teamwork and psychological attributes: emerging...

Teamwork and Psychological Attributes:Emerging Trends in Business Organizations

Kavita Kapur and Anuradha Bhandari

Teamwork in organisations is increasingly gaining importance aswork becomes more specialised, complex and geographicallydispersed. Further advances in technology providing digital platforms,electronic team processes have been established in manyorganisations (Clark and Gibb, 2006). While group behaviour hasbeen studied extensively in sociology and social psychology, teambehaviour has gained importance in business psychology as teamsstarted to replace individuals in organisations.

In this chapter authors will discuss how the globalisation andnetworking has changed the paradigms of team behaviour and whatare the implications of this for business psychology. Further, thefocus will be on team member attributes such as personality,emotional intelligence, efficacy, trust, values etc.

TeamsTeams are two or more individuals who work together towards

the accomplishment of a common goal in organizations (Hackman,1990). Teams have been widely used in the current competitivebusiness environment as tasks grow beyond the capabilities of anysingle individual. This phenomenon has long been established in the

EditorsNovRattan Sharma

Amrita YadavaPublished by Global Vision Publishing House

Business Psychology

Kavita Kapur, Research Fellow, Management Development Institute, Gurgaon.Anuradha Bhandari, Professor, Department of Psychology, Panjab University,Chandigarh.

48 Business Psychology

business organisations, 50% of the staff employed in 80% of Fortune500 companies worked in teams (Joinson, 1999).

What differentiates a team from a group has been a matter of alot of discussion in literature.

A group has been defined as two or more individuals, interactingand interdependent, who have come together to achieve particularobjectives. It is a collection of individuals who maintain stablepatterns of relationships, share common goals, and perceivethemselves as being a group. A team may be defined as a groupwhose members have complimentary skills and are committed to acommon purpose or set of performance goals for which they holdthemselves mutually accountable.

A work group is a group that interacts primarily to shareinformation and to make decisions to help each member performwithin his or her area of responsibility. Work groups have no needor opportunity to engage in collective work that requires joint effort.Therefore, their performance is merely the summation of groupmembers’s individual contribution. There is no positive synergy thatwould create an overall level of performance that is greater than thesum of the inputs. A work team is a team whose members areconcerned primarily with using the organizations resources toeffectively create its results. A work team generates positive energythrough coordinated effort. Their individual efforts result in a levelof performance that is greater than the sum of those individualinputs (Robbins, 2003).

Work Groups Work Teams

Share Information ← Goal → Collective PerformanceNeutral ←Synergy → PositiveIndividual ←Accountability → Individual and MutualRandom and varied ←Skills → Complementary

Also, teams and groups are often defined as being a subset ofanother i.e., all teams are groups but all groups are not teams. Withgroups in organizations developing towards becoming teams, andorganizations relying on them to improve quality, productivity,

49Teamwork and Psychological Attributes...

customer service, etc teamwork skills, attitudes and otherpsychological/ behavioral attributes assume significance.

A team is “a collection of individuals who are interdependent intheir tasks, who share responsibility for outcomes, who seethemselves and who are seen by others as an intact social entityembedded in one or more larger social systems (for example, businessunit or the corporation), and who manage their relationships acrossorganizational boundaries” (Cohen & Baily, 1997).

According to Kozlowski and Ilgen (2006), “Teams arecollectives who exist to perform organizationally relevant tasks,share one or more common goals, interact socially, exhibit taskinterdependencies, maintain and manage boundaries, and areembedded in an organizational context that sets boundaries,constrains the team, and influences exchanges with other units inthe broader entity”.

Types of TeamsTeams can be classified according to composition, task and

tenure and specific features.• Management teams consist of several managers, who steer

entire organizations or parts of organizations.• Project teams are “time-limited” and carry out specified

projects, often consisting of a variety of different experts.• Cross-functional Teams - Employees from about the same

hierarchical level, but from different work areas, who cometogether to accomplish a task.

• Problem - Solving Teams - Groups of 5 to 12 employeesfrom the same department who meet for a few hours eachweek to discuss ways of improving quality, efficiency, andthe work environment.

• Self - Managed Work Teams - Groups of 10 to 15 peoplewho take on responsibilities of their former supervisors.

• Virtual teams - Teams that use computer technology to tietogether physically dispersed members in order to achievea common goal.


Also, teams in organizations can be distinguished based uponhow long they are together as a unit and the fluidity of the team’smembership. Thus, temporary teams, e.g. “task forces” are set upto achieve a given project or tackle an issue in a given time frameand work with deadlines. Permanent teams on the other hand continueover a time and their membership is usually quite stable, they areorganized around operations leading to product and service. Thereare many advantages of team working in organizations. Besidesbeing a part of the organizational structure that supports integration(Child, 2004) teams typically substitute peer–based control of workthat leads to add commitment and involvement of individuals intheir work.

Team PerformanceTeam performance pertains to how well the task work and

teamwork is carried out.On the other hand team effectiveness pertains specifically to

the accomplishment of the goals, milestones, and objectives asdefined by the requirements of the context. McGrath (1964)advanced an input-process-outcome (IPO) framework for studyingteam effectiveness. Inputs describe antecedent factors that enableand constrain members’ interactions. These include individual teammember characteristics (e.g., competencies, personalities), team-level factors (e.g., task structure, external leader influences), andorganizational and contextual factors (e.g., organizational designfeatures, environmental complexity). These various antecedentscombine to drive team processes, which describe members’interactions directed towards task accomplishment. Processes areimportant because they describe how team inputs are transformedinto outcomes. Outcomes are results and by-products of team activitythat are valued by one or more constituencies (Mathieu, Heffner,Goodwin, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). Broadly speaking, thesemay include performance (e.g., quality and quantity) and members’affective reactions (e.g., satisfaction, commitment, viability).

Performance of a team depends on the characteristics of itsteam members. These are broadly acknowledged as being the


knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics for a particulartask (LePine et al., 2000; Stevens & Campion, 1999). As thebehaviour of individual team members can enhance or impede teamperformance, research has focused on the interpersonalcharacteristics of team members such as personality and how theyimpact the success of any team.

TEAMWORK ATTRIBUTES

Personality Current research indicates that there is a complex and profound

relationship between personality and job performance (Barrick &Mount, 1991, Barrick et al., 1998). Further, specific personalitytraits are related in predictable ways to performance in certain kindsof jobs and situations.

According to James and Mazerolle (2002) the following are themain causes for focus of personality studies in organisations:

(1) Need for employers to select people with high probabilitiesof adjusting and succeeding in work situations.

(2) A philosophical shift, in American opinion, that changedbehaviour being influenced strongly by uncontrollablesituational forces to being a product both of environmentand of the individual‘s dispositional capacity and fortitudeto take initiative and responsibility to adapt to environmentalinfluences. Thus, leading to research in business psychologyon how dispositions impact behaviour in work environment(Nelson & Sutton, 1990).

(3) Advances in the understanding of the cognitive and emotionalbases of human behaviour. Example of this is the field ofsocial cognition and attributions for causes of behaviour,including emotions.

Personality in TeamsIt is well acknowledged that the behaviour of individual team

members can enhance or impede team performance. This has led toan interest in research in the interpersonal characteristics of team


members as they impact the success of any team. Demographicvariables (e.g. age, race, gender, and seniority), abilities andpersonality variables are examples of team member interpersonalcharacteristics that may be related to effective team behaviour.

One of the main contributors to this interest has been thepressing need for employers to select people with high probabilitiesof adjusting and succeeding in work situations. Further, thetechnological advances have impacted greatly the nature of workitself in organizations. Increased complexity in design and structureof work and demands of the changing nature of work has furtherheightened the issue of effectiveness of work output at the individualas well as the team level. (James & Mazerole, 2002).

The study of personality in teamwork emerges from mainlytwo perspectives (Stewart, 2003).

(1) How team settings create an environment that influencesrelationships between individual personality traits andindividual performance (Mount, Barrick, & Stewart, 1998).This refers to focus on the relationship between individualtraits and individual performance in team settings.

(2) How individual traits aggregate to form team-level personality,which, in turn, affects team and organisational performance(Barrick, Stewart, Neubert & Mount, 1998; Barry & Stewart,1997).

To be able to study the effects of personality at the team level,researchers typically convert individual personality trait scores intomean and variability scores to reflect team composition in terms ofpersonality (Mohammed & Angell, 2003; Van Vianen & De Dreu,2001; Neuman et al., 1999; Barrick et al., 1998). Thus, personalityis studied in teams both at the individual level and at the team level.

The relatively recent advent of the five-factor model (FFM),which has served to organize the plethora of proposed personalitytraits, resolved many of the inconsistencies. Its validity has beentested cross –culturally, thus making it a relevant choice as a modelof personality in research in multi-cultural virtual teams (Burke &Witt, 2002; McCrae and Costa, 1996; Goldberg, 1992). These five


factors are: neuroticism (the tendency to experience negative affect,such as anxiety, insecurity and psychological distress), extraversion(the quantity and intensity of interpersonal interaction and activitylevel), openness to experience (the proactive seeking and appreciationof new experiences), agreeableness (the quality of one’s interpersonalinteraction along a continuum from compassion to antagonism),and conscientiousness (the amount of persistence, organization andmotivation in goal-directed behaviours). These five factors havebeen identified across a number of cultures and radically differentlanguages, providing further support for the existence of the FFMand its universal application (McCrae & Costa, 1996). FFM is abi-polar model of personality. It constitutes a taxonomy of personalitytraits, that are underlying traits under each dimension.

Meta-analyses examining the relationship between performanceand the Big Five traits have demonstrated the significant impactpersonality can have on job performance at the individual level(Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991).Additionally, new research has begun to extend this focus to teamlevel performance as well (Mohammed & Angell, 2003; Neuman etal., 1999; Barrick et al., 1998; Barry & Stewart, 1997). In a meta-analytic study, Mount et al, (1998) examined relationshipsbetween FFM traits and overall performance in a team environmentand found agreeableness to have the strongest relationship withperformance. Agreeableness, thus, appears to be an importantpredictor of individual performance in team settings. Organizingindividuals in teams increases emphasis on social inputs, and therebyon the associated traits such as agreeableness and extraversion(Stewart, 2003). In a meta-analysis, Mount, Barrack, and Stewart(1998) found that the dimensions of conscientiousness,agreeableness, and emotional stability were positively related to jobsthat involve interpersonal interactions. Dimensions of emotionalstability and agreeableness were found to be related to performancein jobs requiring teamwork. Barry and Stewart (1997) usedcovariance structure modeling and found that extraversion wasrelated significantly to group processes and outcomes. Further, thepersonality factor of conscientiousness has also been consistently


related to work performance at the individual level and has beenfound to generalize across job settings (Barrick & Mount, 1991).

Some reviews suggest that few personality traits predict groupperformance (Kahan, Webb, Shavelson, & Stolzenberg, 1985), butthere seems to be a more general consensus that personality is animportant factor in determining how groups function and perform(Driskell et al., 1988; Hackman & Morris, 1975). Although, there isconsiderable research addressing this topic, little empirical agreementhas been achieved regarding which traits affect groupperformance. Neuman et al., (1999) found in their study that foreach specific trait of the Big Five, either team personality elevationTPE (the average level of a given trait within a team) or teampersonality diversity TPD (the variability or differences in personalitytraits found within a team) predicted team performance. The TPEof traits of agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness toexperience were valid predictors, whereas TPD of team memberson the traits of extraversion and emotional stability improved theprediction of the performance criteria. Therefore, the appropriateteam selection strategy with regard to the traits of extraversion andemotional stability would be to select candidates who differ withrespect to these traits.

Trends in team personality research(i) First, the range of personality factors being considered has

been extended beyond the Big Five to include achievementorientation, dependability (LePine, 2003), assertiveness(Pearsall & Ellis, 2006), and locus of control (Boone, vanOlffen, van Witteloostuijn, & de Brabander, 2004).

(ii) Second, there has been increasing recognition that complexdynamics accompany personality factors. For instance,Halfhill et al., (2005) found that teams composed ofmembers with high levels of both conscientiousness andagreeableness exhibited the highest levels of performance.Rather than developing a personality taxonomy based onfactor analysis of correlations between scores on personalityvariables, researchers espouses a nomological – web


clustering approach, that links specific predictors to specificcriteria. Related to this approach is the use of compoundtraits, which are combinations of basic traits that do notnecessarily co-vary that are put together to maximise theprediction of a specific criterion construct (Hough andSchneider, 1996). Examples of this are integrity (Ones,Viswesvaran, & Scmidt, 1993), customer service orientation(Frei & McDaniel, 1998), and employee reliability (Hogan& Hogan, 1989).

It is now understood that to predict behaviour with personalityrequires one to account for the situation (Kenrick & Funder, 1998).Thus personality will have the greatest effect on behaviour whenthe situation is relevant to the trait’s expression and is weak enoughto allow the person to choose how to behave in that situation(Endler & Magnusson, 1976). Others suggest that the effects ofpersonality on team performance may vary according to the natureof the task (LePine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000; Neuman & Wright,1999). The type of task confronting a work team is a critical factorin determining which personality traits will be predictive ofperformance (McGrath, 1984).

For example, a job for a member of a sales team may requiretraits such as extraversion and agreeableness, whereas,conscientiousness and openness to experience may be more importantfor a research and development team. Therefore, there is a need toidentify relationships between specific personality predictors andspecific job performance criteria (Hough & Ones, 2001). Recently, Bell (2007) conducted a meta-analysis on the relationshipbetween personality and performance. Her results indicate thataverage team conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion,emotional stability, and openness to experience related positively toperformance in field settings. Ellis, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, Porter, West,and Moon (2003) revealed that teams with high average levels ofcognitive ability learned more when the team’s workload was evenlydistributed. In comparison, teams composed of people with highaverage agreeableness were not as adept in terms of team learning.


One of the obstacles to generalizing findings has been thefailure to consider the impact of task type in determining therelationship between personality and group performance. Researchshows that a task type moderates the relationship betweenpersonalities as a predictor variable of team effectiveness. Dependingon the distribution of task and the amount of interaction required,other traits may be predictive of team outcomes. Such as creativityfor high innovation teams. The level of interaction among teammembers is determined by, among other factors, taskinterdependence. Further, at the team level analysis, the methodsused for aggregation may differ in their predictive powers dependingon the distribution of task between the team members. Now if thetask is sequential in nature then personality traits of each individualcan hamper or facilitate the performance, hence in such cases theminimum scores of the trait in the team may be important toconsider rather than team average.

Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) argued that if team taskautonomy is high, individual team members have many opportunitiesto grow into different roles and to shape their own work, andtherefore, it is likely that team task autonomy will moderate therelation between team attributes, which stem from the individualmember’s personality traits, and team outcomes. Molleman et al.,(2004) found that for high levels of team task autonomy, therewas a positive relation between the mean level of openness toexperience in a team and satisfaction.

Social interaction is a common part of daily living, and with itcomes misunderstandings about one’s interactions with others. Asgroup performance situations have become more prevalent in workorganizations (Cohen & Bailey, 1997), many people try to understandthe factors that influence their coworkers as well as their ownperformance. This has led to an interest in the study of attributionsin group and team interaction.

Emotional Intelligence (EI)Emotional intelligence is the ability to perceive and express

emotion, assimilate emotion in thought, understand and reason with


emotion, and regulate emotion in the self and others (Caruso &Salovey, 2004). It is linked to the abilities that involve skill inmanaging emotions in oneself and in others and that are predictiveof a superior performance in work roles (Cherniss & Goleman,2001). According to Goleman (1998) “emotional competence” isdefined as a “learned capability based on emotional intelligence thatresult in outstanding performance at work.” As per this modelemotional intelligence is observed when a person demonstrates thecompetencies that constitute self-awareness, self-management, socialawareness, and social skills at appropriate times and ways in sufficientfrequency to be effective in the situation. (Boyatzis, Goleman,&Rhee, 1999). Evidence exists to suggest that emotion plays a keyrole in organizational success. In this context, Mayer et al. (2004)stated that superiors need to manage the mood of their organizationsand that a mysterious blend of psychological abilities known asemotional intelligence is what leaders need to accomplish that goal.Rosete and Ciarrochi (2005) exhibited that executives higher onunderstanding their own feelings and that of their subordinateswere more likely to achieve business outcomes and be consideredas effective leaders by their employees and direct manager.

Jordan et al., (2002) attempted to study relationships betweenEI, team process effectiveness and goal focus. The results suggestedthat the average level of EI of team members is reflected in theinitial performance of teams. They found that low EI teams initiallyperformed at a lower level than the high EI teams. Hatfield et al.,(1994) opined that the impact of individual vis a vis group isreflected in the concept of “emotional contagion”. Kelly and Barsade(2001) discussed how the emotional contagion can be instigated bya single individual in a group/team. Simply stated, a single grumpy(happy) individual can make the other members of the group/teamgrumpy (happy), just by displaying negative (positive) emotionaldisposition. According to Diggins (2004) the best managers needto possess emotional intelligence (EI) to make decisions that arebased on a combination of self-management and relationship skillsand an awareness of how their behaviour affects others in theorganization.


Current research is focused on emotional intelligence as a multi-level construct moving towards the definition and measurement ofteam level emotional intelligence or Group emotional intelligence(Wolff, et.al, 2006). This research suggests that team effectivenessimproves through a process of norm development that facilitatesengagement in effective task behaviours and processes.

Team ValuesWith respect to values, for example, it has been demonstrated

that values influence many aspects of human behaviour. Valuesinfluence person perceptions, that is, in the way one perceive andinterpret reality, and other day-to-day actions such as decision-making processes (Arciniega & Gonzalez, 2002: Ravlin & Meglino,1987). Thus, it seems likely that teams comprised of members whohave similar value profiles, will be more likely to share a commonview of their reality and will have fewer problems managing theirpersonal relationships.

Team LeadershipLeadership is important to team effectiveness. It is usually the

leader who secures the team’s resources, makes sure that membershave the appropriate training, and creates the situations that willfoster a positive team climate. Team leaders and managers makesure the team has organizational support, build and maintain theteam as performing unit, and coach and help the group (Hackman,1990). Team leaders provide the group with structure needed todevelop healthy teamwork (Hackman, 1998). A leader should providedirective or supportive leadership depending on the task’s difficultyand stressfulness and depending on the subordinates personal needsand skills. Team leadership is about finding this equilibrium. Theessence of a team leaders job is striking the right balance betweenproviding guidance and giving up control, between making toughdecisions and letting others make them, and between doing difficultthings alone and letting others learn to do them.

Three aspects of leadership in teams have been researched:external team leaders, team coaching, and shared leadership.


External team-oriented leadership focuses on the influence of aleader who is responsible for, and has authority for, the team’sperformance. Research indicates that team leadership is an importantingredient in realizing team affective (Foels, Driskell, Mullen, &Salas, 2000) and behaviour-based (Burke et al., 2006) outcomes.External team leaders are valuable because they serve as coordinatorsof operations, as liaisons to external teams or management, and asguides for setting the team’s vision (Morgeson, 2005).

Team coaching refers to “direct interaction with a team intendedto help members make coordinated and task-appropriate use oftheir collective resources in accomplishing the team’s work”(Hackman & Wageman, 2005). Examples of coaching behavioursinclude identifying team problems, process consultation, cueing andrewarding self-management, and problem-solving consultation.Studies have shown that coaching positively influences self-management, team member relationship quality, member satisfaction(Wageman, 2001), team empowerment (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999),and psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999).

Shared leadership refers to an emergent team property resultingfrom leadership functions being distributed across multiple teammembers rather than arising from a single, formal leader In effect,team-level leadership emerges from members’ collective knowledge,skills, and abilities, and has been found to be related positively toteam performance (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007).

Team ConfidenceTeam confidence includes two related, but distinct constructs -

team efficacy and potency. Team efficacy has been defined as “ashared belief in a group’s collective capability to organize and executecourses of action required to produce given levels of goal attainment”(Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Potency is generally defined as acollective belief regarding the team’s ability to be successful (Shea& Guzzo, 1987). The primary distinction between the two is thatefficacy relates to the team’s belief that it can be successful on aspecific task whereas, potency refers to a team’s more generalsense of its capabilities in relation to various tasks and different


contexts. Both constructs assume that these beliefs are shared byall team members (Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, & Beaubien, 2002).Accordingly, these constructs do not represent the simple aggregationof team members’ self-efficacy or their individual beliefs inthemselves across various tasks (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).

Team efficacy and potency are theorized to have a positiveimpact on performance through their respective effects on theactions teams take (i.e., which goals are set), their level of effort,and resilience when task performance does not attain the aspiredlevel. Empirical research findings have supported the positiverelationship between team efficacy and potency with performance(Jung & Sosik, 1999). Lester et al. (2002) reported that potencywas positively related to satisfaction, effort, and overall performance,whereas, Knight, Durham, and Locke (2001) found supportiveevidence for efficacy having a positive relationship with a team’slevel of strategic risk. According to Bandura (2000) the higher theperceived collective efficacy, the higher will be group members’motivational investments in their undertakings, the stronger theirstaying power in the face of impediments and setbacks, and thegreater their performance accomplishments. Gully and colleagues(2002) conducted a meta-analytic review of this literature andreported that the relationship between efficacy and performancewas higher when teams had greater, as compared to less,interdependence. This finding is consistent with the results of Gibson(1999), who found that the relationship between team efficacy andperformance was moderated by task uncertainty and collectivism.Whereas, work subsequent to Gully et al.’s meta-analyses hasgenerally provided further support for the positive relationship thatteam efficacy and potency have on performance (Srivastava et al.,2006), De Jong, de Ruyter, and Wetzels (2005) provided a uniqueperspective indicating that potency can have negative implicationson performance-in this case, service quality.

Team Empowerment Team empowerment is defined as increased task motivation

that is due to team members’ collective, positive assessments oftheir organizational tasks (Kirkman & Rosen, 2000).


Team empowerment is an emergent state, or a construct thatcharacterizes “properties of the team that are typically dynamic innature and vary as a function of team context, inputs, processes,and outcomes” (Marks et al., 2001). Emergent states describecognitive, motivational, and affective states of teams and teamempowerment is a dynamic motivational construct.

There have been two primary conceptions of teamempowerment: structural and psychological (Mathieu et al., 2006).Structural empowerment considers the impact that the actual practiceof delegating authority and responsibility can have on performance(Arnold, Arad, Rhoades, & Drasgow, 2000). Psychologicalempowerment is a team’s “collective belief that they have theauthority to control their proximal work environment and areresponsible for their team’s functioning” (Mathieu et al., 2006). Inthis chapter authors are more concerned with psychological ratherthan structural empowerment. Earlier, research focused on therelationship between psychological empowerment and overall teamperformance and found a positive relationship (Hyatt and Ruddy,1997). Kirkman and Rosen (1999) broadened the scope ofpsychological empowerment by considering a variety of performanceand affective outcomes. Specifically, in a study of teams from fourdifferent organizations, they evidenced that empowerment had apositive impact on customer service, job satisfaction, andorganizational and team commitment. Mathieu et al. (2006) foundthat psychological empowerment had a positive indirect effect onboth performance and customer satisfaction, as transmitted throughteam processes.

Team empowerment has also been examined from a multilevelperspective. Empirical support has demonstrated that psychologicalempowerment is distinct from individual-level psychologicalempowerment (e.g., Seibert, Silver, & Randolph, 2004). Specifically,Seibert and colleagues (2004) found that team empowerment caninfluence individuals’ performance and job satisfaction through itsrelationship with individual-level empowerment. More recently, Chenet al. (2007) examined how individual- and team-level empowermentinteracted in shaping individual performance. Namely, they


demonstrated a positive relationship between team empowermentand team-level performance and found that team-level empowermentmoderated the relationship between individual-level empowermentand individual level performance.

CohesionCohesion may be defined as “a dynamic process that is reflected

in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united inthe pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfactionof member affective needs” (Carron et al., 1998). Cohesion, or thecommitment of team members to the team’s overall task or to eachother (Goodman, Ravlin, & Schminke, 1987), suggesting that it isboth task related as well as interpersonal, has been one of the morethoroughly researched emergent states (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).For example, Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson (2003) found supportfor cohesion as a mediator of the transformational leadership–performance relationship. Elsewhere, Raver and Gelfand (2005)found support for cohesion as a mediator of team-level ambientsexual hostility’s negative influence on team financial performance.Michalisin, Karau, and Tangpong (2004) found a positive relationshipbetween TMT (top management teams) cohesion and overall returnswithin their simulation study. Given the amount of research pertainingto team cohesion, there are several meta-analytic reviews (e.g.,Gully et al., 2002; Webber & Donahue, 2001). Recently, Beal et al.(2003) examined studies conducted between 1951 and 2002 andfound that cohesion had a mean corrected correlation withperformance behaviours and performance outcomes of .30 and .17,respectively. Furthermore, Beal and colleagues (2003) illustratedthat three dimensions of cohesion (interpersonal, task, and grouppride) were each significantly related to team performance and that“as team workflow increased, the cohesion-performance relationshipbecame stronger”.

TrustWithout sufficient trust, team members will expend time and

energy protecting, checking, and inspecting each other as opposedto collaborating to provide value-added ideas (Cooper & Sawaf,


1996). Trust has been defined by Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman(1995) as the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actionsof another party based on the expectation that the other will performa particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the abilityto monitor or control the other party. Trust is cited as affecting avariety of team processes and outcomes such as group participationand contribution, cycle times, product quality, and even team memberretention (Bandow, 2001). Langfred (2004) provided evidence thatteam-level trust exhibits a downward concave curve relationshipwith the level of monitoring within the team. His results showedthat monitoring and the level of individual autonomy within the teaminteract, such that when individual autonomy is high and monitoringis low, team performance is negatively affected. Kirkman, Rosen,Tesluk, and Gibson (2006) found trust served as a positive moderatorof a team training proficiency–performance relationship. Trust alsoappears to be a moderator within TMT performance models withSimons and Peterson (2000) finding that intragroup trust moderatedthe relationship between task and relationship conflict.

Team LearningThe construct of team learning is said to represent an ongoing

process of reflection and action, through which teams acquire,share, combine, and apply knowledge (Argote, Gruenfeld, & Naquin,1999; Edmondson, 1999). In this sense, it reflects an active set ofteam processes, and yet team learning is also referred to asknowledge being embedded within the team (Argote & Olivera,1999). Embedding knowledge requires that teams codify what theyhave learned by documenting their work processes and thus,converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge (Gibson &Vermeulen, 2003). Zellmer-Bruhn and Gibson (2006) found a positiverelationship between team learning and both task performance andthe quality of intrateam relations. Wong (2004) assessed therelationship between learning that occurs from within (i.e., locallearning), as well as from outside the team (i.e., distal learning) andfound both to be positively related to efficiency and innovativeness.Moreover, the two forms of team learning interacted, such thatdistal learning negatively affected the relationship between local


learning and team efficiency. Edmondson (1999) provided insightinto other variables that are included in the team learning nomologicalnetwork. Specifically, in assessing the relationship between teamlearning and performance, Edmondson provided evidence that teamlearning served as a mediator for the relationship betweenpsychological safety (a shared belief held by members of a teamthat the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking) and performance.

CompetenciesBecause of the unique demands of working in a team, the

knowledge, skills, and abilities needed for effective performancediffer from those needed by individuals working alone (Morgeson,Reider, & Campion, 2005). The interaction required in team settingsintroduces a unique set of teamwork knowledge, skills, and abilitiesthat have been shown to facilitate performance (Hirschfeld, Jordan,Feild, Giles, & Armenakis, 2005; Cooke, Kiekel, Salas, & Stout,2003; McClough & Rogelberg, 2003).

Current Trends in Business EnvironmentGlobalization, new technologies, the knowledge based society,

hyper competition and social expectations placed on business arecreating new demands on organizational structures and thereby onteamwork within organizations (Child, 2004). Globalization refersessentially to increased levels of interdependence across the world.Propelled by economic drivers of larger markets and lower costs ofproduction, globalization has facilitated an awareness of culturaland ethnic identity thereby, necessitating the “diversity” perspective.Development of new technologies and use of ICT (information andcommunication technologies) and internet, have led to thedevelopment of virtual organizations and networking. Geographicallydispersed work teams, virtual teams and networks are increasing asa part of the global organizational designs. This change in theenvironment implies a fresh look at the dynamics of team behaviourand implications of psychological attributes across geographicalboundaries and over the channel of ICT based communication.

Team Diversity: Diversity refers to how similar (memberhomogeneity) or different (member heterogeneity) team members


are from one another. Weber and Donahue (2001) presented ameta-analytic review that suggested that diversity among teammembers on readily observable characteristics such as age, gender,race/ethnicity, and educational level had little or no relationship withcohesion or performance. Neuman et al. (1999) presented twomodels that may describe the potential relationship between teamdiversity and performance. Drawn from the person/environment fitliterature, a complimentary model suggests that greater diversitywill contribute unique attributes that enhance performance. Asupplementary model suggests that more homogeneity in personalityand values will make members more compatible, motivating themto produce better results. Thus, team member diversity may eitherhave a positive or negative impact on team-level outcomes. Certainlythe nature of the individual characteristics may moderate this impact.

Diversity in team composition with respect to personality isviewed as the variance among team members’ scores on eachpersonality dimension. The more the dispersion that appears amongscores on a given dimension, the more diversity. For instance, afour-member team composed of a highly extraverted member; aslight extravert, a slight introvert, and a highly introverted memberwould have a high diversity score. But, for example, if all four teammembers were highly extraverted or all slightly introverted then theteam would score low on diversity. According to Barrick et al.(1998), this type of operationalization, “is appropriate whenresearchers seek to understand the relationship of team compositionhomogeneity to team process and team outcomes.”

Some recent studies have examined the impact of team memberpersonality diversity on team performance. For example, Barrick etal. (1998) examined a variety of organizational work-teams.Correlation results from this study revealed less diversity inconscientiousness was related to better team performance; lessdiversity in agreeableness was related to greater cohesion, lessconflict, greater communication, and greater workload sharing; andmore diversity in extraversion related to more cohesion. Neuman etal. (1999) examined the relationship between personality diversityof teams in a retailing organization and ratings of each teams’


performance. In terms of diversity, they found extraversion andemotional stability to be positively related to team performance.Finally, Mohammed and Angell (2003) examined student teams andthe influence of personality diversity on oral versus written teamtask performance. These researchers reported higher variability onagreeableness and emotional stability resulted in lower oralpresentation scores, whereas higher variability on extraversion relatedto better oral presentation performance. Furthermore, no relationshipwas found between personality diversity and team performance onthe written task. Obviously, these findings are inconclusive since avariety of both positive and negative relationships were reportedbetween diversity and mixture of performance variables. Thus,personality trait compositions may play a complimentary orsupplementary role in team performance. The one consistent findingacross these studies shows diversity in extraversion relates toenhanced performance, which causes the person to lean towardsthe complimentary rationale with respect to personality compositionand team performance.

Virtual teams: Advances in communication and informationtechnology have created new opportunities for organizations tobuild and manage virtual teams (Kirkman, et al., 2004). Virtualteams are defined as groups of employees with unique skills, situatedin distant locations, whose members must collaborate usingtechnology across space and time to accomplish importantorganizational tasks (Lipnack & Stamps, 2000). More and moreorganizations are realizing the benefits of using virtual teams. Invirtual teams the work activities are both dispersed- carried out atdifferent locations and asynchronous- carried out at different times.Thus, the virtual team members can not rely upon traditional socialcues and behaviour mechanisms (Child, 2004).

Differences in local physical context, time zones, culture, andlanguage all have consequences for mutual awareness (i.e., members’understanding of partners’ situations and their interpretation ofevents). Virtual group members often do not have completeinformation about why their partners do what they do, or fail to do,with respect to group activities, and this disparity has been suggested


to affect the attributions participants make for their partners’problematic behaviour (Olson and Olson, 2000; Bazarova and Walther,2009). With specific regard to virtual groups, unwarranteddispositional judgments have been conceptually linked to relationaldamage and inferior task performance (Walther, Boos, & Jonas,2002). Mortensen and Hinds (2001) argue that within distributedvirtual groups, interpersonal conflict increases when problems areattributed to members’ intentional actions as opposed to theirsituational constraints. When group members erroneously focus onpartners’ dispositions as the cause of their behaviour, it can distractthem from “full diagnosis of problems and modification of practicesto prevent reoccurrences”. Similarly, holding distant partnersresponsible for one’s own faults, instead of accepting responsibilityand recognizing situational impediments of virtual (Walther &Bazarova, 2007).

Innovation and Creativity in Teams: In today’s hypercompetitivebusiness environment, success depends on the ability of organizationsto innovate and put innovations for productive and profitable use.Quality improvement teams, cross functional teams, project teamsand affinity groups are examples of team structures that haveemerged over the years to meet the challenges of the knowledgebased society and hyper competition. Innovation challenge can bebroken into essentially two parts. One is the invention, the creativephase and the other is implementation, or the applied stage. Teamsfacilitate refining of ideas through mutual discussion (Child, 2004).Similarly teams support the implementation of the innovation throughintegration of different functions (e.g. project teams and crossfunctional teams). Therefore, providing challenging and creativegroup tasks, ensuring a diversity of knowledge and skills andpromoting an environment that encourages sharing and learningtogether are challenges that face team facilitators and managers.Further, hyper competition demands flexibility and constant abilityto learn and develop. Hence, self managed teams, empowered teamsthat facilitate a learning environment are essential elements ofeffective teamwork in this context. Therefore, besides team learning,the emerging trends demand an integration of team learning intoorganizational learning and innovation.


CONCLUSIONThe world continues to become increasingly complex, resources

are becoming scarcer and globalization is opening up excitingpossibilities. This has led to many new challenges, innovations, andincreased the level of risk and complexity in managing organizations.Teams allow greater flexibility in decision-making and adaptation tochange and provide better decisions and performance outcomesthan do individuals operating under such contexts. Teamwork canbe sometimes a frustrating experience especially if there is conflictamong team members. Interdependence among people in teamsposes many challenges and opportunities to team leaders because itmeans giving salience to issues such as personality, emotionalintelligence, trust, values; team confidence and empowerment;coordinating behaviours; establishing direction, roles andresponsibilities. It is, therefore, important to have an understandingof teams, their psychological attributes, how they influence andhow they work.

Hackman (1998) opines that the conditions that foster effectiveteamwork are simple and seemingly straightforward to put intoplace: “A real team with work that lends itself to teamwork. A clearand engaging direction. A group structure – task, composition, andnorms – that promotes competent teamwork. Team-friendly reward,educational, and information systems. And some coaching to helpteam members take advantage of their favorable performancecircumstances.”

Team effectiveness increases when the team has all theorganizational support it needs, but it is equally important to considermember skills when composing the team. This implies: Select teammembers who have complementary task work skills (unique skillsand expertise relevant to the various tasks that the team mustperform). Choose members who are skilled and experienced ininterpersonal and group skills, or provide them with the necessarytraining in teamwork skills. Choose a team leader with the ability tomanage the teams’ resources and direct, coordinate, and motivateteam members. The team leader should have a clear understandingof the group’s mission, know when consultation with team members


is appropriate, and be good at balancing directive (task) andsupportive (socio emotional) leadership.

REFERENCESArciniega, L.M. & González, L. (2002). What is the influence of work

values relative to other variables in the development or organizationalcommitment. In A. Sagie & Stasiak, M. (Eds.), The 8th Bi-annualconference of the International Society for the Study of Work andOrganizational Values, (pp. 13-20), Lodz, Poland : WSHE.

Argote, L., Gruenfeld, D., & Naquin, C. (1999). Group learning inorganizations. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances intheory and research. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). TheEmpowering Leadership Questionnaire: The construction andvalidation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviours. Journalof Organizational Behaviour, 21, 249-269.

Bandow, D. (2001). Time to create sound teamwork. The Journal forQuality and Participation, 24, 41-47.

Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 17-20.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personalitydimensionsand job performance: A meta-analysis. PersonnelPsychology, 44, 1–26.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, J. M., & Mount, M. K. (1998).Relating member ability and personality to work team processesand team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,377-391.

Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process and performancein self – managed groups: The role of personality. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 82, 62-78.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unitperformance by assessing transformational and transactionalleadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207-218.

Bazarova, N. N., & Walther, J. B. (2009). Attributions in virtual groups:Distances and behavioral variations in computer-mediateddiscussions. Small Group Research, 40(2), 138-162.


Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesionand performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of constructrelations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989-1004.

Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep–level composition variables as predictors of teamperformance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,595-615.

Boone, C., van Olfen, W., van Witteloostuijn, A., & de Brabander, B.(2004), The genesis of top management team diversity: Selectiveturnover among top management teams in Dutch newspaperpublishing, 1970-1994, Academy of Management Journal, 47(5),633-656.

Boyatzis, R., Goleman. D., & Rhee. K. (1999). Clustering competence inemotional intelligence: Insights from the Emotional CompetenceInventory (ECI). In R. Bar-On, J.D. Parker, (Eds), Handbook onemotional intelligence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S.M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviours are functional inteams? A meta-analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288-307.

Burke, L. A. and Witt, L. A., (2002). Moderators of the openness toexperience – performance relationship. Journal of ManagerialPsychology, 17, 712-721.

Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership inteams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance.Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1217-1234.

Carron, A.V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1998). The measurementof cohesiveness in sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances insport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213-226).Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Caruso, D., & Salovey, R. (2004). The emotionally intelligent manager.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Child, C. (2004). Organization: Contemporary Principles and Practice,Oxford: Blackwell.

Clark, D. N. and Gibb, J. L. (2006). Virtual team learning: An introductorystudy of team exercise. Journal of Management Education, 30(6),765-787.


Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). Amultilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance inteams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 331-346.

Cherniss, C., & Goleman, D. Eds (2001). The emotionally intelligentworkplace. San Francisco CA : Jossey -Bass.

Cohen, S.G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work? Groupeffectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suit.Journal of Management, 23, 239-290.

Cooper, R., & Sawaf, A. (1996). Executive EQ: Emotional intelligence inleadership andorganizations, New York: Grosset/Putnam.

Cooke, N. J., Kiekel, P. A., Salas, E., & Stout, R. (2003). Measuring teamknowledge: A window to the cognitive underpinnings of teamperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7, 179-199.

De Jong, A., de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2005). Antecedents andconsequences of group potency: A study of self managing serviceteams. Management Science, 51, 1610-1625.

Diggins, C. (2004), Emotional intelligence: the key to effective performanceand to staying ahead of the pack at times of organizationalchange, Human Resource Management International Digest, 12,33-35.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behaviour inwork teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.

Ellis, A. P. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Porter, C., West, B. J., &Moon, H. (2003). Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots.Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 821-835.

Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. (1976). Interactional psychology andpersonality. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Foels, R., Driskell, J. E., Mullen, B., & Salas, E. (2000). The effects ofdemocratic leadership on group member satisfaction: An integration.Small Group Research, 31, 676-701.

Frei, R. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (1998). Validity of customer service measuresin personnel selection: A review of criterion and construct evidence.Human Performance, 11, 1-27.

Gibson, C., & Vermeulen, F. (2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups as astimulus for team learning behaviour. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 48(2), 202-239.


Goldberg, L.R. (1992). Development of markers for the Big–Five factorstructure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence, New York: Bantam.Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence, New York:

Bantam.Goodman, P.S., Ravlin, E., & Schminke, M. (1987). Understanding groups

in organizations. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 9,121-173.

Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). Ameta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance:Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observedrelationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819-832.

Hackman, J.R. (1998). Why teams don’t work. In R.S. Tindale, L. Heath,J. Edwards, E.J. Posavec, F.B, Bryant, Y. Suarez – Balcarz, RE.Henderson – King, & J. Myers (Eds.), Theory and research onsmall groups (pp.248-266). New York: Plenum.

Hackman, J. R. (Ed.). (1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t):Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching.Academy of Management Review, 30, 269-287.

Halfhill, T., Sundstrom, E., Lahner, J., Calderone, W., & Nielsen, T. M.(2005). Group personality composition and group effectiveness : Anintegrative review of empirical research. Small Group Research,36(1), 83-105.

Harzing, A. W. (2007). Publish or perish. Melbourne, Australia: TarmaSoftware Research, Ltd.

Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hirschfeld, R. R., Jordan, M. H., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Armenakis,A. A. (2005). Teams’ female representation and perceived potencyas inputs to team outcomes in a predominantly male field setting.Personnel Psychology, 58, 893-924.

Hogan, J. & Hogan R. (1989). How to measure employee reliability.Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 273-279.


Hough, L.M., & Ones, D.S. (2001), The structured measurement, validity,and use of personality variables in industrial, work, and organizationalpsychology, In Anderson, N., Ones, D.S., Sinangil, H.K., Viswesvaran,C. (Eds), Handbook of industrial work and organizationalpsychology. London : Sage

Hough, L. M. & Schneidar, R. J. (1996). Personality traits, taxonomies,and applications in organizations. In K.R. Murphy (Ed.), Individualdifferences and behaviour in organizations (pp.31- 88). SanFrancisco: Jossey- Basss.

Hyatt, D. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (1997). An examination of the relationshipbetween work group characteristics and performance: Once moreinto the breech. Personnel Psychology, 50, 553-585.

James, L. R. & Mazerolle, M. D., (2002), Personality in workorganisations: Foundations of organisational science, London: Sage.

Joinson, C. (1999). Teams at work. HR Magazine, 444, 30-36.Jordan, P., Ashkanasy, N., Hartel, C., & Hooper, G. (2002). Workgroup

emotional intelligence: Scale development and relationship to teamprocess, effectiveness and goal focus. Human ResourceManagement Review, 12, 195-214.

Jung, D. I., & Sosik, J.J. (1999). Effects of group characteristics on workgroup performance: A longitudinal investigation. Group Dynamics:Theory, Research, and Practice, 3, 279-290.

Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. (2001). Mood and emotions in small groupsand work teams. Organizational Behaviour and Human DecisionProcesses, 86, 99-130.

Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1998). Profiting from controversy: Lessonsfrom the person- situation controversy. American Psychologist,43, 23 -34.

Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (2000). Powering up teams. OrganizationalDynamics, 28(3), 48–66.

Kirkman, B.L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedentsand consequences of team empowerment. Academy of ManagementJournal, 42, 58-74.

Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). Enhancingthe transfer of computer-assisted training proficiency ingeographically distributed teams. Journal of Applied Psychology,91(3), 706-716.


Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., Gibson, C. B. (2004). The impactof team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderatingrole of face to face interaction. Academy of Management Journal,47(2), 175-192.

Knight, D., Durham, C. C., & Locke, E. A. (2001). The relationship ofteam goals, incentives, and efficacy to strategic risk, tacticalimplementation, and performance. Academy of Management Journal,44, 326-338.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness ofwork groups and teams. Psychological Science in the PublicInterest, 7, 77-124.

Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (2000). Virtual teams: People working acrossboundaries with technology. New York: Wiley.

Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects ofhigh trust and individual autonomy in self managing teams. Academyof Management Journal, 47, 385-399.

LePine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation and post-change performance:Effects of team composition in terms of members’ cognitive abilityand personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 27-39.

LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changingtask contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness,and openness to experience. Personnel Psychology, 53, 563-593.

Lester, S. W., Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2002). The antecedentsand consequences of group potency: A longitudinal investigationof newly formed work groups. Academy of Management Journal,45, 352-368.

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally basedframework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy ofManagement Review, 26, 356–376.

Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M. (2006). Empowerment andteam effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model. Journalof Applied Psychology, 91, 97-108.

Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers,J. A. (2000). The influence of shared, mental models on team processand performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273-283.

Mayer, J.D., Goleman, D., Barrett, C., Gutstein, S. (2004), Leading byfeel. Harvard Business Review, 82(1), 27-39.


Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligencemeets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27,267-298.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrativemodel of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20,709-734.

McClough, A. C., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2003). Selection in teams: Anexploration of the teamwork knowledge, skills, and ability test.International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 56-66.

McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T., Jr (1996). Towards a new generation ofpersonality theories; theoretical contexts for the five factor model,In J.S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five factor model of personality:Theoretical perspectives. New York: Guilford.

McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Michalisin, M. D., Karau, S. J., & Tangpong, C. (2004). Top managementteam cohesion and superior industry returns: An empirical study ofthe resource-based view. Group and Organization Management,29, 125-140.

Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2003). Personality heterogeneity in teams:What differences make a difference in team performance? SmallGroup Research, 34, 651-677.

Molleman, E., Nauta, A., Jehn, K. A. (2004). Person-Job Fit Applied toTeamwork: A Multilevel Approach. Small Group Research, 35,515-539.

Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The external leadership of self-managing teams:Intervening in the context of novel and disruptive events. Journalof Applied Psychology, 90, 497-508.

Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H., & Campion, M. A. (2005). Selectingindividuals in team settings: The importance of social skills,personality characteristic, and teamwork knowledge. PersonnelPsychology, 58, 583-611.

Mortensen, M. & Hinds, P. (2001). Conflict and shared identity ingeographically distributed teams. International Journal of ConflictManagement, 12 (3), 212-238.


Mount, M.K., Barrick, M.R., & Stewart, G.L. (1998). Five-factor model ofpersonality and performance in jobs involving interpersonalinteraction. Human Performance, 11, 145-165.

Nelson, D. L., & Stutton, C. (1990). Chronic work stress and coping: ALongitudinal study and suggested new directions. Academy ofManagement Journal, 33, 165-186.

Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. (1999). Team effectiveness: Beyond skillsand cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 376-389.

Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S., & Christiansen, N. (1999). The relationshipbetween work-team personality composition and the job performanceof teams. Group and Organizational Management, 24, 28-45.

Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human-ComputerInteraction, 15, 139-178.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensivemeta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implicationsfor personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 78, 679-703.

Pearsall, M. J., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2006). The effects of critical team memberassertiveness on team performance and satisfaction. Journal ofManagement, 32, 575-594.

Raver, J. L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2005). Beyond the individual victim: Linkingsexual harassment, team processes, and team performance. Academyof Management Journal, 48, 387-400.

Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. (1987). Effect of values on perceptionand decision making: a study of alternative work values measure.Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 666-673.

Robbins, S.P. (2003). Organizational behaviour, New Jersey: PearsonEducation.

Rosete, E. and Ciarrochi, F. (2005), Emotional intelligence and itsrelationship to workplace performance outcomes of leadershipeffectiveness Journal of Leadership and Organization Development,26(5), 388-99.

Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complexinterdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 78, 61-72.


Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowermentto the next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance,and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 332-349.

Shea, G.P., & Guzzo, R.A. (1987). Group effectiveness: what reallymatters?. Sloan Management Review, 28(3), 25-31.

Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationshipconflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intra grouptrust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102-111.

Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadershipin management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, andperformance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1239-1251.

Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1999). Staffing work teams:Development and validation of a selection test for teamwork settings.Journal of Management, 25, 207-227.

Stewart, G.L. (2003). Towards an understanding of the multilevel role ofpersonality in teams. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.),Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality inorganizations (pp. 183-204). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rosthein, M. (1991). Personality measuresas predictors of job performance: A Meta- analytic review. PersonnelPsychology, 44, 703-742.

Van Vianen, A. E. M., & De Dreu, C. K.W. (2001). Personality in teams:Its relationship to social cohesion, task cohesion, and teamperformance. European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology, 10, 97-120.

Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness:Design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organization Science,12, 559-577.

Walther, J. B., & Bazarova, N. (2007). Misattribution in virtual groups.Human Communication Research, 33, 1-26.

Walther, J.B.; Boos, M. & Jonas, K.J. (2002). Misattribution and attributionredirection in distributed virtual groups. In Proceedings of the 35thHawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. LosAlamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.

Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27, 141-162.


Wolff, S. B., Druskat, V. U., Koman, E. S. & Messer, T. E., (2006). The linkbetween group emotional comeptence and group effectiveness. InV. U. Druskat, F. Sala, & G. Mount (Eds.), Linking emotionalintelligence and performance at work: Current research evidencewith individuals and groups. Mahway, NJ: LEA..

Wong, S. S. (2004). Distal and local group learning: Performance trade-offs and tensions. Organization Science, 15, 645-656.

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioningemployees as active crafters of their work. Academy of ManagementReview, 26, 179-201.

Zellmer-Bruhn, M., & Gibson, C. (2006). Multinational organizationcontext: Implications for team learning and performance. Academyof Management Journal, 49(3), 501-518.

teamwork and psychological attributes: emerging...

Documents