Team Performance

The purpose of this research was to examine the relationship between measures of conscientiousness at differing levels of analysis and team performance in the context of task type. It was hypothesized that a team referent measure of conscientiousness would have more predictive power than an aggregate of individual-level measures and that task type would moderate the relationship between team conscientiousness and overall team performance. Participants were 30 cockpit crews, made up of three pilots each. Both an individual-level and team referent measure of conscientiousness were administered to the pilots, and crew performance appraisal data were collected that separated performance into overall, additive, disjunctive, and conjunctive task types. Results indicated that the team referent measure of conscientiousness predicted overall team performance greater than did the individual-level measure. The results also partially supported the moderating effect of task type.

[1]  D. Jackson,et al.  PERSONALITY MEASURES AS PREDICTORS OF JOB PERFORMANCE: A META‐ANALYTIC REVIEW , 2006 .

[2]  Timothy T. Baldwin,et al.  TEAM‐BASED EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT PROGRAMS: EFFECTS OF DESIGN AND ADMINISTRATION , 2006 .

[3]  C. Burke,et al.  The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[4]  Dennis J. Devine,et al.  Do Smarter Teams Do Better , 2001 .

[5]  Benson Rosen,et al.  ASSESSING THE INCREMENTAL VALIDITY OF TEAM CONSENSUS RATINGS OVER AGGREGATION OF INDIVIDUAL‐LEVEL DATA IN PREDICTING TEAM EFFECTIVENESS , 2001 .

[6]  Amy Buhl Conn,et al.  Is everyone in agreement? An exploration of within-group agreement in employee perceptions of the work environment. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[7]  A. Ryan,et al.  Effects of Item Context Specificity on the Measurement Equivalence of a Personality Inventory , 2000 .

[8]  J. Mathieu,et al.  The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[9]  G. Neuman,et al.  Team effectiveness: beyond skills and cognitive ability. , 1999, The Journal of applied psychology.

[10]  Stephen H. Wagner,et al.  The Relationship between Work-Team Personality Composition and the Job Performance of Teams , 1999 .

[11]  Marie Waung,et al.  The Effects of Conscientiousness and Opportunity to Caucus on Group Performance , 1998 .

[12]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. , 1998 .

[13]  Daniel R. Ilgen,et al.  Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierarchical decision-making teams : Much more than g , 1997 .

[14]  G. Stewart,et al.  Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: the role of personality. , 1997, The Journal of applied psychology.

[15]  Anit Somech,et al.  Is Group Productivity Loss the Rule or The Exception? Effects of Culture and Group-Based Motivation , 1996 .

[16]  M. Schmit,et al.  Frame-of-reference effects on personality scale scores and criterion-related validity. , 1995 .

[17]  E. F. Stone-Romero,et al.  Relative power of moderated multiple regression and the comparison of subgroup correlation coefficients for detecting moderating effects. , 1994 .

[18]  Gina J. Medsker,et al.  RELATIONS BETWEEN WORK GROUP CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTIVENESS: IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGNING EFFECTIVE WORK GROUPS , 1993 .

[19]  C. Judd,et al.  Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. , 1993, Psychological bulletin.

[20]  Cheri Ostroff,et al.  Comparing Correlations Based on Individual-Level and Aggregated Data , 1993 .

[21]  Sam T. Johnson.  Work Teams , 1993 .

[22]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META-ANALYSIS , 1991 .

[23]  E. Sundstrom,et al.  Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. , 1990 .

[24]  Nambury S. Raju,et al.  ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS: A META‐ANALYSIS OF THEIR EFFECTS ON SATISFACTION AND OTHER ATTITUDES , 1989 .

[25]  N. Kerr.  Motivation losses in small groups: a social dilemma analysis , 1983 .

[26]  N. Kerr,et al.  Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects , 1983 .

[27]  L. James.  Aggregation Bias in Estimates of Perceptual Agreement. , 1982 .

[28]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[29]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. , 1977 .

[30]  Frank W. Schneider,et al.  Effect of Individual Achievement Motivation on Group Problem-Solving Efficiency , 1972 .

[31]  L. E. Jones,et al.  A set of dimensions for describing the general properties of group-generated written passages. , 1967, Psychological bulletin.

[32]  M Martinussen,et al.  Pilot selection in the Norwegian Air Force: a validation and meta-analysis of the test battery. , 1997, The International journal of aviation psychology.

[33]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  The measurement of team process behavior in the cockpit: Lessons learned , 1997 .

[34]  John E. Mathieu,et al.  Task and aggregation issues in the analysis and assessment of team performance. , 1997 .

[35]  M Martinussen,et al.  Psychological measures as predictors of pilot performance: a meta-analysis. , 1996, The International journal of aviation psychology.

[36]  R. Alexander,et al.  Effect of Error Variance Heterogeneity on the Power of Tests for Regression Slope Differences , 1994 .

[37]  Susan E. Jackson,et al.  Team composition in organizational settings: Issues in managing an increasingly diverse work force. , 1991 .

[38]  P. Costa,et al.  Facet Scales for Agreeableness and Conscientiousness: A Revision of the NEO Personality Inventory☆ , 1991 .

[39]  Melissa M Monfries,et al.  Interpersonal Skills in Aviation: Applications and Development , 1990 .

[40]  J. M. Digman.  PERSONALITY STRUCTURE: EMERGENCE OF THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL , 1990 .

[41]  J. H. Davis,et al.  The Social Psychology of Small Groups: Cooperative and Mixed-Motive Interaction , 1976 .