What Makes a Good Team Player? Personality and …homepages.se.edu/.../01/What...Personality-and-Team-Effectiveness.pdfof personality on team effectiveness requires that not only do

What Makes a Good Team Player? Personalityand Team Effectiveness

James E. DriskellFlorida Maxima Corporation

Gerald F. GoodwinUS Army Research Institute

Eduardo SalasUniversity of Central Florida

Patrick Gavan O’SheaHuman Resources Research Organization

Good team players are often defined in trait terms; that is, they are described asdependable, flexible, or cooperative. Our goal is to examine the relationshipbetween team member personality traits and team effectiveness. However, tounderstand the effects of personality on team performance requires greater speci-ficity in how personality is described and in how team effectiveness is described.A hierarchical model of team member personality is presented that defines higher-level personality traits and specific facets relevant to team performance. Next, aclassification of the core teamwork dimensions underlying effective team perfor-mance is presented. Finally, predictions are derived linking team member person-ality facets to specific teamwork requirements.

Keywords: personality, teams, team work

As Ilgen (1999) and others have noted, mod-ern organizations have increased their relianceon teams, and this has served to foster appliedresearch on teams in task settings. After decadesin which reviewers were forced to act as apol-ogists for the lack of vitality and progress in thisfield, research on teams has returned with avengeance. One reason for this renaissance inteam research is that effort follows demand, andonly recently has attention been devoted to thedynamics of team performance in applied set-tings. Whereas most early research on groupperformance took place in academic settings,much of the resent resurgence in team researchhas been driven by organizational requirements.This realization of the value of teams for ac-complishing tasks has shifted the emphasis ofresearch from a primary focus on team pro-

cesses to a broader focus on team inputs, teamoutcomes, and the factors that mediate the ef-fects of inputs on outcomes (Ilgen, Hollenbeck,Johnson, & Jundt, 2005).

One area that is of considerable theoreticaland practical interest is the topic of team mem-ber personality and team effectiveness: Whatare the traits that define a good team player?One of the earliest investigations of the relation-ship between personality and team performancewas undertaken by Mann (1959), who con-cluded his review of this literature with theexpectation that this work could serve as a take-off point for further research. However, despitesome attempts along the way (e.g., Driskell,Hogan, & Salas, 1987), the next steps to exam-ine personality and team performance weretaken almost 40 years later by Barrick, Stewart,Neubert, and Mount (1998); Barry and Stewart(1997); Hollenbeck et al. (2002); Judge andBono (2000); LePine, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, andHedlund, 1997; Neuman and Wright (1999);and others. Broadly speaking, these studies at-tempt to define the relationship between “BigFive” personality traits (emotional stability, ex-traversion, openness to experience, agreeable-ness, and conscientiousness) and team perfor-mance.

James E. Driskell, Florida Maxima Corporation; GeraldF. Goodwin, US Army Research Institute; Eduardo Salas,Department of Psychology and Institute for Simulation andTraining, University of Central Florida; and Patrick GavanO’Shea, Human Resources Research Organization.

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-dressed to James E. Driskell, Florida Maxima Corporation,507 N. New York Avenue, R-1, Winter Park, FL 32789.E-mail: [email protected]

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association2006, Vol. 10, No. 4, 249–271 1089-2699/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1089-2699.10.4.249

249

Although these results have demonstrated therelevance of team member personality to teameffectiveness, there are two ways in which wewish to extend this research. First, there arespecific, lower-level facets within the higher-level Big Five traits that may have differing andeven contradictory effects on team perfor-mance. For example, it is unclear whether theeffect of extraversion on team performance ob-served by Barrick et al. (1998) stems from theeffect of the assertiveness/dominance compo-nent of extraversion (i.e., extraverts are asser-tive) or from the sociability/affiliation compo-nent of extraversion (i.e., extraverts are socia-ble). Thus, one goal of the current research is todefine specific personality facets within thehigher-level Big Five traits that are relevant toteam effectiveness.

Second, we acknowledge that team perfor-mance is multidimensional and that differentpersonality facets may be predictive of differentperformance dimensions. This position is con-sistent with a person-team fit perspective (Hol-lenbeck et al., 2002) that the relationship be-tween individual differences in personality andoutcomes is contingent on the nature of the task.Therefore, we argue that to examine the impactof personality on team effectiveness 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 team effectiveness. More specifically,we claim that the effects of team member per-sonality on team effectiveness should be exam-ined in terms of what teams do. Researchershave identified core teamwork dimensions orteam functions that must be accomplishedwithin teams. These teamwork dimensions in-clude activities such as team management (i.e.,directing and coordinating task activities), inter-personal relations (i.e., resolving conflicts andmaintaining socioemotional relations), andadaptability (i.e., compensatory or backup be-havior). Thus, it is quite likely that specificfacets of team member personality may havedifferential effects on these activities that un-derlie effective team performance. For example,a team member that is highly sociable may bequite adept at maintaining good interpersonalrelations in teams, but not necessarily adept attask management and planning. Therefore, ourgoal is to define the specific personality facetsthat are relevant to team effectiveness and link

these to the core teamwork dimensions thatdefine effective team performance.

In the following, we first attempt to elaboratethe concept of a good team player by deriving ahierarchical model of team member personalitythat defines specific personality traits and facetsthat we believe are most relevant to team per-formance. We then present a classification ofthe core teamwork dimensions underlying ef-fective team performance. Finally, we derivepredictions linking team member personalityfacets to these teamwork requirements.

What Defines a Good Team Player?

We follow Ilgen (1999) in focusing on workteams—teams embedded in organizations thatexist to accomplish tasks. In a typical workteam, what Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh, Salas,and Cannon-Bowers (1996) call “action teams,”and what Hollenbeck et al. (1995) term “distrib-uted expertise teams,” each team member pos-sesses specific information or expertise to con-tribute to the team task. Although work teamsare often hierarchically structured, our focus ison the interdependent team member. Thus, ourinitial goal is to describe the traits or facets thatdefine the prototypical team player.

Although there is some divergence on howpersonality traits should be labeled and orga-nized, personality theorists are in general agree-ment on the nature of the structure of personal-ity. Most theorists propose a hierarchical modelof personality, with broad higher-order factorsor traits that subsume and organize more spe-cific lower-level facets (cf. Saucier & Osten-dorf, 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 andparsimonious way of describing personality, themore specific facets can offer higher fidelity oftrait descriptions and greater predictive validity(Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999; Stewart, 1999).

Figure 1 presents a hierarchical model ofteam member personality, defined by the BigFive trait dimensions of emotional stability, ex-traversion, openness, agreeableness, and consci-entiousness. These traits are composed of themore specific facets that we believe are relevantto team effectiveness. In the following sections,we describe each facet and its relationship to

250 DRISKELL, GOODWIN, SALAS, AND O’SHEA

team performance. In some cases, these facetsare linked to team performance through existingempirical research, and in other cases, we at-tempt to develop that connection based on arational extrapolation from related literature.This process is complicated somewhat by thefact that little research has been done on per-sonality and team 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), HoganPersonality Inventory (HPI; Hogan, 1986), thePersonal Characteristics Inventory (PCI;Mount, Barrick, Laffitte, & Callans, 1999), the16PF (Conn & Rieke, 1994), and the CaliforniaPersonality Inventory (CPI; Gough & Bradley,1996). Because there is no direct correspon-dence between measures from different scales,these comparisons are meant solely to be illus-trative.

Emotional Stability

The trait of emotional stability refers to a lackof anxiety and nervous tendencies. Those whoare emotionally stable tend to be well-adjusted,calm, secure, and self-confident. Viewed fromthe negative pole of neuroticism, those whoscore low on this trait tend to be moody, anx-

ious, paranoid, nervous, insecure, depressed,and high-strung (Barrick & Mount, 2001). Inpast studies of military teams, Haythorn (1953)and Greer (1955) reported that emotional sta-bility was positively related to team effective-ness. Several researchers have claimed thatemotional stability is a significant factor inteamwork or any task that requires coordinatedbehavior (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001;Driskell et al., 1987; Mount, Barrack, & Stew-art, 1998). The facets of emotional stability thatwe believe are most relevant to team interactionare adjustment and self-esteem.

Adjustment. Adjustment has been definedby Hogan (1986) as freedom from anxiety, de-pression, and somatic complaints. Watson,Clark, and Tellegen (1988) have viewed lack ofadjustment as negative affect, a general dimen-sion of subjective distress and unpleasurableengagement. Gunthert, Cohen, and Armeli(1999) described neurotic individuals as“caught in a web of negative behaviors, cogni-tions, and moods. . .They seem to experience(perhaps generate) more interpersonal stressors,their perceptions of daily events are more neg-ative, and their coping choices are maladaptive”(p. 1099).

Given that those low on adjustment are proneto be distressed, upset, hostile, irritable, andnervous, they are not likely to excel in interper-

Teamwork

Emotional Stability Extraversion ConscientiousnessOpenness Agreeableness

Adjustment

Self-Esteem

Flexibility

Achievement

Dominance

Affiliation

Trust

Cooperation

Dependability

Dutifulness

SocialPerceptiveness

Expressivity

Figure 1. Hierarchical Model of Facets Related to Teamwork

251PERSONALITY AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS

sonal or team settings. In circumstances inwhich the organizational structure is out ofalignment with environmental requirements,Hollenbeck et al. (2002) found that the emo-tional stability of team members was a criticalpredictor of performance. Moreover, noting thatpeople’s moods are often affected by thosearound them, Totterdell, Kellett, Teuchmann,and Briner (1998) found that team membersreciprocated the mood of other teammates.Thus, not only are poorly adjusted team mem-bers displeasing to be around, their negativeaffect can spread to other team members.

In contrast to the more specific facets that wedefine in the following sections, we view ad-justment as similar to the higher-level emo-tional stability or neuroticism traits as defined invarious Big Five inventories. Cognate scalesrelated to adjustment include the HPI factor ofAdjustment, the PCI factor of Even Tempera-ment, and the NEO-PI-R factor of Neuroticism.

Self-esteem. Self-esteem is generally de-fined as a global assessment of self-worth or ofone’s value as a person (Crocker & Wolfe,2001). Those with high self-esteem view them-selves in a positive light as good, worthy andsuccessful, whereas those with low self-esteemview themselves in a more negative light as bad,unworthy, and unlikely to succeed. Judge,Locke, Durham, and Kluger (1998) definedself-esteem as composed of two core compo-nents: self-worth and self-efficacy. They furthernoted that the appraisal of whether one is goodand competent versus no good and incompetenthas significant implications for how that personwill approach and carry our job responsibilities.Baumeister (1997) has noted that those high inself-esteem not only have a favorable opinion ofthemselves, but see themselves as competentand will work hard to succeed; whereas thoselow in self-esteem doubt that they will succeedand focus on avoiding failure.

Team members with high self-esteem arelikely to be confident, self-assured, and positivetoward others, whereas team members with lowself-esteem are likely to be insecure, critical,and blame others for their mistakes. Vancouverand Ilgen (1989) found that individuals whowere confident in their abilities were morelikely to prefer working in a team versus work-ing alone. Moreover, Murray, Hilmes, Mac-Donald, and Ellsworth (1998) argued that thoselow in self-esteem are insecure and tend to

project their self-doubts onto others. Cognatescales related to the self-esteem facet includethe HPI facets of Self-Confidence and Identity,the PCI facet of Self-Confidence, and the NEO-PI-R facet of Competence.

Extraversion

The trait of extraversion has been viewed asa combination of assertiveness/dominance andsociability/affiliation (Judge & Bono, 2000; Lu-cas, Diener, Suh, Shao, & Grob, 2000). Sometheorists view dominance as the primary markerof extraversion and some view sociability as theprimary component of extraversion (Hough,1992; Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999). We believethis distinction is especially relevant in consid-ering performance in a team context, and wedistinguish between the extraversion subcom-ponents of dominance (assertiveness, surgency)and affiliation (social interest). The specific fac-ets of extraversion that we believe are mostrelevant to team interaction are dominance, af-filiation, social perceptiveness, and expressiv-ity.

Dominance. Dominance reflects strivingfor superiority, control, and influence over oth-ers. This specific facet has also been referred toas ascendance, assertiveness, or surgency(Watson & Clark, 1997; Costa & McCrae,1992). Norton (1983) reported three compo-nents of dominance: (a) forcefulness (e.g., com-ing on strong, taking charge), (b) monopolizing(e.g., talking often and not letting others talk,and (c) involvement (e.g., taking precedence ininteraction and not waiting for others). Domi-nance is related to authoritarianism, althoughmost view authoritarianism as a multifacetedconstruct that includes not only dominance butalso conservatism, conventionalism, punitive-ness, and other subtraits. Dominance is alsorelated to social dominance (see Pratto, Sida-nius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), although so-cial dominance is an intergroup variable reflect-ing an individual’s preference for inequalityamong social groups. However, to the extentthat those high on social dominance prefer in-tergroup relations to be unequal, hierarchical,and ordered along a superior-inferior dimen-sion, those high on dominance prefer intragrouprelations to be similarly unequal, hierarchical,and ordered along a superior-inferior dimen-sion.


Dominant individuals have a desire to controland influence others. Dominant persons areheadstrong, controlling, and combative. Theytend to stand firmly to their own opinions andperspectives, they view others’ opinions as athreat or challenge, and they view compromiseas a concession. To the extent that interdepen-dent team tasks often require exchange of infor-mation among team members who all hold valu-able task information, the tendency to be au-thoritative, controlling, and unreceptive to otherteam members’ opinions can be damaging toteam interaction (Driskell & Salas, 1992). Al-though the dominance component of extraver-sion may be related to leadership (i.e., leadersneed to exert power and control), effective teammembers need to subjugate the desire for per-sonal ascendancy to work as part of an interde-pendent, mutually reliant team. Cognate scalesrelated to the dominance facet include the HPIfacet of Status-seeking (e.g., “I want people tolook up to me.”), the 16PF facet of Dominance(desire for control of situations and other peo-ple) and the NEO-PI-R facet of Assertiveness.

Affiliation. Affiliation refers to the individ-ual’s desire to engage in activities with otherpeople versus being alone. Persons high on af-filiation are sociable, friendly, interested in so-cial interaction, and would generally prefer tointeract with others than to be alone. Personslow on affiliation are withdrawn, reserved,aloof, and prefer solitary tasks to social interac-tions in which they are less comfortable. Lucaset al. (2000) define this factor, which they term“sociability,” as the enjoyment of social activi-ties and preference for being with others overbeing alone. Davis (1969) found that teamscomposed of members who preferred to work ina group interacted more and solved problemsfaster than teams composed of members whopreferred to work alone. Wageman (1995) ex-amined differences in preferences for auton-omy, defined as the extent to which people likeworking with others versus working indepen-dently, and found that those with a high prefer-ence for autonomy helped other group membersless and learned less from others.

Some have distinguished between low socia-bility (or in our terms, low affiliation), which isa nonfearful preference for being alone, andshyness, which reflects a social anxiety relatedto affiliating with others (Bruch, Gorsky, Col-lins, & Berger, 1989). In other words, low af-

filiation reflects a disinterest in affiliating orsocializing with others, whereas shyness reflectsa fear or distress of affiliating with others.Therefore, a low affiliative person may not nec-essarily be shy, but is likely to be cool, aloof,and withdrawn. Cognate scales related to theaffiliation facet include the NEO-PI-R facets ofWarmth (affectionate and friendly, cordial andhearty) and Gregariousness (preference for oth-er’s company), the PCI facet of Sociability, the16PF facets of Warmth (attentive to others,likes people vs. reserved, impersonal) and Self-reliance (group-oriented, affiliative, vs. individ-ualistic, self-sufficient), and the HPI facets ofLikes People (enjoy meeting new people) andEasy-to-live-with (works well with other peo-ple).

Social perceptiveness. Zaccaro, Foti, andKenny (1991) define social perceptiveness assensitivity to social cues, or the capacity torecognize what others expect in social situa-tions. Social perceptiveness has been viewed asone component of social intelligence, the otherbeing behavioral flexibility (which is relevant toour flexibility facet). Social perceptiveness isrelated to social insight, social understanding,or empathy, and can be described as the aware-ness of motives, needs, and intentions of othergroup members and awareness of relationsamong group members. Jones and Day (1997)described two related factors of social percep-tion (the capacity to decode others’ verbal andnonverbal behaviors) and social insight (the ca-pacity to comprehend and interpret others’ be-havior in a social context).

Rosnow, Skleder, Jaeger, and Rind (1994)discussed the capacity to infer the motivationsbehind another’s social behavior, and noted thatperspective-taking was a key component. Mar-lowe (1986) described social competence as theability to understand the feelings, thoughts, andbehaviors of others in interpersonal situations,and found empathy to be one factor comprisingthis construct. Thus, we would expect teammembers high on social perceptiveness to bemore accurate in “reading” others with whomthey are interacting, as well as more accurate incomprehending or interpreting relations be-tween other team members. Those high on so-cial perceptiveness should be more skillful atanticipating others’ requirements, as they aremore adept at interpreting others’ needs andintentions. Golembiewski (1962) concluded that


“individuals who accurately perceived the pref-erences of others were regarded as highly de-sirable, cooperative and efficient group mem-bers” (p. 257). Cognate scales related to thesocial perceptiveness facet include the PCI facetof Consideration and the CPI facet of Empathy(insightful regarding how others feel and think).

Expressivity. Individuals high in expressiv-ity are interpersonally expressive and commu-nicative, whereas those low in expressivity aremore reserved, taciturn, and impassive. Emo-tional expressivity refers to the extent to whichpeople outwardly display emotion (Kring,Smith, & Neale, 1994). Emotional expressivityis one component of the facet of expressivity,although as Gross and John (1998) have noted,early work on a general expressivity factor(Snyder, 1974) has become almost solely de-fined in recent research as emotional expressiv-ity. However, conveying emotions is only onefunction of expressive behavior. Expressive be-haviors serve multiple functions—to supple-ment and elaborate speech, accent or punctuatespeech, regulate the timing and sequence ofcommunication, and convey comprehension,confusion, agreement, and interest (Driskell &Radtke, 2003). All of these functions can serveto more fully convey information to the listener.Thus, we describe those high in expressivity asbeing interpersonally expressive. In a sense, thisfacet is the flip side of social perceptiveness. Tothe extent that those high in social perceptive-ness are good decoders of expressive behavior,those high in expressivity are good encoders ofexpressive behavior.

Gross and John (1998) examined one com-ponent of expressivity, noting that those high inexpressive confidence tend to exhibit high lev-els of expressivity in social situations, but do soin situationally appropriate ways. Gallaher(1992) defined expressiveness as involving en-ergetic communication, with those high in ex-pressivity exhibiting a high level of behaviorslinked to communication. We believe that sev-eral aspects of expressivity are relevant to teaminteraction. Those low in expressivity are moredifficult to read by other team members and areless likely to communicate effectively to others;thus, they are less informative. Furthermore,those low in expressivity may be seen by othersas less likable (Riggio & Friedman, 1986) andless competent (DeGroot & Motowidlo, 1999).Cognate scales related to the expressivity facet

include the 16PF facet of Liveliness (animatedand expressive vs. restrained and taciturn) andthe HPI facet of Expressive.

Openness

The trait of openness has been described asintellectance (Hogan, 1986) and openness toexperience (McRae & Costa, 1997), and reflectsintellectual, cultural, or creative interests. Al-though individual aptitude or cognitive abilityof team members is clearly related to teameffectiveness (Devine & Philips, 2001), withinthe domain of personality, group researchersgenerally hold that there is little direct relation-ship between the general trait of openness orintellectance and teamwork (see Driskell et al.,1987; Porter et al., 2003). However, some com-ponents of the openness trait are relevant, espe-cially the facet of flexibility.

Flexibility. McRae and Costa (1997) claimedthat the trait of openness is, from the negativepole, related to rigidity in behavior and unwill-ingness to accept change. We believe that thefacet of flexibility (vs. rigidity) is critical tointerdependent behavior. Paulhus and Martin(1988) have defined functional flexibility as theability to adjust one’s behavior to suit changinginterpersonal situations. Paulhus and Martin fo-cused on the interpersonal advantages of flexi-bility, noting that in social situations, the flexi-ble person can be assertive or submissive, warmor cold, as the situation demands. Zaccaro, Gil-bert, Thor, and Mumford (1991) defined behav-ioral flexibility as one component of social in-telligence. This conceptualization emphasizesthe problem-solving aspects of behavioral flex-ibility in addition to the interpersonal aspects,defining behavioral flexibility as “the abilityand willingness to respond in significantly dif-ferent ways to correspondingly different situa-tional requirements” (p. 322).

Rigid persons tend to be stubborn and head-strong, view uncertainty as a threat, and gener-ally have a low tolerance for ambiguity. Recentresearch has discussed the importance of adapt-ability to teams (Kowslowski, Gully, Nason, &Smith, 1999) and work environments (Pulakos,Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000). Pulakoset al. (2000) identified several critical dimen-sions of adaptive performance, including flexi-bility in handling uncertain task conditions, in-terpersonal flexibility, and flexibility in problem


solving. 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, and the 16PF facetof Openness to Change.

Agreeableness

The trait of agreeableness is defined as kind-ness, trust, and warmth versus selfishness, dis-trust, and hostility. Persons high on agreeable-ness are considerate, honest, helpful, and sup-portive. Persons low on agreeableness areuncaring, intolerant, unsympathetic, and criti-cal. Some researchers have claimed that agree-ableness may 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 andthat involve smooth relations with others (Bar-rick et al., 2001). The facets of agreeablenessthat we believe are most relevant to team inter-action are trust and cooperation.

Trust. Gurtman (1992) defines trust as thebelief that the sincerity, benevolence, and truth-fulness of others can generally be relied upon.According to Judge, Erez, and Bono (1998), theopposite of trust is cynicism, the belief thatothers lack integrity and are “out to get you.”McKnight, Cummings, and Chervany (1998)claim that the disposition to trust has two facets:(a) faith in humanity, the assumption that othersare well-meaning and dependable, and (b) trust-ing stance, the assumption that one will achievea better outcome by dealing with people asthough they were trustworthy. Holmes andRempel (1989) define trust as composed of sev-eral components, including dependability, orthe belief that others can be counted on to behonest, reliable, and benevolent; and faith, orthe conviction that others are intrinsically mo-tivated to be responsive and caring.

We distinguish between trust (or dispositionto trust) and trustworthiness or reliability, whichis captured by our dependability facet. Thosewith dispositionally high trust believe that oth-ers are honest and well-intentioned, whereasthose with low trust are suspicious and doubtthe sincerity, motives, or intentions of others.Yamagishi (2001) noted that trust is not theindiscriminate belief in the goodness of others,

which may lead to gullibility, but defines gen-eral trust as a default expectation of the trust-worthiness of others. Those with high trust as-sume that other people are trustworthy untilevidence is provided indicating otherwise.Dirks (1999) noted that interpersonal trust is ahallmark of effective groups and argued thathigh trust should lead to greater cooperation andhelping behaviors, greater task commitment,and higher effort expended on the task. Dirksfound that in high-trust groups, higher motiva-tion was channeled into more cooperative be-havior and better performance. Jarvenpaa andLeidner (1999) also found that lower levels oftrust were associated with lower team perfor-mance. Cognate scales related to the trust facetinclude the NEO-PI-R facet of Trust and theHPI facet of Trusting.

Cooperation. Van Lange, De Bruin, Otten,and Joireman (1997) have noted that some peo-ple are willing to give others the benefit of thedoubt and approach them cooperatively;whereas others are inclined to approach othersnoncooperatively. They distinguished betweenthose who are cooperative or prosocial (whomaximize outcomes for both self and others)and 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 and 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 rel-ative importance people accord to joint orshared pursuits (vs. self interests) and found thatindividual differences in collectivism predictedthe extent to which group members cooperatedin task activities.

Kelley and Stahelski (1970) found that com-petitive persons are more likely to expect othersto be competitive and to elicit competitive be-havior from 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 competi-tive person in an interdependent team—theymay not only act in a competitive manner, but


draw competitive behavior out in others. Cog-nate scales related to the cooperativeness facetinclude the PCI facet of Cooperation, the NEO-PI-R facet of Compliance, and the HPI facet ofCompetitiveness.

Conscientiousness

The trait of conscientiousness has been asso-ciated with a number of facets, including com-petence, order, achievement striving, and duti-fulness (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Moon, 2001).Moon (2001) has noted that some researchershave emphasized the responsibility/dependabil-ity component of conscientiousness, whereasothers have viewed conscientiousness in termsof achievement orientation. Moon argued thatdependability or duty can be viewed as theother-centered component of conscientiousnessand that achievement can be seen as the self-centered component.

Thus, conscientiousness reflects the tendencyto be hardworking, prepared, and organized, toadhere to obligations and duties, to completetasks thoroughly and on-time, and to be reliable.Persons low on conscientiousness are impul-sive, irresponsible, and disordered. Whereassome studies have found the general trait ofconscientiousness to be related to team effec-tiveness (Barrick et al., 1998; LePine et al.,1997), others have not (Barry & Stewart, 1997).The facets of conscientiousness that we believeare most relevant to team interaction are de-pendability, dutifulness, and achievement.

Dependability. Dependability refers to atendency toward planfulness and discipline incarrying out tasks to completion. Those high independability are responsible, organized, plan-ful, reliable, and trustworthy. Those low in de-pendability are irresponsible, disordered, andimpulsive. Borman, White, Pulakos, and Oppler(1991) found that high dependability amongmilitary personnel led to fewer disciplinary in-fractions and higher performance ratings. Bor-man, White, and Dorsey (1995) also reported astrong relationship between dependability andboth peer and supervisor performance ratings.Hough (1992) found that dependability was re-lated to ratings of teamwork, and Barrick et al.(1998) found that work teams with higher levelsof conscientiousness (broadly defined) receivedhigher ratings of team performance.

Behavioral markers of dependability reported

by peers and supervisors in Borman et al.(1995) include “Count on for backup” and“Trust and depend on.” Thus, team membershigh on dependability are likely to be moreresponsible and can be relied on to backup otherteam members. They are also likely to be moremethodical, to accept responsibilities, set goals,and follow through with them. Cognate scalesrelated to the dependability facet include thePCI facet of Dependability, the NEO-PI-R facetof Order, and the HPI facets of Planfulness andNot Spontaneous.

Dutifulness. Dutifulness refers to the ten-dency to value and adhere to obligations andduties that are held within the team. Ellemers,de Gilder, and van den Heuvel (1998) haveexamined a related construct of team-orientedcommitment, which they defined as a sense ofresponsibility for team outcomes and motiva-tion to help out teammates even if that requiredpersonal sacrifice. Moon (2001) states that“duty captures differences in individuals’ pro-clivity to do the right thing, not only for them-selves, but also, for others” (p. 535). Costa andMcCrae (1992) define duty as behavior evi-denced by individual adherence to ethical prin-ciples and moral obligations. If we extend thisdefinition to the team context, then we wouldview duty as adhering to team principles andteam obligations, and we believe that those witha high duty orientation are more likely to forman attachment to the team and the team goals(see Aube� & Rousseau, 2005).

Dutifulness may be especially important formilitary, sports, and other work teams that faceactive resistance or opposition that must beovercome to achieve the team goal (see Devine,2002). In a series of classic studies conducted inWorld War II, Stouffer et al. (1949) found thatwhat kept soldiers going in extremely hostileconditions was not political ideals or hatred ofthe enemy, but group obligations and duty toothers. Cognate scales related to the dutifulnessfacet include the NEO-PI-R facet of Dutiful-ness.

Achievement. We believe that good teamplayers are ambitious, achievement-oriented,and take the initiative in pursuing team goals. Inperforming an interdependent task, each teammember must be motivated to take on thoseduties that lead to successful accomplishment ofthe task. This includes not only carrying one’sshare of the load, but also carrying another team


members’ share if they are overburdened, aswell as goal setting, team management, andleadership functions. Zander and Forward(1968) found that achievement-oriented teammembers were more concerned about team suc-cess, and Hough (1992) found achievement tobe related to ratings of teamwork.

Cognate scales related to the achievementfacet include the HPI facets of Leadership andGenerates Ideas, the PCI facet of Ambition, theCPI facet of Capacity for Status (ambitious,enterprising), and the NEO-PI-R facet ofAchievement Striving.

In summary, we have defined 12 core facetsof team orientation that we believe are descrip-tive of effective team players. In brief, goodteam players are not controlling or domineering(low dominance). They are sociable (affilia-tion), perceptive and empathic (social percep-tiveness), and interpersonally expressive (ex-pressivity). They are emotionally stable (adjust-ment) and confident (self-esteem). They areadaptive (flexibility), trust other team members(trust) and cooperative (cooperativeness). Fi-nally, good team players are reliable (depend-ability), have a strong sense of loyalty or duty tothe team (dutifulness), and they work hard toachieve team goals (achievement).

The preceding classification attempts to de-scribe the core lower-level personality facetsthat are relevant to team effectiveness. How-ever, we have argued that to specify the rela-tionship between personality and team effec-tiveness more precisely requires that we notonly describe the Big Five traits more precisely,but also provide greater specificity in terms ofwhat we mean by team effectiveness. In otherwords, teams do not just perform, they performcertain core tasks, and the extent to which theseteamwork activities or requirements are carriedout successfully is one determinant of overallteam effectiveness. Moreover, we expect thatdifferent personality facets may be relevant tothe prediction of different teamwork dimen-sions. In other words, we believe what has beenmissing in previous models is the link betweenteam member personality and teamwork re-quirements. In the following section, we at-tempt to define the core teamwork dimensionsor team functions that must be accomplishedwithin a team context.

Teamwork Dimensions

Driven by the heightened interest in teams inapplied settings, recent research has attemptedto define the dimensions that underlie effectiveteamwork (Ilgen, 1999). McIntyre and Salas(1995) described a series of studies that adopteda critical incident approach to identifying criti-cal teamwork activities. Researchers workedwith real-world teams, including naval ship-board teams and aircrews, to identify criticalactivities characterizing effective and ineffec-tive teams (Franz, Prince, Cannon-Bowers, &Salas, 1990; Morgan, Glickman, Woodard,Blaiwes, & Salas, 1986). These core teamworkdimensions were further elaborated by Bakerand Salas (1992) to include performance mon-itoring and feedback, communication, coordina-tion, and adaptability.

Fleishman and Zaccaro (1992) developed ataxonomic classification of team performancefunctions. Building on earlier work on the struc-ture of human performance (Fleishman &Quantance, 1984), these researchers attemptedto describe the common team functions thatunderlie team performance. Major team func-tions identified include orientation functions(e.g., exchanging information), coordinationfunctions (e.g., coordination and sequencing ofactivities), monitoring functions (e.g., perfor-mance monitoring and error correction), andmotivational functions (e.g., maintenance ofnorms, resolving conflicts).

Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, andVolpe (1995) integrated these research effortsand proposed that the core teamwork functionscould be conceptualized as eight broad dimen-sions (See Table 1). According to Cannon-Bowers et al. (1995), the following teamworkdimensions are a prerequisite for effective teamperformance across a variety of types of tasksand teams.

Adaptability

Adaptability refers to adjustment of taskstrategies or team behaviors in response tochanges in the team or task environment.Adaptability may include mutual adjustmentamong team members and reallocation of re-sources. Porter et al. (2003) have emphasizedthe importance of backup behavior,


which is compensatory behavior to supportother team members who are overloaded orexperiencing difficulty. Hackman and Morris(1978) have noted that one of the few univer-sally effective group strategies is adaptability.

Shared Situational Awareness

Team members must develop a shared situa-tional awareness, also referred to as mutualknowledge (Cramton, 2001; Thompson & Coo-vert, 2003) or common ground (Clark & Bren-nan, 1991). Team members possess contextualtask and team information that must be commu-nicated to and understood by other team mem-bers. Cramton (2001) noted that mutual knowl-edge may suffer when team members fail tocommunicate unique information that they pos-sess, fail to distribute information evenly amongteam members, or fail to correct misunderstand-

ings. Some research has shown that the accu-racy and similarity of shared mental modelsamong team members predicts the quality ofteam processes and performance (Marks, Zac-caro, & Mathieu, 2000; Mathieu, Heffner,Goodwin, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000;Thompson & Coovert, 2003).

Performance Monitoring and Feedback

Performance monitoring and feedback be-haviors include monitoring other team mem-ber’s contributions as well as monitoring teamprogress, identifying errors, providing construc-tive feedback, and offering advice for perfor-mance improvement. Members of effectiveteams must be familiar with each other’s rolesand accept responsibility for providing and ac-cepting feedback (McIntyre & Salas, 1995).

Table 1Teamwork Dimensions (Adapted from Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995)

Dimension Definition Subskills

Adaptability Team members use information from the taskenvironment to adjust strategies through the use offlexibility, compensatory behavior, and reallocationof resources.

FlexibilityCompensatory or back-up behaviorProviding assistance

Shared situationalawareness

Team members develop shared knowledge of theteam’s internal and external environment.

Shared orientationTeam awareness

Performancemonitoring andfeedback

Team members give, seek, and receive task-clarifyingfeedback.

Performance monitoringProviding feedbackError correction

Team management Team members direct and coordinate task activities,assign tasks, plan and organize, and motivate otherteam members.

Resource managementMotivationPlanning and goal setting

Interpersonal relations Team members optimize interpersonal interactions byresolving conflicts, use of cooperation, andbuilding morale.

Conflict resolutionCooperationMorale building

Coordination Team members organize team resources, activities,and responses to ensure complete and timelycompletion of tasks.

Task organizationResponse coordinationTiming and activity pacing

Communication Team members exchange information efficiently. Seeking or requesting informationProviding informationAcknowledgement and

confirmation

Decision making Team members integrate or pool information, identifyalternatives, select solutions, and evaluateconsequences.

AssessmentEvaluationProblem solving


Team Management

Team management behaviors include direct-ing and coordinating the task activities of otherteam members, assigning tasks, and motivatingother team members. These are primarily taskbehaviors oriented toward instrumental goals.One critical management task, planning, is of-ten overlooked in teams (Hackman & Morris,1978), although research has clearly demon-strated the value of planning (Janicik & Bartel,2003; Weingart, 1992) and pretask briefings(Marks et al., 2000) to team performance.

Interpersonal Relations

Team members optimize interpersonal rela-tions by resolving conflicts, encouraging coop-erative behavior, and building team morale.These are primarily socioemotional behaviorsoriented toward smooth interpersonal relations.McIntyre and Salas (1995) noted that positive orsupporting team behaviors are not always ap-parent in team interactions—tasks demandsmay require terse, formal communications attimes—but that a positive team environmentsupports these task activities. Moreover, re-search has shown that cohesive groups tend toagree more readily (Lott & Lott, 1961), reportgreater satisfaction with the group (Curtis &Miller, 1986), and in general outperform lesscohesive groups (Mullen & Copper, 1994).

Coordination

In one of the earliest studies of group perfor-mance, Shaw (1932) attributed the effectivenessof groups to the capability of group members toexchange and coordinate information. Janicikand Bartel (2003) noted that effective coordina-tion, knowing who is going to do what, when,and with whom, is critical to team performance.Behaviors that support effective coordinationinclude matching team member resources totask requirements, regulating the pace of teamactivities, and coordinating the response andsequencing of team member activities (Fleish-man & Zaccaro, 1992).

Communication

Communication is the primary vehiclethrough which task groups accomplish their

goals (Marks et al., 2000). Team members mustexchange ideas and information in a clear andtimely manner. Research suggests that effectiveteam performance is related to the quantity andquality of communications— effective teamscommunicate more and better than less effectiveteams (Foushee, 1982; Kanki, Lozito, &Foushee, 1989; Marks et al., 2000). Effectivecommunication behaviors include exchanginginformation in a timely manner, acknowledg-ment of information, double-checking that theintent of messages was received (closed-loopcommunication), clarifying ambiguity, and theappropriate use of verbal and nonverbal cues(Kanki & Smith, 2001; Stout, Salas, & Fowlkes,1997).

Decision Making

Team decision making involves problemidentification and assessment, information ex-change, generation and evaluation of solutions,implementation, and evaluation of conse-quences (Forsyth, 1990; Hirokawa, 1980). Bar-riers to effective team decision making mayinclude failure to adequately assess problems(Moreland & Levine, 1992), failure to considerothers’ input (Driskell & Salas, 1992), failure todisclose uniquely held information (Stasser &Titus, 1995), and undue influence from a singleteam member (Foushee & Helmreich, 1988).

Predictions

The preceding classification of core team-work dimensions allows us to take the next stepin linking team member personality and teamrequirements. In the following, we predict theeffects of the specific personality facets definedin Figure 1 on specific core teamwork dimen-sions. These predictions are summarized in Ta-ble 2. Note that when we are able to make astrong positive or negative prediction based oneither existing research or on a logical extensionof existing research, these predictions aremarked as “�” or “–” respectively. In othercases, we feel that the relationship between aparticular team member facet and a specificteamwork dimension is weaker or unsupported,and thus we note these predictions as interme-diate and indicated as “�”.


Tab

le2

Eff

ects

ofT

eam

Mem

ber

Per

sona

lity

Fac

ets

onT

eam

wor

kD

imen

sion

s

Tea

mm

embe

rfa

cets

Tea

mw

ork

dim

ensi

ons

Ada

ptab

ility

Shar

edsi

tuat

iona

law

aren

ess

Perf

orm

ance

mon

itori

ngan

dfe

edba

ckT

eam

man

agem

ent

Inte

rper

sona

lre

latio

nsC

oord

inat

ion

Com

mun

icat

ion

Dec

isio

nm

akin

g

Em

otio

nal

stab

ility

Adj

ustm

ent

��

��

��

��

Self

-est

eem

��

��

��

��

Ext

rave

rsio

nD

omin

ance

��

��

��

��

Affi

liatio

n�

��

��

��

�So

cial

perc

eptiv

enes

s�

��

��

��

�E

xpre

ssiv

ity�

��

��

��

�O

penn

ess

Flex

ibili

ty�

��

��

��

�A

gree

able

ness

Tru

st�

��

��

��

�C

oope

ratio

n�

��

��

��

�C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

Dep

enda

bilit

y�

��

��

��

�D

utif

ulne

ss�

��

��

��

�A

chie

vem

ent

��

��

��

��

Not

e.�

deno

tes

posi

tive

pred

ictio

n;�

deno

tes

nega

tive

pred

ictio

n;�

deno

tes

inte

rmed

iate

pred

ictio

n.


Adjustment

We predict that adjustment will have a posi-tive effect on all behaviors that are performed ina team environment. Although team tasks maydiffer in the degree of cooperation required (seeShaw, 1981), an essential feature that defines ateam is interdependent behavior (Salas, Dickin-son, Converse, & Tannenbaum, 1992). Teammembers who are ill-tempered, distressed, andemotionally unstable are disruptive of any typeof coordinated or interdependent behavior (cf.Barrick et al., 1998; Barrick & Mount, 2001).Moreover, George (1990) found that the posi-tive/negative affectivity of team members wasrelated to the extent to which teams engaged inprosocial behaviors, and Barsade (2002) foundthat team members’ positive affect led to greatercooperation, conflict management, and team per-formance. Therefore, in Table 2, we follow thelead of Barrick et al. (1998) and others, andpredict that adjustment is critical to any task orteamwork activity that requires coordinated ac-tivity.

Self-Esteem

One factor that distinguishes self-esteemfrom adjustment is that adjustment reflects gen-eral emotional instability or negative affect, andself-esteem involves the self as a reference point(Brown & Marshall, 2001). Thus, those high onself-esteem are confident and self-assured,whereas those low on self-esteem appear hope-less and critical. Research indicates that self-esteem affects interpersonal relationships (Mur-ray et al., 1998) and is generally related to jobsatisfaction (Judge et al., 1998), and thus wepredict that self-esteem will be positively re-lated to interpersonal relations. Further, Erezand Judge (2001) found that self-esteem wasrelated to goal setting and motivation, andthus we predict that self-esteem will be pos-itively related to team management activities.Given that those high in self-esteem tend tomaintain effort in the face of failure (Dodgson& Wood, 1998), we predict that self-esteemwill be positively related to adaptability. Webelieve that self-esteem will have less director more intermediate effects on shared situa-tional awareness, performance monitoring andfeedback, coordination, communication, anddecision making.

Dominance

We predict that high dominance will have anegative effect on shared situational awareness,interpersonal relations, communication, and de-cision making. Dominant team members, whoview interaction along a superior/inferior di-mension, are likely to have a different perspec-tive on team tasks and relationships than otherteam members (shared situational awareness).Dominant team members also tend to engenderless positive interpersonal relations (Driskell,Olmstead, & Salas, 1993), exhibit more ineffec-tive communication behaviors (Yukl & Falbe,1990), and are less likely to attend to the taskinputs of other team members in decision mak-ing (Driskell & Salas, 1992). We predict thathigh dominance will have intermediate effectson adaptability, performance monitoring andfeedback, team management, and coordination.Team members who are dominant and control-ling may be less flexible but perhaps more proneto backup other team members’ behavior as ameans of control (adaptability), they may bemore prone to monitor others’ behavior as aprecursor to control (performance feedback andmonitoring), and the dominant team member’sneed to direct and influence others may supportsome instrumental management functions (teammanagement).

Affiliation

Given that those low on affiliation tend tohelp or assist others less (Wageman, 1995) andin general may choose to interact less (Davis,1969), we predict those who are more sociableand affiliative are more likely to assist and sup-port other team members (adaptability), shareexperiences with other team members (sharedsituational awareness), seek and receive feed-back from others (performance monitoring andfeedback), engage in socioemotional activities(interpersonal relations), and talk more and ex-change information with other team members(communication). We believe that high affilia-tion, because it may interfere with instrumentaltask activities (see Driskell, Hogan, & Salas,1987), may have negative effects on team man-agement, coordination, and decision making. Infact, Barry and Stewart (1997) have noted thatextraverts “have a propensity to seek pleasur-


able social interactions at the expense of effi-cient management of task demands” (p. 66).

Social Perceptiveness

We view social perceptiveness as the capac-ity to accurately gather and process informationabout others (Costanzo, 1992), and argue thatsome people are poor decoders of social infor-mation (Lieberman & Rosenthal, 2001). More-over, Nickerson (1999) has noted that thosewho are less adept at inferring others’ thoughtsand feelings may be less apt to develop theshared knowledge or transactive memory re-quired in interdependent teams. We predict thatthose who are more adept at reading and inter-preting others’ intentions and feelings are morelikely to identify when other team members areoverloaded or require assistance (adaptability),develop common ground with other team mem-bers (shared situational awareness), be moreadept at conflict resolution and social tasks (in-terpersonal relations), be more accurate in in-terpreting or receiving communications fromothers (communication), and be more skilled atperceiving others’ opinions and inputs in deci-sion making (decision making). We believe thatsocial perceptiveness will have intermediate ef-fects on performance monitoring and feedback,team management, and coordination.

Expressivity

We believe that those who are interpersonallyexpressive are likely to be viewed as more pos-itive and likable (Riggio & Friedman, 1986),and are likely to be more energetic and effectivecommunicators (DeGroot & Motowidlo, 1999;Gallaher, 1992). Moreover, Ambady, Hallahan,and Rosenthal (1995) have noted that somepeople are more “legible” that others, that ex-pressivity is related to accuracy in transmittingnonverbal information to others. We predict thatthose who are interpersonally expressive areeasier to read and adapt to (adaptability), morelikely to communicate contextual informationto others (shared situational awareness), likelyto be viewed more positively (interpersonal re-lations), communicate more effectively (com-munication) and are more likely to express theirfeelings and opinions effectively in decisionmaking (decision making). We believe that ex-pressivity will have intermediate effects on per-

formance monitoring and feedback, team man-agement, and coordination.

Flexibility

We 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 andprocedures 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 teamwork behaviors.

Trust

Following Dirks (1999), we propose that hightrust leads to greater commitment, greater ef-fort, and greater cooperation. We believe thathigh-trust team members are more likely to seekand receive feedback from others (performancemonitoring and feedback), engage in activitiesto resolve conflicts and ensure smooth interper-sonal relations among team members (interper-sonal relations), communication more openly(communication), and pool information in deci-sion making (decision making). We expect thattrust will have intermediate effects on adaptabil-ity, shared situational awareness, coordination,and team management.

Cooperation

Those who are cooperative place the de-mands and interests of the group over personaldesires (Wagner, 1995). We believe that teammembers who pursue cooperative or group in-terests versus self interests are more likely toshare contextual team and task information withother team members (shared situational aware-ness), provide backup support to other teammembers (adaptability), perform actions to ad-dress socioemotional requirements (interper-sonal relations), and exchange information withother team members (communication). We ex-pect that cooperation will have intermediate ef-fects on decision making, performance monitor-ing and feedback, coordination, and team man-agement because, as LePine and Van Dyne


(2001) have noted, whereas cooperative personsvalue smooth interpersonal functioning, theymay be less prone to exhibit the more directivetask behaviors required of these activities.

Dependability

Ashton (1998) found that responsibility wasnegatively related to delinquent workplace be-haviors, and Borman et al. (1995) found thatdependability was related to higher perfor-mance ratings by both supervisors and peers.We predict that team members who are reliableand dependable can be counted on to backupother team members’ behaviors (adaptability),monitor team progress and provide feedback(performance monitoring and feedback), planand manage team activities (team management),regulate the pace and coordination of team ac-tivities (coordination), and exchange informa-tion in a timely manner (communication). Webelieve that dependability will have intermedi-ate effects on shared situational awareness, in-terpersonal relations, and 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 per-ceived as rigid and inflexible (Hogan, 1986).Moreover, being organized and cautious maydetract from some aspects of decision making,such as idea generation, and enhance other as-pects, such as the evaluation of alternatives.

Dutifulness

Research suggests that those who hold agreater sense of duty, loyalty, and sacrifice forthe team tend to engender greater group cohe-siveness (Prapavessis & Carron, 1997), areviewed more favorably by coworkers (Ellemerset al., 1998), and 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 perspec-tives on the team and the task (shared situationalawareness), contribute to team pride and morale(interpersonal relations), and perform support-ive activities related to team goal achievement(performance monitoring and feedback). Webelieve that dutifulness will have intermediateeffects on adaptability, team management, co-

ordination, communication, and decision mak-ing.

Achievement

We believe that team members who areachievement oriented are likely to be more mo-tivated to pursue group goals and to ensuregroup success (Hough, 1992; Zander & For-ward, 1968). We predict that team memberswho are achievement-oriented, hardworking,proactive, and take the initiative in team activ-ities will be more likely to adjust to other teammembers’ behaviors (adaptability), developcommon ground with other team members(shared situational awareness), monitor teamprogress and provide feedback (performancemonitoring and feedback), participate in the di-rection and coordination of task activities (teammanagement), manage the pace and sequencingof team activities (coordination), communicatemore (communication), and participate moreactively in decision making (decision making).We expect that achievement will have interme-diate effects on interpersonal relations—whereas achievement orientation is not directlysupportive of social relations (Barry & Stewart,1997), team members who work harder for theteam should support team morale.

Discussion

We begun by asking a basic question: Whatmakes a good team player? We then attemptedto provide a foundation for addressing thatquestion, which then became: What specifictraits define a good team player in relation to theactivities required for effective teamwork? Wedescribed the personality facets that we believeare most relevant to team performance, and thenderived predictions linking these facets to coreteamwork dimensions. This approach offersseveral benefits. First, this approach extendsprevious research on personality and team per-formance by offering greater precision in spec-ifying the role that team member personalityplays in team effectiveness. Second, this frame-work provides a foundation for further empiri-cal testing and validation of predictions. Third,this approach suggests useful avenues for selec-tion and training interventions to enhance teameffectiveness.


There are several general conclusions thatcan be drawn regarding team member person-ality as elaborated in this model. First, at ageneral level, this model is consistent with ex-isting research on personality and team effec-tiveness. The higher-level traits of emotionalstability, extraversion, openness, agreeableness,and conscientiousness have all been related toteam effectiveness at a broad level (cf. Barricket al., 1998; Barry & Stewart, 1997; Hollenbecket al., 2002; LePine et al., 1997; Neuman &Wright, 1999). However, as we noted previ-ously, we do not know based on existing re-search if any purported relationship between,for example, conscientiousness and team effec-tiveness may be attributable to the dependabil-ity component of conscientiousness (i.e., goodteam players are reliable) or to the achievementcomponent of conscientiousness (i.e., goodteam players are hardworking). Accordingly,we extended our examination of personality andteam performance to incorporate specific per-sonality facets that we believe are related toteam effectiveness, and to incorporate specificdimensions of teamwork. We have defined onefacet, dominance, by its negative pole, becauseresearch suggests that those who are dominantand controlling can be an anathema to interde-pendent team interaction (Driskell & Salas,1992; Driskell et al., 1993). However, the teammember facets that are predicted to be criticalacross all teamwork dimensions are adjustmentand flexibility. We concur with Barrick andMount (2001) that adjustment is fundamentallyimportant to interdependent interaction, and weconcur with Hackman and Morris (1978) thatflexibility is virtually universally advantageous.There are several facets, such as self-esteem ordutifulness, that are predicted to affect a morenarrow range of teamwork activities. This doesnot imply that these facets are less important,just that their impact is more specific. More-over, this greater specificity in describing per-sonality and team effectiveness allows us toexamine both the “bright side” and the “darkside” of personality—whereas affiliation mayhave a positive impact on maintaining interper-sonal relations in teams, it may have a negativeimpact on the more instrumental activities in-volved in team management.

Second, the predictions that are derived fromthis model, shown in Table 2, are clearly spec-ulative. We have attempted to bring to bear the

weight of existing research, but as Barry andStewart (1997) have noted, “relatively few stud-ies have empirically examined the role of per-sonality characteristics in task-oriented groups”(p. 65). Although recent research efforts haverectified this situation somewhat, we faced theadditional difficulty that very few existing re-search studies specify personality to the facetlevel and very few existing studies specify teameffectiveness to the teamwork dimensions level.Not surprisingly, we do not have a wealth ofdata to draw on. On the positive side, Table 2presents a framework that calls out for addi-tional research, and each of the relationshipsshown in Table 2 should be verified in furtherempirical studies.

Third, the hierarchical model of team orien-tation shown in Figure 1 was derived by thedesire to specify the link between Big Fivepersonality traits and team effectiveness. Al-though the higher level traits identified by var-ious Big Five models generally resemble oneanother, there are some distinctions among dif-ferent models. For example, Hogan (1986) haspresented a six-factor model of personality, sep-arating extraversion into separate traits of socia-bility (outgoing, affiliative) and ambition (sur-gency, dominance). Furthermore, as Lucas andDiener (2001) have noted, the facets that com-pose the higher-level traits often differ in dif-ferent models. For example, McCrae and Costa(1997) claim that flexibility/rigidity is related tothe higher-level trait of openness to experience;Hogan (1986) places flexibility within the higher-level conscientiousness trait; whereas othersnote that rigidity may be related to neuroticismor poor adjustment (Mumford, Baughman,Threlfall, Uhlman, & Costanza, 1993). Judge,Martocchio, and Thoresen (1997) note thatsome facets load equally on several higherlevel traits. We are not able to resolve theseissues but have attempted to derive a model ofteam member personality that is consistent withexisting personality models.

This approach further calls attention to theissue of trait bandwidth and the value of broadtraits versus narrow traits. Stewart (1999) hasstated that broad traits are applicable in severalcircumstances, including when the criterion it-self is broad or diffuse. However, Barrick et al.(2001) also have noted that sometimes a broadpredictor and a broad criterion can mask under-lying relationships. For example, we posed the


question of whether conscientiousness may berelated to team performance in existing researchbecause of the lower-level facet of achievementor because of the lower-level facet of depend-ability that both comprise conscientiousness inmany Big Five models. Narrow facets may al-low more accurate prediction when they theo-retically align with more specific behaviors, andBarrick et al. (2001); Schneider, Hough, andDunnette (1996); Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, andCortina (2006) and others have noted the valueof linking lower-level predictors with lower-level criteria. Moreover, by defining the coreteamwork dimensions that underlie team perfor-mance, we are able to make informed hypothe-ses regarding the specific personality facets thatare predictive of these performance dimensions.

At same time, our approach is limited in anumber of ways. Although the most current andinfluential formulation of individual differencesin personality is the Big Five trait approach thatwe have adopted, it is certainly not the onlyuseful model of personality, nor does it captureall there is to say about personality. We concurwith McAdams and Pals (2006), who note thatalthough the Big Five model is arguably themost recognizable contribution personality psy-chology has to offer, understanding personalityin a more finely grained sense requires goingbeyond the personality trait concept to includeother motivational, social–cognitive, and devel-opmental concerns. Our approach, then, takesadvantage of the current body of empirical re-search on traits within the Big Five framework,and at the same time is restricted by the nar-rowed focus of the trait approach.

We have attempted to address the question ofwhat type of person makes a good team player(or more specifically, what specific facets ofpersonality are relevant to specific teamworkdimensions). We assume, in general, that teammembers who possess these personality facetswill be more effective under specified condi-tions than those who do not. However, we havenot addressed the more complex question ofhow personality facets combine. For example,the impact of expressivity is likely to be con-siderably different if coupled with high adjust-ment than if coupled with low adjustment(Friedman & Miller-Herringer, 1991). Further-more, we have not addressed the more complexquestion of team composition, or how teammembers possessing specific personality facets

combine. There are several ways of operation-alizing team composition. An additive approachexamines the amount or average level of a traitamong team members; for example, LePine(2003) has argued that a team composed of toomany highly dependable members may exertundue pressure on those who offer alternativeviewpoints. A compensatory approach exam-ines the heterogeneity or variability of traitsamong team members; for example, Barry andStewart (1997) have observed that finding ben-efits of sociability at the individual team mem-ber level does not necessarily argue for creatinga work team full of them. A disjunctive ap-proach examines the highest or lowest traitscore for the team; for example, Totterdell etal.’s (1998) work on mood linkage and negativeaffect suggests that having one team memberlow on adjustment can impact the entire group.Clearly, composition matters, and although wedo not address these issues in the current for-mulation of our model, questions of team com-position and heterogeneity are important andrequire further examination. Finally, we knowthat individual factors often interact with othergroup-level or structural factors to impact per-formance—in fact, Hollenbeck et al. (2002)have proposed a person-team fit approach thatemphasizes the importance of task and organi-zational factors. For example, conscientious-ness may be less relevant to team performanceto the extent that backup or compensatory be-haviors are institutionalized in task procedures.Nevertheless, we believe there is considerablevalue in developing a comprehensive model atthe individual team member level that can serveas a basis for further elaboration to addressthese and other related questions.

In the model presented, we view the focalteam member as “one among equals.” In otherwords, the team setting we have specified is onein which each team member has specific exper-tise useful to the team, and the team has tointerdependently achieve a team outcome. Wehave described the core traits that we believedefine the effective team member, but not nec-essarily the effective team leader. For example,we noted earlier that dominance may be prob-lematic among team members but useful in ateam leader role. Moreover, it is likely thateffective leadership may require dominance andaffiliation, among other traits. By anecdotal ac-counts, General George Patton was a high dom-


inant-low affiliation leader. There is no questionthat he was a great general, but he may havebeen somewhat lacking in interpersonal rela-tions (his widely reported response to a hospi-talized soldier 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 affil-iation leader, may represent a more effectiveleader prototype for modern times.

Finally, we believe this model suggests anumber of practical applications. For the pur-pose of selecting good team players, the type ofclassification presented in Table 2 should proveto be useful, subject to further empirical confir-mation. 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 ex-isting team member capabilities and targetingtraining to support behaviors that may be defi-cient. For example, if assessment indicates alow score on trust for a specific team member,we propose that this will most likely be mani-fested in activities related to performance mon-itoring and feedback, interpersonal relations,and decision making (i.e., scanning across theappropriate row of Table 2). Efforts to imple-ment training for this team member should fo-cus on these dimensions. This model shouldalso be useful for diagnosis of team deficien-cies. 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 indi-vidual capabilities 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 impor-tance is: Can you train someone who is dispo-sitionally competitive 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 pro-grams have 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. More-over, 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. Ques-tions related to faking as well as research onalternative approaches to self-report should re-ceive further 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 be-haviors. Second, by linking team member per-sonality characteristics to teamwork dimen-sions, this model provides a foundation for ap-plication and testing of this approach forpurposes of selection, training, and team design.

References

Ambady, N., Hallahan, M., & Rosenthal, R. (1995).On judging and being judged accurately in zero-acquaintance situations. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 69, 518–529.

Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job perfor-mance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 19, 289–303.

Aube�, C. & Rosseau, V. (2005). Team goal commit-ment and team effectiveness: The role of taskinterdependence and supportive behaviors. GroupDynamics, 9, 189–204.

Baker, D. P., & Salas, E. (1992). Principles for mea-suring teamwork 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 organiza-tional behavior (pp. 15–28). Malden, MA: Black-well.


Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001).Personality and performance at the beginning ofthe new millennium: What do we know and wheredo we go next? International Journal of Selectionand Assessment, 9, 9–30.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., &Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability andpersonality to work-team processes and team ef-fectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,377–391.

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

Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effects: Emotionalcontagion and its influence on group behavior.Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644–675.

Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Identify, self-concept, andself-esteem: The self lost and found. In R. Hogan,J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of per-sonality psychology (pp. 681–710). San Diego,CA: Academic Press.

Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W.(1995). Effects of ratee task performance and in-terpersonal factors on supervisor peer performanceratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 168–177.

Borman, W. C., White, L. A., Pulakos, E. D., &Oppler, S. H. (1991). Models of supervisory jobperformance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 76, 863–872.

Brown, J. D., & Marshall, M. A. (2001). Self-esteemand emotion: Some thoughts about feelings. Per-sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 575–584.

Bruch, M. A., Gorsky, J. M., Collins, T. M., &Berger, P. A. (1989). Shyness and sociability re-examined: A multicomponent analysis. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 57, 904–915.

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E.,& Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining competencies andestablishing team training requirements. In R.Guzzo and E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness anddecision making in organizations, (pp. 333–380).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding incommunication. In: L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, &S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on sociallyshared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Conn, S. R., & Rieke, M. L. (1994). The 16PF fifthed. technical manual. Champagne, IL: Institute forPersonality and Ability Testing, Inc.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEOPersonality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and Five Fac-tor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual.Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costanzo, M. (1992). Training students to decodeverbal and nonverbal cues: Effects on confidenceand performance. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 84, 308–313.

Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge prob-lem and its consequences for dispersed collabora-tion. Organizational Science, 12, 346–371.

Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies ofself-worth. Psychological Review, 108, 593–623.

Curtis, R. C., & Miller, K. (1986). Believing anotherlikes or dislikes you: Behaviors making the beliefscome true. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 51, 284–290.

Davis, J. H. (1969). Group performance. Reading,MA: Addison Wesley.

DeGroot, T., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1999). Why visualand vocal interview cues can affect interviewer’sjudgments and predict job performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 84, 986–993.

Devine, D. J. (2002). A review and integration ofclassification systems relevant to teams in organi-zations. Group Dynamics, 6, 291–310.

Devine, D. J., & Philips, J. L. (2001). Do smarterteams do better: A Meta-analysis of cognitive abil-ity and team performance. Small Group Re-search, 32, 507–532.

Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal truston work group performance. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 84, 445–455.

Dodgson, P. G., & Wood, J. V. (1998). Self-esteemand the cognitive accessibility of strengths andweaknesses after failure. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 75, 178–197.

Driskell, J. E., Hogan, R., & Salas, E. (1987). Per-sonality and group performance. In C. Hendrick(Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy (Vol. 9, pp. 91–112). Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Driskell, J. E., Olmstead, B., & Salas, E. (1993). Taskcues, dominance cues, and influence in taskgroups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 51–60.

Driskell, J. E., & Radtke, P. H. (2003). The effect ofgesture on speech production and comprehension.Human Factors, 45, 445–454.

Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1992). Collective behav-ior and team performance. Human Factors, 34,277–288.

Dudley, N. M., Orvis, K. A., Lebiecki, J. E., &Cortina, J. M. (2006). A meta-analytic investiga-tion of conscientiousness in the prediction of jobperformance: Examining the intercorrelations andthe incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 91, 40–57.

Ellemers, N., de Gilder, & van den Heuvel, H.(1998). Career-oriented versus team-oriented com-mitment and behavior at work. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 83, 717–730.


Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of coreself-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, andperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,1270–1279.

Fleishman, E. A., & Quaintance, M. K. (1984). Tax-onomies of human performance. New York: Aca-demic Press.

Fleishman, E. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (1992). Toward ataxonomy of team performance functions. In R. W.Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their trainingand performance (pp. 31–56). Norwood, NJ:Ablex.

Forsyth, D. R. (1990). Group dynamics. PacificGrove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Foushee, H. C. (1982). The role of communications,socio-psychological, and personality factors in themaintenance of crew coordination. Aviation,Space, and Environmental Medicine, 53, 1062–1066.

Foushee, H. C., & Helmreich, R. L. (1988). Groupinteraction and flight crew performance. In E. L.Weiner & D. C. Nagel (Eds.), Human Factors inAviation, (pp. 189–228). San Diego, CA: Aca-demic Press.

Franz, T. M., Prince, C., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., &Salas, E. (1990). The identification of aircrew co-ordination skills. Proceedings of the 12th sympo-sium on psychology in the Department of Defense(pp. 97–101). Springfield, VA: National TechnicalInformation Service.

Friedman, H. S., & Miller-Herringer, T. (1991). Non-verbal display of emotion in public and in private:Self-monitoring, personality, and expressive cues.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,766–775.

Gallaher, P. E. (1992). Individual differences in non-verbal behavior: Dimensions of style. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 63, 133–145.

George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behav-ior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,107–116.

Golembiewski, R. T. (1962). The small group: Ananalysis of research concepts and operations. Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press.

Gough, H. G., & Bradley, P. (1996). CPI manual (3rded.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting PsychologistsPress.

Greer, F. L. (1955). Small group effectiveness (Insti-tute Report No. 6). Philadelphia: Institute for Re-search on Human Relations.

Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (1998). Mapping thedomain of expressivity: Multimethod evidence fora hierarchical model. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 74, 170–191.

Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (1999).The role of neuroticism in daily stress and coping.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77,1087–1100.

Gurtman, M. B. (1992). Trust, distrust, and interper-sonal problems: A circumplex analysis. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 62, 989–1002.

Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1978). Group tasks,group interaction process, and group performanceeffectiveness: A review and proposed integration.In L. Berkowitz, (Ed.), Group processes (pp.1–55). New York: Academic Press.

Haythorn, W. (1953). The influence of individualmembers on the characteristics of small groups.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48,276–284.

Hirokawa, R. Y. (1980). A comparative analysis ofcommunication patterns within effective and inef-fective decision-making groups. CommunicationMonographs, 47, 312–321.

Hogan, R. (1986). Hogan personality inventory. Min-neapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.

Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Sego, D. J., Hedlund,J., Major, D. A., & Phillips, J. (1995). The multi-level theory of team decision making: Decisionperformance in teams incorporating distributed ex-pertise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 292–316.

Hollenbeck, J. R., Moon, H., Ellis, A. P. J., West, B.,Ilgen, D., Sheppard, L., et al. (2002). Structuralcontingency theory and individual differences: Ex-amination of external and internal person-team fit.Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 599–606.

Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in closerelationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of per-sonality and social psychology, Vol. 10 (pp. 187–220). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hough, L. M. (1992). The “Big Five” personalityvariables: Construct confusion-Description versusprediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–155.

Ilgen, D. R. (1999). Teams embedded in organiza-tions. American Psychologist, 54, 129–139.

Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt,D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. AnnualReview of Psychology, 56, 517–543.

Janicik, G. A., & Bartel, C. A. (2003). Talking abouttime: Effects of temporal planning and time aware-ness norms on group coordination and perfor-mance. Group Dynamics, 7, 122–134.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Commu-nication and trust in global virtual teams. Organi-zational Science, 10, 791–815.

Jones, K., & Day, J. D. (1997). Discrimination of twoaspects of cognitive-social intelligence from aca-demic intelligence. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 89, 486–497.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor modelof personality and transformational leadership.Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751–765.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). Thepower of being positive: The relationship between


positive self-concept and job performance. HumanPerformance, 11, 167–187.

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger,A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and lifesatisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journalof Applied Psychology, 83, 17–34.

Judge, T. A., Martocchio, J. J., & Thoresen, C. J.(1997). Five-factor model of personality and em-ployee absence. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 82, 745–755.

Kanki, B. G., Lozito, S. C., & Foushee, H. C. (1989).Communication indices of crew coordination. Avi-ation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 60, 56–60.

Kanki, B. G., & Smith, G. M. (2001). Training avi-ation communication skills. In E. Salas, C. A.Bowers, & E. Edens (Eds.), Improving teamworkin organizations (pp. 95–127). Mahwah, NJ: Erl-baum.

Kelley, H., & Stahelski, A. (1970). Social interactionbases of cooperators’ and competitors’ beliefsabout others. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 16, 66–91.

Kowslowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., &Smith, E. M. (1999). Developing adaptive teams:A theory of compilation and performance acrosslevels and time. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos(Eds.), The changing nature of work performance:Implications for staffing, motivation, and develop-ment (pp. 240–294). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., McHugh, P. P.,Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). A dy-namic theory of leadership and team effectiveness:Developmental and task contingent leader roles.Research in Personnel and Human ResourcesManagement, 14, 253–305.

Kring, A. M., Smith, D. A., & Neale, J. M. (1994).Individual differences in dispositional expressive-ness: Development and validation of the emotionalexpressivity scale. Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 66, 934–949.

LePine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation andpostchange performance: Effects of team compo-sition in terms of members’ cognitive ability andpersonality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,27–39.

LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D., & Hed-lund, J. (1997). Effects of individual differences onthe performance of hierarchical decision-makingteams: Much more than g. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 82, 803–811.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. V. (2001). Voice andcooperative behavior as contrasting forms of con-textual performance: Evidence of differential rela-tionships with Big Five personality characteristicsand cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 86, 326–336.

Lieberman, M. D., & Rosenthal, R. (2001). Whyintroverts can’t always tell who likes them: Mul-titasking and nonverbal decoding. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 80, 294–310.

Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1961). Group cohesiveness,communication level, and conformity. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 408–412.

Lucas, R. E., & Diener, E. (2001). Understandingextroverts’ enjoyment of social situations: The im-portance of pleasantness. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 81, 343–356.

Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Shao, L., &Grob, A. (2000). Cross-cultural evidence for thefundamental features of extraversion. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 79, 452–468.

Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationshipsbetween personality and performance in smallgroups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241–270.

Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000).Performance implications of leader briefings andteam-interaction training for team adaptation tonovel environments. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 85, 971–986.

Marlowe, H. A. (1986). Social intelligence: Evidencefor multidimensionality and construct indepen-dence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 52–58.

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

McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new BigFive: Fundamental principles for an integrativescience of personality. American Psychologist, 61,204–217.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptionsand correlates of openness to experience. In R.Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbookof Personality Psychology (pp. 825–847). San Di-ego, CA: Academic Press.

McIntyre, R. M., & Salas, E. (1995). Measuring andmanaging for team performance: Lessons fromcomplex environments. (In R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas,& Associates (Eds.), Team effectiveness and deci-sion making in organizations (pp. 9–45). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.)

McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany,N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new orga-nizational relationships. Academy of ManagementReview, 23, 473–490.

Moon, H. (2001). The two faces of conscientious-ness: Duty and achievement-striving within esca-lation of commitment dilemmas. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 86, 533–540.

Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1992). Problemidentification by groups. In S. Worchel, W. Wood,


& J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and pro-ductivity (pp. 17–47). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Morgan, B. B., Glickman, A. S., Woodard, E. A.,Blaiwes, A., & Salas, E. (1986). Measurement ofteam behaviors in a Navy environment (NTSCTech. Rep. No. No. 86–014). Orlando, FL: NavalTraining Systems Center.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Laffitte, L. J., &Callans, M. C. (1999). Personal CharacteristicsInventory User’s Manual. Libertyville: IL: Won-derlic Consulting.

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L.(1998). Five-factor model of personality and per-formance in jobs involving interpersonal interac-tions. Human Performance, 11, 145–165.

Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation be-tween group cohesiveness and performance: Anintegration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227.

Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Threlfall, K. V.,Uhlman, C. E., & Costanza, D. P. (1993). Person-ality, adaptability, and performance: Performanceon well-defined and ill-defined problem-solvingtasks. Human Performance, 6, 241–285.

Murray, S. L., Hilmes, J. G., MacDonald, G., &Ellsworth, P. C. (1998). Through the looking glassdarkly: When self-doubts turn into relationshipinsecurities. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 75, 1459–1480.

Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. (1999). Team effective-ness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journalof Applied Psychology, 84, 376–389.

Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know—And some-times misjudge—What others know: Imputingone’s own knowledge to others. PsychologicalBulletin, 125, 737–759.

Norton, R. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, ap-plications, and measures. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Paulhus, D. L., & Martin, C. L. (1988). Functionalflexibility: A new conception of interpersonal flex-ibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 55, 88–101.

Porter, C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Ellis, A.,West, B. J., & Moon, H. (2003). Backing up be-haviors in teams: The role of personality and le-gitimacy of need. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 88, 391–403.

Prapavessis, H., & Carron, A. V. (1997). Sacrifice,cohesion, and conformity to norms in sport teams.Group Dynamics, 1, 231–240.

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle,B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A per-sonality variable predicting social and political at-titudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 67, 741–763.

Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plam-ondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the work-place: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive

performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,612–624.

Riggio, R., & Friedman, H. (1986). Impression for-mation: The role of expressive behavior. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 421–427.

Rosnow, R. L., Skleder, A. A., Jaeger, M. E., & Rind,B. (1994). Intelligence and the epistemics of inter-personal acumen: Testing some implications ofGardner’s theory. Intelligence, 19, 93–116).

Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tan-nenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an understanding ofteam performance and training. In R. W. Swezey& E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and per-formance (pp. 3–29). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Saucier, G., & Ostendorf, F. (1999). Hierarchicalsubcomponents of the big five personality factors:A cross-cultural replication. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 76, 613–627.

Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D.(1996). Broadsided by broad traits: How to sinkscience in five dimensions or less. Journal of Or-ganizational Behavior, 17, 639–655.

Shaw, Marjorie, E. (1932). A comparison of individ-uals and small groups in the rational solution ofcomplex problems. American Journal of Psychol-ogy, 44, 491–504.

Shaw, Marvin, E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psy-chology of small group behavior. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Shiflett, S. C. (1972). Group performance as a func-tion of task difficulty and organizational interde-pendence. Organizational Behavior and GroupPerformance, 7, 442–456.

Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Salas, E., & Brannick, M. T.(2001). To transfer or not to transfer? Investigatingthe combined effects of trainee characteristics,team leader support, and team climate. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86, 279–292.

Snyder, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressivebehavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 30, 526–537.

Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1995). Effects of informa-tion load and percentage of shared information onthe dissemination of unshared information duringgroup discussion. Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 48, 1467–1478.

Stewart, G. L. (1999). Trait bandwidth and stages ofjob performance: Assessing differential effects ofconscientiousness and its subtraits. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 84, 959–968.

Stouffer, S. A., Lumsdaine, A. A., Lumsdaine, M. H.,Williams, R. M., Smith, M. B., Janis, I. L., et al.(1949). The American soldier: Combat and itsaftermath. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.

Stout, R. J., Salas, E., & Fowlkes, J. E. (1997).Enhancing teamwork in complex environments


through team training. Group Dynamics, 1, 169–182.

Thompson, L. F., & Coovert, M. D. (2003). Team-work online: The effects of computer conferencingon perceived confusion, satisfaction, and postdis-cussion accuracy. Group Dynamics, 7, 135–151.

Totterdell, P., Kellett, S., Teuchmann, K., & Briner,R. B. (1998). Evidence of mood linkage in workgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 74, 1504–1515.

Vancouver, J. B., & Ilgen, D. R. (1989). Effects ofinterpersonal orientation and the sex-type of thetask on choosing to work alone or in groups. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 74, 927–934.

Van Lange, P. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomesand equality in outcomes: An integrative model ofsocial value orientation. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 77, 337–349.

Van Lange, P., De Bruin, E., Otten, W., & Joireman,J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individu-alistic, and competitive orientations: Theory andpreliminary evidence. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 73, 733–746.

Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and groupeffectiveness. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 40, 145–180.

Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups.Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152–172.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion andits positive emotional core. In R. Hogan, J. John-son, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personalitypsychology (pp. 767—793). San Diego, CA: Aca-demic Press.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988).Development and validation of brief measures of

positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,1063–1070.

Weingart, L. R. (1992). Impact of group goals, taskcomponent complexity, effort, and planning ongroup performance. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 77, 682–693.

Witt, L. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Social skill asmoderator of the conscientiousness-performancerelationship: Convergent results across four stud-ies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 809–821.

Yamagishi, T. (2001). Trust as a form of socialintelligence. In K. Cook (Ed.), Trust in society (pp.121–147). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (1990). Influence tacticsand objectives in upward, downward, and lateralinfluence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 75, 132–140.

Zaccaro, S. J., Foti, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1991).Self-monitoring and trait-based variance in leader-ship: An investigation of leader flexibility acrossmultiple group situations. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 76, 308–315.

Zaccaro, S. J., Gilbert, J. A., Thor, K. K., & Mum-ford, M. D. (1991). Leadership and social intelli-gence: Linking social perceptiveness and behav-ioral flexibility to leader effectiveness. LeadershipQuarterly, 2, 317–342.

Zander, A., & Forward, J. (1968). Position in group,achievement orientation, and group aspirations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8,282–288.

Received February 9, 2004Revision received July 31, 2006

Accepted August 5, 2006 �


Documents

What Makes a Good Team Player? Personality and …homepages.se.edu/.../01/What...Personality-and-Team-Effectiveness.pdfof personality on team effectiveness requires that not only do