What makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness

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.