ArticlePDF Available

What Makes a Good Team Player? Personality and Team Effectiveness

December 2006
Group Dynamics Theory Research and Practice 10:249 - 271

DOI:10.1037/1089-2699.10.4.249

Authors:

James E Driskell

Florida Maxima Corporation

Gerald F Goodwin

United States Army

Eduardo Salas

University of Central Florida

Good team players are often defined in trait terms; that is, they are described as dependable, flexible, or cooperative. Our goal is to examine the relationship between team member personality traits and team effectiveness. However, to understand the effects of personality on team performance requires greater specificity in how personality is described and in how team effectiveness is described. A hierarchical model of team member personality is presented that defines higher-level personality traits and specific facets relevant to team performance. Next, a classification of the core teamwork dimensions underlying effective team performance is presented. Finally, predictions are derived linking team member personality facets to specific teamwork requirements.

Hierarchical Model of Facets Related to Teamwork

…

Teamwork Dimensions (Adapted from Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995) Dimension Definition Subskills

…

Figures - uploaded by James E Driskell

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by James E Driskell

Content may be subject to copyright.

What Makes a Good Team Player? Personality

and Team Effectiveness

James E. Driskell

Florida Maxima Corporation

Gerald F. Goodwin

US Army Research Institute

Eduardo Salas

University of Central Florida

Patrick Gavan O’Shea

Human Resources Research Organization

Good team players are often deﬁned in trait terms; that is, they are described as

dependable, ﬂexible, or cooperative. Our goal is to examine the relationship

between team member personality traits and team effectiveness. However, to

understand the effects of personality on team performance requires greater speci-

ﬁcity in how personality is described and in how team effectiveness is described.

A hierarchical model of team member personality is presented that deﬁnes higher-

level personality traits and speciﬁc facets relevant to team performance. Next, a

classiﬁcation of the core teamwork dimensions underlying effective team perfor-

mance is presented. Finally, predictions are derived linking team member person-

ality facets to speciﬁc teamwork requirements.

Keywords: personality, teams, team work

As Ilgen (1999) and others have noted, mod-

ern organizations have increased their reliance

on teams, and this has served to foster applied

research on teams in task settings. After decades

in which reviewers were forced to act as apol-

ogists for the lack of vitality and progress in this

ﬁeld, research on teams has returned with a

vengeance. One reason for this renaissance in

team research is that effort follows demand, and

only recently has attention been devoted to the

dynamics of team performance in applied set-

tings. Whereas most early research on group

performance took place in academic settings,

much of the resent resurgence in team research

has been driven by organizational requirements.

This realization of the value of teams for ac-

complishing tasks has shifted the emphasis of

research from a primary focus on team pro-

cesses to a broader focus on team inputs, team

outcomes, and the factors that mediate the ef-

fects of inputs on outcomes (Ilgen, Hollenbeck,

Johnson, & Jundt, 2005).

One area that is of considerable theoretical

and practical interest is the topic of team mem-

ber personality and team effectiveness: What

are the traits that deﬁne a good team player?

One of the earliest investigations of the relation-

ship between personality and team performance

was undertaken by Mann (1959), who con-

cluded his review of this literature with the

expectation that this work could serve as a take-

off point for further research. However, despite

some attempts along the way (e.g., Driskell,

Hogan, & Salas, 1987), the next steps to exam-

ine personality and team performance were

taken almost 40 years later by Barrick, Stewart,

Neubert, and Mount (1998); Barry and Stewart

(1997); Hollenbeck et al. (2002); Judge and

Bono (2000); LePine, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, and

Hedlund, 1997; Neuman and Wright (1999);

and others. Broadly speaking, these studies at-

tempt to deﬁne the relationship between “Big

Five” personality traits (emotional stability, ex-

traversion, openness to experience, agreeable-

ness, and conscientiousness) and team perfor-

mance.

James E. Driskell, Florida Maxima Corporation; Gerald

F. Goodwin, US Army Research Institute; Eduardo Salas,

Department of Psychology and Institute for Simulation and

Training, University of Central Florida; and Patrick Gavan

O’Shea, Human Resources Research Organization.

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-

dressed to James E. Driskell, Florida Maxima Corporation,

507 N. New York Avenue, R-1, Winter Park, FL 32789.

E-mail: jdriskell@rollins.edu

2006, Vol. 10, No. 4, 249–271 1089-2699/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1089-2699.10.4.249

249

Although these results have demonstrated the

relevance of team member personality to team

effectiveness, there are two ways in which we

wish to extend this research. First, there are

speciﬁc, lower-level facets within the higher-

level Big Five traits that may have differing and

even contradictory effects on team perfor-

mance. For example, it is unclear whether the

effect of extraversion on team performance ob-

served by Barrick et al. (1998) stems from the

effect of the assertiveness/dominance compo-

nent of extraversion (i.e., extraverts are asser-

tive) or from the sociability/afﬁliation compo-

nent of extraversion (i.e., extraverts are socia-

ble). Thus, one goal of the current research is to

deﬁne speciﬁc personality facets within the

higher-level Big Five traits that are relevant to

team effectiveness.

Second, we acknowledge that team perfor-

mance is multidimensional and that different

personality facets may be predictive of different

performance dimensions. This position is con-

sistent with a person-team ﬁt perspective (Hol-

lenbeck et al., 2002) that the relationship be-

tween individual differences in personality and

outcomes is contingent on the nature of the task.

Therefore, we argue that to examine the impact

of personality on team effectiveness requires

that not only do we provide more speciﬁcity in

terms of what we mean by personality, but also

provide more speciﬁcity in terms of what we

mean by team effectiveness. More speciﬁcally,

we claim that the effects of team member per-

sonality on team effectiveness should be exam-

ined in terms of what teams do. Researchers

have identiﬁed core teamwork dimensions or

team functions that must be accomplished

within teams. These teamwork dimensions in-

clude activities such as team management (i.e.,

directing and coordinating task activities), inter-

personal relations (i.e., resolving conﬂicts and

maintaining socioemotional relations), and

adaptability (i.e., compensatory or backup be-

havior). Thus, it is quite likely that speciﬁc

facets of team member personality may have

differential effects on these activities that un-

derlie effective team performance. For example,

a team member that is highly sociable may be

quite adept at maintaining good interpersonal

relations in teams, but not necessarily adept at

task management and planning. Therefore, our

goal is to deﬁne the speciﬁc personality facets

that are relevant to team effectiveness and link

these to the core teamwork dimensions that

deﬁne effective team performance.

In the following, we ﬁrst attempt to elaborate

the concept of a good team player by deriving a

hierarchical model of team member personality

that deﬁnes speciﬁc personality traits and facets

that we believe are most relevant to team per-

formance. We then present a classiﬁcation of

the core teamwork dimensions underlying ef-

fective team performance. Finally, we derive

predictions linking team member personality

facets to these teamwork requirements.

What Deﬁnes a Good Team Player?

We follow Ilgen (1999) in focusing on work

teams—teams embedded in organizations that

exist to accomplish tasks. In a typical work

team, what Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh, Salas,

and Cannon-Bowers (1996) call “action teams,”

and what Hollenbeck et al. (1995) term “distrib-

uted expertise teams,” each team member pos-

sesses speciﬁc information or expertise to con-

tribute to the team task. Although work teams

are often hierarchically structured, our focus is

on the interdependent team member. Thus, our

initial goal is to describe the traits or facets that

deﬁne the prototypical team player.

Although there is some divergence on how

personality traits should be labeled and orga-

nized, personality theorists are in general agree-

ment on the nature of the structure of personal-

ity. Most theorists propose a hierarchical model

of personality, with broad higher-order factors

or traits that subsume and organize more spe-

ciﬁc lower-level facets (cf. Saucier & Osten-

dorf, 1999). For example, the Big Five factor

model represents a broad set of traits that are

themselves a collection of many facets that have

something in common. Whereas the broad

higher-level constructs offer an efﬁcient and

parsimonious way of describing personality, the

more speciﬁc facets can offer higher ﬁdelity of

trait descriptions and greater predictive validity

(Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999; Stewart, 1999).

Figure 1 presents a hierarchical model of

team member personality, deﬁned by the Big

Five trait dimensions of emotional stability, ex-

traversion, openness, agreeableness, and consci-

entiousness. These traits are composed of the

more speciﬁc facets that we believe are relevant

to team effectiveness. In the following sections,

we describe each facet and its relationship to

250 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEA

team performance. In some cases, these facets

are linked to team performance through existing

empirical research, and in other cases, we at-

tempt to develop that connection based on a

rational extrapolation from related literature.

This process is complicated somewhat by the

fact that little research has been done on per-

sonality and team performance at the facet

level. Where appropriate, we note facets that are

similar to the facets we have deﬁned, drawn

from existing personality inventories such as

the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992), Hogan

Personality Inventory (HPI; Hogan, 1986), the

Personal Characteristics Inventory (PCI;

Mount, Barrick, Lafﬁtte, & Callans, 1999), the

16PF (Conn & Rieke, 1994), and the California

Personality Inventory (CPI; Gough & Bradley,

1996). Because there is no direct correspon-

dence between measures from different scales,

these comparisons are meant solely to be illus-

trative.

Emotional Stability

The trait of emotional stability refers to a lack

of anxiety and nervous tendencies. Those who

are emotionally stable tend to be well-adjusted,

calm, secure, and self-conﬁdent. Viewed from

the negative pole of neuroticism, those who

score low on this trait tend to be moody, anx-

ious, paranoid, nervous, insecure, depressed,

and high-strung (Barrick & Mount, 2001). In

past studies of military teams, Haythorn (1953)

and Greer (1955) reported that emotional sta-

bility was positively related to team effective-

ness. Several researchers have claimed that

emotional stability is a signiﬁcant factor in

teamwork or any task that requires coordinated

behavior (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001;

Driskell et al., 1987; Mount, Barrack, & Stew-

art, 1998). The facets of emotional stability that

we believe are most relevant to team interaction

are adjustment and self-esteem.

Adjustment. Adjustment has been deﬁned

by Hogan (1986) as freedom from anxiety, de-

pression, and somatic complaints. Watson,

Clark, and Tellegen (1988) have viewed lack of

adjustment as negative affect, a general dimen-

sion of subjective distress and unpleasurable

engagement. Gunthert, Cohen, and Armeli

(1999) described neurotic individuals as

“caught in a web of negative behaviors, cogni-

tions, and moods. . .They seem to experience

(perhaps generate) more interpersonal stressors,

their perceptions of daily events are more neg-

ative, and their coping choices are maladaptive”

(p. 1099).

Given that those low on adjustment are prone

to be distressed, upset, hostile, irritable, and

nervous, they are not likely to excel in interper-

Teamwor

Emotional Stability Extraversion Conscientiousness

enness Agreeableness

ustmen

Self-Esteem

Flexibilit

Achievement

Dominance

Affiliation

Trus

Coo

eration

endabilit

Dutifulness

Social

Perce

tiveness

ressivit

Figure 1. Hierarchical Model of Facets Related to Teamwork

251PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

sonal or team settings. In circumstances in

which the organizational structure is out of

alignment with environmental requirements,

Hollenbeck et al. (2002) found that the emo-

tional stability of team members was a critical

predictor of performance. Moreover, noting that

people’s moods are often affected by those

around them, Totterdell, Kellett, Teuchmann,

and Briner (1998) found that team members

reciprocated the mood of other teammates.

Thus, not only are poorly adjusted team mem-

bers displeasing to be around, their negative

affect can spread to other team members.

In contrast to the more speciﬁc facets that we

deﬁne in the following sections, we view ad-

justment as similar to the higher-level emo-

tional stability or neuroticism traits as deﬁned in

various Big Five inventories. Cognate scales

related to adjustment include the HPI factor of

Adjustment, the PCI factor of Even Tempera-

ment, and the NEO-PI-R factor of Neuroticism.

Self-esteem. Self-esteem is generally de-

ﬁned as a global assessment of self-worth or of

one’s value as a person (Crocker & Wolfe,

2001). Those with high self-esteem view them-

selves in a positive light as good, worthy and

successful, whereas those with low self-esteem

view themselves in a more negative light as bad,

unworthy, and unlikely to succeed. Judge,

Locke, Durham, and Kluger (1998) deﬁned

self-esteem as composed of two core compo-

nents: self-worth and self-efﬁcacy. They further

noted that the appraisal of whether one is good

and competent versus no good and incompetent

has signiﬁcant implications for how that person

will approach and carry our job responsibilities.

Baumeister (1997) has noted that those high in

self-esteem not only have a favorable opinion of

themselves, but see themselves as competent

and will work hard to succeed; whereas those

low in self-esteem doubt that they will succeed

and focus on avoiding failure.

Team members with high self-esteem are

likely to be conﬁdent, self-assured, and positive

toward others, whereas team members with low

self-esteem are likely to be insecure, critical,

and blame others for their mistakes. Vancouver

and Ilgen (1989) found that individuals who

were conﬁdent in their abilities were more

likely to prefer working in a team versus work-

ing alone. Moreover, Murray, Hilmes, Mac-

Donald, and Ellsworth (1998) argued that those

low in self-esteem are insecure and tend to

project their self-doubts onto others. Cognate

scales related to the self-esteem facet include

the HPI facets of Self-Conﬁdence and Identity,

the PCI facet of Self-Conﬁdence, and the NEO-

PI-R facet of Competence.

Extraversion

The trait of extraversion has been viewed as

a combination of assertiveness/dominance and

sociability/afﬁliation (Judge & Bono, 2000; Lu-

cas, Diener, Suh, Shao, & Grob, 2000). Some

theorists view dominance as the primary marker

of extraversion and some view sociability as the

primary component of extraversion (Hough,

1992; Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999). We believe

this distinction is especially relevant in consid-

ering performance in a team context, and we

distinguish between the extraversion subcom-

ponents of dominance (assertiveness, surgency)

and afﬁliation (social interest). The speciﬁc fac-

ets of extraversion that we believe are most

relevant to team interaction are dominance, af-

ﬁliation, social perceptiveness, and expressiv-

ity.

Dominance. Dominance reﬂects striving

for superiority, control, and inﬂuence over oth-

ers. This speciﬁc facet has also been referred to

as ascendance, assertiveness, or surgency

(Watson & Clark, 1997; Costa & McCrae,

1992). Norton (1983) reported three compo-

nents of dominance: (a) forcefulness (e.g., com-

ing on strong, taking charge), (b) monopolizing

(e.g., talking often and not letting others talk,

and (c) involvement (e.g., taking precedence in

interaction and not waiting for others). Domi-

nance is related to authoritarianism, although

most view authoritarianism as a multifaceted

construct that includes not only dominance but

also conservatism, conventionalism, punitive-

ness, and other subtraits. Dominance is also

related to social dominance (see Pratto, Sida-

nius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), although so-

cial dominance is an intergroup variable reﬂect-

ing an individual’s preference for inequality

among social groups. However, to the extent

that those high on social dominance prefer in-

tergroup relations to be unequal, hierarchical,

and ordered along a superior-inferior dimen-

sion, those high on dominance prefer intragroup

relations to be similarly unequal, hierarchical,

and ordered along a superior-inferior dimen-

sion.

252 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEA

Dominant individuals have a desire to control

and inﬂuence others. Dominant persons are

headstrong, controlling, and combative. They

tend to stand ﬁrmly to their own opinions and

perspectives, they view others’ opinions as a

threat or challenge, and they view compromise

as a concession. To the extent that interdepen-

dent team tasks often require exchange of infor-

mation among team members who all hold valu-

able task information, the tendency to be au-

thoritative, controlling, and unreceptive to other

team members’ opinions can be damaging to

team interaction (Driskell & Salas, 1992). Al-

though the dominance component of extraver-

sion may be related to leadership (i.e., leaders

need to exert power and control), effective team

members need to subjugate the desire for per-

sonal ascendancy to work as part of an interde-

pendent, mutually reliant team. Cognate scales

related to the dominance facet include the HPI

facet of Status-seeking (e.g., “I want people to

look up to me.”), the 16PF facet of Dominance

(desire for control of situations and other peo-

ple) and the NEO-PI-R facet of Assertiveness.

Afﬁliation. Afﬁliation refers to the individ-

ual’s desire to engage in activities with other

people versus being alone. Persons high on af-

ﬁliation are sociable, friendly, interested in so-

cial interaction, and would generally prefer to

interact with others than to be alone. Persons

low on afﬁliation are withdrawn, reserved,

aloof, and prefer solitary tasks to social interac-

tions in which they are less comfortable. Lucas

et al. (2000) deﬁne this factor, which they term

“sociability,” as the enjoyment of social activi-

ties and preference for being with others over

being alone. Davis (1969) found that teams

composed of members who preferred to work in

a group interacted more and solved problems

faster than teams composed of members who

preferred to work alone. Wageman (1995) ex-

amined differences in preferences for auton-

omy, deﬁned as the extent to which people like

working with others versus working indepen-

dently, and found that those with a high prefer-

ence for autonomy helped other group members

less and learned less from others.

Some have distinguished between low socia-

bility (or in our terms, low afﬁliation), which is

a nonfearful preference for being alone, and

shyness, which reﬂects a social anxiety related

to afﬁliating with others (Bruch, Gorsky, Col-

lins, & Berger, 1989). In other words, low af-

ﬁliation reﬂects a disinterest in afﬁliating or

socializing with others, whereas shyness reﬂects

a fear or distress of afﬁliating with others.

Therefore, a low afﬁliative person may not nec-

essarily be shy, but is likely to be cool, aloof,

and withdrawn. Cognate scales related to the

afﬁliation facet include the NEO-PI-R facets of

Warmth (affectionate and friendly, cordial and

hearty) and Gregariousness (preference for oth-

er’s company), the PCI facet of Sociability, the

16PF facets of Warmth (attentive to others,

likes people vs. reserved, impersonal) and Self-

reliance (group-oriented, afﬁliative, vs. individ-

ualistic, self-sufﬁcient), and the HPI facets of

Likes People (enjoy meeting new people) and

Easy-to-live-with (works well with other peo-

ple).

Social perceptiveness. Zaccaro, Foti, and

Kenny (1991) deﬁne social perceptiveness as

sensitivity to social cues, or the capacity to

recognize what others expect in social situa-

tions. Social perceptiveness has been viewed as

one component of social intelligence, the other

being behavioral ﬂexibility (which is relevant to

our ﬂexibility facet). Social perceptiveness is

related to social insight, social understanding,

or empathy, and can be described as the aware-

ness of motives, needs, and intentions of other

group members and awareness of relations

among group members. Jones and Day (1997)

described two related factors of social percep-

tion (the capacity to decode others’ verbal and

nonverbal behaviors) and social insight (the ca-

pacity to comprehend and interpret others’ be-

havior in a social context).

Rosnow, Skleder, Jaeger, and Rind (1994)

discussed the capacity to infer the motivations

behind another’s social behavior, and noted that

perspective-taking was a key component. Mar-

lowe (1986) described social competence as the

ability to understand the feelings, thoughts, and

behaviors of others in interpersonal situations,

and found empathy to be one factor comprising

this construct. Thus, we would expect team

members high on social perceptiveness to be

more accurate in “reading” others with whom

they are interacting, as well as more accurate in

comprehending or interpreting relations be-

tween other team members. Those high on so-

cial perceptiveness should be more skillful at

anticipating others’ requirements, as they are

more adept at interpreting others’ needs and

intentions. Golembiewski (1962) concluded that

253PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

“individuals who accurately perceived the pref-

erences of others were regarded as highly de-

sirable, cooperative and efﬁcient group mem-

bers” (p. 257). Cognate scales related to the

social perceptiveness facet include the PCI facet

of Consideration and the CPI facet of Empathy

(insightful regarding how others feel and think).

Expressivity. Individuals high in expressiv-

ity are interpersonally expressive and commu-

nicative, whereas those low in expressivity are

more reserved, taciturn, and impassive. Emo-

tional expressivity refers to the extent to which

people outwardly display emotion (Kring,

Smith, & Neale, 1994). Emotional expressivity

is one component of the facet of expressivity,

although as Gross and John (1998) have noted,

early work on a general expressivity factor

(Snyder, 1974) has become almost solely de-

ﬁned in recent research as emotional expressiv-

ity. However, conveying emotions is only one

function of expressive behavior. Expressive be-

haviors serve multiple functions—to supple-

ment and elaborate speech, accent or punctuate

speech, regulate the timing and sequence of

communication, and convey comprehension,

confusion, agreement, and interest (Driskell &

Radtke, 2003). All of these functions can serve

to more fully convey information to the listener.

Thus, we describe those high in expressivity as

being interpersonally expressive. In a sense, this

facet is the ﬂip side of social perceptiveness. To

the extent that those high in social perceptive-

ness are good decoders of expressive behavior,

those high in expressivity are good encoders of

expressive behavior.

Gross and John (1998) examined one com-

ponent of expressivity, noting that those high in

expressive conﬁdence tend to exhibit high lev-

els of expressivity in social situations, but do so

in situationally appropriate ways. Gallaher

(1992) deﬁned expressiveness as involving en-

ergetic communication, with those high in ex-

pressivity exhibiting a high level of behaviors

linked to communication. We believe that sev-

eral aspects of expressivity are relevant to team

interaction. Those low in expressivity are more

difﬁcult to read by other team members and are

less likely to communicate effectively to others;

thus, they are less informative. Furthermore,

those low in expressivity may be seen by others

as less likable (Riggio & Friedman, 1986) and

less competent (DeGroot & Motowidlo, 1999).

Cognate scales related to the expressivity facet

include the 16PF facet of Liveliness (animated

and expressive vs. restrained and taciturn) and

the HPI facet of Expressive.

Openness

The trait of openness has been described as

intellectance (Hogan, 1986) and openness to

experience (McRae & Costa, 1997), and reﬂects

intellectual, cultural, or creative interests. Al-

though individual aptitude or cognitive ability

of team members is clearly related to team

effectiveness (Devine & Philips, 2001), within

the domain of personality, group researchers

generally hold that there is little direct relation-

ship between the general trait of openness or

intellectance and teamwork (see Driskell et al.,

1987; Porter et al., 2003). However, some com-

ponents of the openness trait are relevant, espe-

cially the facet of ﬂexibility.

Flexibility. McRae and Costa (1997) claimed

that the trait of openness is, from the negative

pole, related to rigidity in behavior and unwill-

ingness to accept change. We believe that the

facet of ﬂexibility (vs. rigidity) is critical to

interdependent behavior. Paulhus and Martin

(1988) have deﬁned functional ﬂexibility as the

ability to adjust one’s behavior to suit changing

interpersonal situations. Paulhus and Martin fo-

cused on the interpersonal advantages of ﬂexi-

bility, noting that in social situations, the ﬂexi-

ble person can be assertive or submissive, warm

or cold, as the situation demands. Zaccaro, Gil-

bert, Thor, and Mumford (1991) deﬁned behav-

ioral ﬂexibility as one component of social in-

telligence. This conceptualization emphasizes

the problem-solving aspects of behavioral ﬂex-

ibility in addition to the interpersonal aspects,

deﬁning behavioral ﬂexibility as “the ability

and willingness to respond in signiﬁcantly dif-

ferent ways to correspondingly different situa-

tional requirements” (p. 322).

Rigid persons tend to be stubborn and head-

strong, view uncertainty as a threat, and gener-

ally have a low tolerance for ambiguity. Recent

research has discussed the importance of adapt-

ability to teams (Kowslowski, Gully, Nason, &

Smith, 1999) and work environments (Pulakos,

Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000). Pulakos

et al. (2000) identiﬁed several critical dimen-

sions of adaptive performance, including ﬂexi-

bility in handling uncertain task conditions, in-

terpersonal ﬂexibility, and ﬂexibility in problem

254 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEA

solving. Cognate scales related to the ﬂexibility

facet include the CPI facet of Flexibility, the

HPI facet of Not Spontaneous (“It is always best

to stick with a plan that works.”), the NEO-PI-R

facet of Openness-Actions, and the 16PF facet

of Openness to Change.

Agreeableness

The trait of agreeableness is deﬁned as kind-

ness, trust, and warmth versus selﬁshness, dis-

trust, and hostility. Persons high on agreeable-

ness are considerate, honest, helpful, and sup-

portive. Persons low on agreeableness are

uncaring, intolerant, unsympathetic, and criti-

cal. Some researchers have claimed that agree-

ableness may be the best primary predictor of

performance in interpersonal settings (Mount et

al., 1998; Neumann & Wright, 1999). Thus,

agreeableness seems to have high predictive

validity for tasks that involve cooperation and

that involve smooth relations with others (Bar-

rick et al., 2001). The facets of agreeableness

that we believe are most relevant to team inter-

action are trust and cooperation.

Trust. Gurtman (1992) deﬁnes trust as the

belief that the sincerity, benevolence, and truth-

fulness of others can generally be relied upon.

According to Judge, Erez, and Bono (1998), the

opposite of trust is cynicism, the belief that

others lack integrity and are “out to get you.”

McKnight, Cummings, and Chervany (1998)

claim that the disposition to trust has two facets:

(a) faith in humanity, the assumption that others

are well-meaning and dependable, and (b) trust-

ing stance, the assumption that one will achieve

a better outcome by dealing with people as

though they were trustworthy. Holmes and

Rempel (1989) deﬁne trust as composed of sev-

eral components, including dependability, or

the belief that others can be counted on to be

honest, reliable, and benevolent; and faith, or

the conviction that others are intrinsically mo-

tivated to be responsive and caring.

We distinguish between trust (or disposition

to trust) and trustworthiness or reliability, which

is captured by our dependability facet. Those

with dispositionally high trust believe that oth-

ers are honest and well-intentioned, whereas

those with low trust are suspicious and doubt

the sincerity, motives, or intentions of others.

Yamagishi (2001) noted that trust is not the

indiscriminate belief in the goodness of others,

which may lead to gullibility, but deﬁnes gen-

eral trust as a default expectation of the trust-

worthiness of others. Those with high trust as-

sume that other people are trustworthy until

evidence is provided indicating otherwise.

Dirks (1999) noted that interpersonal trust is a

hallmark of effective groups and argued that

high trust should lead to greater cooperation and

helping behaviors, greater task commitment,

and higher effort expended on the task. Dirks

found that in high-trust groups, higher motiva-

tion was channeled into more cooperative be-

havior and better performance. Jarvenpaa and

Leidner (1999) also found that lower levels of

trust were associated with lower team perfor-

mance. Cognate scales related to the trust facet

include the NEO-PI-R facet of Trust and the

HPI facet of Trusting.

Cooperation. Van Lange, De Bruin, Otten,

and Joireman (1997) have noted that some peo-

ple are willing to give others the beneﬁt of the

doubt and approach them cooperatively;

whereas others are inclined to approach others

noncooperatively. They distinguished between

those who are cooperative or prosocial (who

maximize outcomes for both self and others)

and those who are competitive (who maximize

outcomes for self relative to others). A third

group, individualists (who maximize outcomes

for self with no regard for others), are closer to

representing our dominance facet. Van Lange

(1999) noted that cooperative persons approach

others in a cooperative manner and continue to

do so unless others fail to reciprocate. Thus,

cooperative persons are not compliant, but will

turn to noncooperative behavior only if their

cooperative intentions are not reciprocated.

Wagner (1995) deﬁned collectivism as the rel-

ative importance people accord to joint or

shared pursuits (vs. self interests) and found that

individual differences in collectivism predicted

the extent to which group members cooperated

in task activities.

Kelley and Stahelski (1970) found that com-

petitive persons are more likely to expect others

to be competitive and to elicit competitive be-

havior from others. The fact that cooperative

persons approach interaction in a cooperative

manner, but may be drawn into competitive

behavior by a competitive partner, suggests the

dual disadvantage of having a highly competi-

tive person in an interdependent team—they

may not only act in a competitive manner, but

255PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

draw competitive behavior out in others. Cog-

nate scales related to the cooperativeness facet

include the PCI facet of Cooperation, the NEO-

PI-R facet of Compliance, and the HPI facet of

Competitiveness.

Conscientiousness

The trait of conscientiousness has been asso-

ciated with a number of facets, including com-

petence, order, achievement striving, and duti-

fulness (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Moon, 2001).

Moon (2001) has noted that some researchers

have emphasized the responsibility/dependabil-

ity component of conscientiousness, whereas

others have viewed conscientiousness in terms

of achievement orientation. Moon argued that

dependability or duty can be viewed as the

other-centered component of conscientiousness

and that achievement can be seen as the self-

centered component.

Thus, conscientiousness reﬂects the tendency

to be hardworking, prepared, and organized, to

adhere to obligations and duties, to complete

tasks thoroughly and on-time, and to be reliable.

Persons low on conscientiousness are impul-

sive, irresponsible, and disordered. Whereas

some studies have found the general trait of

conscientiousness to be related to team effec-

tiveness (Barrick et al., 1998; LePine et al.,

1997), others have not (Barry & Stewart, 1997).

The facets of conscientiousness that we believe

are most relevant to team interaction are de-

pendability, dutifulness, and achievement.

Dependability. Dependability refers to a

tendency toward planfulness and discipline in

carrying out tasks to completion. Those high in

dependability are responsible, organized, plan-

ful, reliable, and trustworthy. Those low in de-

pendability are irresponsible, disordered, and

impulsive. Borman, White, Pulakos, and Oppler

(1991) found that high dependability among

military personnel led to fewer disciplinary in-

fractions and higher performance ratings. Bor-

man, White, and Dorsey (1995) also reported a

strong relationship between dependability and

both peer and supervisor performance ratings.

Hough (1992) found that dependability was re-

lated to ratings of teamwork, and Barrick et al.

(1998) found that work teams with higher levels

of conscientiousness (broadly deﬁned) received

higher ratings of team performance.

Behavioral markers of dependability reported

by peers and supervisors in Borman et al.

(1995) include “Count on for backup” and

“Trust and depend on.” Thus, team members

high on dependability are likely to be more

responsible and can be relied on to backup other

team members. They are also likely to be more

methodical, to accept responsibilities, set goals,

and follow through with them. Cognate scales

related to the dependability facet include the

PCI facet of Dependability, the NEO-PI-R facet

of Order, and the HPI facets of Planfulness and

Not Spontaneous.

Dutifulness. Dutifulness refers to the ten-

dency to value and adhere to obligations and

duties that are held within the team. Ellemers,

de Gilder, and van den Heuvel (1998) have

examined a related construct of team-oriented

commitment, which they deﬁned as a sense of

responsibility for team outcomes and motiva-

tion to help out teammates even if that required

personal sacriﬁce. Moon (2001) states that

“duty captures differences in individuals’ pro-

clivity to do the right thing, not only for them-

selves, but also, for others” (p. 535). Costa and

McCrae (1992) deﬁne duty as behavior evi-

denced by individual adherence to ethical prin-

ciples and moral obligations. If we extend this

deﬁnition to the team context, then we would

view duty as adhering to team principles and

team obligations, and we believe that those with

a high duty orientation are more likely to form

an attachment to the team and the team goals

(see Aube⬘& Rousseau, 2005).

Dutifulness may be especially important for

military, sports, and other work teams that face

active resistance or opposition that must be

overcome to achieve the team goal (see Devine,

2002). In a series of classic studies conducted in

World War II, Stouffer et al. (1949) found that

what kept soldiers going in extremely hostile

conditions was not political ideals or hatred of

the enemy, but group obligations and duty to

others. Cognate scales related to the dutifulness

facet include the NEO-PI-R facet of Dutiful-

ness.

Achievement. We believe that good team

players are ambitious, achievement-oriented,

and take the initiative in pursuing team goals. In

performing an interdependent task, each team

member must be motivated to take on those

duties that lead to successful accomplishment of

the task. This includes not only carrying one’s

share of the load, but also carrying another team

256 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEA

members’ share if they are overburdened, as

well as goal setting, team management, and

leadership functions. Zander and Forward

(1968) found that achievement-oriented team

members were more concerned about team suc-

cess, and Hough (1992) found achievement to

be related to ratings of teamwork.

Cognate scales related to the achievement

facet include the HPI facets of Leadership and

Generates Ideas, the PCI facet of Ambition, the

CPI facet of Capacity for Status (ambitious,

enterprising), and the NEO-PI-R facet of

Achievement Striving.

In summary, we have deﬁned 12 core facets

of team orientation that we believe are descrip-

tive of effective team players. In brief, good

team players are not controlling or domineering

(low dominance). They are sociable (afﬁlia-

tion), perceptive and empathic (social percep-

tiveness), and interpersonally expressive (ex-

pressivity). They are emotionally stable (adjust-

ment) and conﬁdent (self-esteem). They are

adaptive (ﬂexibility), trust other team members

(trust) and cooperative (cooperativeness). Fi-

nally, good team players are reliable (depend-

ability), have a strong sense of loyalty or duty to

the team (dutifulness), and they work hard to

achieve team goals (achievement).

The preceding classiﬁcation attempts to de-

scribe the core lower-level personality facets

that are relevant to team effectiveness. How-

ever, we have argued that to specify the rela-

tionship between personality and team effec-

tiveness more precisely requires that we not

only describe the Big Five traits more precisely,

but also provide greater speciﬁcity in terms of

what we mean by team effectiveness. In other

words, teams do not just perform, they perform

certain core tasks, and the extent to which these

teamwork activities or requirements are carried

out successfully is one determinant of overall

team effectiveness. Moreover, we expect that

different personality facets may be relevant to

the prediction of different teamwork dimen-

sions. In other words, we believe what has been

missing in previous models is the link between

team member personality and teamwork re-

quirements. In the following section, we at-

tempt to deﬁne the core teamwork dimensions

or team functions that must be accomplished

within a team context.

Teamwork Dimensions

Driven by the heightened interest in teams in

applied settings, recent research has attempted

to deﬁne the dimensions that underlie effective

teamwork (Ilgen, 1999). McIntyre and Salas

(1995) described a series of studies that adopted

a critical incident approach to identifying criti-

cal teamwork activities. Researchers worked

with real-world teams, including naval ship-

board teams and aircrews, to identify critical

activities characterizing effective and ineffec-

tive teams (Franz, Prince, Cannon-Bowers, &

Salas, 1990; Morgan, Glickman, Woodard,

Blaiwes, & Salas, 1986). These core teamwork

dimensions were further elaborated by Baker

and Salas (1992) to include performance mon-

itoring and feedback, communication, coordina-

tion, and adaptability.

Fleishman and Zaccaro (1992) developed a

taxonomic classiﬁcation of team performance

functions. Building on earlier work on the struc-

ture of human performance (Fleishman &

Quantance, 1984), these researchers attempted

to describe the common team functions that

underlie team performance. Major team func-

tions identiﬁed include orientation functions

(e.g., exchanging information), coordination

functions (e.g., coordination and sequencing of

activities), monitoring functions (e.g., perfor-

mance monitoring and error correction), and

motivational functions (e.g., maintenance of

norms, resolving conﬂicts).

Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, and

Volpe (1995) integrated these research efforts

and proposed that the core teamwork functions

could be conceptualized as eight broad dimen-

sions (See Table 1). According to Cannon-

Bowers et al. (1995), the following teamwork

dimensions are a prerequisite for effective team

performance across a variety of types of tasks

and teams.

Adaptability

Adaptability refers to adjustment of task

strategies or team behaviors in response to

changes in the team or task environment.

Adaptability may include mutual adjustment

among team members and reallocation of re-

sources. Porter et al. (2003) have emphasized

the importance of backup behavior,

257PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

which is compensatory behavior to support

other team members who are overloaded or

experiencing difﬁculty. Hackman and Morris

(1978) have noted that one of the few univer-

sally effective group strategies is adaptability.

Shared Situational Awareness

Team members must develop a shared situa-

tional awareness, also referred to as mutual

knowledge (Cramton, 2001; Thompson & Coo-

vert, 2003) or common ground (Clark & Bren-

nan, 1991). Team members possess contextual

task and team information that must be commu-

nicated to and understood by other team mem-

bers. Cramton (2001) noted that mutual knowl-

edge may suffer when team members fail to

communicate unique information that they pos-

sess, fail to distribute information evenly among

team members, or fail to correct misunderstand-

ings. Some research has shown that the accu-

racy and similarity of shared mental models

among team members predicts the quality of

team processes and performance (Marks, Zac-

caro, & Mathieu, 2000; Mathieu, Heffner,

Goodwin, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000;

Thompson & Coovert, 2003).

Performance Monitoring and Feedback

Performance monitoring and feedback be-

haviors include monitoring other team mem-

ber’s contributions as well as monitoring team

progress, identifying errors, providing construc-

tive feedback, and offering advice for perfor-

mance improvement. Members of effective

teams must be familiar with each other’s roles

and accept responsibility for providing and ac-

cepting feedback (McIntyre & Salas, 1995).

Table 1

Teamwork Dimensions (Adapted from Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995)

Dimension Deﬁnition Subskills

Adaptability Team members use information from the task

environment to adjust strategies through the use of

ﬂexibility, compensatory behavior, and reallocation

of resources.

Flexibility

Compensatory or back-up behavior

Providing assistance

Shared situational

awareness

Team members develop shared knowledge of the

team’s internal and external environment.

Shared orientation

Team awareness

Performance

monitoring and

feedback

Team members give, seek, and receive task-clarifying

feedback.

Performance monitoring

Providing feedback

Error correction

Team management Team members direct and coordinate task activities,

assign tasks, plan and organize, and motivate other

team members.

Resource management

Motivation

Planning and goal setting

Interpersonal relations Team members optimize interpersonal interactions by

resolving conﬂicts, use of cooperation, and

building morale.

Conﬂict resolution

Cooperation

Morale building

Coordination Team members organize team resources, activities,

and responses to ensure complete and timely

completion of tasks.

Task organization

Response coordination

Timing and activity pacing

Communication Team members exchange information efﬁciently. Seeking or requesting information

Providing information

Acknowledgement and

conﬁrmation

Decision making Team members integrate or pool information, identify

alternatives, select solutions, and evaluate

consequences.

Assessment

Evaluation

Problem solving

258 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEA

Team Management

Team management behaviors include direct-

ing and coordinating the task activities of other

team members, assigning tasks, and motivating

other team members. These are primarily task

behaviors oriented toward instrumental goals.

One critical management task, planning, is of-

ten overlooked in teams (Hackman & Morris,

1978), although research has clearly demon-

strated the value of planning (Janicik & Bartel,

2003; Weingart, 1992) and pretask brieﬁngs

(Marks et al., 2000) to team performance.

Interpersonal Relations

Team members optimize interpersonal rela-

tions by resolving conﬂicts, encouraging coop-

erative behavior, and building team morale.

These are primarily socioemotional behaviors

oriented toward smooth interpersonal relations.

McIntyre and Salas (1995) noted that positive or

supporting team behaviors are not always ap-

parent in team interactions—tasks demands

may require terse, formal communications at

times— but that a positive team environment

supports these task activities. Moreover, re-

search has shown that cohesive groups tend to

agree more readily (Lott & Lott, 1961), report

greater satisfaction with the group (Curtis &

Miller, 1986), and in general outperform less

cohesive groups (Mullen & Copper, 1994).

Coordination

In one of the earliest studies of group perfor-

mance, Shaw (1932) attributed the effectiveness

of groups to the capability of group members to

exchange and coordinate information. Janicik

and Bartel (2003) noted that effective coordina-

tion, knowing who is going to do what, when,

and with whom, is critical to team performance.

Behaviors that support effective coordination

include matching team member resources to

task requirements, regulating the pace of team

activities, and coordinating the response and

sequencing of team member activities (Fleish-

man & Zaccaro, 1992).

Communication

Communication is the primary vehicle

through which task groups accomplish their

goals (Marks et al., 2000). Team members must

exchange ideas and information in a clear and

timely manner. Research suggests that effective

team performance is related to the quantity and

quality of communications— effective teams

communicate more and better than less effective

teams (Foushee, 1982; Kanki, Lozito, &

Foushee, 1989; Marks et al., 2000). Effective

communication behaviors include exchanging

information in a timely manner, acknowledg-

ment of information, double-checking that the

intent of messages was received (closed-loop

communication), clarifying ambiguity, and the

appropriate use of verbal and nonverbal cues

(Kanki & Smith, 2001; Stout, Salas, & Fowlkes,

1997).

Decision Making

Team decision making involves problem

identiﬁcation and assessment, information ex-

change, generation and evaluation of solutions,

implementation, and evaluation of conse-

quences (Forsyth, 1990; Hirokawa, 1980). Bar-

riers to effective team decision making may

include failure to adequately assess problems

(Moreland & Levine, 1992), failure to consider

others’ input (Driskell & Salas, 1992), failure to

disclose uniquely held information (Stasser &

Titus, 1995), and undue inﬂuence from a single

team member (Foushee & Helmreich, 1988).

Predictions

The preceding classiﬁcation of core team-

work dimensions allows us to take the next step

in linking team member personality and team

requirements. In the following, we predict the

effects of the speciﬁc personality facets deﬁned

in Figure 1 on speciﬁc core teamwork dimen-

sions. These predictions are summarized in Ta-

ble 2. Note that when we are able to make a

strong positive or negative prediction based on

either existing research or on a logical extension

of existing research, these predictions are

marked as “⫹” or “–” respectively. In other

cases, we feel that the relationship between a

particular team member facet and a speciﬁc

teamwork dimension is weaker or unsupported,

and thus we note these predictions as interme-

diate and indicated as “⬃”.

259PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

Table 2

Effects of Team Member Personality Facets on Teamwork Dimensions

Team member facets

Teamwork dimensions

Adaptability

Shared

situational

awareness

Performance

monitoring

and feedback

Team

management

Interpersonal

relations Coordination Communication

Decision

making

Emotional stability

Adjustment ⫹⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹

Self-esteem ⫹⬃ ⬃ ⫹ ⫹ ⬃ ⬃ ⬃

Extraversion

Dominance ⬃⫺ ⬃ ⬃ ⫺ ⬃ ⫺ ⫺

Afﬁliation ⫹⫹ ⫹ ⫺ ⫹ ⫺ ⫹ ⫺

Social perceptiveness ⫹⫹ ⬃ ⬃ ⫹ ⬃ ⫹ ⫹

Expressivity ⫹⫹ ⬃ ⬃ ⫹ ⬃ ⫹ ⫹

Openness

Flexibility ⫹⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹

Agreeableness

Trust ⬃⬃ ⫹ ⬃ ⫹ ⬃ ⫹ ⫹

Cooperation ⫹⫹ ⬃ ⬃ ⫹ ⬃ ⫹ ⬃

Conscientiousness

Dependability ⫹⬃ ⫹ ⫹ ⬃ ⫹ ⫹ ⬃

Dutifulness ⬃⫹ ⫹ ⬃ ⫹ ⬃ ⬃ ⬃

Achievement ⫹⫹ ⫹ ⫹ ⬃ ⫹ ⫹ ⫹

Note. ⫹denotes positive prediction; ⫺denotes negative prediction; ⬃denotes intermediate prediction.

260 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEA

Adjustment

We predict that adjustment will have a posi-

tive effect on all behaviors that are performed in

a team environment. Although team tasks may

differ in the degree of cooperation required (see

Shaw, 1981), an essential feature that deﬁnes a

team is interdependent behavior (Salas, Dickin-

son, Converse, & Tannenbaum, 1992). Team

members who are ill-tempered, distressed, and

emotionally unstable are disruptive of any type

of coordinated or interdependent behavior (cf.

Barrick et al., 1998; Barrick & Mount, 2001).

Moreover, George (1990) found that the posi-

tive/negative affectivity of team members was

related to the extent to which teams engaged in

prosocial behaviors, and Barsade (2002) found

that team members’ positive affect led to greater

cooperation, conﬂict management, and team per-

formance. Therefore, in Table 2, we follow the

lead of Barrick et al. (1998) and others, and

predict that adjustment is critical to any task or

teamwork activity that requires coordinated ac-

tivity.

Self-Esteem

One factor that distinguishes self-esteem

from adjustment is that adjustment reﬂects gen-

eral emotional instability or negative affect, and

self-esteem involves the self as a reference point

(Brown & Marshall, 2001). Thus, those high on

self-esteem are conﬁdent and self-assured,

whereas those low on self-esteem appear hope-

less and critical. Research indicates that self-

esteem affects interpersonal relationships (Mur-

ray et al., 1998) and is generally related to job

satisfaction (Judge et al., 1998), and thus we

predict that self-esteem will be positively re-

lated to interpersonal relations. Further, Erez

and Judge (2001) found that self-esteem was

related to goal setting and motivation, and

thus we predict that self-esteem will be pos-

itively related to team management activities.

Given that those high in self-esteem tend to

maintain effort in the face of failure (Dodgson

& Wood, 1998), we predict that self-esteem

will be positively related to adaptability. We

believe that self-esteem will have less direct

or more intermediate effects on shared situa-

tional awareness, performance monitoring and

feedback, coordination, communication, and

decision making.

Dominance

We predict that high dominance will have a

negative effect on shared situational awareness,

interpersonal relations, communication, and de-

cision making. Dominant team members, who

view interaction along a superior/inferior di-

mension, are likely to have a different perspec-

tive on team tasks and relationships than other

team members (shared situational awareness).

Dominant team members also tend to engender

less positive interpersonal relations (Driskell,

Olmstead, & Salas, 1993), exhibit more ineffec-

tive communication behaviors (Yukl & Falbe,

1990), and are less likely to attend to the task

inputs of other team members in decision mak-

ing (Driskell & Salas, 1992). We predict that

high dominance will have intermediate effects

on adaptability, performance monitoring and

feedback, team management, and coordination.

Team members who are dominant and control-

ling may be less ﬂexible but perhaps more prone

to backup other team members’ behavior as a

means of control (adaptability), they may be

more prone to monitor others’ behavior as a

precursor to control (performance feedback and

monitoring), and the dominant team member’s

need to direct and inﬂuence others may support

some instrumental management functions (team

management).

Afﬁliation

Given that those low on afﬁliation tend to

help or assist others less (Wageman, 1995) and

in general may choose to interact less (Davis,

1969), we predict those who are more sociable

and afﬁliative are more likely to assist and sup-

port other team members (adaptability), share

experiences with other team members (shared

situational awareness), seek and receive feed-

back from others (performance monitoring and

feedback), engage in socioemotional activities

(interpersonal relations), and talk more and ex-

change information with other team members

(communication). We believe that high afﬁlia-

tion, because it may interfere with instrumental

task activities (see Driskell, Hogan, & Salas,

1987), may have negative effects on team man-

agement, coordination, and decision making. In

fact, Barry and Stewart (1997) have noted that

extraverts “have a propensity to seek pleasur-

261PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

able social interactions at the expense of efﬁ-

cient management of task demands” (p. 66).

Social Perceptiveness

We view social perceptiveness as the capac-

ity to accurately gather and process information

about others (Costanzo, 1992), and argue that

some people are poor decoders of social infor-

mation (Lieberman & Rosenthal, 2001). More-

over, Nickerson (1999) has noted that those

who are less adept at inferring others’ thoughts

and feelings may be less apt to develop the

shared knowledge or transactive memory re-

quired in interdependent teams. We predict that

those who are more adept at reading and inter-

preting others’ intentions and feelings are more

likely to identify when other team members are

overloaded or require assistance (adaptability),

develop common ground with other team mem-

bers (shared situational awareness), be more

adept at conﬂict resolution and social tasks (in-

terpersonal relations), be more accurate in in-

terpreting or receiving communications from

others (communication), and be more skilled at

perceiving others’ opinions and inputs in deci-

sion making (decision making). We believe that

social perceptiveness will have intermediate ef-

fects on performance monitoring and feedback,

team management, and coordination.

Expressivity

We believe that those who are interpersonally

expressive are likely to be viewed as more pos-

itive and likable (Riggio & Friedman, 1986),

and are likely to be more energetic and effective

communicators (DeGroot & Motowidlo, 1999;

Gallaher, 1992). Moreover, Ambady, Hallahan,

and Rosenthal (1995) have noted that some

people are more “legible” that others, that ex-

pressivity is related to accuracy in transmitting

nonverbal information to others. We predict that

those who are interpersonally expressive are

easier to read and adapt to (adaptability), more

likely to communicate contextual information

to others (shared situational awareness), likely

to be viewed more positively (interpersonal re-

lations), communicate more effectively (com-

munication) and are more likely to express their

feelings and opinions effectively in decision

making (decision making). We believe that ex-

pressivity will have intermediate effects on per-

formance monitoring and feedback, team man-

agement, and coordination.

Flexibility

We noted that ﬂexibility is advantageous in

terms of interpersonal relations (Paulhus &

Martin, 1988), as well as in instrumental or

problem-solving situations (Zaccaro et al.,

1991). In fact, because different abilities and

procedures are required for different types of

tasks, some have suggested that perhaps the

only universally effective task strategy may be

the capacity to change or adjust to different

conditions (Hackman & Morris, 1978; Shiﬂett,

1972). Thus, we view ﬂexibility as relevant to

all teamwork behaviors.

Trust

Following Dirks (1999), we propose that high

trust leads to greater commitment, greater ef-

fort, and greater cooperation. We believe that

high-trust team members are more likely to seek

and receive feedback from others (performance

monitoring and feedback), engage in activities

to resolve conﬂicts and ensure smooth interper-

sonal relations among team members (interper-

sonal relations), communication more openly

(communication), and pool information in deci-

sion making (decision making). We expect that

trust will have intermediate effects on adaptabil-

ity, shared situational awareness, coordination,

and team management.

Cooperation

Those who are cooperative place the de-

mands and interests of the group over personal

desires (Wagner, 1995). We believe that team

members who pursue cooperative or group in-

terests versus self interests are more likely to

share contextual team and task information with

other team members (shared situational aware-

ness), provide backup support to other team

members (adaptability), perform actions to ad-

dress socioemotional requirements (interper-

sonal relations), and exchange information with

other team members (communication). We ex-

pect that cooperation will have intermediate ef-

fects on decision making, performance monitor-

ing and feedback, coordination, and team man-

agement because, as LePine and Van Dyne

262 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEA

(2001) have noted, whereas cooperative persons

value smooth interpersonal functioning, they

may be less prone to exhibit the more directive

task behaviors required of these activities.

Dependability

Ashton (1998) found that responsibility was

negatively related to delinquent workplace be-

haviors, and Borman et al. (1995) found that

dependability was related to higher perfor-

mance ratings by both supervisors and peers.

We predict that team members who are reliable

and dependable can be counted on to backup

other team members’ behaviors (adaptability),

monitor team progress and provide feedback

(performance monitoring and feedback), plan

and manage team activities (team management),

regulate the pace and coordination of team ac-

tivities (coordination), and exchange informa-

tion in a timely manner (communication). We

believe that dependability will have intermedi-

ate effects on shared situational awareness, in-

terpersonal relations, and decision making. In

the case of interpersonal relations, although

those who are more dependable are more likely

to follow social protocol (Witt & Ferris, 2003),

those who are more rule-bound can be per-

ceived as rigid and inﬂexible (Hogan, 1986).

Moreover, being organized and cautious may

detract from some aspects of decision making,

such as idea generation, and enhance other as-

pects, such as the evaluation of alternatives.

Dutifulness

Research suggests that those who hold a

greater sense of duty, loyalty, and sacriﬁce for

the team tend to engender greater group cohe-

siveness (Prapavessis & Carron, 1997), are

viewed more favorably by coworkers (Ellemers

et al., 1998), and are more likely to act in the

best interests of the group (Moon, 2001). We

predict that those who have a stronger sense of

duty are more likely to share common perspec-

tives on the team and the task (shared situational

awareness), contribute to team pride and morale

(interpersonal relations), and perform support-

ive activities related to team goal achievement

(performance monitoring and feedback). We

believe that dutifulness will have intermediate

effects on adaptability, team management, co-

ordination, communication, and decision mak-

ing.

Achievement

We believe that team members who are

achievement oriented are likely to be more mo-

tivated to pursue group goals and to ensure

group success (Hough, 1992; Zander & For-

ward, 1968). We predict that team members

who are achievement-oriented, hardworking,

proactive, and take the initiative in team activ-

ities will be more likely to adjust to other team

members’ behaviors (adaptability), develop

common ground with other team members

(shared situational awareness), monitor team

progress and provide feedback (performance

monitoring and feedback), participate in the di-

rection and coordination of task activities (team

management), manage the pace and sequencing

of team activities (coordination), communicate

more (communication), and participate more

actively in decision making (decision making).

We expect that achievement will have interme-

diate effects on interpersonal relations—

whereas achievement orientation is not directly

supportive of social relations (Barry & Stewart,

1997), team members who work harder for the

team should support team morale.

Discussion

We begun by asking a basic question: What

makes a good team player? We then attempted

to provide a foundation for addressing that

question, which then became: What speciﬁc

traits deﬁne a good team player in relation to the

activities required for effective teamwork? We

described the personality facets that we believe

are most relevant to team performance, and then

derived predictions linking these facets to core

teamwork dimensions. This approach offers

several beneﬁts. First, this approach extends

previous research on personality and team per-

formance by offering greater precision in spec-

ifying the role that team member personality

plays in team effectiveness. Second, this frame-

work provides a foundation for further empiri-

cal testing and validation of predictions. Third,

this approach suggests useful avenues for selec-

tion and training interventions to enhance team

effectiveness.

263PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

There are several general conclusions that

can be drawn regarding team member person-

ality as elaborated in this model. First, at a

general level, this model is consistent with ex-

isting research on personality and team effec-

tiveness. The higher-level traits of emotional

stability, extraversion, openness, agreeableness,

and conscientiousness have all been related to

team effectiveness at a broad level (cf. Barrick

et al., 1998; Barry & Stewart, 1997; Hollenbeck

et al., 2002; LePine et al., 1997; Neuman &

Wright, 1999). However, as we noted previ-

ously, we do not know based on existing re-

search if any purported relationship between,

for example, conscientiousness and team effec-

tiveness may be attributable to the dependabil-

ity component of conscientiousness (i.e., good

team players are reliable) or to the achievement

component of conscientiousness (i.e., good

team players are hardworking). Accordingly,

we extended our examination of personality and

team performance to incorporate speciﬁc per-

sonality facets that we believe are related to

team effectiveness, and to incorporate speciﬁc

dimensions of teamwork. We have deﬁned one

facet, dominance, by its negative pole, because

research suggests that those who are dominant

and controlling can be an anathema to interde-

pendent team interaction (Driskell & Salas,

1992; Driskell et al., 1993). However, the team

member facets that are predicted to be critical

across all teamwork dimensions are adjustment

and ﬂexibility. We concur with Barrick and

Mount (2001) that adjustment is fundamentally

important to interdependent interaction, and we

concur with Hackman and Morris (1978) that

ﬂexibility is virtually universally advantageous.

There are several facets, such as self-esteem or

dutifulness, that are predicted to affect a more

narrow range of teamwork activities. This does

not imply that these facets are less important,

just that their impact is more speciﬁc. More-

over, this greater speciﬁcity in describing per-

sonality and team effectiveness allows us to

examine both the “bright side” and the “dark

side” of personality—whereas afﬁliation may

have a positive impact on maintaining interper-

sonal relations in teams, it may have a negative

impact on the more instrumental activities in-

volved in team management.

Second, the predictions that are derived from

this model, shown in Table 2, are clearly spec-

ulative. We have attempted to bring to bear the

weight of existing research, but as Barry and

Stewart (1997) have noted, “relatively few stud-

ies have empirically examined the role of per-

sonality characteristics in task-oriented groups”

(p. 65). Although recent research efforts have

rectiﬁed this situation somewhat, we faced the

additional difﬁculty that very few existing re-

search studies specify personality to the facet

level and very few existing studies specify team

effectiveness to the teamwork dimensions level.

Not surprisingly, we do not have a wealth of

data to draw on. On the positive side, Table 2

presents a framework that calls out for addi-

tional research, and each of the relationships

shown in Table 2 should be veriﬁed in further

empirical studies.

Third, the hierarchical model of team orien-

tation shown in Figure 1 was derived by the

desire to specify the link between Big Five

personality traits and team effectiveness. Al-

though the higher level traits identiﬁed by var-

ious Big Five models generally resemble one

another, there are some distinctions among dif-

ferent models. For example, Hogan (1986) has

presented a six-factor model of personality, sep-

arating extraversion into separate traits of socia-

bility (outgoing, afﬁliative) and ambition (sur-

gency, dominance). Furthermore, as Lucas and

Diener (2001) have noted, the facets that com-

pose the higher-level traits often differ in dif-

ferent models. For example, McCrae and Costa

(1997) claim that ﬂexibility/rigidity is related to

the higher-level trait of openness to experience;

Hogan (1986) places ﬂexibility within the higher-

level conscientiousness trait; whereas others

note that rigidity may be related to neuroticism

or poor adjustment (Mumford, Baughman,

Threlfall, Uhlman, & Costanza, 1993). Judge,

Martocchio, and Thoresen (1997) note that

some facets load equally on several higher

level traits. We are not able to resolve these

issues but have attempted to derive a model of

team member personality that is consistent with

existing personality models.

This approach further calls attention to the

issue of trait bandwidth and the value of broad

traits versus narrow traits. Stewart (1999) has

stated that broad traits are applicable in several

circumstances, including when the criterion it-

self is broad or diffuse. However, Barrick et al.

(2001) also have noted that sometimes a broad

predictor and a broad criterion can mask under-

lying relationships. For example, we posed the

264 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEA

question of whether conscientiousness may be

related to team performance in existing research

because of the lower-level facet of achievement

or because of the lower-level facet of depend-

ability that both comprise conscientiousness in

many Big Five models. Narrow facets may al-

low more accurate prediction when they theo-

retically align with more speciﬁc behaviors, and

Barrick et al. (2001); Schneider, Hough, and

Dunnette (1996); Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, and

Cortina (2006) and others have noted the value

of linking lower-level predictors with lower-

level criteria. Moreover, by deﬁning the core

teamwork dimensions that underlie team perfor-

mance, we are able to make informed hypothe-

ses regarding the speciﬁc personality facets that

are predictive of these performance dimensions.

At same time, our approach is limited in a

number of ways. Although the most current and

inﬂuential formulation of individual differences

in personality is the Big Five trait approach that

we have adopted, it is certainly not the only

useful model of personality, nor does it capture

all there is to say about personality. We concur

with McAdams and Pals (2006), who note that

although the Big Five model is arguably the

most recognizable contribution personality psy-

chology has to offer, understanding personality

in a more ﬁnely grained sense requires going

beyond the personality trait concept to include

other motivational, social– cognitive, and devel-

opmental concerns. Our approach, then, takes

advantage of the current body of empirical re-

search on traits within the Big Five framework,

and at the same time is restricted by the nar-

rowed focus of the trait approach.

We have attempted to address the question of

what type of person makes a good team player

(or more speciﬁcally, what speciﬁc facets of

personality are relevant to speciﬁc teamwork

dimensions). We assume, in general, that team

members who possess these personality facets

will be more effective under speciﬁed condi-

tions than those who do not. However, we have

not addressed the more complex question of

how personality facets combine. For example,

the impact of expressivity is likely to be con-

siderably different if coupled with high adjust-

ment than if coupled with low adjustment

(Friedman & Miller-Herringer, 1991). Further-

more, we have not addressed the more complex

question of team composition, or how team

members possessing speciﬁc personality facets

combine. There are several ways of operation-

alizing team composition. An additive approach

examines the amount or average level of a trait

among team members; for example, LePine

(2003) has argued that a team composed of too

many highly dependable members may exert

undue pressure on those who offer alternative

viewpoints. A compensatory approach exam-

ines the heterogeneity or variability of traits

among team members; for example, Barry and

Stewart (1997) have observed that ﬁnding ben-

eﬁts of sociability at the individual team mem-

ber level does not necessarily argue for creating

a work team full of them. A disjunctive ap-

proach examines the highest or lowest trait

score for the team; for example, Totterdell et

al.’s (1998) work on mood linkage and negative

affect suggests that having one team member

low on adjustment can impact the entire group.

Clearly, composition matters, and although we

do not address these issues in the current for-

mulation of our model, questions of team com-

position and heterogeneity are important and

require further examination. Finally, we know

that individual factors often interact with other

group-level or structural factors to impact per-

formance—in fact, Hollenbeck et al. (2002)

have proposed a person-team ﬁt approach that

emphasizes the importance of task and organi-

zational factors. For example, conscientious-

ness may be less relevant to team performance

to the extent that backup or compensatory be-

haviors are institutionalized in task procedures.

Nevertheless, we believe there is considerable

value in developing a comprehensive model at

the individual team member level that can serve

as a basis for further elaboration to address

these and other related questions.

In the model presented, we view the focal

team member as “one among equals.” In other

words, the team setting we have speciﬁed is one

in which each team member has speciﬁc exper-

tise useful to the team, and the team has to

interdependently achieve a team outcome. We

have described the core traits that we believe

deﬁne the effective team member, but not nec-

essarily the effective team leader. For example,

we noted earlier that dominance may be prob-

lematic among team members but useful in a

team leader role. Moreover, it is likely that

effective leadership may require dominance and

afﬁliation, among other traits. By anecdotal ac-

counts, General George Patton was a high dom-

265PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

inant-low afﬁliation leader. There is no question

that he was a great general, but he may have

been somewhat lacking in interpersonal rela-

tions (his widely reported response to a hospi-

talized soldier who said he did not think he

could take it anymore was to slap him with his

gloves). General Douglas MacArthur, who we

would envision as a high dominance-high afﬁl-

iation leader, may represent a more effective

leader prototype for modern times.

Finally, we believe this model suggests a

number of practical applications. For the pur-

pose of selecting good team players, the type of

classiﬁcation presented in Table 2 should prove

to be useful, subject to further empirical conﬁr-

mation. However, in real-world settings, teams

are often intact and selection or replacement of

team members may not be a relevant option. For

such existing teams, the model presented in

Table 2 suggests an approach to assessing ex-

isting team member capabilities and targeting

training to support behaviors that may be deﬁ-

cient. For example, if assessment indicates a

low score on trust for a speciﬁc team member,

we propose that this will most likely be mani-

fested in activities related to performance mon-

itoring and feedback, interpersonal relations,

and decision making (i.e., scanning across the

appropriate row of Table 2). Efforts to imple-

ment training for this team member should fo-

cus on these dimensions. This model should

also be useful for diagnosis of team deﬁcien-

cies. If assessment of team processes indicates

poor team management, then (scanning down

the appropriate column of Table 2), we can

derive what team member facets are relevant to

these activities. Even if selection is not possible,

team members can be assigned to speciﬁc roles

on the team to maximize the ﬁt between indi-

vidual capabilities and teamwork requirements.

Further research is needed to examine the

malleability of traits and the value of training to

develop more effective team members. One

question that is of signiﬁcant practical impor-

tance is: Can you train someone who is dispo-

sitionally competitive to be more cooperative?

Judge et al. (1998) noted that the fact that traits

show considerable temporal stability does not

mean that they cannot be changed. Moreover, the

success with which well-developed training pro-

grams have led to improved teamwork in applied

settings (e.g., Smith-Jentsch, Salas, & Brannick,

2001) suggests the utility of this approach.

Further research should also address issues

related to assessment. Typically, assessment of

personality is almost exclusively self-report, via

endorsement of descriptive statements. This

may be problematic under some circumstances

for the assessment of teamwork. Although our

society is not as collectivist as some, few would

want to be seen as a poor team player. More-

over, in organizations that have placed a public

value on teamwork (e.g., the military has a

particularly strong team culture), the individual

who would endorse the item “I prefer to work

alone” may not only be nonafﬁliative but also

oblivious to organizational preferences. Ques-

tions related to faking as well as research on

alternative approaches to self-report should re-

ceive further attention.

It is somewhat traditional to conclude by

bemoaning the state of progress in the ﬁeld.

However, we are pleased to announce that the

study of personality and team performance is

burgeoning. Our goal was to contribute to and

extend this research in two ways. First, our

model extends current work on trait prediction

of team performance by linking lower-level

facet predictors with lower-level teamwork be-

haviors. Second, by linking team member per-

sonality characteristics to teamwork dimen-

sions, this model provides a foundation for ap-

plication and testing of this approach for

purposes of selection, training, and team design.

References

Ambady, N., Hallahan, M., & Rosenthal, R. (1995).

On judging and being judged accurately in zero-

acquaintance situations. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 69, 518 –529.

Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job perfor-

mance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 19, 289 –303.

Aube⬘, C. & Rosseau, V. (2005). Team goal commit-

ment and team effectiveness: The role of task

interdependence and supportive behaviors. Group

Dynamics, 9, 189 –204.

Baker, D. P., & Salas, E. (1992). Principles for mea-

suring teamwork skills. Human Factors, 34, 469 –

475.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2001). Select on

conscientiousness and emotional stability. In E. A.

Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organiza-

tional behavior (pp. 15–28). Malden, MA: Black-

well.

266 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEA

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001).

Personality and performance at the beginning of

the new millennium: What do we know and where

do we go next? International Journal of Selection

and Assessment, 9, 9 –30.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., &

Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and

personality to work-team processes and team ef-

fectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,

377–391.

Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition,

process, and performance in self-managed groups:

The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psy-

chology, 82, 62–78.

Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effects: Emotional

contagion and its inﬂuence on group behavior.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644 – 675.

Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Identify, self-concept, and

self-esteem: The self lost and found. In R. Hogan,

J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of per-

sonality psychology (pp. 681–710). San Diego,

CA: Academic Press.

Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W.

(1995). Effects of ratee task performance and in-

terpersonal factors on supervisor peer performance

ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 168 –

177.

Borman, W. C., White, L. A., Pulakos, E. D., &

Oppler, S. H. (1991). Models of supervisory job

performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 76, 863– 872.

Brown, J. D., & Marshall, M. A. (2001). Self-esteem

and emotion: Some thoughts about feelings. Per-

sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 575–

584.

Bruch, M. A., Gorsky, J. M., Collins, T. M., &

Berger, P. A. (1989). Shyness and sociability re-

examined: A multicomponent analysis. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 904 –915.

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E.,

& Volpe, C. E. (1995). Deﬁning competencies and

establishing team training requirements. In R.

Guzzo and E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and

decision making in organizations, (pp. 333–380).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in

communication. In: L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, &

S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially

shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Conn, S. R., & Rieke, M. L. (1994). The 16PF ﬁfth

ed. technical manual. Champagne, IL: Institute for

Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO

Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and Five Fac-

tor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual.

Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costanzo, M. (1992). Training students to decode

verbal and nonverbal cues: Effects on conﬁdence

and performance. Journal of Educational Psychol-

ogy, 84, 308 –313.

Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge prob-

lem and its consequences for dispersed collabora-

tion. Organizational Science, 12, 346 –371.

Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of

self-worth. Psychological Review, 108, 593– 623.

Curtis, R. C., & Miller, K. (1986). Believing another

likes or dislikes you: Behaviors making the beliefs

come true. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 51, 284 –290.

Davis, J. H. (1969). Group performance. Reading,

MA: Addison Wesley.

DeGroot, T., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1999). Why visual

and vocal interview cues can affect interviewer’s

judgments and predict job performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 84, 986 –993.

Devine, D. J. (2002). A review and integration of

classiﬁcation systems relevant to teams in organi-

zations. Group Dynamics, 6, 291–310.

Devine, D. J., & Philips, J. L. (2001). Do smarter

teams do better: A Meta-analysis of cognitive abil-

ity and team performance. Small Group Re-

search, 32, 507–532.

Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust

on work group performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 84, 445– 455.

Dodgson, P. G., & Wood, J. V. (1998). Self-esteem

and the cognitive accessibility of strengths and

weaknesses after failure. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 75, 178 –197.

Driskell, J. E., Hogan, R., & Salas, E. (1987). Per-

sonality and group performance. In C. Hendrick

(Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy (Vol. 9, pp. 91–112). Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Driskell, J. E., Olmstead, B., & Salas, E. (1993). Task

cues, dominance cues, and inﬂuence in task

groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 51– 60.

Driskell, J. E., & Radtke, P. H. (2003). The effect of

gesture on speech production and comprehension.

Human Factors, 45, 445– 454.

Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1992). Collective behav-

ior and team performance. Human Factors, 34,

277–288.

Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., &

Cortina, J. M. (2006). A meta-analytic investiga-

tion of conscientiousness in the prediction of job

performance: Examining the intercorrelations and

the incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 91, 40 –57.

Ellemers, N., de Gilder, & van den Heuvel, H.

(1998). Career-oriented versus team-oriented com-

mitment and behavior at work. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83, 717–730.

267PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core

self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,

1270 –1279.

Fleishman, E. A., & Quaintance, M. K. (1984). Tax-

onomies of human performance. New York: Aca-

demic Press.

Fleishman, E. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (1992). Toward a

taxonomy of team performance functions. In R. W.

Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training

and performance (pp. 31–56). Norwood, NJ:

Ablex.

Forsyth, D. R. (1990). Group dynamics. Paciﬁc

Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Foushee, H. C. (1982). The role of communications,

socio-psychological, and personality factors in the

maintenance of crew coordination. Aviation,

Space, and Environmental Medicine, 53, 1062–

1066.

Foushee, H. C., & Helmreich, R. L. (1988). Group

interaction and ﬂight crew performance. In E. L.

Weiner & D. C. Nagel (Eds.), Human Factors in

Aviation, (pp. 189 –228). San Diego, CA: Aca-

demic Press.

Franz, T. M., Prince, C., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., &

Salas, E. (1990). The identiﬁcation of aircrew co-

ordination skills. Proceedings of the 12th sympo-

sium on psychology in the Department of Defense

(pp. 97–101). Springﬁeld, VA: National Technical

Information Service.

Friedman, H. S., & Miller-Herringer, T. (1991). Non-

verbal display of emotion in public and in private:

Self-monitoring, personality, and expressive cues.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,

766 –775.

Gallaher, P. E. (1992). Individual differences in non-

verbal behavior: Dimensions of style. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 133–145.

George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behav-

ior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,

107–116.

Golembiewski, R. T. (1962). The small group: An

analysis of research concepts and operations. Chi-

cago: University of Chicago Press.

Gough, H. G., & Bradley, P. (1996). CPI manual (3rd

ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists

Press.

Greer, F. L. (1955). Small group effectiveness (Insti-

tute Report No. 6). Philadelphia: Institute for Re-

search on Human Relations.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (1998). Mapping the

domain of expressivity: Multimethod evidence for

a hierarchical model. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 74, 170 –191.

Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (1999).

The role of neuroticism in daily stress and coping.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77,

1087–1100.

Gurtman, M. B. (1992). Trust, distrust, and interper-

sonal problems: A circumplex analysis. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 989 –1002.

Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1978). Group tasks,

group interaction process, and group performance

effectiveness: A review and proposed integration.

In L. Berkowitz, (Ed.), Group processes (pp.

1–55). New York: Academic Press.

Haythorn, W. (1953). The inﬂuence of individual

members on the characteristics of small groups.

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48,

276 –284.

Hirokawa, R. Y. (1980). A comparative analysis of

communication patterns within effective and inef-

fective decision-making groups. Communication

Monographs, 47, 312–321.

Hogan, R. (1986). Hogan personality inventory. Min-

neapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.

Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Sego, D. J., Hedlund,

J., Major, D. A., & Phillips, J. (1995). The multi-

level theory of team decision making: Decision

performance in teams incorporating distributed ex-

pertise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 292–

316.

Hollenbeck, J. R., Moon, H., Ellis, A. P. J., West, B.,

Ilgen, D., Sheppard, L., et al. (2002). Structural

contingency theory and individual differences: Ex-

amination of external and internal person-team ﬁt.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 599 – 606.

Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close

relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of per-

sonality and social psychology, Vol. 10 (pp. 187–

220). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hough, L. M. (1992). The “Big Five” personality

variables: Construct confusion-Description versus

prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139 –155.

Ilgen, D. R. (1999). Teams embedded in organiza-

tions. American Psychologist, 54, 129 –139.

Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt,

D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-

process-output models to IMOI models. Annual

Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.

Janicik, G. A., & Bartel, C. A. (2003). Talking about

time: Effects of temporal planning and time aware-

ness norms on group coordination and perfor-

mance. Group Dynamics, 7, 122–134.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Commu-

nication and trust in global virtual teams. Organi-

zational Science, 10, 791– 815.

Jones, K., & Day, J. D. (1997). Discrimination of two

aspects of cognitive-social intelligence from aca-

demic intelligence. Journal of Educational Psy-

chology, 89, 486 – 497.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model

of personality and transformational leadership.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751–765.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). The

power of being positive: The relationship between

268 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEA

positive self-concept and job performance. Human

Performance, 11, 167–187.

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger,

A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life

satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 83, 17–34.

Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J.

(1997). Five-factor model of personality and em-

ployee absence. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 82, 745–755.

Kanki, B. G., Lozito, S. C., & Foushee, H. C. (1989).

Communication indices of crew coordination. Avi-

ation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 60, 56 –

60.

Kanki, B. G., & Smith, G. M. (2001). Training avi-

ation communication skills. In E. Salas, C. A.

Bowers, & E. Edens (Eds.), Improving teamwork

in organizations (pp. 95–127). Mahwah, NJ: Erl-

baum.

Kelley, H., & Stahelski, A. (1970). Social interaction

bases of cooperators’ and competitors’ beliefs

about others. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 16, 66 –91.

Kowslowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., &

Smith, E. M. (1999). Developing adaptive teams:

A theory of compilation and performance across

levels and time. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos

(Eds.), The changing nature of work performance:

Implications for stafﬁng, motivation, and develop-

ment (pp. 240 –294). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., McHugh, P. P.,

Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). A dy-

namic theory of leadership and team effectiveness:

Developmental and task contingent leader roles.

Research in Personnel and Human Resources

Management, 14, 253–305.

Kring, A. M., Smith, D. A., & Neale, J. M. (1994).

Individual differences in dispositional expressive-

ness: Development and validation of the emotional

expressivity scale. Journal of Personality and So-

cial Psychology, 66, 934 –949.

LePine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation and

postchange performance: Effects of team compo-

sition in terms of members’ cognitive ability and

personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,

27–39.

LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D., & Hed-

lund, J. (1997). Effects of individual differences on

the performance of hierarchical decision-making

teams: Much more than g. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 82, 803– 811.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. V. (2001). Voice and

cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of con-

textual performance: Evidence of differential rela-

tionships with Big Five personality characteristics

and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 86, 326 –336.

Lieberman, M. D., & Rosenthal, R. (2001). Why

introverts can’t always tell who likes them: Mul-

titasking and nonverbal decoding. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 80, 294 –310.

Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1961). Group cohesiveness,

communication level, and conformity. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 408 – 412.

Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2001). Understanding

extroverts’ enjoyment of social situations: The im-

portance of pleasantness. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 81, 343–356.

Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Shao, L., &

Grob, A. (2000). Cross-cultural evidence for the

fundamental features of extraversion. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 452– 468.

Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationships

between personality and performance in small

groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241–270.

Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000).

Performance implications of leader brieﬁngs and

team-interaction training for team adaptation to

novel environments. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 85, 971–986.

Marlowe, H. A. (1986). Social intelligence: Evidence

for multidimensionality and construct indepen-

dence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 52–

58.

Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas,

E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The inﬂuence

of shared mental models on team process and

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,

273–283.

McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big

Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative

science of personality. American Psychologist, 61,

204 –217.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions

and correlates of openness to experience. In R.

Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook

of Personality Psychology (pp. 825– 847). San Di-

ego, CA: Academic Press.

McIntyre, R. M., & Salas, E. (1995). Measuring and

managing for team performance: Lessons from

complex environments. (In R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas,

& Associates (Eds.), Team effectiveness and deci-

sion making in organizations (pp. 9 – 45). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.)

McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany,

N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new orga-

nizational relationships. Academy of Management

Review, 23, 473– 490.

Moon, H. (2001). The two faces of conscientious-

ness: Duty and achievement-striving within esca-

lation of commitment dilemmas. Journal of Ap-

plied Psychology, 86, 533–540.

Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1992). Problem

identiﬁcation by groups. In S. Worchel, W. Wood,

269PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

& J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and pro-

ductivity (pp. 17– 47). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Morgan, B. B., Glickman, A. S., Woodard, E. A.,

Blaiwes, A., & Salas, E. (1986). Measurement of

team behaviors in a Navy environment (NTSC

Tech. Rep. No. No. 86 –014). Orlando, FL: Naval

Training Systems Center.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Lafﬁtte, L. J., &

Callans, M. C. (1999). Personal Characteristics

Inventory User’s Manual. Libertyville: IL: Won-

derlic Consulting.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L.

(1998). Five-factor model of personality and per-

formance in jobs involving interpersonal interac-

tions. Human Performance, 11, 145–165.

Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation be-

tween group cohesiveness and performance: An

integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210 –227.

Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Threlfall, K. V.,

Uhlman, C. E., & Costanza, D. P. (1993). Person-

ality, adaptability, and performance: Performance

on well-deﬁned and ill-deﬁned problem-solving

tasks. Human Performance, 6, 241–285.

Murray, S. L., Hilmes, J. G., MacDonald, G., &

Ellsworth, P. C. (1998). Through the looking glass

darkly: When self-doubts turn into relationship

insecurities. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 75, 1459 –1480.

Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. (1999). Team effective-

ness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 84, 376 –389.

Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know—And some-

times misjudge—What others know: Imputing

one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological

Bulletin, 125, 737–759.

Norton, R. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, ap-

plications, and measures. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Paulhus, D. L., & Martin, C. L. (1988). Functional

ﬂexibility: A new conception of interpersonal ﬂex-

ibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 55, 88 –101.

Porter, C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Ellis, A.,

West, B. J., & Moon, H. (2003). Backing up be-

haviors in teams: The role of personality and le-

gitimacy of need. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 88, 391– 403.

Prapavessis, H., & Carron, A. V. (1997). Sacriﬁce,

cohesion, and conformity to norms in sport teams.

Group Dynamics, 1, 231–240.

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle,

B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A per-

sonality variable predicting social and political at-

titudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 67, 741–763.

Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plam-

ondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the work-

place: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,

612– 624.

Riggio, R., & Friedman, H. (1986). Impression for-

mation: The role of expressive behavior. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 421–

427.

Rosnow, R. L., Skleder, A. A., Jaeger, M. E., & Rind,

B. (1994). Intelligence and the epistemics of inter-

personal acumen: Testing some implications of

Gardner’s theory. Intelligence, 19, 93–116).

Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tan-

nenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of

team performance and training. In R. W. Swezey

& E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and per-

formance (pp. 3–29). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Saucier, G., & Ostendorf, F. (1999). Hierarchical

subcomponents of the big ﬁve personality factors:

A cross-cultural replication. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 76, 613– 627.

Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D.

(1996). Broadsided by broad traits: How to sink

science in ﬁve dimensions or less. Journal of Or-

ganizational Behavior, 17, 639 – 655.

Shaw, Marjorie, E. (1932). A comparison of individ-

uals and small groups in the rational solution of

complex problems. American Journal of Psychol-

ogy, 44, 491–504.

Shaw, Marvin, E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psy-

chology of small group behavior. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Shiﬂett, S. C. (1972). Group performance as a func-

tion of task difﬁculty and organizational interde-

pendence. Organizational Behavior and Group

Performance, 7, 442– 456.

Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Salas, E., & Brannick, M. T.

(2001). To transfer or not to transfer? Investigating

the combined effects of trainee characteristics,

team leader support, and team climate. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 86, 279 –292.

Snyder, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressive

behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 30, 526 –537.

Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1995). Effects of informa-

tion load and percentage of shared information on

the dissemination of unshared information during

group discussion. Journal of Personality and So-

cial Psychology, 48, 1467–1478.

Stewart, G. L. (1999). Trait bandwidth and stages of

job performance: Assessing differential effects of

conscientiousness and its subtraits. Journal of Ap-

plied Psychology, 84, 959 –968.

Stouffer, S. A., Lumsdaine, A. A., Lumsdaine, M. H.,

Williams, R. M., Smith, M. B., Janis, I. L., et al.

(1949). The American soldier: Combat and its

aftermath. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.

Stout, R. J., Salas, E., & Fowlkes, J. E. (1997).

Enhancing teamwork in complex environments

270 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEA

through team training. Group Dynamics, 1, 169 –

182.

Thompson, L. F., & Coovert, M. D. (2003). Team-

work online: The effects of computer conferencing

on perceived confusion, satisfaction, and postdis-

cussion accuracy. Group Dynamics, 7, 135–151.

Totterdell, P., Kellett, S., Teuchmann, K., & Briner,

R. B. (1998). Evidence of mood linkage in work

groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 74, 1504 –1515.

Vancouver, J. B., & Ilgen, D. R. (1989). Effects of

interpersonal orientation and the sex-type of the

task on choosing to work alone or in groups. Jour-

nal of Applied Psychology, 74, 927–934.

Van Lange, P. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes

and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of

social value orientation. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 77, 337–349.

Van Lange, P., De Bruin, E., Otten, W., & Joireman,

J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individu-

alistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and

preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 73, 733–746.

Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group

effectiveness. Administrative Science Quar-

terly, 40, 145–180.

Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-

collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups.

Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152–172.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and

its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J. John-

son, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality

psychology (pp. 767—793). San Diego, CA: Aca-

demic Press.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988).

Development and validation of brief measures of

positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,

1063–1070.

Weingart, L. R. (1992). Impact of group goals, task

component complexity, effort, and planning on

group performance. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 77, 682– 693.

Witt, L. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Social skill as

moderator of the conscientiousness-performance

relationship: Convergent results across four stud-

ies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 809 – 821.

Yamagishi, T. (2001). Trust as a form of social

intelligence. In K. Cook (Ed.), Trust in society (pp.

121–147). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Inﬂuence tactics

and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral

inﬂuence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 75, 132–140.

Zaccaro, S. J., Foti, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1991).

Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in leader-

ship: An investigation of leader ﬂexibility across

multiple group situations. Journal of Applied Psy-

chology, 76, 308 –315.

Zaccaro, S. J., Gilbert, J. A., Thor, K. K., & Mum-

ford, M. D. (1991). Leadership and social intelli-

gence: Linking social perceptiveness and behav-

ioral ﬂexibility to leader effectiveness. Leadership

Quarterly, 2, 317–342.

Zander, A., & Forward, J. (1968). Position in group,

achievement orientation, and group aspirations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8,

282–288.

Received February 9, 2004

Revision received July 31, 2006

Accepted August 5, 2006 䡲

271PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.

Learn more

Content available from Group Dynamics Theory Research and Practice

This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.

Mapping the Landscape of Team Roles: A Cluster Analysis of Key Authors

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2024

Vít Dočekal

This paper is a continuation of the presentation of results from a systematic literature review aimed at identifying key authors in the field of team roles and grouping them into clusters of interconnected authors. It aims to define clusters of authors focusing on team roles. The results of this work can serve to facilitate future researchers' orientation to the different typologies of team roles. The defined clusters can also be used by practitioners in the field due to the clarity of studies describing team roles. The methodology utilized in this study involved a systematic literature review followed by an analysis of author relationships through systematic literature mapping. As described by Soaita et al (2020), systematic literature mapping is considered a valuable tool for comprehensively understanding the structure of a specific topic. Following the guidelines proposed by Kuckartz and Rädiker (2019) for conducting a literature review based on literature search, we proceeded through the described phases. The obtained results have brought about surprising insights, particularly the strongly developed cluster around J. E. Mathieu. The cluster centred around S. K. Parker is also interesting in terms of its gradual linking pattern, where authors build upon each other's work gradually. The presented results serve as an initial exploratory input for further research on theories, concepts and models of typologies and taxonomies. The groups of approaches to team roles depicted in this study clarify the

Group formation based on extraversion and prior knowledge: a randomized controlled study in higher education online

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2024
J Comput High Educ

The study investigates how the 2×2 configuration of homogeneous and heterogeneous distributions of extraversion and prior knowledge influences group outcomes, including satisfaction, performance, and stability. Based on the standard deviation of extraversion and prior knowledge, groups were established to test experimentally, what form of grouping leads to best outcomes. The randomized controlled trial took place in the context of an online course with 355 prospective students, working in 82 groups. The two characteristics extraversion and prior knowledge were distributed algorithmically, either homogeneously or heterogeneously. Results showed no superiority of heterogeneous formation, yet there were systematic interaction effects by the experimental group formation on satisfaction and performance. Due to the increasing relevance of online groupwork, explorative results are reported and integrated. Ideas for future research on group formation as an important influencing factor are discussed. Findings supports knowledge about cooperative online learning by optimizing the selection of group members using a therefore implemented algorithm.

A Formal Account of AI Trustworthiness: Connecting Intrinsic and Perceived Trustworthiness

Conference Paper

Full-text available

Oct 2024

This paper proposes a formal account of AI trustworthiness, connecting both intrinsic and perceived trustworthiness in an operational schematization. We argue that trustworthiness extends beyond the inherent capabilities of an AI system to include significant influences from observers' perceptions, such as perceived transparency, agency locus, and human oversight. While the concept of perceived trustworthiness is discussed in the literature, few attempts have been made to connect it with the intrinsic trustworthiness of AI systems. Our analysis introduces a novel schematization to quantify trustworthiness by assessing the discrepancies between expected and observed behaviors and how these affect perceived uncertainty and trust. The paper provides a formalization for measuring trustworthiness, taking into account both perceived and intrinsic characteristics. By detailing the factors that influence trust, this study aims to foster more ethical and widely accepted AI technologies, ensuring they meet both functional and ethical criteria.

Renforcer les contextes non cognitifs et connectifs pour développer l’intelligence collective dans une classe de l’école secondaire inférieure

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2024

Giuseppe Liverano

The problems that occur in a school context are complex and almost always involve several parties, so much so that any decision made to solve a critical problem must be adaptive and, at the same time, take into account the different cultures, knowledge and value systems of all parties involved. The solution of a problem and the knowledge that results from it are therefore the result of practical experience and collaboration, of a willingness to reason in a group called collective intelligence (Heylighen 1999), more effective than the reasoning of a single individual (Forsyth, 2006). Collective intelligence develops in connective contexts, where acting subjects have the opportunity to practice skills that promote connection. The development of non-cognitive skills is known to foster collaboration, interaction, and social learning within a group (Heckman, Kautz, 2014). The objective of this article is to understand how collective writing and non-cognitive skills explored can contribute to the development of collective intelligence in a lower secondary classroom. Les problèmes qui surviennent en milieu scolaire sont complexes et impliquent presque toujours plusieurs parties, à tel point que toute décision prise pour résoudre un problème critique doit être adaptative et, en même temps, tenir compte des différentes cultures, connaissances et systèmes de valeurs de toutes les parties impliquées. La solution d'un problème et les connaissances qui en découlent sont donc le résultat d'une expérience pratique et d'une collaboration, d'une volonté de raisonner dans un groupe appelé intelligence collective (Heylighen 1999), plus efficace que le raisonnement d'un seul individu (Forsyth, 2006). L'intelligence collective se développe dans des contextes conjonctifs, où les sujets qui agissent ont la possibilité de pratiquer des compétences qui favorisent la connexion. Le développement de compétences non cognitives est connu pour favoriser la collaboration, l'in-teraction et l'apprentissage social au sein d'un groupe (Heckman, Kautz, 2014). L'objectif de cet article est de comprendre comment l'écriture collective et les compétences non cognitives explorées peuvent contribuer au dé-veloppement de l'intelligence collective dans une classe du premier cycle du secondaire.

A Formal Account of Trustworthiness: Connecting Intrinsic and Perceived Trustworthiness

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2024

Fluid teams

Article

Oct 2024

Fluid teams are teams whose members are drawn from various technical domains or organizational divisions and assembled to undertake a critical, time-limited task. Members of these teams are rapidly assembled, have no prior familiarity or experience working together, must begin work immediately to accomplish the task, and then cease to exist following completion. In this article, we elaborate and clarify the construct of fluid teams, examine the challenges of the fluid team context for military team performance, and propose approaches for supporting fluid team performance.

Pick your battles: Elite ski-jumpers’ motives affect world cup performance depending on competition type

Article

Oct 2024
PSYCHOL SPORT EXERC

Development and Validation of the Individual Teamwork Behaviors Questionnaire

Article

Aug 2024

Although there has been significant research investigating the processes that facilitate how individuals work collectively as a team, there has been little attention to the specific behaviors that individual team members need to exhibit to support teamwork. Despite two such measures currently existing in the literature, both suffer from a few important limitations, which makes it difficult to ensure individual team members are contributing to the team and targeted for the most appropriate developmental efforts. Through a series of studies, we inductively develop the dimensions for such a measure, establish its convergent and discriminant validity against an established peer-evaluated measure, and then show how it fits in the nomological network of established teamwork measures. The resulting measure supports the strengths of a multi-source, peer-rated scale by capturing observable behaviors that can more clearly be evaluated by fellow group members and which are applicable to various organizational environments.

The Role of Multidisciplinary Collaborations in Publishing Innovation

Article

Aug 2024

Tackling adversity with open minds: Team personality composition facilitates shared leadership and team resilience

Article

Aug 2024

Resilient teams can efficiently resolve disruption and overcome adversity. Despite growing interest in building and maintaining resilient teams, our understanding of the factors that promote team resilience necessitates further theorizing and empirical testing. Based on conservation of resources and shared leadership theories, we propose that team member personality (i.e., mean openness to experience) serves as a resource that facilitates team resilience via shared leadership. Further, we argue that the strength of influence of shared leadership on team resilience is contingent on the variance of openness to experience scores among team members. We draw our conclusions from three studies (i.e., two recall experiments and a multi‐source field study) involving working professionals in virtual teams. Our findings shed light on the interactive role of team member personality in explaining team resilience, thereby extending our knowledge of the personality predictors of shared leadership and team resilience.

Cross-Cultural Evidence for the Fundamental Features of Extraversion

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2000

Psychologists have not determined the defining characteristics of extraversion. In four studies, the authors tested the hypothesis that extraversion facets are linked by reward sensitivity. According to this hypothesis, only facets that reflect reward sensitivity should load on a higher order extraversion factor. This model was tested against a model in which sociability links the facets. The authors also tested the generalizability of the model in a diverse sample of participants from 39 nations, and they tested the model using widely used extraversion scales. Results of all studies indicate that only facets that reflect reward sensitivity load on a higher order extraversion factor and that this factor correlates strongly with pleasant affect. Although sociability is undoubtedly an important part of extraversion, these results suggest that extraverts’ sociability may be a by-product of reward sensitivity, rather than the core feature of the trait.

Hierarchical Subcomponents of the Big Five Personality Factors: A Cross-Language Replication

Article

Full-text available

Apr 1999

An ideal structural representation of personality attributes would include more than just broad-bandwidth factors. Specific subcomponents help define broad factors while enhancing the fidelity of the representation. There has been no consensus with regard to the necessary specific subcomponents of the Big Five. This problem was addressed by analyzing 2 representative lexical data sets, one involving English adjectives and the other involving German adjectives. Large samples (Ns of 636 and 775) were used in classifying a selection of 500 adjectives in each language by Big Five domains, and within each domain and language, the terms were factor analyzed with promax rotation. Ratings by 22 bilinguals of correspondence between the adjectives in English and German factors indicated 18 distinct content themes common to personality description in the 2 languages. The 18 subcomponents delineate necessary features of a more finely faceted measurement model for the lexical Big Five factors.

Through the Looking Glass Darkly? When Self-Doubts Turn Into Relationship Insecurities

Article

Full-text available

Dec 1998

The authors argue that individuals regulate perceptions of their relationships in a self-protective way, finding virtue in their partners only when they feel confident that their partners also see virtues in them. In 4 experiments, the authors posed an acute threat to low and high self-esteem individuals’ feelings of self-worth (e.g., guilt about a transgression, fears of being inconsiderate or intellectually inept). They then collected measures of confidence in the partner's positive regard and acceptance (i.e., reflected appraisals) and perceptions of the partner. The results revealed that low self-esteem individuals reacted to self-doubt with heightened doubts about their partners’ regard, which then tarnished impressions of their partners. In contrast, high self-esteem individuals reacted to self-doubts by becoming more convinced of their partners’ continued acceptance, using their relationships as a resource for self-affirmation.

Mapping the Domain of Expressivity: Multimethod Evidence for a Hierarchical Model

Article

Full-text available

Jan 1998

Increased interest in emotional expressivity has led to a proliferation of conceptions and measures. It is unclear, however, whether they all refer to the same construct and whether the domain of emotional expressivity is best conceptualized as unidimensional or multifaceted. Study 1 examined 6 common expressivity questionnaires, yielding 5 factors: Expressive Confidence, Positive Expressivity, Negative Expressivity, Impulse Intensity, and Masking. To develop a nomological network for these factors, the factors were related to broader personality taxonomies and their differential relations to sex and ethnicity were tested. Study 2 provided further evidence of discriminant validity in relation to (a) typical emotion expression in peer relationships, (b) ability to pose emotions in the laboratory, (c) likability, and (d) regulation of emotion and mood. These findings support a hierarchical model of individual differences in emotional expressivity.

Five-Factor Model of Personality and Employee Absence

Article

Full-text available

Oct 1997

The present study investigates the degree to which dimensions of the 5-factor model of personality (often termed the Big Five) are related to absence. On the basis of previous descriptions of the Big Five traits and drawing from prior research, the authors hypothesized that neuroticism and extraversion would positively predict absence and conscientiousness would negatively predict absence. Also, they hypothesized that absence history (absence proneness), measured by the absence that occurred the year prior to the study, would partly mediate the relationship between the personality characteristics and subsequent absenteeism. Data were collected from a sample of 89 university employees. Results suggest that extraversion and conscientiousness predicted absenteeism and that part, but not all, of the relationship between these traits and absence was mediated through absence history.

Individual Differences in Dispositional Expressiveness: Development and Validation of the Emotional Expressivity Scale

Article

Full-text available

May 1994

Although emotional expressivity figures prominently in several theories of psychological and physical functioning, limitations of currently available measurement techniques impede precise and economical testing of these theories. The 17-item Emotional Expressivity Scale (EES) was designed as a self-report measure of the extent to which people outwardly display their emotions. Reliability studies showed the EES to be an internally consistent and stable individual-difference measure. Validational studies established initial convergent and discriminant validities, a moderate relationship between self-rated and other-rated expression, and correspondence between self-report and laboratory-measured expressiveness using both college student and community populations. The potential for the EES to promote and integrate findings across diverse areas of research is discussed.

Impression Formation: The Role of Expressive Behavior

Article

Full-text available

Feb 1986

This research examined the effects of personality/social skills and individual differences in expressive style on impression formation. Particular attention was given to the role of nonverbal behaviors in the formation of initial impressions. Sixty-two subjects were measured on self-report personality and communication skill scales, on posed emotional sending ability, and on physical attractiveness. Subjects were then videotaped while giving a spontaneous “explanation.” Trained coders measured five separate nonverbal cue factors displayed by the subjects in the videotapes. Groups of untrained judges viewed the tapes and rated their impressions of the subjects on scales of likability, speaking effectiveness, and expressivity-confidence. Male subjects who were nonverbally skilled and extraverted tended to display more outwardly focused and fluid expressive behaviors, and made more favorable impressions on judges, than did males who scored low on the measures of nonverbal skills and extraversion. Females who were nonverbally skilled displayed more facial expressiveness, which led to more favorable initial impressions. Sex differences may reflect basic differences in the acquisition and use of expressive nonverbal cues by males and females.

Understanding Extraverts' Enjoyment of Social Situations: The Importance of Pleasantness

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2001

Extraversion is a broad, multifaceted trait, yet researchers are still unsure of its defining characteristics. One possibility is that the essential feature of extraversion is the tendency to enjoy social situations. An alternative possibility is that extraversion represents sensitivity to rewards and the tendency to experience pleasant affect. In three studies, participants rated situations that varied on two dimensions: (a) whether they were social or nonsocial and (b) whether they were very pleasant, moderately pleasant, moderately unpleasant, or very unpleasant. Extraverts only rated social situations more positively than introverts did when the situations were pleasant, and extraverts also rated nonsocial situations more positively than introverts did if the situations were pleasant. Thus, the pleasantness of situations was more important than whether they were social or nonsocial in determining extraverts' and introverts' enjoyment.

Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts

Article

Apr 1990

Two studies were conducted to replicate and extend previous exploratory research by Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson (1980) on influence tactics and objectives in organizations. A new questionnaire was developed that included measures of important influence tactics and objectives omitted in the earlier research. Whereas the earlier research used only agent self-reports of influence behavior, the present research used both agent and target reports. Differences in downward, lateral, and upward influence attempts were replicated more for data from agents than for data from targets. Direction of influence had a stronger effect on influence objectives than on influence tactics. Despite some differences due to data source and direction of influence, the relative frequency of use for the 8 influence tactics was remarkably similar across conditions. Consultation and rational persuasion were the tactics used most frequently, regardless of the direction of influence.

A review and integration of classification systems relevant to teams in organizations

Article

Dec 2002

Dennis J. Devine

Although the determinants of team effectiveness differ across team types, no taxonomy of teams has been widely accepted by researchers or practitioners. This article reviews classification schemes advanced in the psychology and management literatures, and offers an integrative taxonomy consisting of 14 team types classified on 7 underlying contextual dimensions (i.e., fundamental work cycle, physical ability requirements, temporal duration, task structure, active resistance, hardware dependence, and health risk). The 14 team types are divided into two clusters-intellectual work teams (executive, command, negotiation, commission, design, and advisory) and physical work teams (service, production, performance, medical, response, military, transportation, and sports). The discussion addresses the taxonomy's relation to existing classifications, and its role in furthering an understanding of team effectiveness.

What Makes a Good Team Player? Personality and Team Effectiveness

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

Interdependence and Controversy in Group Decision Making: Antecedents to Effective Self-Managing Tea...

Getting Started

Korea's Foreign Policy Dilemmas: Defining State Security and the Goal of National Unification

The Essential, Objective and Functional Characteristics of the Students’ Academic Mobility in Higher...