Suchergebnisse

Schiphol Amsterdam, the main airport of the Netherlands, is a dynamic node, where the space of places and space of flows meet. The days that Schiphol was just an airport are long gone. This makes it a complex entity. The different governments concerned with the future development of Schiphol appear to be indecisive and lack adequate knowledge needed to understand the dynamics of the airport, as a result of which the planning process is insufficient. It seems that reality and the administrative situation do not fit anymore. Spatial supply and demand differ enormously. Schiphol and the national government both conceptualize the airport by calling it a mainport, but both define the same concept differently. The mainport concept was formed in the mid-eighties, when the Dutch economy was in a period of recession. Two economic motors were appointed: the Rotterdam Harbour and Schiphol Airport. Now after almost twenty years Schiphol evolved enormously while the mainport concept used by the government hardly changed. How is this possible? In this paper I will describe the forming of the mainport concept and the evolution of Schiphol. After assessment of this evolution and the concept, which is done by a combination of in depth interviews, a comprehensive literature study and the analysis of the operative policy documents, I conclude with a problem inventory. I argue that this inventory can help us understand why the mainport concept and Schiphol differ today and why reality and the administrative situation do not fit anymore. In this way, the problem inventory will provide a good basic framework in order to find a solution and make sure that in the recent future reality and the administrative situation will be one again.

This study examined the development and dynamics of trust in project teams and explored the relation with cooperation, monitoring and team performance. Two types of teams were distinguished at the start of the projects: low prior social-capital teams (teams composed of members that have no previous history in working together and are not acquainted or friends with one another); high prior social-capital teams (teams composed of members that have worked together previously, are acquainted or friends with each other). A longitudinal approach provided an opportunity to study trust dynamics in the course of the projects. Data from 79 project-research teams (315 master's students) was collected longitudinally, with measurement moments at the beginning, middle and end of the project. Independent team performance ratings were obtained for each team. Significant differences were found in relation to trust-building between high and low prior social-capital teams. High prior social-capital teams reported systematically higher levels of trust than low prior social-capital teams throughout the project. These differences had implications for the level of monitoring, cooperation and team performance.

Integrating theorizing on situational strength and complementarity with control theory, we investigate the mediating processes that transmit peer control combination effects to team performance. We argue that two critical peer control mechanisms—norm strength and peer pressure—complement each other such that their joint impact on team members becomes stronger than the sum of their parts. In a multiple mediator model, we identify effort and trust as two distinct mediating processes that explain the relationship between peer control combinations and team performance. Multisource, multiwave data from 41 self-managing healthcare teams largely support our model. The pattern of mediation was more complex than we anticipated, revealing an indirect effect of peer controls on effort via trust. Together, our findings offer insight into how controls complement each other and the processes through which they do so.