PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 1, 1998Journal of Applied Psychology1,515 citations

Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness.

View Full Paper
MBMurray R. BarrickGSGreg L. StewartMNMitchell J. Neubert

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Six hundred fifty-two employees composing 51 work teams participated in a study exam-ining relationships among team composition (ability and personality), team process (social cohesion), and team outcomes (team viability and team performance). Mean, variance, minimum, and maximum were 4 scoring methods used to operationalize the team composition variables to capture the team members characteristics. With respect to composition variables, teams higher in general mental ability (GMA), conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability received higher supervisor ratings for team performance. Teams higher in GMA, extraversion, and emotional stability received higher supervisor ratings for team viability. Results also show that extraversion and emotional stability were associated with team viability through social cohesion. Implica-tions and future research needs are discussed. The use of work teams has been described as pivotal to organizational transformation and renaissance (Goodman, Ravlin, Schminke, 1987; Sundstrom, De Meuse, Futrell, 1990). Yet, even with an increasing number of organizations structuring work through the use of teams, we know relatively tittle about how the individuals com-prising a team affect intragroup processes and outcomes. This lack of understanding suggests that contemporary work organizations may not be obtaining the maximal benefits from work teams. The dominant way of thinking about teams is the input-process-output model (Gladstein, 1984; Guzzo Shea, 1992; Hackman, 1987; McGrath, 1964). The model posits that a variety of inputs combine to influence intragroup processes, which in turn affect team outputs. Inputs have been grouped into three categories (Hackman, 1987): in-dividual-level factors (e.g., team-member attributes),

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Barrick et al. (1998) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a178e61a0e670aec86ea951https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.377
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper