The power of “we”: Effects of psychological collectivism on team performance over time.

Abstract

We examined the influences of different facets of psychological collectivism (Preference, Reliance, Concern, Norm Acceptance, and Goal Priority) on team functioning at 3 different performance depictions: initial team performance, end-state team performance, and team performance change over time. We also tested the extent to which team-member exchange moderated the relationships between facets of psychological collectivism and performance change over time. Results from multilevel growth modeling of 66 teams (N = 264) engaged in a business simulation revealed differential effects across facets of psychological collectivism and across different performance measurements. Whereas facets concerned with affiliation (Preference and Concern) were positively related to initial team performance, reliance was negatively related to initial team performance. Goal Priority was a strong predictor of end-state performance. Team-member exchange moderated the relationship between performance change and 3 of the 5 facets of psychological collectivism (Preference, Reliance, Norm Acceptance). Implications for team composition and team training are discussed.

A Literature Review of Team-Member Exchange and Prospects

“…Seers (1989) argues that in a self-management team, team members attitude and engagement towards work are related to such reciprocal relationship between team members [5]. Specifically, the higher the quality of TMX, the stronger the reciprocity between the members will be [12].…”

Modeling team knowledge sharing and team flexibility: The role of within-team competition

“…The extant literature indicates that collectivism helps to explain the degree of team orientation to which the members stress teamwork in performing team activities and in making collective decisions (Salas et al, 2005;Salas et al, 2007;Thakkar et al, 2011). Research shows that team collectivism positively relates to effective team functioning (Dierdorff et al, 2011). Collectivism is associated with a high degree of acceptance of group norms, a strong concern for the well-being of the group, a strong orientation toward group goals, and a tendency toward positive social interaction (e.g., within-team competition) in group contexts (Dierdorff et al, 2011;Triandis et al, 1988).…”

“…Research shows that team collectivism positively relates to effective team functioning (Dierdorff et al, 2011). Collectivism is associated with a high degree of acceptance of group norms, a strong concern for the well-being of the group, a strong orientation toward group goals, and a tendency toward positive social interaction (e.g., within-team competition) in group contexts (Dierdorff et al, 2011;Triandis et al, 1988). A team is likely to be permeated by a collectivist culture when the demands and interests of the team take priority over the desires and needs of the individuals on the team (Triandis and Gelfand, 1998), which is suggestive of a positive influence on team development competition and a negative effect on team hypercompetition.…”

Opting Out: The Effects of Consumer Information Sharing Concern on Perceived Value in E-Banking Service Relationships

“…Allocentrism (also known as psychological collectivism) and idiocentrism refer to individual level differences (vs. cultural) with regard to the primacy of group goals and the pursuit of personal autonomy. Psychological collectivism has been demonstrated as a key determinant of team member cooperation, citizenship behaviors, task performance and team member withdrawal behavior (Dierdorff, Bell, & Belohlav, 2011;Jackson, Colquitt, Wesson, & Zapata-Phelan, 2006).…”