262 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEAable social interactions at the expense of efficientmanagement of task dem<strong>and</strong>s” (p. 66).Social PerceptivenessWe view social perceptiveness as the capacityto accurately gather <strong>and</strong> process informationabout others (Costanzo, 1992), <strong>and</strong> 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’ thoughts<strong>and</strong> feelings may be less apt to develop theshared knowledge or transactive memory requiredin interdependent <strong>team</strong>s. We predict thatthose who are more adept at reading <strong>and</strong> interpretingothers’ intentions <strong>and</strong> feelings are morelikely to identify when other <strong>team</strong> members areoverloaded or require assistance (adaptability),develop common ground with other <strong>team</strong> members(shared situational awareness), be moreadept at conflict resolution <strong>and</strong> social tasks (interpersonalrelations), be more accurate in interpretingor receiving communications fromothers (communication), <strong>and</strong> be more skilled atperceiving others’ opinions <strong>and</strong> inputs in decisionmaking (decision making). We believe thatsocial perceptiveness will have intermediate effectson performance monitoring <strong>and</strong> feedback,<strong>team</strong> management, <strong>and</strong> coordination.ExpressivityWe believe that those who are interpersonallyexpressive are likely to be viewed as more positive<strong>and</strong> likable (Riggio & Friedman, 1986),<strong>and</strong> are likely to be more energetic <strong>and</strong> effectivecommunicators (DeGroot & Motowidlo, 1999;Gallaher, 1992). Moreover, Ambady, Hallahan,<strong>and</strong> 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 <strong>and</strong> adapt to (adaptability), morelikely to communicate contextual informationto others (shared situational awareness), likelyto be viewed more positively (interpersonal relations),communicate more effectively (communication)<strong>and</strong> are more likely to express theirfeelings <strong>and</strong> opinions effectively in decisionmaking (decision making). We believe that expressivitywill have intermediate effects on performancemonitoring <strong>and</strong> feedback, <strong>team</strong> management,<strong>and</strong> 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 <strong>and</strong>procedures 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 <strong>team</strong>work behaviors.TrustFollowing Dirks (1999), we propose that hightrust leads to greater commitment, greater effort,<strong>and</strong> greater cooperation. We believe thathigh-trust <strong>team</strong> members are more likely to seek<strong>and</strong> receive feedback from others (performancemonitoring <strong>and</strong> feedback), engage in activitiesto resolve conflicts <strong>and</strong> ensure smooth interpersonalrelations among <strong>team</strong> members (interpersonalrelations), communication more openly(communication), <strong>and</strong> pool information in decisionmaking (decision making). We expect thattrust will have intermediate effects on adaptability,shared situational awareness, coordination,<strong>and</strong> <strong>team</strong> management.CooperationThose who are cooperative place the dem<strong>and</strong>s<strong>and</strong> interests of the group over personaldesires (Wagner, 1995). We believe that <strong>team</strong>members who pursue cooperative or group interestsversus self interests are more likely toshare contextual <strong>team</strong> <strong>and</strong> task information withother <strong>team</strong> members (shared situational awareness),provide backup support to other <strong>team</strong>members (adaptability), perform actions to addresssocioemotional requirements (interpersonalrelations), <strong>and</strong> exchange information withother <strong>team</strong> members (communication). We expectthat cooperation will have intermediate effectson decision making, performance monitoring<strong>and</strong> feedback, coordination, <strong>and</strong> <strong>team</strong> managementbecause, as LePine <strong>and</strong> 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,<strong>and</strong> Borman et al. (1995) found thatdependability was related to higher performanceratings by both supervisors <strong>and</strong> peers.We predict that <strong>team</strong> members who are reliable<strong>and</strong> dependable can be counted on to backupother <strong>team</strong> members’ behaviors (adaptability),monitor <strong>team</strong> progress <strong>and</strong> provide feedback(performance monitoring <strong>and</strong> feedback), plan<strong>and</strong> manage <strong>team</strong> activities (<strong>team</strong> management),regulate the pace <strong>and</strong> coordination of <strong>team</strong> activities(coordination), <strong>and</strong> exchange informationin a timely manner (communication). Webelieve that dependability will have intermediateeffects on shared situational awareness, interpersonalrelations, <strong>and</strong> 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 <strong>and</strong> inflexible (Hogan, 1986).Moreover, being organized <strong>and</strong> cautious maydetract from some aspects of decision making,such as idea generation, <strong>and</strong> enhance other aspects,such as the evaluation of alternatives.DutifulnessResearch suggests that those who hold agreater sense of duty, loyalty, <strong>and</strong> sacrifice forthe <strong>team</strong> tend to engender greater group cohesiveness(Prapavessis & Carron, 1997), areviewed more favorably by coworkers (Ellemerset al., 1998), <strong>and</strong> 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 <strong>team</strong> <strong>and</strong> the task (shared situationalawareness), contribute to <strong>team</strong> pride <strong>and</strong> morale(interpersonal relations), <strong>and</strong> perform supportiveactivities related to <strong>team</strong> goal achievement(performance monitoring <strong>and</strong> feedback). Webelieve that dutifulness will have intermediateeffects on adaptability, <strong>team</strong> management, coordination,communication, <strong>and</strong> decision making.AchievementWe believe that <strong>team</strong> members who areachievement oriented are likely to be more motivatedto pursue group goals <strong>and</strong> to ensuregroup success (Hough, 1992; Z<strong>and</strong>er & Forward,1968). We predict that <strong>team</strong> memberswho are achievement-oriented, hardworking,proactive, <strong>and</strong> take the initiative in <strong>team</strong> activitieswill be more likely to adjust to other <strong>team</strong>members’ behaviors (adaptability), developcommon ground with other <strong>team</strong> members(shared situational awareness), monitor <strong>team</strong>progress <strong>and</strong> provide feedback (performancemonitoring <strong>and</strong> feedback), participate in the direction<strong>and</strong> coordination of task activities (<strong>team</strong>management), manage the pace <strong>and</strong> sequencingof <strong>team</strong> activities (coordination), communicatemore (communication), <strong>and</strong> 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), <strong>team</strong> members who work harder for the<strong>team</strong> should support <strong>team</strong> morale.DiscussionWe begun by asking a basic question: <strong>What</strong><strong>makes</strong> a <strong>good</strong> <strong>team</strong> <strong>player</strong>? We then attemptedto provide a foundation for addressing thatquestion, which then became: <strong>What</strong> specifictraits define a <strong>good</strong> <strong>team</strong> <strong>player</strong> in relation to theactivities required for effective <strong>team</strong>work? Wedescribed the personality facets that we believeare most relevant to <strong>team</strong> performance, <strong>and</strong> thenderived predictions linking these facets to core<strong>team</strong>work dimensions. This approach offersseveral benefits. First, this approach extendsprevious research on personality <strong>and</strong> <strong>team</strong> performanceby offering greater precision in specifyingthe role that <strong>team</strong> member personalityplays in <strong>team</strong> <strong>effectiveness</strong>. Second, this frameworkprovides a foundation for further empiricaltesting <strong>and</strong> validation of predictions. Third,this approach suggests useful avenues for selection<strong>and</strong> training interventions to enhance <strong>team</strong><strong>effectiveness</strong>.
- Page 2 and 3: 250 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O
- Page 6 and 7: 254 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O
- Page 8 and 9: 256 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O
- Page 10 and 11: 258 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O
- Page 12 and 13: 260 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O
- Page 16 and 17: 264 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O
- Page 18 and 19: 266 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O
- Page 20 and 21: 268 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O
- Page 22 and 23: 270 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O