Advertisement

Built for unity: assessing the impact of team composition on team cohesion trajectories

  • Bryan P. ActonEmail author
  • Michael T. Braun
  • Roseanne J. Foti
Original Paper
  • 73 Downloads

Abstract

Team cohesion is a critical factor for team effectiveness. Cohesion is a dynamic emergent state, demonstrating important changes as a function of the interactions among team members. Given the important role of individual differences for impacting the quality of social interactions as well as the resulting appraisals of individuals, it is not surprising that a plethora of studies find significant relationships between team composition and team cohesion. Unfortunately, knowledge of how individual difference composition influences changes in cohesion over time is still lacking. Therefore, drawing on theories on the development of interpersonal relationships, we tested predictions regarding the role of team personality and goal orientation for shaping the longitudinal trajectories of social and task cohesion. More specifically, we used a highly interdependent laboratory simulation to assess the differential impact that individual differences have on the initial status (i.e., intercept) and change (i.e., slope) in cohesion over time. Growth curve modeling results suggest support for our predictions that different individual differences uniquely predict the intercepts and slopes of task and social cohesion. Implications for the composition and intervention of teams are discussed.

Keywords

Team cohesion Team composition Team personality Growth curve modeling 

Notes

References

  1. Ancona, D. G., Goodman, P. S., Lawrence, B. S., & Tushman, M. L. (2001). Time: A new research lens. Academy of Management Review, 26, 645–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, P. (1999). Perspective: Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10, 216–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1531–1544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2011). A closer look at first sight: Social relations lens model analysis of personality and interpersonal attraction at zero acquaintance. European Journal of Personality, 25, 225–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(377–391), 62–78.Google Scholar
  6. Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 62–78.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989–1004.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595–615.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Bell, S. T., & Outland, N. (2017). Team composition over time. In Team Dynamics Over Time (Vol. 18, pp. 3–27). UK: Emerald publishing limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  11. Bliese, P. D., & Hanges, P. J. (2004). Being both too liberal and too conservative: The perils of treating grouped data as though they were independent. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 400–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Borkenau, P., Mauer, N., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., & Angleitner, A. (2004). Thin slices of behavior as cues of personality and intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 599–614.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models Newbury Park. Calif: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Byrne, D. (1997). An overview (and underview) of research and theory within the attraction paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 417–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carron, A. V., Bray, S. R., & Eys, M. A. (2002). Team cohesion and team success in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 119-126.Google Scholar
  16. Casey-Campbell, M., & Martens, M. L. (2009). Sticking it all together: A critical assessment of the group cohesion–performance literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11, 223–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Castaño, N., Watts, T., & Tekleab, A. G. (2013). A reexamination of the cohesion–performance relationship meta-analyses: A comprehensive approach. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 17, 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6, 343–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cronin, M. A., Weingart, L. R., & Todorova, G. (2011). Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet? Academy of Management Annals, 5, 571–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Curhan, J. R., & Pentland, A. (2007). Thin slices of negotiation: Predicting outcomes from conversational dynamics within the first 5 minutes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 802–811.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dierdorff, E. C., Bell, S. T., & Belohlav, J. A. (2011). The power of “we”: Effects of psychological collectivism on team performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 247–262.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dion, K. L. (2000). Group cohesion: From" field of forces" to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dormann, C., & Griffin, M. A. (2015). Optimal time lags in panel studies. Psychological Methods, 20, 489–505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Driskell, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & O’Shea, P. G. (2006). What makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 249–271.Google Scholar
  27. Drescher, S., Burlingame, G., & Fuhriman, A. (2012). Cohesion: An odyssey in empirical understanding. Small Group Research, 43, 662–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., & Strycker, L. A. (2013). An introduction to latent variable growth curve modeling: Concepts, issues, and application. Routledge Academic.Google Scholar
  29. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Driskell, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & O’Shea, P. G. (2006). What makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 249–271.Google Scholar
  31. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (2012). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 43, 690–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22, 175-186.Google Scholar
  34. Flynn, F. J. (2005). Having an open mind: The impact of openness to experience on interracial attitudes and impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 816–826.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Gong, Y., Kim, T. Y., Lee, D. R., & Zhu, J. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 827–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Grand, J. A., Braun, M. T., Kuljanin, G., Kozlowski, S. W., & Chao, G. T. (2016). The dynamics of team cognition: A process-oriented theory of knowledge emergence in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1353–1385.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26, 497–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  39. Hamilton, K. (2014). Octodad: Dadliest catch: The Kotaku Review. Retrieved September 3, 2015.Google Scholar
  40. Hendrick, C., & Brown, S. R. (1971). Introversion, extraversion, and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 31–36.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Hox, J. J., Moerbeek, M., & van de Schoot, R. (2017). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Humphrey, S. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., Meyer, C. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2007). Trait configurations in self-managed teams: A conceptual examination of the use of seeding for maximizing and minimizing trait variance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 885–892.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Judge, T. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). The bright and dark sides of personality: Implications for personnel selection in individual and team contexts. In J. Langen-Fox (Ed.), Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms (Vol. 1, pp. 332–355). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  45. Jung, M. F. (2016). Coupling interactions and performance: Predicting team performance from thin slices of conflict. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 23, 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  47. Kenny, D. A., Albright, L., Malloy, T. E., & Kashy, D. A. (1994). Consensus in interpersonal perception: Acquaintance and the big five. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 245–258.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Kenny, D. A., Mohr, C. D., & Levesque, M. J. (2001). A social relations variance partitioning of dyadic behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 128–141.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Kozlowski, S. W. (2015). Advancing research on team process dynamics: Theoretical, methodological, and measurement considerations. Organizational Psychology Review, 5, 270–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kozlowski, S. W., & Chao, G. T. (2012). The dynamics of emergence: Cognition and cohesion in work teams. Managerial and Decision Economics, 33, 335–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kozlowski, S. W., Chao, G. T., Grand, J. A., Braun, M. T., & Kuljanin, G. (2013). Advancing multilevel research design: Capturing the dynamics of emergence. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 581–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kozlowski, S. W., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., & Smith, E. M. (1999). Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. In Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 240–292).Google Scholar
  53. Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  55. Kozlowski, S. W. J., Ployhart, R. P., & Lim, B. C. (2010). The developmental role of team leaders. In C. Resick & D. Doty (Chairs), Current perspectives on leadership in collective work arrangements. Symposium presented at the 25th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  56. Kreft, I. G., De Leeuw, J., & Aiken, L. S. (1995). The effect of different forms of centering in hierarchical linear models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 1–21.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kristof-Brown, A., Barrick, M. R., & Kay Stevens, C. (2005). When opposites attract: A multi-sample demonstration of complementary person-team fit on extraversion. Journal of Personality, 73, 935–958.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. LePine, J. A., Buckman, B. R., Crawford, E. R., & Methot, J. R. (2011). A review of research on personality in teams: Accounting for pathways spanning levels of theory and analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mathieu, J. E., Kukenberger, M. R., D'innocenzo, L., & Reilly, G. (2015). Modeling reciprocal team cohesion–performance relationships, as impacted by shared leadership and members’ competence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 713–734.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2014). A review and integration of team composition models:moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40, 130–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 323–337.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mehta, A., Feild, H., Armenakis, A., & Mehta, N. (2009). Team goal orientation and team performance: The mediating role of team planning. Journal of Management, 35, 1026–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Moss, S. A., Garivaldis, F. J., & Toukhsati, S. R. (2007). The perceived similarity of other individuals: The contaminating effects of familiarity and neuroticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 401–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 697–713.Google Scholar
  68. Pieterse, A. N., van Knippenberg, D., & van Ginkel, W. P. (2011). Diversity in goal orientation, team reflexivity, and team performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Porter, C. O. (2005). Goal orientation: Effects on backing up behavior, performance, efficacy, and commitment in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 811.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Prewett, M. S., Walvoord, A. A., Stilson, F. R., Rossi, M. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2009). The team personality–team performance relationship revisited: The impact of criterion choice, pattern of workflow, and method of aggregation. Human Performance, 22, 273–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R., & Du Toit, M. (2011). HLM statistical software: Version 7. Computer software.Google Scholar
  73. Rosh, L., Offermann, L. R., & Van Diest, R. (2012). Too close for comfort? Distinguishing between team intimacy and team cohesion. Human Resource Management Review, 22, 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Salas, E., Estrada, A. X., & Vessey, W. B. (2015). Team cohesion: Advances in psychological theory, methods and practice. West Yorkshire, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Salas, E., Grossman, R., Hughes, A. M., & Coultas, C. W. (2015). Measuring team cohesion: Observations from the science. Human Factors, 57, 365–374.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors, 50, 540-547.Google Scholar
  77. Scherbaum, C. A., & Ferreter, J. M. (2009). Estimating statistical power and required sample sizes for organizational research using multilevel modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 347–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Scribner, J. P., Sawyer, R. K., Watson, S. T., & Myers, V. L. (2007). Teacher teams and distributed leadership: A study of group discourse and collaboration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 67–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Severt, J. B., & Estrada, A. X. (2015). On the function and structure of group cohesion. In E. Salas, W. B. Vessey, & A. X. Estrada (Eds.), Team cohesion: Advances in psychological theory, methods and practice (pp. 3–24). West Yorkshire, England: Emerald Group publishing limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Shuffler, M. L., DiazGranados, D., & Salas, E. (2011). There’s a science for that: Team development interventions in organizations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 365–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Shuffler, M. L., Diazgranados, D., Maynard, M. T., & Salas, E. (2018). Developing, sustaining, and maximizing team effectiveness: An integrative, dynamic perspective of team development interventions. Academy of Management Annals, 12, 688–724.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  82. Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Snyder, M., & Ickes, W. (1985). Personality and social behavior. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 883–948). New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
  84. Spector, P. E., Rosen, C. C., Richardson, H. A., Williams, L. J., & Johnson, R. E. (2017). A new perspective on method variance: A measure-centric approach. Journal of Management, Online First, 1–20.Google Scholar
  85. Spink, K. S., Ulvick, J. D., Crozier, A. J., & Wilson, K. S. (2014). Group cohesion and adherence in unstructured exercise groups. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15, 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Stewart, G. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of the multilevel role of personality in teams. In M. R. Barrick & A. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 183–204). San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  87. Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120–133.Google Scholar
  88. Sunnafrank, M., & Ramirez Jr., A. (2004). At first sight: Persistent relational effects of get-acquainted conversations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 361–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Taggar, S., & Neubert, M. J. (2008). A cognitive (attributions)-emotion model of observer reactions to free-riding poor performers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22, 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Tan, X., Shiyko, M., Li, R., Li, Y., & Dierker, L. (2012). Intensive longitudinal data and model with varying effects. Psychological Methods, 17, 61–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 34, 170–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tidwell, N. D., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Perceived, not actual, similarity predicts initial attraction in a live romantic context: Evidence from the speed-dating paradigm. Personal Relationships, 20, 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2, 419–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. van Vianen, A. E., & De Dreu, C. K. (2001). Personality in teams: Its relationship to social cohesion, task cohesion, and team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Van De Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. L., & Koenig, R. (1976). Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 41, 322–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 995–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. VandeWalle, D., Cron, W. L., & Slocum Jr., J. W. (2001). The role of goal orientation following performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 629–640.Google Scholar
  98. Waller, M. J., Okhuysen, G. A., & Saghafian, M. (2016). Conceptualizing emergent states: A strategy to advance the study of group dynamics. The Academy of Management Annals, 10, 561–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wang, M., Beal, D. J., Chan, D., Newman, D. A., Vancouver, J. B., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2017). Longitudinal research: A panel discussion on conceptual issues, research design, and statistical techniques. Work, Aging and Retirement, 3, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wildman, J. L., Shuffler, M. L., Lazzara, E. H., Fiore, S. M., Burke, C. S., Salas, E., & Garven, S. (2012). Trust development in swift starting action teams: A multilevel framework. Group & Organization Management, 37, 137–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Witt, L. A. (2002). The interactive effects of extraversion and conscientiousness on performance. Journal of Management, 28, 835–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Zhou, Y., Wang, K., Chen, S., Zhang, J., & Zhou, M. (2017). An exploratory investigation of the role of openness in relationship quality among emerging adult Chinese couples. Frontiers in Psychology, 8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Virginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.University of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations