250 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEAAlthough these results have demonstrated therelevance of <strong>team</strong> member personality to <strong>team</strong><strong>effectiveness</strong>, 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 <strong>and</strong>even contradictory effects on <strong>team</strong> performance.For example, it is unclear whether theeffect of extraversion on <strong>team</strong> 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 to<strong>team</strong> <strong>effectiveness</strong>.Second, we acknowledge that <strong>team</strong> performanceis multidimensional <strong>and</strong> that differentpersonality facets may be predictive of differentperformance dimensions. This position is consistentwith a person-<strong>team</strong> fit perspective (Hollenbecket al., 2002) that the relationship betweenindividual differences in personality <strong>and</strong>outcomes is contingent on the nature of the task.Therefore, we argue that to examine the impactof personality on <strong>team</strong> <strong>effectiveness</strong> 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 <strong>team</strong> <strong>effectiveness</strong>. More specifically,we claim that the effects of <strong>team</strong> member personalityon <strong>team</strong> <strong>effectiveness</strong> should be examinedin terms of what <strong>team</strong>s do. Researchershave identified core <strong>team</strong>work dimensions or<strong>team</strong> functions that must be accomplishedwithin <strong>team</strong>s. These <strong>team</strong>work dimensions includeactivities such as <strong>team</strong> management (i.e.,directing <strong>and</strong> coordinating task activities), interpersonalrelations (i.e., resolving conflicts <strong>and</strong>maintaining socioemotional relations), <strong>and</strong>adaptability (i.e., compensatory or backup behavior).Thus, it is quite likely that specificfacets of <strong>team</strong> member personality may havedifferential effects on these activities that underlieeffective <strong>team</strong> performance. For example,a <strong>team</strong> member that is highly sociable may bequite adept at maintaining <strong>good</strong> interpersonalrelations in <strong>team</strong>s, but not necessarily adept attask management <strong>and</strong> planning. Therefore, ourgoal is to define the specific personality facetsthat are relevant to <strong>team</strong> <strong>effectiveness</strong> <strong>and</strong> linkthese to the core <strong>team</strong>work dimensions thatdefine effective <strong>team</strong> performance.In the following, we first attempt to elaboratethe concept of a <strong>good</strong> <strong>team</strong> <strong>player</strong> by deriving ahierarchical model of <strong>team</strong> member personalitythat defines specific personality traits <strong>and</strong> facetsthat we believe are most relevant to <strong>team</strong> performance.We then present a classification ofthe core <strong>team</strong>work dimensions underlying effective<strong>team</strong> performance. Finally, we derivepredictions linking <strong>team</strong> member personalityfacets to these <strong>team</strong>work requirements.<strong>What</strong> Defines a Good Team Player?We follow Ilgen (1999) in focusing on work<strong>team</strong>s—<strong>team</strong>s embedded in organizations thatexist to accomplish tasks. In a typical work<strong>team</strong>, what Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh, Salas,<strong>and</strong> Cannon-Bowers (1996) call “action <strong>team</strong>s,”<strong>and</strong> what Hollenbeck et al. (1995) term “distributedexpertise <strong>team</strong>s,” each <strong>team</strong> member possessesspecific information or expertise to contributeto the <strong>team</strong> task. Although work <strong>team</strong>sare often hierarchically structured, our focus ison the interdependent <strong>team</strong> member. Thus, ourinitial goal is to describe the traits or facets thatdefine the prototypical <strong>team</strong> <strong>player</strong>.Although there is some divergence on howpersonality traits should be labeled <strong>and</strong> 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 <strong>and</strong> 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 <strong>and</strong>parsimonious way of describing personality, themore specific facets can offer higher fidelity oftrait descriptions <strong>and</strong> greater predictive validity(Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999; Stewart, 1999).Figure 1 presents a hierarchical model of<strong>team</strong> member personality, defined by the BigFive trait dimensions of emotional stability, extraversion,openness, agreeableness, <strong>and</strong> conscientiousness.These traits are composed of themore specific facets that we believe are relevantto <strong>team</strong> <strong>effectiveness</strong>. In the following sections,we describe each facet <strong>and</strong> its relationship to
PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS251TeamworkEmotional Stability Extraversion Openness Agreeableness ConscientiousnessAdjustmentDominanceFlexibilityTrustDependabilitySelf-EsteemAffiliationCooperationDutifulnessSocialPerceptivenessAchievementExpressivityFigure 1.Hierarchical Model of Facets Related to Teamwork<strong>team</strong> performance. In some cases, these facetsare linked to <strong>team</strong> performance through existingempirical research, <strong>and</strong> 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 personality<strong>and</strong> <strong>team</strong> 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), Hogan<strong>Personality</strong> Inventory (HPI; Hogan, 1986), thePersonal Characteristics Inventory (PCI;Mount, Barrick, Laffitte, & Callans, 1999), the16PF (Conn & Rieke, 1994), <strong>and</strong> the California<strong>Personality</strong> 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 <strong>and</strong> nervous tendencies. Those whoare emotionally stable tend to be well-adjusted,calm, secure, <strong>and</strong> self-confident. Viewed fromthe negative pole of neuroticism, those whoscore low on this trait tend to be moody, anxious,paranoid, nervous, insecure, depressed,<strong>and</strong> high-strung (Barrick & Mount, 2001). Inpast studies of military <strong>team</strong>s, Haythorn (1953)<strong>and</strong> Greer (1955) reported that emotional stabilitywas positively related to <strong>team</strong> <strong>effectiveness</strong>.Several researchers have claimed thatemotional stability is a significant factor in<strong>team</strong>work 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 <strong>team</strong> interactionare adjustment <strong>and</strong> self-esteem.Adjustment. Adjustment has been definedby Hogan (1986) as freedom from anxiety, depression,<strong>and</strong> somatic complaints. Watson,Clark, <strong>and</strong> Tellegen (1988) have viewed lack ofadjustment as negative affect, a general dimensionof subjective distress <strong>and</strong> unpleasurableengagement. Gunthert, Cohen, <strong>and</strong> Armeli(1999) described neurotic individuals as“caught in a web of negative behaviors, cognitions,<strong>and</strong> moods. . .They seem to experience(perhaps generate) more interpersonal stressors,their perceptions of daily events are more negative,<strong>and</strong> their coping choices are maladaptive”(p. 1099).Given that those low on adjustment are proneto be distressed, upset, hostile, irritable, <strong>and</strong>nervous, they are not likely to excel in interper-
- 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 14 and 15: 262 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