10.07.2015 Views

What makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness

What makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness

What makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!