Trait configurations in self-managed teams: A conceptual examination of the use of seeding for maximizing and minimizing trait variance in teams.

Abstract

In this article, the authors argue that there is no one best way to make placement decisions on self-managed teams. Drawing from theories of supplementary and complementary fit, they develop a conceptual model that suggests that (a) maximization principles should be applied to extroversion variance (i.e., complementary fit), (b) minimization principles should be applied to conscientiousness variance (i.e., supplementary fit), and (c) extroversion variance and conscientiousness variance interact to influence team performance. They also argue that previous research has underestimated the effect of extroversion and conscientiousness variance on performance because of suboptimal design. The authors, therefore, present an alternative method for making team placement decisions (i.e., seeding) that can be used to maximize or minimize variance in teams.

Facing Differences With an Open Mind: Openness to Experience, Salience of Intragroup Differences, and Performance of Diverse Work Groups

“…However, although several authors have argued that individual differences are important determinants of attitudes toward differences in teams (e.g., Strauss et al, 2003), previous studies have focused mainly on how personality characteristics predict stereotyping and intergroup bias at the individual level. Consistent with previous suggestions that it is important to consider group personality composition when examining group functioning (e.g., Humphrey, Hollenbeck, Meyer, & Ilgen, 2007), the present study showed that a group's composition in terms of openness to experience also affects performance and the way diversity is dealt with at the group level.…”

Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature.

“…First, highly interdependent jobs provide increased contact and more opportunities to communicate what each worker requires (Salas, Rozell, Mullen, & Driskell, 1999), what is expected in return (Seers, Petty, & Cashman, 1995), and what each worker is doing (Humphrey, Hollenbeck, Meyer, & Ilgen, 2007). That is, this contact helps bound individual roles (Alderfer & Smith, 1982) by clarifying the roles that each individual fills (Tuckman, 1965).…”

Expressing religious identities in the workplace: Analyzing a neglected diversity dimension

“…If deep-level diversity exists with regard to personality traits, one could prevent conflicts by, for example, taking personality into account when assembling the team (Humphrey et al, 2007). In the case of religious diversity, by contrast, conflicts may be prevented by coaching (1) actors concerning how to express their religious identities and (2) perceivers how to interpret actors' expression of religious identities (see King EB et al, 2010) and by establishing within the organizational culture certain norms in this regard (Ragins, 2008).…”