Backing up behaviors in teams: the role of personality and legitimacy of need.

In this article, the authors developed several hypotheses regarding both the main and interactive effects of 2 types of team inputs on backing up behaviors in teams: (a) team composition characteristics in terms of the personality of the members of the team and (b) team task characteristics in terms of the extent to which the nature of the task is one that legitimately calls for some members of the team to back up other members of the team. Results from a study of 71 4-person teams performing a computerized tactical decision-making task suggest that the legitimacy of the need for back up has an important main effect on the extent to which team members provide assistance to and receive assistance from each other. In addition, the legitimacy of the need for back up also has important interactive effects with both the personality of the back up recipient and the personality of the back up providers on backing up behaviors in teams.

[1]  A. Zander,et al.  Position in group, acheivement motivation, and group aspirations. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[2]  I. Steiner.  Group process and productivity , 1972 .

[3]  K. Williams,et al.  Identifiability as a deterrant to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. , 1981 .

[4]  Daniel R. Ilgen,et al.  Laboratory Research: A Question of When, Not If. , 1985 .

[5]  Arthur S Blaiwes,et al.  Measurement of Team Behaviors in a Navy Environment , 1986 .

[6]  J. M. Digman,et al.  Further specification of the five robust factors of personality. , 1986 .

[7]  J. Hackman,et al.  The design of work teams , 1987 .

[8]  J. M. Digman.  Five robust trait dimensions: development, stability, and utility. , 1989, Journal of personality.

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

[10]  Newell K. Eaton,et al.  Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response distortion on those validities , 1990 .

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

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

[13]  P. Costa,et al.  Normal Personality Assessment in Clinical Practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. , 1992 .

[14]  F. Schmidt,et al.  Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. , 1993 .

[15]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations , 1995 .

[16]  Larry J. Williams,et al.  Interpersonal, job, and individual factors related to helping processes at work. , 1996 .

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

[18]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Team Performance Assessment and Measurement: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Series in Applied Psychology. , 1997 .

[19]  J. Salgado.  The Five Factor Model of personality and job performance in the European Community. , 1997, The Journal of applied psychology.

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

[21]  R. Mcintyre,et al.  A Conceptual Framework for Teamwork Measurement , 1997 .

[22]  Lee,et al.  When the Going Gets Tough, Do the Tough Ask for Help? Help Seeking and Power Motivation in Organizations. , 1997, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[23]  Carolyn Prince,et al.  An Overview of Team Performance Measurement , 1997 .

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

[25]  Daniel R. Ilgen,et al.  TEAMS EMBEDDED IN ORGANIZATIONS : SOME IMPLICATIONS , 1999 .

[26]  S. Kozlowski,et al.  Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions , 2000 .

[27]  Gregory M. Hurtz,et al.  Personality and job performance: the Big Five revisited. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[28]  S. Kozlowski,et al.  Multilevel Theory, Research, a n d M e t h o d s i n Organizations Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions , 2022 .

[29]  R. Golembiewski.  Handbook of Organizational Behavior , 2001 .

[30]  John E. Mathieu,et al.  A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes , 2001 .

[31]  E.,et al.  GROUPS : INTERACTION AND PERFORMANCE , 2001 .

[32]  Daniel R. Ilgen,et al.  Structural contingency theory and individual differences: examination of external and internal person-team fit. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[33]  John A. Wagner,et al.  Structural contingency theory and individual differences: examination of external and internal person-team fit. , 2002 .