research were: teams should be constituted at least by three members (1) who perceive themselves and others as a team (2) and who interact reg- ularly, in an interdependent way, to accomplish a common goal (3). The sample was constituted by convenience sam- pling method within a personal network of formal and/or informal contacts. The sample was composed of 90 teams (comprising 445 team members and 90 team leaders) working in 40 Portuguese organisations. The organisations vary in size, with the sample being composed of medium-sized organ- isations (42.20%), large and small-sized organisations (each corresponding to 16.70%) and micro-sized organi- sations (14.40%). Teams comprise three to 27 members, with an average of approximately seven members per team (M = 6.66, SD = 5.16). The average team tenure was 9.22 years (min = 0.50; max = 26.00; SD = 6.78). The age of team members ranges from 18 to 67 years old (M = 35.49; SD = 10.03), 226 being female (50.80%) and 201 male (45.20%). The age of team leaders ranges from 18 to 67 years old (M = 39.38; SD = 9.91), 28 being female (31.10%) and 55 male (61.10%). It should be noted that 4% of team members and 7.80% of team leaders did not give information re- garding their gender. All leaders were direct supervisors of the teams, responsible for team management and not performing the team’s daily tasks. 3.2 Data collection procedures Several companies were contacted by phone or e-mail, explaining the research and asking for participation. The data was collected with online and paper questionnaires using convenience sampling combined with a snowball effect. Participation in the study was voluntary, and the re- search team followed the ethical research principles. All participants provided their informed consent and had the right to desist; confidentiality and anonymity were guar- anteed, and the research team assumed the commitment to use the data only for scientific purposes. A multisource approach was implemented in data col- lection to reduce the risk of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2012). The data was collected from team leaders and team members. Team leaders answered the scales measuring team performance, process improve- ment, and viability. The scales measuring team autonomy, supportive behaviours and quality of group experience were applied to the team members. 3.3 Measures Team autonomy. The instrument used to measure this construct was the Portuguese version of the Team-Level Autonomy Scale (TLA), developed by Langfred (2005) and adapted by van Beveren et al. (2017). This unidimensional scale evalu- ates team members’ perceptions regarding the amount of autonomy the team has in several aspects of their work. For our sample, Cronbach’s alpha is .90. The Portuguese version of TLA consists of seven items (e.g., “the team is free to decide on how to carry out tasks”). These items are 91 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 1, February 2024 Research Papers answered on a Likert-type scale in which the lowest value (1) corresponds to “almost not applicable” and the highest value (5) corresponds to “applies almost completely”. Supportive behaviours. This construct was measured using a scale that Aubé and Rousseau (2005) developed that evaluates both instru- mental and emotional dimensions of supportive behaviours in a one-dimensional structure. Its Portuguese version was used by Pessoa et al. (2018). For our sample, Cronbach’s alpha is .93. The scale is composed of five items (e.g., “we help each other when someone is behind on their work”), answered on a Likert-type scale in which the lowest value (1) corresponds to “almost not applicable” and the highest value (5) corresponds to “applies almost completely”. Team effectiveness. To measure this construct, the following instruments were used: Quality of group experience: The Portuguese version of the Quality Experience Scale, developed by Aubé and Rousseau (2005) and used by Paolucci et al. (2018). This scale evaluates the interpersonal/relational climate with- in the team. Cronbach’s alpha for our sample is .94. The scale is composed of three items (e.g., “within our team, the work climate is good”). These items are responded on a Likert scale in which the lowest value (1) corresponds to “I strongly disagree”, and the highest value (5) corresponds to “I strongly agree”. Team performance scale: a scale developed by Rous- seau and Aubé (2010) and used by Paolucci et al. (2018). This scale assesses the team’s performance through ob- jective achievement, productivity, quality of work and fulfilment of deadlines and costs. For our sample, Cron- bach’s alpha is .84. The scale is composed of five items (e.g., “achievement of performance goals”) and answer on a Likert-type scale in which the lowest value (1) corre- sponds to “very low” and the highest value (5) corresponds to “very high”. Team process improvement scale: scale also developed by Rousseau and Aubé (2010) and used by Paolucci et al. (2018) that evaluates the use of new ways of working by the team and its effects concerning issues such as the team goals, productivity, quality of the work, accomplishment of deadlines and reduce of costs. In our sample, Cron- bach’s alpha is .85. The scale is composed of five items (e.g., new ways of working have helped to achieve perfor- mance goals), which is responded on a Likert-type scale in which the lowest value (1) corresponds to “almost not ap- plicable” and the highest level (5) corresponds to “applies almost completely”. Team viability scale: scale developed by Aubé and Rousseau (2005) and also used by Paolucci et al. (2018) measures the team’s ability to adapt to changes, solve problems, integrate new members and remain together in the future. For our sample, the Cronbach’s alpha is .75. The scale is composed of four items (e.g., “team mem- bers adapt themselves to changes in the workplace…”). The items are answered on a Likert-type scale in which the lowest value (1) corresponds to “almost not applicable” and the highest level (5) corresponds to “applies almost completely”. 4 Results 4.1 Statistical procedures The software used for statistical procedures was IBM SPSS Statistics 22. Firstly, missing values from the data collected were analysed. This procedure was only con- ducted for the team members’ responses since no miss- ing values regarding the scales answered by team leaders were detected. The highest percentage of missing values per case found in the team members’ database was 1.10%. Therefore, no cases were eliminated because, according to Bryman and Cramer (2004), only cases with more than 10% should be discarded. To analyse the distribution pattern of non-answers and verify the hypothesis of the missing values being random, Little’s MCAR test was used. In all the scales, the p-value is below the .05 significance level, so we rejected the hy- pothesis that the missing values are randomly distributed. Hereupon, to replace missing values, the expectation-max- imisation (EM) technique was used. Since the analysis is focused on the team level, but the data were collected at the individual level, the data from team members were aggregated to the teams by calculating the average scores obtained for each scale. The average deviation index (ADM), developed by Burke et al. (1999), was used to justify this procedure and ensure the average scores could be safely used. Table 1 shows that the mean for team autonomy (M = 0.53), supportive behaviours (M = 0.48) and quality of team experience (M = 0.40) are be- low the cut-off value of 0.83 (the cut-off value regarding scales with five points proposed by the authors). Thus, fol- lowing authors such as Gamero et al. (2008), we can con- clude that data aggregation from individual to team level is viable. Additionally, to justify data aggregation, the intra-class coefficient correlation ICC (1) and ICC (2) (Bliese, 2000) were calculated. The ICC (1) values for team autonomy, supportive behaviours, and quality of group experience were .26, .23 and .23, respectively. For ICC (2), the values were .65, .60 and .59, respectively. All the values are near the values considered acceptable (Bliese, 2000), which supports the data aggregation at the team level. 92 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 1, February 2024 Research Papers Table 1: Average deviation index (ADM) for team autonomy, supportive behaviours and quality of team experience Scales N Minimum Maximum Mean SD Cut-off Team Autonomy Supportive Behaviours Quality of Group Experience 90 90 90 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.36 1.35 1.33 0.53 0.48 0.40 0.23 0.26 0.27 0.83 0.83 0.83 4.2 Hypothesis testing Previously to the hypothesis test, the correlations be- tween the variables included in the model were analysed. The variable “team size” was also included as a control variable since the literature shows that team size can in- fluence teams’ functioning and outputs (Hülsheger et al., 2009). Team size was operationalised as the number of team members obtained from team leaders. The mediation model was tested using multiple re- gression analysis following the procedure proposed by the product of coefficients method of MacKinnon et al. (2002). According to this method, a mediation exists if (1) the predictor variable (X) is significantly associated with the mediator (M) (α being statistically significant); (2) the mediator is significantly associated with the criterion var- iable (Y), after controlling for X (β is statistically signif- icant); and (3) the mediating effect is statistically signifi- Table 2: Correlations, means and standard deviations of variables under study Table 3: Hierarchical regression analysis of team autonomy as a predictor of supportive behaviours Note: *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001 Constructs N M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Team Autonomy 2. Team Performance 3. Team Viability 90 90 90 3.48 4.05 4.05 4.06 3.88 3.94 6.46 0.56 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.63 0.59 5.00 - .42*** .33** .52*** .30** .61*** -.40** - .61*** .37*** .66*** .50*** -.06 - .35** .56*** .42*** -.08 - .39*** .85*** -.32** - .47*** -.13 - -.24* - 4. Quality of Group Experience 90 5. Team Process Improvement 6. Supportive Behaviours 7. Team Size 90 90 90 Note: *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001 Constructs B SEB β R 2 ΔR 2 Step 1 Team Size Step 2 Team Size Team Autonomy -.03 .00 .64 .01 .01 .10 -.24* .01 .61*** .06* .37*** .31*** 93 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 1, February 2024 Research Papers cant (product of αβ is significant). Table 2 presents the correlations between the variables of the study, including the control variable. We can see sig- nificant correlations between team autonomy, supportive behaviours and all the team effectiveness criteria variables. Team size (control variable) correlates significantly (and negatively) with team autonomy, quality of group experi- ence and supportive behaviours, which means that, in or- der to control its effect, team size will also be included in the regression analyses with supportive behaviours and the quality of group experience as a criterion. Table 4: Hierarchical regression analysis of supportive behaviours as a predictor of quality of group experience Constructs B SEB β R 2 ΔR 2 Step 1 Team Size Step 2 Team Size Supportive Behaviours Team Autonomy -.04 -.02 .80 -.04 .01 .01 .07 .07 -.32** -.13* .84*** -.04 .10** .73*** .63*** Table 5: Regression analysis of the mediating role of supportive behaviours Model B SEB β R 2 Dependent Variable: Team Performance Team Autonomy Supportive Behaviours Dependent Variable: Team Viability Team Autonomy Supportive Behaviours Dependent Variable: Team Process Improvement Team Autonomy Supportive Behaviours .19 .38 .13 .33 .04 .48 .12 .11 .12 .12 .13 .13 .18 .39** .13 .34** .04 .44*** .27*** .19*** .22*** Note: *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001 Note: *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001 94 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 1, February 2024 Research Papers To test our hypothesis, two regression models were used: one where supportive behaviours are regressed to team autonomy, and the second where team effectiveness criteria were regressed to supportive behaviours after con- trolling for team autonomy. In the first regression model, hierarchical regression analysis was used with a two-step process since team size correlates with supportive behav- iours. The control variable was included in the first step, and team autonomy was included in the second one. Table 3 shows a positive and significant relationship between team autonomy and supportive behaviours (α = .61, p < .001). For the second regression model, the four criteria of team effectiveness were regressed to supportive behav- iours after controlling for team autonomy. Since team size correlates with the quality of group experience, in order to test H1a, a hierarchical regression analysis was conducted. A significant and positive relationship was found between supportive behaviours and quality of group experience (β = .84, p < .001). Therefore, considering that team autonomy showed a significant positive relationship with supportive behaviours, and supportive behaviours showed a signifi- cant positive relationship with quality of group experience after controlling for team autonomy, H1a was empirically supported (Table 4). From this point, the control variable was dropped since it does not correlate with the other effectiveness criteria, namely team performance, team viability and team pro- cess improvement. To test H1b, H1c and H1d, standard regression analyses were conducted. Table 5 shows a sig- nificant relationship between supportive behaviours and team viability (β = .34, p =.006), team performance (β = .39, p = .001), and team process improvement (β = .44, p < .001) after controlling for team autonomy. Therefore, con- sidering that team autonomy showed a significant positive relationship with supportive behaviours, and supportive behaviours showed a significant positive relationship with each one of the team effectiveness criteria, the hypotheses H1b, H1c and H1d were supported. The estimated mediating effect for quality of group experience (αβ =.51), team performance (αβ = .24), team viability (αβ =.21) and team process improvement (αβ = .27) was statistically significant (P = Zα x Zβ = 78.67, p < .05; P = Zα x Zβ = 21.11, p < .05; P = Zα x Zβ = 18.01, p < .05; P = Zα x Zβ = 21.48, p < .05, respectively). Considering that the relationship of team autonomy with team effectiveness dimensions was not statistically significant when supportive behaviours entered into the equations (Table 5), we can state that supportive behav- iours fully mediate the relationship between team autono- my and team effectiveness (quality of group experience: τ = -.04, p = .603; team performance: τ = .18, p = .112; team viability: τ = .13, p = .302; team process improvement: τ = .06, p = .771). 5 Discussion This study examined the mediating role of supportive behaviours in the relationship between team autonomy and team effectiveness. To this end, we hypothesised that supportive behaviours would mediate the relationship be- tween team autonomy and four different team effective- ness criteria: team viability, team performance, quality of group experience and team process improvement. Considering our mediation model, firstly, the relation- ship between team autonomy and supportive behaviours was analysed. Evidence was found that team autonomy predicts supportive behaviours among team members. Al- though there is not much research regarding the relation- ship between these two variables, the literature points to a positive relationship between them (Choi & Cho, 2019; Langfred, 2000; Leach, 2005). Therefore, as expected, our results suggesting that team autonomy stimulates sup- portive behaviours add more evidence to this relationship. When team members are left to work independently, their perception of responsibility for the team results increases, making team members work more cohesively and collab- oratively to accomplish the goals for which the team is responsible. Our hypothesis (H1) was supported. Hüffmeier and Hertel (2011) claim that social support within the team might be the most crucial explanation as well as a precon- dition for the success of self-managed and autonomous teams. Manz and Sims (1987) also state that when giv- ing a team autonomy, a team climate that encourages the expression of feelings and ideas characterised by support- ive internal communications tends to emerge, promoting team effectiveness. Previous research has already shown some evidence that team autonomy is related to team ef- fectiveness and its different dimensions (e.g., Cohen & Baley, 1997; Cohen & Ledford, 1994; Langfred, 2005); however, this study goes further, showing that supportive behaviours are one of the team processes by which that relationship happens. Indeed, our findings reveal that sup- portive behaviours fully mediate the relationship between team autonomy and team effectiveness. This means that team autonomy has an indirect effect on team effective- ness. This effect occurs through supportive behaviours. In other words, team autonomy increases team supportive be- haviours among team members, which, in turn, increases quality of group experience (H1a), team viability (H1b), team performance (H1c) and team process improvement (H1d). This reveals the power that supportive behaviours have in the team’s functioning. Team autonomy triggers the need in the team members to engage in behaviours that help the team to cope with problems and obstacles, that is, supportive behaviours, leading to team effectiveness. This study takes a step forward in understanding team mechanisms that promote effectiveness in autonomous 95 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 1, February 2024 Research Papers teams and brings attention to a construct that has not been greatly explored in research – supportive behaviours be- tween team members – showing its strong relationship with team functioning. 6 Conclusions Research on team effectiveness has been the focus of the investigation of teams. Due to its complexity, the num- ber of variables and different interactions we can combine might always be present. Autonomous teams are a current trend popularised by technological organisations that tend to incorporate agile and flexible work methods into their teams (Annosi & Brunetta, 2018; Moe et al., 2021). The need to respond to unexpected hazards, find innovative solutions, and build resilience also makes organisations explore new team designs and management methods, such as autonomous teams (Poth et al., 2020). Considering this, studying the mechanisms that make autonomous teams a valuable solution for organisations is of great interest. Supportive behaviours were chosen as a mediator variable to uncover the potential of a variable that has not been fully explored in the literature. Although Tardy (1985) introduced this concept a few decades ago, it has yet to be very present in research; our results support its potential. These findings, presenting team autonomy as a relevant predictor of supportive behaviours, draw attention to the benefits of this construct and the importance of im- plementing autonomy in team design to make teams more effective. 7 Implications for research This study includes a construct that has not been great- ly explored in the literature – supportive behaviours from peers. The support given by the supervisors and its rela- tionship to team performance has been a focus of attention in research (e.g., Dimas et al., 2018; Manz & Sims, 1987), so shifting the focus from the leader’s role to the relation- ships between team members and how they influence team effectiveness is a major contribution for research. In the same way, regarding measuring team effectiveness, this re- search goes further since a focus on team performance was not the only effectiveness criterion. Instead, three other criteria were added (team viability, quality of group expe- rience and team process improvement) to explore different facets of effectiveness and have a more holistic and com- prehensive model. Additionally, the fact that the research results regarding the relationship between team autonomy and supportive behaviours are convergent with previous studies is also a contribution since it reinforces the litera- ture, adding more evidence about this relationship. 8 Implications for practice This study can help organisations, managers and team leaders to manage their teams better and optimise their full potential to respond to current organisational challenges. Providing more autonomy to the team by allowing team members to decide how to carry out their work or letting the team make work-related decisions autonomously are simple strategies that can be implemented. However, pro- viding autonomy is insufficient to guarantee effectiveness because several factors can interfere with the team’s func- tioning, such as team members’ personality traits or cul- tural differences (Gonzalez-Mulé et al., 2019; Stel, 2017). Considering that supportive behaviours make autonomous teams more effective, investing in team-building activities and fostering healthy and cohesive relationships among team members might be valuable strategies to potentiate good team functioning. 9 Limitations and directions for future research Despite the insights this research offers, it also has some limitations. Given the cross-sectional nature of this study, the possibility of inferring empirical causality is compromised. Future research should adopt a longitudinal design to explore the causality between the variables more accurately. Another limitation of this study is the conven- ience sampling, which limits the generalisation of results. The sample was composed only of Portuguese teams, and since the results might be different if subjects from other cultures were included, further research should focus on this issue. Thus, including other variables such as person- ality traits or cultural differences as moderators/mediators in the model analysed could also bring valuable insights for further research on this topic. The questionnaires based on the individuals’ perceptions may lead to social desirability bias since individuals may distort their answers to give a more favourable opinion about the group to which they be- long. However, evaluating the responses at the group level mitigates the social desirability bias since several people assessed the same phenomenon (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Two sources of evaluation were used (team members and supervisors), which may attenuate the negative impacts of this limitation and also contribute to minimising the problem of common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Different procedures were also implemented to reduce common method bias: the anonymity of respondents was ensured to reduce apprehension over the evaluation; previ- ously validated scales were used, constituted by concise, simple, and specific items (i.e., items are not ambiguous and have no overlap for the different constructs) and the scales were separated with specific instructions provided for each scale (Podsakoff et al., 2012). 96 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 1, February 2024 Research Papers Our study only focused on team autonomy and did not consider the level of freedom and independence of the individuals in the team to conduct their tasks. Future research should analyse the role of individual autonomy among the team members. Indeed, in autonomous teams with high levels of individual autonomy, the emergence of supportive behaviours might be different from the findings stated here. The variety of skills among the team members also plays a role in the team functioning (Moe et al., 2021). Analysing how this diversity of skills interferes with team autonomy and supportive behaviours would also be of great interest to better understand how to select individ- uals for effective teams. Replicating this study with virtu- al teams might also be a valuable contribution to a better understanding how team dynamics change in a remote work setting and how we can better manage these teams. Although the results of this study cannot be generalised for virtual working settings, some researchers have point- ed out that team autonomy can also benefit virtual teams. Robert and You (2018) found that autonomy can facilitate satisfaction and boost performance in virtual teams. Choi and Cho (2019) state that team autonomy in virtual teams will promote trust and collaboration among team mem- bers, leading to improved performance. Considering the current organisational challenges, mainly dominated by re- mote working practices, incorporating autonomy in teams might also help them cope with the challenges of the vir- tual working setting. Literature Aubé, C., & Rousseau, V . (2005). Team Goal Commitment and Team Effectiveness: The Role of Task Interdependence and Supportive Behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(3), 189– 204. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.9.3.189 Aubé, C., Rousseau, V ., & Tremblay, S. (2011). Team size and quality of group experience: The more the merrier? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15(4), 357–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025400 Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-inde- pendence, and reliability: Implications for data aggre- gation and analysis. In Klein, K. J. and Kozlowski, S. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in or- ganizations (pp 349–381), Pfeiffer. Bryman, A., Cramer, D., De Barros, A. F., Lopes, D., & De Lima, L. P. (2004). Análise de dados em ciências sociais: introdução às técnicas utilizando o SPSS para Windows (3rd ed.). Celta Editora. Burke, M. G., Finkelstein, L. M., & Dusig, M. S. (1999). On Average Deviation Indices for Estimating Interrater Agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 2(1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819921004 Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and ef- fectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46(4), 823–847. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb01571.x Chen, J., Neubaum, D. O., Reilly, R. B., & Lynn, G. S. (2015). The relationship between team autonomy and new product development performance under different levels of technological turbulence ⋆. Journal of Op- erations Management, 33–34(1), 83–96. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.10.001 Cohen, S. M., & Ledford, G. E. (1994). The Effective- ness of Self-Managing Teams: A Quasi-Experi- ment. Human Relations, 47(1), 13–43. https://doi. org/10.1177/001872679404700102 Cohen, S. M., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite. Jour- nal of Management, 23(3), 239–290. https://doi. org/10.1177/014920639702300303 Devine, D. J., & Philips, J. A. (2001). Do Smarter Teams Do Better. Small Group Research, 32(5), 507–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640103200501 Gamero, N., González-Romá, V ., & Peiró, J. M. (2008). The influence of intra-team conflict on work teams’ affective climate: A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317907x180441 Haas, M. R. (2010). The Double-Edged Swords of Auton- omy and External Knowledge: Analyzing Team Effec- tiveness in a Multinational Organization. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 989–1008. https://doi. org/10.5465/amj.2010.54533180 Hoegl, M., & Parboteeah, P. (2006). Autonomy and team- work in innovative projects. Human Resource Manage- ment, 45(1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20092 Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2011). Many cheers make light the work: how social support triggers process gains in teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(3), 185– 204. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941111112631 Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A com- prehensive 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. K., & Jundt, D. K. (2005). Teams in Organizations: From In- put-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 517–543. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250 Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (1997). Knowl- edge worker team effectiveness: the role of autonomy, interdependence, team development, and contextu- al support variables. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 877–904. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997. tb01486.x. 97 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 1, February 2024 Research Papers Jassawalla, A.R. & Sashittal, H.C. (2006). Collaboration in Cross-Functional Product Innovation Teams, in Beyer- lein, M.M., Beyerlein, S.T. and Kennedy, F.A. (Ed.), Innovation through Collaboration: Advances in Inter- disciplinary Studies of Work Teams Vol. 12 (pp. 1–25), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley. Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: the moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159571 Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams. Psychologi- cal Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x Langfred, C. W. (2000). The paradox of self-manage- ment: individual and group autonomy in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(5), 563–585. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1379(200008)21:5 Langfred, C. W. (2005). Autonomy and Performance in Teams: The Multilevel Moderating Effect of Task In- terdependence. Journal of Management, 31(4), 513– 529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304272190 Leach, D., Wall, T. D., Rogelberg, S. G., & Jackson, P. (2005). Team Autonomy, Performance, and Member Job Strain: Uncovering the Teamwork KSA Link. Ap- plied Psychology, 54(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1464-0597.2005.00193.x MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V . (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable ef- fects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83–104. https:// doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83 Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading Workers to Lead Themselves: The External Leadership of Self-Manag- ing Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(1), 106. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392745 McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Perfor- mance (Vol. 14). Prentice Hall. Moe, N. B., Šmite, D., Paasivaara, M., & Lassenius, C. (2021). Finding the sweet spot for organisational con- trol and team autonomy in large-scale agile software development. Empirical Software Engineering, 26(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-021-09967-3 Paolucci, N., Dimas, I. D., Zappala, S., Lourenço, P. B., & Rebelo, T. (2018). Transformational Leadership and Team Effectiveness: The Mediating Role of Affective Team Commitment. Revista De Psicología Del Traba- jo Y De Las Organizaciones, 34(3), 135–144. https:// doi.org/10.5093/jwop2018a16 Pearce, J. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1987). The Design and Activation of Self-Regulating Work Groups. Human Relations, 40(11), 751–782. https://doi. org/10.1177/001872678704001104 Pessoa, C. C., Dimas, I. D., Lourenço, P. B., & Rebelo, T. (2018). Liderança transformacional e a eficácia grupal: o papel mediador dos comportamentos de suporte. Estudos De Psicologia, 35(1), 15–28. https://doi. org/10.1590/1982-02752018000100003 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https:// doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 Robert, L. P., & You, S. (2018). Are you satisfied yet? Shared leadership, individual trust, autonomy, and satisfaction in virtual teams. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(4), 503– 513. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23983 Rico, R., De La Hera, C. M. A., & Tabernero, C. (2011). Work team effectiveness, a review of research from the last decade (1999-2009). Psychology in Spain, 15, 57–79. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/ articulo?codigo=4027052 Rousseau, V ., & Aubé, C. (2010). Team Self-Managing Behaviors and Team Effectiveness: The Moderating Effect of Task Routineness. Group & Organization Management, 35(6), 751–781. https://doi. org/10.1177/1059601110390835 Tardy, C. H. (1985). Social support measurement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13(2), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00905728 Wang, Y . (2018). An Overview of the Team Interaction Process. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 06(12), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2018.612001 Van Beveren, P., Dimas, I. D., Lourenço, P. B., & Rebelo, T. (2017). Psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the Global Transformational Leadership (GTL) scale. Revista De Psicología Del Trabajo Y De Las Organizaciones, 33(2), 109–114. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.rpto.2017.02.004 Van Zijl, A., Vermeeren, B., Koster, F., & Steijn, B. (2019). Towards sustainable local welfare systems: The effects of functional heterogeneity and team autonomy on team processes in Dutch neighbourhood teams. Health & Social Care in the Community, 27(1), 82–92. https:// doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12604 Joana Alexandrino is a Work, Organizational and Human Resources Psychologist who took her master’s degree in this field at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences from the University of Coimbra. After 3 years working in the human resources development area for multinational companies, she is now taking her first steps in scientific research on Psychology and looking forward to pursuing an academic career. Joana is currently working as an organizational psychologist at an IT company, conducting an organizational intervention program to increase employee engagement and reduce 98 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 1, February 2024 Research Papers turnover. Her current research interests include talent management, performance management, leadership development, employee engagement and coaching. Paulo Renato Lourenço (PhD, Organizational Psychology, University of Coimbra) is an Associate Professor of work, organizational and personnel psychology at University of Coimbra (Portugal), and researcher at CeBER (Centre for Business and Economics Research). His work has been published in book chapters and scientific journals, such as Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, Small Group Research, and Journal of Business Ethics. His research interests include work teams functioning and effectiveness, emotions, conflict and leadership. Teresa Rebelo (PhD, Organizational Psychology, University of Coimbra) is a professor of work, organizational, and personnel psychology at Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of University of Coimbra. She is a researcher member of CeBER (Centre for Business and Economics Research), and she authored and co-authored various book chapters and scientific papers in international journals (such as, Current Psychology, Small Group Research, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, The Learning Organization, Psychological Reports). Her research interests are focused on organizational culture, organizational and team learning, team dynamics, as well as on predictive validity of selection methods. Isabel D. Dimas (Ph.D., Organizational Psychology, University of Coimbra) is a Professor of Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Management at Faculty of Economics of University of Coimbra. She is a research member at the Centre for Business and Economics Research, and her research is focused on team functioning and effectiveness, leadership of people and teams, conflicts and negotiation, and emotions in organizations. Her work has been published in international journals such as Human Performance, Small Group Research, Computers and Human Behavior, Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, and Negotiation and Conflict Management Research.