Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierarchical decision-making teams: Much more than g.

LePine, Jeffery A.; Hollenbeck, John R.; Ilgen, Daniel R.; Hedlund, Jennifer

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.803

Cited by 244 publications

(188 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

173

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In a recent review of empirical research on this issue, Moynihan and Peterson (2001) concluded that the best method of aggregating dispositional scores depends upon the nature of the task, particularly the degree of task interdependence. This conclusion is consistent with earlier arguments put forth by LePine, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, and Hedlund (1997), Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, and Mount (1998), and Neuman and Wright (1998), who all noted that when interdependence among task members is low, an additive model (using averages) is most appropriate, but when interdependence is high, a conjunctive model (using lowest scores) is most appropriate. According to Moynihan and Peterson, a conjunctive model better captures highly interdependent teams because it reflects the fact that one team member can have a disproportionate impact on a team as a whole.…”

Section: Manipulations and Measuressupporting

confidence: 80%

Cooperation, Competition, and Team Performance: Toward a Contingency Approach.

Beersma¹,

Hollenbeck²,

Humphrey³

et al. 2003

Academy of Management Journal

362

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined whether the relationship between reward structure and team performance is contingent upon task dimension, team composition, and individual performance level. Seventy-five four-person teams engaged in a simulated interactive task in which reward structure was manipulated. A competitive structure enhanced one task dimension, speed, whereas a cooperative structure enhanced accuracy. Teams with extroverted and agreeable members performed better under the cooperative structure, whereas teams low on these orientations performed better under the competitive structure. Finally, reward structure had more impact on team members with low performance.The degree to which organizations should emphasize cooperation or competition among the members of work teams is an age-old controversy. Competitive systems embody equity norms and emphasize performance differences among team members, typically rewarding individuals with high performance and/or imposing sanctions on those with low performance. Therefore, some believe that competition promotes efficiency and innovation because it stimulates individuals to outperform each other by working faster, or "smarter," or cheaper, and the belief is that this activity will serve the long-term needs of their organization. Others believe that intrateam competition is destructive. In competing, individuals or subgroups place their own goals above those of the larger organization, and the gains achieved by one are often obtained at the expense of another. For this reason, some argue that the needs of the larger organization are better met by employing cooperative reward structures. Cooperative systems embody equality norms and emphasize group accomplishments. They emphasize minimizing distinctions among group members (that is, distinctions based on performance) because these distinctions may impede teamwork, information sharing, and helping.The inherent tension between competitive and cooperative reward structures has become particularly salient in contemporary organizations because many of these organizations are trying to make the transition from individual-based structures to team-based structures (Allred, Snow, & Miles, 1996). Some organizations that have transitioned into team-based structures over the last several years have left their reward structures unchanged. This lack of change resulted in a failure of teambased work to result in the supposed benefits (Hackman, 1998). Indeed, the consensus in the scientific literature regarding competitive and collaborative rewards structures is quite clear in its sup-

show abstract

Section: Manipulations and Measuressupporting

confidence: 80%

Cooperation, Competition, and Team Performance: Toward a Contingency Approach.

Beersma¹,

Hollenbeck²,

Humphrey³

et al. 2003

Academy of Management Journal

362

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Team members' average cognitive ability is related to team performance among military tank crews (Tziner & Eden, 1985), assembly and maintenance teams (Barrick et al, 1998), and service teams (Neuman & Wright, 1999). In addition, LePine, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, and Hedlund (1997) found that the performance of hierarchical decisionmaking teams was enhanced when both the leader and staff were high in cognitive ability.…”

Section: Dispositions and Abilitiesmentioning

confidence: 95%

Work Groups and Teams in Organizations

Kozlowski

Bell

2012

Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition

537

678

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract[Excerpt] Our objective in this chapter is to provide an integrative perspective on work groups and teams in organizations, one that addresses primary foci of theory and research, highlights applied implications, and identifies key issues in need of research attention and resolution. Given the volume of existing reviews, our review is not intended to be exhaustive. Rather, it uses representative work to characterize key topics, and focuses on recent work that breaks new ground to help move theory and research forward. Although our approach risks trading breadth for depth, we believe that there is much value in taking a more integrative view of the important areas of team research, identifying key research themes, and linking the themes and disparate topics closer together. To the extent that we identify new and necessary areas of theory development and research, the value of this approach will be evident. We would like to acknowledge several colleagues who provided insightful comments on an initial outline or draft of this chapter. Our thanks to Neil Anderson, Murray Barrick, Jan Cannon-Bowers, Paul Goodman, Stan Gully, Cyn D. Fisher, Richard Hackman, John Hollenbeck, Susan Jackson, Michelle Marks, John Mathieu, Susan Mohamed, Greg Stewart, Anne Tsui, Eduardo Salas, Ruth Wageman, Wang Zhong-Ming, and Michael West. Thanks also to Richard Klimoski for his helpful editorial guidance throughout. We would also like to acknowledge the Air Force Office of Scientific Research for support (F49620-98-1-0363 and F49620-01-1-0283, S.W.J. Kozlowski and R.P. DeShon, Principal Investigators) that in part assisted the composition of this chapter. Although many sources provided inputs to this chapter, the views expressed are those of the authors. Work Groups and Teams RESEARCH ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Research IssuesContext.Task Interdependence. Levels.Time. Research RecommendationsThe Nature of Teams.Composition.Formation, Socialization, and Development.Team Effectiveness, Processes, and Enhancements.Leadership and Motivation.Continuance and Decline. Conclusion Work Groups and Teams 4The last decade and a half has witnessed a remarkable transformation of organizational structures worldwide. Although there are economic, strategic, and technological imperatives driving this transformation, one of its more compelling aspects has been an ongoing shift from work organized around individual jobs to team-based work structures (Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1995 This ongoing transformation in the basic organization of work has captured the attention of researchers and is reflected by new theories of team functioning, a rapidly growing number of empirical studies, and numerous literature reviews written on the burgeoning research on teams. It is also reflected in a shift in the locus of team research. For most of its history, small group research has been centered in social psychology (McGrath, 1997). Over the last 15 years, however, group and team research has become increasingly centered in the fields of organizational psycho...

show abstract

“…Several researchers have presented models that discuss the theoretical relationship between individual and team-level constructs (e.g., House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995;Rousseau, 1985). Other researchers have presented theoretical guidelines for conceptualizing constructs and theories (e.g., Chan, 1998;Harrison & Klein, 2007;Klein et al, 1994) or have utilized task dimensions to conceptualize individual attributes in teams (e.g., Barrick et al, 1998;LePine, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, & Hedlund, 1997).…”

Section: From Individual Attribute Composition To Role Compositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: A role composition model of team performance.

Humphrey

Morgeson

Mannor

2009

Journal of Applied Psychology

240

291

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although numerous models of team performance have been articulated over the past 20 years, these models have primarily focused on the individual attribute approach to team composition. The authors utilized a role composition approach, which investigates how the characteristics of a set of role holders impact team effectiveness, to develop a theory of the strategic core of teams. Their theory suggests that certain team roles are most important for team performance and that the characteristics of the role holders in the "core" of the team are more important for overall team performance. This theory was tested in 778 teams drawn from 29 years of major league baseball (1974 -2002). Results demonstrate that although high levels of experience and job-related skill are important predictors of team performance, the relationships between these constructs and team performance are significantly stronger when the characteristics are possessed by core role holders (as opposed to non-core role holders). Further, teams that invest more of their financial resources in these core roles are able to leverage such investments into significantly improved performance. These results have implications for team composition models, as they suggest a new method for considering individual contributions to a team's success that shifts the focus onto core roles.

show abstract

Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierarchical decision-making teams: Much more than g.

Cited by 244 publications

References 34 publications

Cooperation, Competition, and Team Performance: Toward a Contingency Approach.

Cooperation, Competition, and Team Performance: Toward a Contingency Approach.

Work Groups and Teams in Organizations

Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: A role composition model of team performance.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About