What makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness

250 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEAAlthough these results have demonstrated therelevance of team member personality to teameffectiveness, there are two ways in which wewish to extend this research. First, there arespecific, lower-level facets within the higherlevelBig Five traits that may have differing andeven contradictory effects on team performance.For example, it is unclear whether theeffect of extraversion on team performance observedby Barrick et al. (1998) stems from theeffect of the assertiveness/dominance componentof extraversion (i.e., extraverts are assertive)or from the sociability/affiliation componentof extraversion (i.e., extraverts are sociable).Thus, one goal of the current research is todefine specific personality facets within thehigher-level Big Five traits that are relevant toteam effectiveness.Second, we acknowledge that team performanceis multidimensional and that differentpersonality facets may be predictive of differentperformance dimensions. This position is consistentwith a person-team fit perspective (Hollenbecket al., 2002) that the relationship betweenindividual differences in personality andoutcomes is contingent on the nature of the task.Therefore, we argue that to examine the impactof personality on team effectiveness requiresthat not only do we provide more specificity interms of what we mean by personality, but alsoprovide more specificity in terms of what wemean by team effectiveness. More specifically,we claim that the effects of team member personalityon team effectiveness should be examinedin terms of what teams do. Researchershave identified core teamwork dimensions orteam functions that must be accomplishedwithin teams. These teamwork dimensions includeactivities such as team management (i.e.,directing and coordinating task activities), interpersonalrelations (i.e., resolving conflicts andmaintaining socioemotional relations), andadaptability (i.e., compensatory or backup behavior).Thus, it is quite likely that specificfacets of team member personality may havedifferential effects on these activities that underlieeffective team performance. For example,a team member that is highly sociable may bequite adept at maintaining good interpersonalrelations in teams, but not necessarily adept attask management and planning. Therefore, ourgoal is to define the specific personality facetsthat are relevant to team effectiveness and linkthese to the core teamwork dimensions thatdefine effective team performance.In the following, we first attempt to elaboratethe concept of a good team player by deriving ahierarchical model of team member personalitythat defines specific personality traits and facetsthat we believe are most relevant to team performance.We then present a classification ofthe core teamwork dimensions underlying effectiveteam performance. Finally, we derivepredictions linking team member personalityfacets to these teamwork requirements.What Defines a Good Team Player?We follow Ilgen (1999) in focusing on workteams—teams embedded in organizations thatexist to accomplish tasks. In a typical workteam, what Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh, Salas,and Cannon-Bowers (1996) call “action teams,”and what Hollenbeck et al. (1995) term “distributedexpertise teams,” each team member possessesspecific information or expertise to contributeto the team task. Although work teamsare often hierarchically structured, our focus ison the interdependent team member. Thus, ourinitial goal is to describe the traits or facets thatdefine the prototypical team player.Although there is some divergence on howpersonality traits should be labeled and organized,personality theorists are in general agreementon the nature of the structure of personality.Most theorists propose a hierarchical modelof personality, with broad higher-order factorsor traits that subsume and organize more specificlower-level facets (cf. Saucier & Ostendorf,1999). For example, the Big Five factormodel represents a broad set of traits that arethemselves a collection of many facets that havesomething in common. Whereas the broadhigher-level constructs offer an efficient andparsimonious way of describing personality, themore specific facets can offer higher fidelity oftrait descriptions and greater predictive validity(Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999; Stewart, 1999).Figure 1 presents a hierarchical model ofteam member personality, defined by the BigFive trait dimensions of emotional stability, extraversion,openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.These traits are composed of themore specific facets that we believe are relevantto team effectiveness. In the following sections,we describe each facet and its relationship to

PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS251TeamworkEmotional Stability Extraversion Openness Agreeableness ConscientiousnessAdjustmentDominanceFlexibilityTrustDependabilitySelf-EsteemAffiliationCooperationDutifulnessSocialPerceptivenessAchievementExpressivityFigure 1.Hierarchical Model of Facets Related to Teamworkteam performance. In some cases, these facetsare linked to team performance through existingempirical research, and in other cases, we attemptto develop that connection based on arational extrapolation from related literature.This process is complicated somewhat by thefact that little research has been done on personalityand team performance at the facetlevel. Where appropriate, we note facets that aresimilar to the facets we have defined, drawnfrom existing personality inventories such asthe NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992), HoganPersonality Inventory (HPI; Hogan, 1986), thePersonal Characteristics Inventory (PCI;Mount, Barrick, Laffitte, & Callans, 1999), the16PF (Conn & Rieke, 1994), and the CaliforniaPersonality Inventory (CPI; Gough & Bradley,1996). Because there is no direct correspondencebetween measures from different scales,these comparisons are meant solely to be illustrative.Emotional StabilityThe trait of emotional stability refers to a lackof anxiety and nervous tendencies. Those whoare emotionally stable tend to be well-adjusted,calm, secure, and self-confident. Viewed fromthe negative pole of neuroticism, those whoscore low on this trait tend to be moody, anxious,paranoid, nervous, insecure, depressed,and high-strung (Barrick & Mount, 2001). Inpast studies of military teams, Haythorn (1953)and Greer (1955) reported that emotional stabilitywas positively related to team effectiveness.Several researchers have claimed thatemotional stability is a significant factor inteamwork or any task that requires coordinatedbehavior (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001;Driskell et al., 1987; Mount, Barrack, & Stewart,1998). The facets of emotional stability thatwe believe are most relevant to team interactionare adjustment and self-esteem.Adjustment. Adjustment has been definedby Hogan (1986) as freedom from anxiety, depression,and somatic complaints. Watson,Clark, and Tellegen (1988) have viewed lack ofadjustment as negative affect, a general dimensionof subjective distress and unpleasurableengagement. Gunthert, Cohen, and Armeli(1999) described neurotic individuals as“caught in a web of negative behaviors, cognitions,and moods. . .They seem to experience(perhaps generate) more interpersonal stressors,their perceptions of daily events are more negative,and their coping choices are maladaptive”(p. 1099).Given that those low on adjustment are proneto be distressed, upset, hostile, irritable, andnervous, they are not likely to excel in interper-

254 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEA“individuals who accurately perceived the preferencesof others were regarded as highly desirable,cooperative and efficient group members”(p. 257). Cognate scales related to thesocial perceptiveness facet include the PCI facetof Consideration and the CPI facet of Empathy(insightful regarding how others feel and think).Expressivity. Individuals high in expressivityare interpersonally expressive and communicative,whereas those low in expressivity aremore reserved, taciturn, and impassive. Emotionalexpressivity refers to the extent to whichpeople outwardly display emotion (Kring,Smith, & Neale, 1994). Emotional expressivityis 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 definedin recent research as emotional expressivity.However, conveying emotions is only onefunction of expressive behavior. Expressive behaviorsserve multiple functions—to supplementand elaborate speech, accent or punctuatespeech, regulate the timing and sequence ofcommunication, and convey comprehension,confusion, agreement, and interest (Driskell &Radtke, 2003). All of these functions can serveto more fully convey information to the listener.Thus, we describe those high in expressivity asbeing interpersonally expressive. In a sense, thisfacet is the flip side of social perceptiveness. Tothe extent that those high in social perceptivenessare good decoders of expressive behavior,those high in expressivity are good encoders ofexpressive behavior.Gross and John (1998) examined one componentof expressivity, noting that those high inexpressive confidence tend to exhibit high levelsof expressivity in social situations, but do soin situationally appropriate ways. Gallaher(1992) defined expressiveness as involving energeticcommunication, with those high in expressivityexhibiting a high level of behaviorslinked to communication. We believe that severalaspects of expressivity are relevant to teaminteraction. Those low in expressivity are moredifficult to read by other team members and areless likely to communicate effectively to others;thus, they are less informative. Furthermore,those low in expressivity may be seen by othersas less likable (Riggio & Friedman, 1986) andless competent (DeGroot & Motowidlo, 1999).Cognate scales related to the expressivity facetinclude the 16PF facet of Liveliness (animatedand expressive vs. restrained and taciturn) andthe HPI facet of Expressive.OpennessThe trait of openness has been described asintellectance (Hogan, 1986) and openness toexperience (McRae & Costa, 1997), and reflectsintellectual, cultural, or creative interests. Althoughindividual aptitude or cognitive abilityof team members is clearly related to teameffectiveness (Devine & Philips, 2001), withinthe domain of personality, group researchersgenerally hold that there is little direct relationshipbetween the general trait of openness orintellectance and teamwork (see Driskell et al.,1987; Porter et al., 2003). However, some componentsof the openness trait are relevant, especiallythe facet of flexibility.Flexibility. McRae and Costa (1997) claimedthat the trait of openness is, from the negativepole, related to rigidity in behavior and unwillingnessto accept change. We believe that thefacet of flexibility (vs. rigidity) is critical tointerdependent behavior. Paulhus and Martin(1988) have defined functional flexibility as theability to adjust one’s behavior to suit changinginterpersonal situations. Paulhus and Martin focusedon the interpersonal advantages of flexibility,noting that in social situations, the flexibleperson can be assertive or submissive, warmor cold, as the situation demands. Zaccaro, Gilbert,Thor, and Mumford (1991) defined behavioralflexibility as one component of social intelligence.This conceptualization emphasizesthe problem-solving aspects of behavioral flexibilityin addition to the interpersonal aspects,defining behavioral flexibility as “the abilityand willingness to respond in significantly differentways to correspondingly different situationalrequirements” (p. 322).Rigid persons tend to be stubborn and headstrong,view uncertainty as a threat, and generallyhave a low tolerance for ambiguity. Recentresearch has discussed the importance of adaptabilityto teams (Kowslowski, Gully, Nason, &Smith, 1999) and work environments (Pulakos,Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000). Pulakoset al. (2000) identified several critical dimensionsof adaptive performance, including flexibilityin handling uncertain task conditions, interpersonalflexibility, and flexibility in problem

PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS255solving. Cognate scales related to the flexibilityfacet include the CPI facet of Flexibility, theHPI facet of Not Spontaneous (“It is always bestto stick with a plan that works.”), the NEO-PI-Rfacet of Openness-Actions, and the 16PF facetof Openness to Change.AgreeablenessThe trait of agreeableness is defined as kindness,trust, and warmth versus selfishness, distrust,and hostility. Persons high on agreeablenessare considerate, honest, helpful, and supportive.Persons low on agreeableness areuncaring, intolerant, unsympathetic, and critical.Some researchers have claimed that agreeablenessmay be the best primary predictor ofperformance in interpersonal settings (Mount etal., 1998; Neumann & Wright, 1999). Thus,agreeableness seems to have high predictivevalidity for tasks that involve cooperation andthat involve smooth relations with others (Barricket al., 2001). The facets of agreeablenessthat we believe are most relevant to team interactionare trust and cooperation.Trust. Gurtman (1992) defines trust as thebelief that the sincerity, benevolence, and truthfulnessof others can generally be relied upon.According to Judge, Erez, and Bono (1998), theopposite of trust is cynicism, the belief thatothers 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 othersare well-meaning and dependable, and (b) trustingstance, the assumption that one will achievea better outcome by dealing with people asthough they were trustworthy. Holmes andRempel (1989) define trust as composed of severalcomponents, including dependability, orthe belief that others can be counted on to behonest, reliable, and benevolent; and faith, orthe conviction that others are intrinsically motivatedto be responsive and caring.We distinguish between trust (or dispositionto trust) and trustworthiness or reliability, whichis captured by our dependability facet. Thosewith dispositionally high trust believe that othersare honest and well-intentioned, whereasthose with low trust are suspicious and doubtthe sincerity, motives, or intentions of others.Yamagishi (2001) noted that trust is not theindiscriminate belief in the goodness of others,which may lead to gullibility, but defines generaltrust as a default expectation of the trustworthinessof others. Those with high trust assumethat other people are trustworthy untilevidence is provided indicating otherwise.Dirks (1999) noted that interpersonal trust is ahallmark of effective groups and argued thathigh trust should lead to greater cooperation andhelping behaviors, greater task commitment,and higher effort expended on the task. Dirksfound that in high-trust groups, higher motivationwas channeled into more cooperative behaviorand better performance. Jarvenpaa andLeidner (1999) also found that lower levels oftrust were associated with lower team performance.Cognate scales related to the trust facetinclude the NEO-PI-R facet of Trust and theHPI facet of Trusting.Cooperation. Van Lange, De Bruin, Otten,and Joireman (1997) have noted that some peopleare willing to give others the benefit of thedoubt and approach them cooperatively;whereas others are inclined to approach othersnoncooperatively. They distinguished betweenthose who are cooperative or prosocial (whomaximize outcomes for both self and others)and those who are competitive (who maximizeoutcomes for self relative to others). A thirdgroup, individualists (who maximize outcomesfor self with no regard for others), are closer torepresenting our dominance facet. Van Lange(1999) noted that cooperative persons approachothers in a cooperative manner and continue todo so unless others fail to reciprocate. Thus,cooperative persons are not compliant, but willturn to noncooperative behavior only if theircooperative intentions are not reciprocated.Wagner (1995) defined collectivism as the relativeimportance people accord to joint orshared pursuits (vs. self interests) and found thatindividual differences in collectivism predictedthe extent to which group members cooperatedin task activities.Kelley and Stahelski (1970) found that competitivepersons are more likely to expect othersto be competitive and to elicit competitive behaviorfrom others. The fact that cooperativepersons approach interaction in a cooperativemanner, but may be drawn into competitivebehavior by a competitive partner, suggests thedual disadvantage of having a highly competitiveperson in an interdependent team—theymay not only act in a competitive manner, but

256 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEAdraw competitive behavior out in others. Cognatescales related to the cooperativeness facetinclude the PCI facet of Cooperation, the NEO-PI-R facet of Compliance, and the HPI facet ofCompetitiveness.ConscientiousnessThe trait of conscientiousness has been associatedwith a number of facets, including competence,order, achievement striving, and dutifulness(Costa & McCrae, 1992; Moon, 2001).Moon (2001) has noted that some researchershave emphasized the responsibility/dependabilitycomponent of conscientiousness, whereasothers have viewed conscientiousness in termsof achievement orientation. Moon argued thatdependability or duty can be viewed as theother-centered component of conscientiousnessand that achievement can be seen as the selfcenteredcomponent.Thus, conscientiousness reflects the tendencyto be hardworking, prepared, and organized, toadhere to obligations and duties, to completetasks thoroughly and on-time, and to be reliable.Persons low on conscientiousness are impulsive,irresponsible, and disordered. Whereassome studies have found the general trait ofconscientiousness to be related to team effectiveness(Barrick et al., 1998; LePine et al.,1997), others have not (Barry & Stewart, 1997).The facets of conscientiousness that we believeare most relevant to team interaction are dependability,dutifulness, and achievement.Dependability. Dependability refers to atendency toward planfulness and discipline incarrying out tasks to completion. Those high independability are responsible, organized, planful,reliable, and trustworthy. Those low in dependabilityare irresponsible, disordered, andimpulsive. Borman, White, Pulakos, and Oppler(1991) found that high dependability amongmilitary personnel led to fewer disciplinary infractionsand higher performance ratings. Borman,White, and Dorsey (1995) also reported astrong relationship between dependability andboth peer and supervisor performance ratings.Hough (1992) found that dependability was relatedto ratings of teamwork, and Barrick et al.(1998) found that work teams with higher levelsof conscientiousness (broadly defined) receivedhigher ratings of team performance.Behavioral markers of dependability reportedby peers and supervisors in Borman et al.(1995) include “Count on for backup” and“Trust and depend on.” Thus, team membershigh on dependability are likely to be moreresponsible and can be relied on to backup otherteam members. They are also likely to be moremethodical, to accept responsibilities, set goals,and follow through with them. Cognate scalesrelated to the dependability facet include thePCI facet of Dependability, the NEO-PI-R facetof Order, and the HPI facets of Planfulness andNot Spontaneous.Dutifulness. Dutifulness refers to the tendencyto value and adhere to obligations andduties that are held within the team. Ellemers,de Gilder, and van den Heuvel (1998) haveexamined a related construct of team-orientedcommitment, which they defined as a sense ofresponsibility for team outcomes and motivationto help out teammates even if that requiredpersonal sacrifice. Moon (2001) states that“duty captures differences in individuals’ proclivityto do the right thing, not only for themselves,but also, for others” (p. 535). Costa andMcCrae (1992) define duty as behavior evidencedby individual adherence to ethical principlesand moral obligations. If we extend thisdefinition to the team context, then we wouldview duty as adhering to team principles andteam obligations, and we believe that those witha high duty orientation are more likely to forman attachment to the team and the team goals(see Aube & Rousseau, 2005).Dutifulness may be especially important formilitary, sports, and other work teams that faceactive resistance or opposition that must beovercome to achieve the team goal (see Devine,2002). In a series of classic studies conducted inWorld War II, Stouffer et al. (1949) found thatwhat kept soldiers going in extremely hostileconditions was not political ideals or hatred ofthe enemy, but group obligations and duty toothers. Cognate scales related to the dutifulnessfacet include the NEO-PI-R facet of Dutifulness.Achievement. We believe that good teamplayers are ambitious, achievement-oriented,and take the initiative in pursuing team goals. Inperforming an interdependent task, each teammember must be motivated to take on thoseduties that lead to successful accomplishment ofthe task. This includes not only carrying one’sshare of the load, but also carrying another team

PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS257members’ share if they are overburdened, aswell as goal setting, team management, andleadership functions. Zander and Forward(1968) found that achievement-oriented teammembers were more concerned about team success,and Hough (1992) found achievement tobe related to ratings of teamwork.Cognate scales related to the achievementfacet include the HPI facets of Leadership andGenerates Ideas, the PCI facet of Ambition, theCPI facet of Capacity for Status (ambitious,enterprising), and the NEO-PI-R facet ofAchievement Striving.In summary, we have defined 12 core facetsof team orientation that we believe are descriptiveof effective team players. In brief, goodteam players are not controlling or domineering(low dominance). They are sociable (affiliation),perceptive and empathic (social perceptiveness),and interpersonally expressive (expressivity).They are emotionally stable (adjustment)and confident (self-esteem). They areadaptive (flexibility), trust other team members(trust) and cooperative (cooperativeness). Finally,good team players are reliable (dependability),have a strong sense of loyalty or duty tothe team (dutifulness), and they work hard toachieve team goals (achievement).The preceding classification attempts to describethe core lower-level personality facetsthat are relevant to team effectiveness. However,we have argued that to specify the relationshipbetween personality and team effectivenessmore precisely requires that we notonly describe the Big Five traits more precisely,but also provide greater specificity in terms ofwhat we mean by team effectiveness. In otherwords, teams do not just perform, they performcertain core tasks, and the extent to which theseteamwork activities or requirements are carriedout successfully is one determinant of overallteam effectiveness. Moreover, we expect thatdifferent personality facets may be relevant tothe prediction of different teamwork dimensions.In other words, we believe what has beenmissing in previous models is the link betweenteam member personality and teamwork requirements.In the following section, we attemptto define the core teamwork dimensionsor team functions that must be accomplishedwithin a team context.Teamwork DimensionsDriven by the heightened interest in teams inapplied settings, recent research has attemptedto define the dimensions that underlie effectiveteamwork (Ilgen, 1999). McIntyre and Salas(1995) described a series of studies that adopteda critical incident approach to identifying criticalteamwork activities. Researchers workedwith real-world teams, including naval shipboardteams and aircrews, to identify criticalactivities characterizing effective and ineffectiveteams (Franz, Prince, Cannon-Bowers, &Salas, 1990; Morgan, Glickman, Woodard,Blaiwes, & Salas, 1986). These core teamworkdimensions were further elaborated by Bakerand Salas (1992) to include performance monitoringand feedback, communication, coordination,and adaptability.Fleishman and Zaccaro (1992) developed ataxonomic classification of team performancefunctions. Building on earlier work on the structureof human performance (Fleishman &Quantance, 1984), these researchers attemptedto describe the common team functions thatunderlie team performance. Major team functionsidentified include orientation functions(e.g., exchanging information), coordinationfunctions (e.g., coordination and sequencing ofactivities), monitoring functions (e.g., performancemonitoring and error correction), andmotivational functions (e.g., maintenance ofnorms, resolving conflicts).Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, andVolpe (1995) integrated these research effortsand proposed that the core teamwork functionscould be conceptualized as eight broad dimensions(See Table 1). According to Cannon-Bowers et al. (1995), the following teamworkdimensions are a prerequisite for effective teamperformance across a variety of types of tasksand teams.AdaptabilityAdaptability refers to adjustment of taskstrategies or team behaviors in response tochanges in the team or task environment.Adaptability may include mutual adjustmentamong team members and reallocation of resources.Porter et al. (2003) have emphasizedthe importance of backup behavior,

258 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEATable 1Teamwork Dimensions (Adapted from Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995)Dimension Definition SubskillsAdaptabilityTeam members use information from the taskenvironment to adjust strategies through the use offlexibility, compensatory behavior, and reallocationof resources.FlexibilityCompensatory or back-up behaviorProviding assistanceShared situationalawarenessPerformancemonitoring andfeedbackTeam managementInterpersonal relationsCoordinationTeam members develop shared knowledge of theteam’s internal and external environment.Team members give, seek, and receive task-clarifyingfeedback.Team members direct and coordinate task activities,assign tasks, plan and organize, and motivate otherteam members.Team members optimize interpersonal interactions byresolving conflicts, use of cooperation, andbuilding morale.Team members organize team resources, activities,and responses to ensure complete and timelycompletion of tasks.Shared orientationTeam awarenessPerformance monitoringProviding feedbackError correctionResource managementMotivationPlanning and goal settingConflict resolutionCooperationMorale buildingTask organizationResponse coordinationTiming and activity pacingCommunication Team members exchange information efficiently. Seeking or requesting informationProviding informationAcknowledgement andconfirmationDecision makingTeam members integrate or pool information, identifyalternatives, select solutions, and evaluateconsequences.AssessmentEvaluationProblem solvingwhich is compensatory behavior to supportother team members who are overloaded orexperiencing difficulty. Hackman and Morris(1978) have noted that one of the few universallyeffective group strategies is adaptability.Shared Situational AwarenessTeam members must develop a shared situationalawareness, also referred to as mutualknowledge (Cramton, 2001; Thompson & Coovert,2003) or common ground (Clark & Brennan,1991). Team members possess contextualtask and team information that must be communicatedto and understood by other team members.Cramton (2001) noted that mutual knowledgemay suffer when team members fail tocommunicate unique information that they possess,fail to distribute information evenly amongteam members, or fail to correct misunderstandings.Some research has shown that the accuracyand similarity of shared mental modelsamong team members predicts the quality ofteam processes and performance (Marks, Zaccaro,& Mathieu, 2000; Mathieu, Heffner,Goodwin, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000;Thompson & Coovert, 2003).Performance Monitoring and FeedbackPerformance monitoring and feedback behaviorsinclude monitoring other team member’scontributions as well as monitoring teamprogress, identifying errors, providing constructivefeedback, and offering advice for performanceimprovement. Members of effectiveteams must be familiar with each other’s rolesand accept responsibility for providing and acceptingfeedback (McIntyre & Salas, 1995).

PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS259Team ManagementTeam management behaviors include directingand coordinating the task activities of otherteam members, assigning tasks, and motivatingother team members. These are primarily taskbehaviors oriented toward instrumental goals.One critical management task, planning, is oftenoverlooked in teams (Hackman & Morris,1978), although research has clearly demonstratedthe value of planning (Janicik & Bartel,2003; Weingart, 1992) and pretask briefings(Marks et al., 2000) to team performance.Interpersonal RelationsTeam members optimize interpersonal relationsby resolving conflicts, encouraging cooperativebehavior, and building team morale.These are primarily socioemotional behaviorsoriented toward smooth interpersonal relations.McIntyre and Salas (1995) noted that positive orsupporting team behaviors are not always apparentin team interactions—tasks demandsmay require terse, formal communications attimes—but that a positive team environmentsupports these task activities. Moreover, researchhas shown that cohesive groups tend toagree more readily (Lott & Lott, 1961), reportgreater satisfaction with the group (Curtis &Miller, 1986), and in general outperform lesscohesive groups (Mullen & Copper, 1994).CoordinationIn one of the earliest studies of group performance,Shaw (1932) attributed the effectivenessof groups to the capability of group members toexchange and coordinate information. Janicikand Bartel (2003) noted that effective coordination,knowing who is going to do what, when,and with whom, is critical to team performance.Behaviors that support effective coordinationinclude matching team member resources totask requirements, regulating the pace of teamactivities, and coordinating the response andsequencing of team member activities (Fleishman& Zaccaro, 1992).CommunicationCommunication is the primary vehiclethrough which task groups accomplish theirgoals (Marks et al., 2000). Team members mustexchange ideas and information in a clear andtimely manner. Research suggests that effectiveteam performance is related to the quantity andquality of communications—effective teamscommunicate more and better than less effectiveteams (Foushee, 1982; Kanki, Lozito, &Foushee, 1989; Marks et al., 2000). Effectivecommunication behaviors include exchanginginformation in a timely manner, acknowledgmentof information, double-checking that theintent of messages was received (closed-loopcommunication), clarifying ambiguity, and theappropriate use of verbal and nonverbal cues(Kanki & Smith, 2001; Stout, Salas, & Fowlkes,1997).Decision MakingTeam decision making involves problemidentification and assessment, information exchange,generation and evaluation of solutions,implementation, and evaluation of consequences(Forsyth, 1990; Hirokawa, 1980). Barriersto effective team decision making mayinclude failure to adequately assess problems(Moreland & Levine, 1992), failure to considerothers’ input (Driskell & Salas, 1992), failure todisclose uniquely held information (Stasser &Titus, 1995), and undue influence from a singleteam member (Foushee & Helmreich, 1988).PredictionsThe preceding classification of core teamworkdimensions allows us to take the next stepin linking team member personality and teamrequirements. In the following, we predict theeffects of the specific personality facets definedin Figure 1 on specific core teamwork dimensions.These predictions are summarized in Table2. Note that when we are able to make astrong positive or negative prediction based oneither existing research or on a logical extensionof existing research, these predictions aremarked as “” or “–” respectively. In othercases, we feel that the relationship between aparticular team member facet and a specificteamwork dimension is weaker or unsupported,and thus we note these predictions as intermediateand indicated as “”.

260 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEATable 2Effects of Team Member Personality Facets on Teamwork DimensionsTeamwork dimensionsTeam member facetsAdaptabilitySharedsituationalawarenessPerformancemonitoringand feedbackTeammanagementInterpersonalrelations Coordination CommunicationDecisionmakingEmotional stabilityAdjustment Self-esteem ExtraversionDominance Affiliation Social perceptiveness Expressivity OpennessFlexibility AgreeablenessTrust Cooperation ConscientiousnessDependability Dutifulness Achievement Note. denotes positive prediction; denotes negative prediction; denotes intermediate prediction.

PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS261AdjustmentWe predict that adjustment will have a positiveeffect on all behaviors that are performed ina team environment. Although team tasks maydiffer in the degree of cooperation required (seeShaw, 1981), an essential feature that defines ateam is interdependent behavior (Salas, Dickinson,Converse, & Tannenbaum, 1992). Teammembers who are ill-tempered, distressed, andemotionally unstable are disruptive of any typeof coordinated or interdependent behavior (cf.Barrick et al., 1998; Barrick & Mount, 2001).Moreover, George (1990) found that the positive/negativeaffectivity of team members wasrelated to the extent to which teams engaged inprosocial behaviors, and Barsade (2002) foundthat team members’ positive affect led to greatercooperation, conflict management, and team performance.Therefore, in Table 2, we follow thelead of Barrick et al. (1998) and others, andpredict that adjustment is critical to any task orteamwork activity that requires coordinated activity.Self-EsteemOne factor that distinguishes self-esteemfrom adjustment is that adjustment reflects generalemotional instability or negative affect, andself-esteem involves the self as a reference point(Brown & Marshall, 2001). Thus, those high onself-esteem are confident and self-assured,whereas those low on self-esteem appear hopelessand critical. Research indicates that selfesteemaffects interpersonal relationships (Murrayet al., 1998) and is generally related to jobsatisfaction (Judge et al., 1998), and thus wepredict that self-esteem will be positively relatedto interpersonal relations. Further, Erezand Judge (2001) found that self-esteem wasrelated to goal setting and motivation, andthus we predict that self-esteem will be positivelyrelated to team management activities.Given that those high in self-esteem tend tomaintain effort in the face of failure (Dodgson& Wood, 1998), we predict that self-esteemwill be positively related to adaptability. Webelieve that self-esteem will have less director more intermediate effects on shared situationalawareness, performance monitoring andfeedback, coordination, communication, anddecision making.DominanceWe predict that high dominance will have anegative effect on shared situational awareness,interpersonal relations, communication, and decisionmaking. Dominant team members, whoview interaction along a superior/inferior dimension,are likely to have a different perspectiveon team tasks and relationships than otherteam members (shared situational awareness).Dominant team members also tend to engenderless positive interpersonal relations (Driskell,Olmstead, & Salas, 1993), exhibit more ineffectivecommunication behaviors (Yukl & Falbe,1990), and are less likely to attend to the taskinputs of other team members in decision making(Driskell & Salas, 1992). We predict thathigh dominance will have intermediate effectson adaptability, performance monitoring andfeedback, team management, and coordination.Team members who are dominant and controllingmay be less flexible but perhaps more proneto backup other team members’ behavior as ameans of control (adaptability), they may bemore prone to monitor others’ behavior as aprecursor to control (performance feedback andmonitoring), and the dominant team member’sneed to direct and influence others may supportsome instrumental management functions (teammanagement).AffiliationGiven that those low on affiliation tend tohelp or assist others less (Wageman, 1995) andin general may choose to interact less (Davis,1969), we predict those who are more sociableand affiliative are more likely to assist and supportother team members (adaptability), shareexperiences with other team members (sharedsituational awareness), seek and receive feedbackfrom others (performance monitoring andfeedback), engage in socioemotional activities(interpersonal relations), and talk more and exchangeinformation with other team members(communication). We believe that high affiliation,because it may interfere with instrumentaltask activities (see Driskell, Hogan, & Salas,1987), may have negative effects on team management,coordination, and decision making. Infact, Barry and Stewart (1997) have noted thatextraverts “have a propensity to seek pleasur-

262 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEAable social interactions at the expense of efficientmanagement of task demands” (p. 66).Social PerceptivenessWe view social perceptiveness as the capacityto accurately gather and process informationabout others (Costanzo, 1992), and argue thatsome people are poor decoders of social information(Lieberman & Rosenthal, 2001). Moreover,Nickerson (1999) has noted that thosewho are less adept at inferring others’ thoughtsand feelings may be less apt to develop theshared knowledge or transactive memory requiredin interdependent teams. We predict thatthose who are more adept at reading and interpretingothers’ intentions and feelings are morelikely to identify when other team members areoverloaded or require assistance (adaptability),develop common ground with other team members(shared situational awareness), be moreadept at conflict resolution and social tasks (interpersonalrelations), be more accurate in interpretingor receiving communications fromothers (communication), and be more skilled atperceiving others’ opinions and inputs in decisionmaking (decision making). We believe thatsocial perceptiveness will have intermediate effectson performance monitoring and feedback,team management, and coordination.ExpressivityWe believe that those who are interpersonallyexpressive are likely to be viewed as more positiveand likable (Riggio & Friedman, 1986),and are likely to be more energetic and effectivecommunicators (DeGroot & Motowidlo, 1999;Gallaher, 1992). Moreover, Ambady, Hallahan,and Rosenthal (1995) have noted that somepeople are more “legible” that others, that expressivityis related to accuracy in transmittingnonverbal information to others. We predict thatthose who are interpersonally expressive areeasier to read and adapt to (adaptability), morelikely to communicate contextual informationto others (shared situational awareness), likelyto be viewed more positively (interpersonal relations),communicate more effectively (communication)and are more likely to express theirfeelings and opinions effectively in decisionmaking (decision making). We believe that expressivitywill have intermediate effects on performancemonitoring and feedback, team management,and coordination.FlexibilityWe noted that flexibility is advantageous interms of interpersonal relations (Paulhus &Martin, 1988), as well as in instrumental orproblem-solving situations (Zaccaro et al.,1991). In fact, because different abilities andprocedures are required for different types oftasks, some have suggested that perhaps theonly universally effective task strategy may bethe capacity to change or adjust to differentconditions (Hackman & Morris, 1978; Shiflett,1972). Thus, we view flexibility as relevant toall teamwork behaviors.TrustFollowing Dirks (1999), we propose that hightrust leads to greater commitment, greater effort,and greater cooperation. We believe thathigh-trust team members are more likely to seekand receive feedback from others (performancemonitoring and feedback), engage in activitiesto resolve conflicts and ensure smooth interpersonalrelations among team members (interpersonalrelations), communication more openly(communication), and pool information in decisionmaking (decision making). We expect thattrust will have intermediate effects on adaptability,shared situational awareness, coordination,and team management.CooperationThose who are cooperative place the demandsand interests of the group over personaldesires (Wagner, 1995). We believe that teammembers who pursue cooperative or group interestsversus self interests are more likely toshare contextual team and task information withother team members (shared situational awareness),provide backup support to other teammembers (adaptability), perform actions to addresssocioemotional requirements (interpersonalrelations), and exchange information withother team members (communication). We expectthat cooperation will have intermediate effectson decision making, performance monitoringand feedback, coordination, and team managementbecause, as LePine and Van Dyne

PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS263(2001) have noted, whereas cooperative personsvalue smooth interpersonal functioning, theymay be less prone to exhibit the more directivetask behaviors required of these activities.DependabilityAshton (1998) found that responsibility wasnegatively related to delinquent workplace behaviors,and Borman et al. (1995) found thatdependability was related to higher performanceratings by both supervisors and peers.We predict that team members who are reliableand dependable can be counted on to backupother team members’ behaviors (adaptability),monitor team progress and provide feedback(performance monitoring and feedback), planand manage team activities (team management),regulate the pace and coordination of team activities(coordination), and exchange informationin a timely manner (communication). Webelieve that dependability will have intermediateeffects on shared situational awareness, interpersonalrelations, and decision making. Inthe case of interpersonal relations, althoughthose who are more dependable are more likelyto follow social protocol (Witt & Ferris, 2003),those who are more rule-bound can be perceivedas rigid and inflexible (Hogan, 1986).Moreover, being organized and cautious maydetract from some aspects of decision making,such as idea generation, and enhance other aspects,such as the evaluation of alternatives.DutifulnessResearch suggests that those who hold agreater sense of duty, loyalty, and sacrifice forthe team tend to engender greater group cohesiveness(Prapavessis & Carron, 1997), areviewed more favorably by coworkers (Ellemerset al., 1998), and are more likely to act in thebest interests of the group (Moon, 2001). Wepredict that those who have a stronger sense ofduty are more likely to share common perspectiveson the team and the task (shared situationalawareness), contribute to team pride and morale(interpersonal relations), and perform supportiveactivities related to team goal achievement(performance monitoring and feedback). Webelieve that dutifulness will have intermediateeffects on adaptability, team management, coordination,communication, and decision making.AchievementWe believe that team members who areachievement oriented are likely to be more motivatedto pursue group goals and to ensuregroup success (Hough, 1992; Zander & Forward,1968). We predict that team memberswho are achievement-oriented, hardworking,proactive, and take the initiative in team activitieswill be more likely to adjust to other teammembers’ behaviors (adaptability), developcommon ground with other team members(shared situational awareness), monitor teamprogress and provide feedback (performancemonitoring and feedback), participate in the directionand coordination of task activities (teammanagement), manage the pace and sequencingof team activities (coordination), communicatemore (communication), and participate moreactively in decision making (decision making).We expect that achievement will have intermediateeffects on interpersonal relations—whereas achievement orientation is not directlysupportive of social relations (Barry & Stewart,1997), team members who work harder for theteam should support team morale.DiscussionWe begun by asking a basic question: Whatmakes a good team player? We then attemptedto provide a foundation for addressing thatquestion, which then became: What specifictraits define a good team player in relation to theactivities required for effective teamwork? Wedescribed the personality facets that we believeare most relevant to team performance, and thenderived predictions linking these facets to coreteamwork dimensions. This approach offersseveral benefits. First, this approach extendsprevious research on personality and team performanceby offering greater precision in specifyingthe role that team member personalityplays in team effectiveness. Second, this frameworkprovides a foundation for further empiricaltesting and validation of predictions. Third,this approach suggests useful avenues for selectionand training interventions to enhance teameffectiveness.

264 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEAThere are several general conclusions thatcan be drawn regarding team member personalityas elaborated in this model. First, at ageneral level, this model is consistent with existingresearch on personality and team effectiveness.The higher-level traits of emotionalstability, extraversion, openness, agreeableness,and conscientiousness have all been related toteam effectiveness at a broad level (cf. Barricket al., 1998; Barry & Stewart, 1997; Hollenbecket al., 2002; LePine et al., 1997; Neuman &Wright, 1999). However, as we noted previously,we do not know based on existing researchif any purported relationship between,for example, conscientiousness and team effectivenessmay be attributable to the dependabilitycomponent of conscientiousness (i.e., goodteam players are reliable) or to the achievementcomponent of conscientiousness (i.e., goodteam players are hardworking). Accordingly,we extended our examination of personality andteam performance to incorporate specific personalityfacets that we believe are related toteam effectiveness, and to incorporate specificdimensions of teamwork. We have defined onefacet, dominance, by its negative pole, becauseresearch suggests that those who are dominantand controlling can be an anathema to interdependentteam interaction (Driskell & Salas,1992; Driskell et al., 1993). However, the teammember facets that are predicted to be criticalacross all teamwork dimensions are adjustmentand flexibility. We concur with Barrick andMount (2001) that adjustment is fundamentallyimportant to interdependent interaction, and weconcur with Hackman and Morris (1978) thatflexibility is virtually universally advantageous.There are several facets, such as self-esteem ordutifulness, that are predicted to affect a morenarrow range of teamwork activities. This doesnot imply that these facets are less important,just that their impact is more specific. Moreover,this greater specificity in describing personalityand team effectiveness allows us toexamine both the “bright side” and the “darkside” of personality—whereas affiliation mayhave a positive impact on maintaining interpersonalrelations in teams, it may have a negativeimpact on the more instrumental activities involvedin team management.Second, the predictions that are derived fromthis model, shown in Table 2, are clearly speculative.We have attempted to bring to bear theweight of existing research, but as Barry andStewart (1997) have noted, “relatively few studieshave empirically examined the role of personalitycharacteristics in task-oriented groups”(p. 65). Although recent research efforts haverectified this situation somewhat, we faced theadditional difficulty that very few existing researchstudies specify personality to the facetlevel and very few existing studies specify teameffectiveness to the teamwork dimensions level.Not surprisingly, we do not have a wealth ofdata to draw on. On the positive side, Table 2presents a framework that calls out for additionalresearch, and each of the relationshipsshown in Table 2 should be verified in furtherempirical studies.Third, the hierarchical model of team orientationshown in Figure 1 was derived by thedesire to specify the link between Big Fivepersonality traits and team effectiveness. Althoughthe higher level traits identified by variousBig Five models generally resemble oneanother, there are some distinctions among differentmodels. For example, Hogan (1986) haspresented a six-factor model of personality, separatingextraversion into separate traits of sociability(outgoing, affiliative) and ambition (surgency,dominance). Furthermore, as Lucas andDiener (2001) have noted, the facets that composethe higher-level traits often differ in differentmodels. For example, McCrae and Costa(1997) claim that flexibility/rigidity is related tothe higher-level trait of openness to experience;Hogan (1986) places flexibility within the higherlevelconscientiousness trait; whereas othersnote that rigidity may be related to neuroticismor poor adjustment (Mumford, Baughman,Threlfall, Uhlman, & Costanza, 1993). Judge,Martocchio, and Thoresen (1997) note thatsome facets load equally on several higherlevel traits. We are not able to resolve theseissues but have attempted to derive a model ofteam member personality that is consistent withexisting personality models.This approach further calls attention to theissue of trait bandwidth and the value of broadtraits versus narrow traits. Stewart (1999) hasstated that broad traits are applicable in severalcircumstances, including when the criterion itselfis broad or diffuse. However, Barrick et al.(2001) also have noted that sometimes a broadpredictor and a broad criterion can mask underlyingrelationships. For example, we posed the

PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS265question of whether conscientiousness may berelated to team performance in existing researchbecause of the lower-level facet of achievementor because of the lower-level facet of dependabilitythat both comprise conscientiousness inmany Big Five models. Narrow facets may allowmore accurate prediction when they theoreticallyalign with more specific behaviors, andBarrick et al. (2001); Schneider, Hough, andDunnette (1996); Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, andCortina (2006) and others have noted the valueof linking lower-level predictors with lowerlevelcriteria. Moreover, by defining the coreteamwork dimensions that underlie team performance,we are able to make informed hypothesesregarding the specific personality facets thatare predictive of these performance dimensions.At same time, our approach is limited in anumber of ways. Although the most current andinfluential formulation of individual differencesin personality is the Big Five trait approach thatwe have adopted, it is certainly not the onlyuseful model of personality, nor does it captureall there is to say about personality. We concurwith McAdams and Pals (2006), who note thatalthough the Big Five model is arguably themost recognizable contribution personality psychologyhas to offer, understanding personalityin a more finely grained sense requires goingbeyond the personality trait concept to includeother motivational, social–cognitive, and developmentalconcerns. Our approach, then, takesadvantage of the current body of empirical researchon traits within the Big Five framework,and at the same time is restricted by the narrowedfocus of the trait approach.We have attempted to address the question ofwhat type of person makes a good team player(or more specifically, what specific facets ofpersonality are relevant to specific teamworkdimensions). We assume, in general, that teammembers who possess these personality facetswill be more effective under specified conditionsthan those who do not. However, we havenot addressed the more complex question ofhow personality facets combine. For example,the impact of expressivity is likely to be considerablydifferent if coupled with high adjustmentthan if coupled with low adjustment(Friedman & Miller-Herringer, 1991). Furthermore,we have not addressed the more complexquestion of team composition, or how teammembers possessing specific personality facetscombine. There are several ways of operationalizingteam composition. An additive approachexamines the amount or average level of a traitamong team members; for example, LePine(2003) has argued that a team composed of toomany highly dependable members may exertundue pressure on those who offer alternativeviewpoints. A compensatory approach examinesthe heterogeneity or variability of traitsamong team members; for example, Barry andStewart (1997) have observed that finding benefitsof sociability at the individual team memberlevel does not necessarily argue for creatinga work team full of them. A disjunctive approachexamines the highest or lowest traitscore for the team; for example, Totterdell etal.’s (1998) work on mood linkage and negativeaffect suggests that having one team memberlow on adjustment can impact the entire group.Clearly, composition matters, and although wedo not address these issues in the current formulationof our model, questions of team compositionand heterogeneity are important andrequire further examination. Finally, we knowthat individual factors often interact with othergroup-level or structural factors to impact performance—infact, Hollenbeck et al. (2002)have proposed a person-team fit approach thatemphasizes the importance of task and organizationalfactors. For example, conscientiousnessmay be less relevant to team performanceto the extent that backup or compensatory behaviorsare institutionalized in task procedures.Nevertheless, we believe there is considerablevalue in developing a comprehensive model atthe individual team member level that can serveas a basis for further elaboration to addressthese and other related questions.In the model presented, we view the focalteam member as “one among equals.” In otherwords, the team setting we have specified is onein which each team member has specific expertiseuseful to the team, and the team has tointerdependently achieve a team outcome. Wehave described the core traits that we believedefine the effective team member, but not necessarilythe effective team leader. For example,we noted earlier that dominance may be problematicamong team members but useful in ateam leader role. Moreover, it is likely thateffective leadership may require dominance andaffiliation, among other traits. By anecdotal accounts,General George Patton was a high dom-

266 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEAinant-low affiliation leader. There is no questionthat he was a great general, but he may havebeen somewhat lacking in interpersonal relations(his widely reported response to a hospitalizedsoldier who said he did not think hecould take it anymore was to slap him with hisgloves). General Douglas MacArthur, who wewould envision as a high dominance-high affiliationleader, may represent a more effectiveleader prototype for modern times.Finally, we believe this model suggests anumber of practical applications. For the purposeof selecting good team players, the type ofclassification presented in Table 2 should proveto be useful, subject to further empirical confirmation.However, in real-world settings, teamsare often intact and selection or replacement ofteam members may not be a relevant option. Forsuch existing teams, the model presented inTable 2 suggests an approach to assessing existingteam member capabilities and targetingtraining to support behaviors that may be deficient.For example, if assessment indicates alow score on trust for a specific team member,we propose that this will most likely be manifestedin activities related to performance monitoringand feedback, interpersonal relations,and decision making (i.e., scanning across theappropriate row of Table 2). Efforts to implementtraining for this team member should focuson these dimensions. This model shouldalso be useful for diagnosis of team deficiencies.If assessment of team processes indicatespoor team management, then (scanning downthe appropriate column of Table 2), we canderive what team member facets are relevant tothese activities. Even if selection is not possible,team members can be assigned to specific roleson the team to maximize the fit between individualcapabilities and teamwork requirements.Further research is needed to examine themalleability of traits and the value of training todevelop more effective team members. Onequestion that is of significant practical importanceis: Can you train someone who is dispositionallycompetitive to be more cooperative?Judge et al. (1998) noted that the fact that traitsshow considerable temporal stability does notmean that they cannot be changed. Moreover, thesuccess with which well-developed training programshave led to improved teamwork in appliedsettings (e.g., Smith-Jentsch, Salas, & Brannick,2001) suggests the utility of this approach.Further research should also address issuesrelated to assessment. Typically, assessment ofpersonality is almost exclusively self-report, viaendorsement of descriptive statements. Thismay be problematic under some circumstancesfor the assessment of teamwork. Although oursociety is not as collectivist as some, few wouldwant to be seen as a poor team player. Moreover,in organizations that have placed a publicvalue on teamwork (e.g., the military has aparticularly strong team culture), the individualwho would endorse the item “I prefer to workalone” may not only be nonaffiliative but alsooblivious to organizational preferences. Questionsrelated to faking as well as research onalternative approaches to self-report should receivefurther attention.It is somewhat traditional to conclude bybemoaning the state of progress in the field.However, we are pleased to announce that thestudy of personality and team performance isburgeoning. Our goal was to contribute to andextend this research in two ways. First, ourmodel extends current work on trait predictionof team performance by linking lower-levelfacet predictors with lower-level teamwork behaviors.Second, by linking team member personalitycharacteristics to teamwork dimensions,this model provides a foundation for applicationand testing of this approach forpurposes of selection, training, and team design.ReferencesAmbady, N., Hallahan, M., & Rosenthal, R. (1995).On judging and being judged accurately in zeroacquaintancesituations. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 69, 518–529.Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance:The importance of narrow traits. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 19, 289–303.Aube, C. & Rosseau, V. (2005). Team goal commitmentand team effectiveness: The role of taskinterdependence and supportive behaviors. GroupDynamics, 9, 189–204.Baker, D. P., & Salas, E. (1992). Principles for measuringteamwork skills. Human Factors, 34, 469–475.Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2001). Select onconscientiousness and emotional stability. In E. A.Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organizationalbehavior (pp. 15–28). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS267Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001).Personality and performance at the beginning ofthe new millennium: What do we know and wheredo we go next? International Journal of Selectionand Assessment, 9, 9–30.Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., &Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability andpersonality to work-team processes and team effectiveness.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 Psychology,82, 62–78.Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effects: Emotionalcontagion and its influence on group behavior.Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644–675.Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Identify, self-concept, andself-esteem: The self lost and found. In R. Hogan,J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personalitypsychology (pp. 681–710). San Diego,CA: Academic Press.Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W.(1995). Effects of ratee task performance and interpersonalfactors on supervisor peer performanceratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 168–177.Borman, W. C., White, L. A., Pulakos, E. D., &Oppler, S. H. (1991). Models of supervisory jobperformance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology,76, 863–872.Brown, J. D., & Marshall, M. A. (2001). Self-esteemand emotion: Some thoughts about feelings. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 575–584.Bruch, M. A., Gorsky, J. M., Collins, T. M., &Berger, P. A. (1989). Shyness and sociability reexamined:A multicomponent analysis. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 57, 904–915.Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E.,& Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining competencies andestablishing team training requirements. In R.Guzzo and E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness anddecision making in organizations, (pp. 333–380).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding incommunication. In: L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, &S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on sociallyshared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.Conn, S. R., & Rieke, M. L. (1994). The 16PF fifthed. technical manual. Champagne, IL: Institute forPersonality and Ability Testing, Inc.Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEOPersonality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and Five FactorInventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual.Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Costanzo, M. (1992). Training students to decodeverbal and nonverbal cues: Effects on confidenceand performance. Journal of Educational Psychology,84, 308–313.Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problemand its consequences for dispersed collaboration.Organizational Science, 12, 346–371.Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies ofself-worth. Psychological Review, 108, 593–623.Curtis, R. C., & Miller, K. (1986). Believing anotherlikes or dislikes you: Behaviors making the beliefscome true. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51, 284–290.Davis, J. H. (1969). Group performance. Reading,MA: Addison Wesley.DeGroot, T., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1999). Why visualand vocal interview cues can affect interviewer’sjudgments and predict job performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 84, 986–993.Devine, D. J. (2002). A review and integration ofclassification systems relevant to teams in organizations.Group Dynamics, 6, 291–310.Devine, D. J., & Philips, J. L. (2001). Do smarterteams do better: A Meta-analysis of cognitive abilityand team performance. Small Group Research,32, 507–532.Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal truston work group performance. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 84, 445–455.Dodgson, P. G., & Wood, J. V. (1998). Self-esteemand the cognitive accessibility of strengths andweaknesses after failure. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 75, 178–197.Driskell, J. E., Hogan, R., & Salas, E. (1987). Personalityand group performance. In C. Hendrick(Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology(Vol. 9, pp. 91–112). Newbury Park, CA:Sage.Driskell, J. E., Olmstead, B., & Salas, E. (1993). Taskcues, dominance cues, and influence in taskgroups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 51–60.Driskell, J. E., & Radtke, P. H. (2003). The effect ofgesture on speech production and comprehension.Human Factors, 45, 445–454.Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1992). Collective behaviorand team performance. Human Factors, 34,277–288.Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., &Cortina, J. M. (2006). A meta-analytic investigationof conscientiousness in the prediction of jobperformance: Examining the intercorrelations andthe incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 91, 40–57.Ellemers, N., de Gilder, & van den Heuvel, H.(1998). Career-oriented versus team-oriented commitmentand behavior at work. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 83, 717–730.

268 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEAErez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of coreself-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, andperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,1270–1279.Fleishman, E. A., & Quaintance, M. K. (1984). Taxonomiesof human performance. New York: AcademicPress.Fleishman, E. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (1992). Toward ataxonomy of team performance functions. In R. W.Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their trainingand performance (pp. 31–56). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.Forsyth, D. R. (1990). Group dynamics. PacificGrove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Foushee, H. C. (1982). The role of communications,socio-psychological, and personality factors in themaintenance of crew coordination. Aviation,Space, and Environmental Medicine, 53, 1062–1066.Foushee, H. C., & Helmreich, R. L. (1988). Groupinteraction and flight crew performance. In E. L.Weiner & D. C. Nagel (Eds.), Human Factors inAviation, (pp. 189–228). San Diego, CA: AcademicPress.Franz, T. M., Prince, C., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., &Salas, E. (1990). The identification of aircrew coordinationskills. Proceedings of the 12th symposiumon psychology in the Department of Defense(pp. 97–101). Springfield, VA: National TechnicalInformation Service.Friedman, H. S., & Miller-Herringer, T. (1991). Nonverbaldisplay 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 nonverbalbehavior: Dimensions of style. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 63, 133–145.George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behaviorin groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,107–116.Golembiewski, R. T. (1962). The small group: Ananalysis of research concepts and operations. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.Gough, H. G., & Bradley, P. (1996). CPI manual (3rded.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting PsychologistsPress.Greer, F. L. (1955). Small group effectiveness (InstituteReport No. 6). Philadelphia: Institute for Researchon Human Relations.Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (1998). Mapping thedomain of expressivity: Multimethod evidence fora hierarchical model. Journal of Personality andSocial 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 interpersonalproblems: A circumplex analysis. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 62, 989–1002.Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1978). Group tasks,group interaction process, and group performanceeffectiveness: A review and proposed integration.In L. Berkowitz, (Ed.), Group processes (pp.1–55). New York: Academic Press.Haythorn, W. (1953). The influence of individualmembers on the characteristics of small groups.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48,276–284.Hirokawa, R. Y. (1980). A comparative analysis ofcommunication patterns within effective and ineffectivedecision-making groups. CommunicationMonographs, 47, 312–321.Hogan, R. (1986). Hogan personality inventory. Minneapolis,MN: National Computer Systems.Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Sego, D. J., Hedlund,J., Major, D. A., & Phillips, J. (1995). The multileveltheory of team decision making: Decisionperformance in teams incorporating distributed expertise.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). Structuralcontingency theory and individual differences: Examinationof external and internal person-team fit.Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 599–606.Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in closerelationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personalityand social psychology, Vol. 10 (pp. 187–220). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Hough, L. M. (1992). The “Big Five” personalityvariables: Construct confusion-Description versusprediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–155.Ilgen, D. R. (1999). Teams embedded in organizations.American Psychologist, 54, 129–139.Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt,D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From inputprocess-outputmodels to IMOI models. AnnualReview of Psychology, 56, 517–543.Janicik, G. A., & Bartel, C. A. (2003). Talking abouttime: Effects of temporal planning and time awarenessnorms on group coordination and performance.Group Dynamics, 7, 122–134.Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communicationand trust in global virtual teams. OrganizationalScience, 10, 791–815.Jones, K., & Day, J. D. (1997). Discrimination of twoaspects of cognitive-social intelligence from academicintelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology,89, 486–497.Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor modelof personality and transformational leadership.Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751–765.Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). Thepower of being positive: The relationship between

PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS269positive self-concept and job performance. HumanPerformance, 11, 167–187.Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger,A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and lifesatisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journalof Applied Psychology, 83, 17–34.Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J.(1997). Five-factor model of personality and employeeabsence. Journal of Applied Psychology,82, 745–755.Kanki, B. G., Lozito, S. C., & Foushee, H. C. (1989).Communication indices of crew coordination. Aviation,Space and Environmental Medicine, 60, 56–60.Kanki, B. G., & Smith, G. M. (2001). Training aviationcommunication skills. In E. Salas, C. A.Bowers, & E. Edens (Eds.), Improving teamworkin organizations (pp. 95–127). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Kelley, H., & Stahelski, A. (1970). Social interactionbases of cooperators’ and competitors’ beliefsabout others. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 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 acrosslevels and time. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos(Eds.), The changing nature of work performance:Implications for staffing, motivation, and development(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 dynamictheory of leadership and team effectiveness:Developmental and task contingent leader roles.Research in Personnel and Human ResourcesManagement, 14, 253–305.Kring, A. M., Smith, D. A., & Neale, J. M. (1994).Individual differences in dispositional expressiveness:Development and validation of the emotionalexpressivity scale. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 66, 934–949.LePine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation andpostchange performance: Effects of team compositionin terms of members’ cognitive ability andpersonality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,27–39.LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D., & Hedlund,J. (1997). Effects of individual differences onthe performance of hierarchical decision-makingteams: Much more than g. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 82, 803–811.LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. V. (2001). Voice andcooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextualperformance: Evidence of differential relationshipswith Big Five personality characteristicsand cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology,86, 326–336.Lieberman, M. D., & Rosenthal, R. (2001). Whyintroverts can’t always tell who likes them: Multitaskingand nonverbal decoding. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 80, 294–310.Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1961). Group cohesiveness,communication level, and conformity. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 408–412.Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2001). Understandingextroverts’ enjoyment of social situations: The importanceof pleasantness. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 81, 343–356.Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Shao, L., &Grob, A. (2000). Cross-cultural evidence for thefundamental features of extraversion. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 79, 452–468.Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationshipsbetween personality and performance in smallgroups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241–270.Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000).Performance implications of leader briefings andteam-interaction training for team adaptation tonovel environments. Journal of Applied Psychology,85, 971–986.Marlowe, H. A. (1986). Social intelligence: Evidencefor multidimensionality and construct independence.Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 52–58.Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas,E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influenceof shared mental models on team process andperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,273–283.McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new BigFive: Fundamental principles for an integrativescience of personality. American Psychologist, 61,204–217.McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptionsand correlates of openness to experience. In R.Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbookof Personality Psychology (pp. 825–847). San Diego,CA: Academic Press.McIntyre, R. M., & Salas, E. (1995). Measuring andmanaging for team performance: Lessons fromcomplex environments. (In R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas,& Associates (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decisionmaking in organizations (pp. 9–45). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.)McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany,N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizationalrelationships. Academy of ManagementReview, 23, 473–490.Moon, H. (2001). The two faces of conscientiousness:Duty and achievement-striving within escalationof commitment dilemmas. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 86, 533–540.Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1992). Problemidentification by groups. In S. Worchel, W. Wood,

270 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEA& J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity(pp. 17–47). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Morgan, B. B., Glickman, A. S., Woodard, E. A.,Blaiwes, A., & Salas, E. (1986). Measurement ofteam behaviors in a Navy environment (NTSCTech. Rep. No. No. 86–014). Orlando, FL: NavalTraining Systems Center.Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Laffitte, L. J., &Callans, M. C. (1999). Personal CharacteristicsInventory User’s Manual. Libertyville: IL: WonderlicConsulting.Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L.(1998). Five-factor model of personality and performancein jobs involving interpersonal interactions.Human Performance, 11, 145–165.Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation betweengroup cohesiveness and performance: Anintegration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227.Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Threlfall, K. V.,Uhlman, C. E., & Costanza, D. P. (1993). Personality,adaptability, and performance: Performanceon well-defined and ill-defined problem-solvingtasks. Human Performance, 6, 241–285.Murray, S. L., Hilmes, J. G., MacDonald, G., &Ellsworth, P. C. (1998). Through the looking glassdarkly: When self-doubts turn into relationshipinsecurities. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 75, 1459–1480.Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. (1999). Team effectiveness:Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journalof Applied Psychology, 84, 376–389.Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know—And sometimesmisjudge—What others know: Imputingone’s own knowledge to others. PsychologicalBulletin, 125, 737–759.Norton, R. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, applications,and measures. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Paulhus, D. L., & Martin, C. L. (1988). Functionalflexibility: A new conception of interpersonal flexibility.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,55, 88–101.Porter, C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Ellis, A.,West, B. J., & Moon, H. (2003). Backing up behaviorsin teams: The role of personality and legitimacyof need. Journal of Applied Psychology,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 personalityvariable predicting social and political attitudes.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,67, 741–763.Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon,K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace:Development of a taxonomy of adaptiveperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,612–624.Riggio, R., & Friedman, H. (1986). Impression formation:The role of expressive behavior. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 421–427.Rosnow, R. L., Skleder, A. A., Jaeger, M. E., & Rind,B. (1994). Intelligence and the epistemics of interpersonalacumen: Testing some implications ofGardner’s theory. Intelligence, 19, 93–116).Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum,S. I. (1992). Toward an understanding ofteam performance and training. In R. W. Swezey& E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance(pp. 3–29). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Saucier, G., & Ostendorf, F. (1999). Hierarchicalsubcomponents of the big five personality factors:A cross-cultural replication. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 76, 613–627.Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D.(1996). Broadsided by broad traits: How to sinkscience in five dimensions or less. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 17, 639–655.Shaw, Marjorie, E. (1932). A comparison of individualsand small groups in the rational solution ofcomplex problems. American Journal of Psychology,44, 491–504.Shaw, Marvin, E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychologyof small group behavior. New York:McGraw-Hill.Shiflett, S. C. (1972). Group performance as a functionof task difficulty and organizational interdependence.Organizational Behavior and GroupPerformance, 7, 442–456.Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Salas, E., & Brannick, M. T.(2001). To transfer or not to transfer? Investigatingthe combined effects of trainee characteristics,team leader support, and team climate. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86, 279–292.Snyder, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressivebehavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,30, 526–537.Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1995). Effects of informationload and percentage of shared information onthe dissemination of unshared information duringgroup discussion. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 48, 1467–1478.Stewart, G. L. (1999). Trait bandwidth and stages ofjob performance: Assessing differential effects ofconscientiousness and its subtraits. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 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 itsaftermath. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.Stout, R. J., Salas, E., & Fowlkes, J. E. (1997).Enhancing teamwork in complex environments

PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS271through team training. Group Dynamics, 1, 169–182.Thompson, L. F., & Coovert, M. D. (2003). Teamworkonline: The effects of computer conferencingon perceived confusion, satisfaction, and postdiscussionaccuracy. Group Dynamics, 7, 135–151.Totterdell, P., Kellett, S., Teuchmann, K., & Briner,R. B. (1998). Evidence of mood linkage in workgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74, 1504–1515.Vancouver, J. B., & Ilgen, D. R. (1989). Effects ofinterpersonal orientation and the sex-type of thetask on choosing to work alone or in groups. Journalof Applied Psychology, 74, 927–934.Van Lange, P. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomesand equality in outcomes: An integrative model ofsocial value orientation. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 77, 337–349.Van Lange, P., De Bruin, E., Otten, W., & Joireman,J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic,and competitive orientations: Theory andpreliminary evidence. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 73, 733–746.Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and groupeffectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly,40, 145–180.Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualismcollectivism:Effects on cooperation in groups.Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152–172.Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion andits positive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson,& S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personalitypsychology (pp. 767—793). San Diego, CA: AcademicPress.Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988).Development and validation of brief measures ofpositive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,1063–1070.Weingart, L. R. (1992). Impact of group goals, taskcomponent complexity, effort, and planning ongroup performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,77, 682–693.Witt, L. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Social skill asmoderator of the conscientiousness-performancerelationship: Convergent results across four studies.Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 809–821.Yamagishi, T. (2001). Trust as a form of socialintelligence. In K. Cook (Ed.), Trust in society (pp.121–147). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tacticsand objectives in upward, downward, and lateralinfluence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology,75, 132–140.Zaccaro, S. J., Foti, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1991).Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in leadership:An investigation of leader flexibility acrossmultiple group situations. Journal of Applied Psychology,76, 308–315.Zaccaro, S. J., Gilbert, J. A., Thor, K. K., & Mumford,M. D. (1991). Leadership and social intelligence:Linking social perceptiveness and behavioralflexibility to leader effectiveness. LeadershipQuarterly, 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, 2004Revision received July 31, 2006Accepted August 5, 2006