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
- No tags were found...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
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, <strong>and</strong> the 16PF facetof Openness to Change.AgreeablenessThe trait of agreeableness is defined as kindness,trust, <strong>and</strong> warmth versus selfishness, distrust,<strong>and</strong> hostility. Persons high on agreeablenessare considerate, honest, helpful, <strong>and</strong> supportive.Persons low on agreeableness areuncaring, intolerant, unsympathetic, <strong>and</strong> 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 <strong>and</strong>that involve smooth relations with others (Barricket al., 2001). The facets of agreeablenessthat we believe are most relevant to <strong>team</strong> interactionare trust <strong>and</strong> cooperation.Trust. Gurtman (1992) defines trust as thebelief that the sincerity, benevolence, <strong>and</strong> truthfulnessof others can generally be relied upon.According to Judge, Erez, <strong>and</strong> Bono (1998), theopposite of trust is cynicism, the belief thatothers lack integrity <strong>and</strong> are “out to get you.”McKnight, Cummings, <strong>and</strong> Chervany (1998)claim that the disposition to trust has two facets:(a) faith in humanity, the assumption that othersare well-meaning <strong>and</strong> dependable, <strong>and</strong> (b) trustingstance, the assumption that one will achievea better outcome by dealing with people asthough they were trustworthy. Holmes <strong>and</strong>Rempel (1989) define trust as composed of severalcomponents, including dependability, orthe belief that others can be counted on to behonest, reliable, <strong>and</strong> benevolent; <strong>and</strong> faith, orthe conviction that others are intrinsically motivatedto be responsive <strong>and</strong> caring.We distinguish between trust (or dispositionto trust) <strong>and</strong> trustworthiness or reliability, whichis captured by our dependability facet. Thosewith dispositionally high trust believe that othersare honest <strong>and</strong> well-intentioned, whereasthose with low trust are suspicious <strong>and</strong> doubtthe sincerity, motives, or intentions of others.Yamagishi (2001) noted that trust is not theindiscriminate belief in the <strong>good</strong>ness 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 <strong>and</strong> argued thathigh trust should lead to greater cooperation <strong>and</strong>helping behaviors, greater task commitment,<strong>and</strong> higher effort expended on the task. Dirksfound that in high-trust groups, higher motivationwas channeled into more cooperative behavior<strong>and</strong> better performance. Jarvenpaa <strong>and</strong>Leidner (1999) also found that lower levels oftrust were associated with lower <strong>team</strong> performance.Cognate scales related to the trust facetinclude the NEO-PI-R facet of Trust <strong>and</strong> theHPI facet of Trusting.Cooperation. Van Lange, De Bruin, Otten,<strong>and</strong> Joireman (1997) have noted that some peopleare willing to give others the benefit of thedoubt <strong>and</strong> approach them cooperatively;whereas others are inclined to approach othersnoncooperatively. They distinguished betweenthose who are cooperative or prosocial (whomaximize outcomes for both self <strong>and</strong> others)<strong>and</strong> 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 <strong>and</strong> 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) <strong>and</strong> found thatindividual differences in collectivism predictedthe extent to which group members cooperatedin task activities.Kelley <strong>and</strong> Stahelski (1970) found that competitivepersons are more likely to expect othersto be competitive <strong>and</strong> 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 <strong>team</strong>—theymay not only act in a competitive manner, but