Individualism–collectivism and team member performance: Another look

Abstract

Summary This study revisits the commonplace research conclusion that greater team member collectivism, as opposed to individualism, is associated with higher levels of individual‐level performance in teams. Whereas this conclusion is based on the assumption that work in teams consists exclusively of tasks that are shared, typical teamwork also includes tasks that are individualized. Results of a laboratory study of 206 participants performing a mix of individualized and shared tasks in four‐person teams indicate that heterogeneous combinations of individualism and collectivism are associated with higher levels of team member performance, measured as quantity of output, when loose structural interdependence enables individual differences in individualism–collectivism to exert meaningful effects. These results support the modified conclusion that a combination of individualism and collectivism is associated with higher levels of member performance in teams under typical work conditions; that is, conditions in which the tasks of individual members are both individualized and shared. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Perceptions of Task Interdependence and Functional Leadership in Schools

“…Some scholars (e.g., Chen et al, 1998;Earley & Gibson, 1998;LePine, Hanson, Borman & Motowidlo, 2000) have suggested, because of the emphasis collectivists place on shared responsibility, collectivism should be related positively to team performance. A number of studies (e.g., Campion et al, 1993;Eby & Dobbins, 1997) have provided empirical support for this contention prompting some scholars (e.g., Driskell & Salas, 1992;Miles, 2000) to conclude that a collectivistic orientation likely influences the performance of individuals in teams (Wagner, Humphrey, Meyer & Hollenbeck, 2012).…”

The effects of hybrid pay incentives on work-team performance: A longitudinal study

“…The challenge for organisations is to create the balance between collaborative and competitive tendencies for individuals within their firms. This is at the heart of how firms can optimise human resource efforts in support of the firm's objectives (Wagner, Humphrey, Meyer & Hollenbeck, 2012). This study examines the effectiveness of combining team design and incentive methods to increase the performance levels of staff over time.…”

“…Firms tend to structure financial incentives in the hope they will support their desired outcomes (Jenkins et al, 1998;Wagner et al, 2012). Part of the intention in the deliberate structuring of rewards by firms is to support the necessary level of interdependencies within and among teams, and among individuals (Jenkins, et al, 1998;Wageman, 1995;Wagner, et al, 2012).…”

“…Part of the intention in the deliberate structuring of rewards by firms is to support the necessary level of interdependencies within and among teams, and among individuals (Jenkins, et al, 1998;Wageman, 1995;Wagner, et al, 2012). Despite the prevalence of work teams within organisations (Devine et al, 1999), extant literature shows a gap in studies on the combined effects of direct and hybrid pay incentives on team performance over time.…”

“…These and many other intervening variables such as task structure and reward structures (Wageman & Baker, 1997;Crawford & LePine, 2013) and autonomy preferences (Wageman, 1995;Wagner, et al, 2012) make the structuring of incentive programs highly complex. A number of researchers (Barnes et al, 2011;Beersma et al, 2003;Shaw et al, 2002) advocate the use of hybrid incentive schemes as the ideal mix to use within the team structure, as hybrids provide the best combination of the benefits accruing from individually motivated effort and group-based extrinsic effects and reinforcement (DeMatteo, Eby, & Sundstrom, 1998;Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).…”