For better or for worse: The effect of superior and inferior teammate performance on changes in challenge/threat cardiovascular responses

Abstract

Although much research has investigated the consequences of working with teammates, little research has addressed the effect of team processes on changes in motivational states and associated cardiovascular responses. Filling this gap, we utilized the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat to examine the effect of teammate performance on evaluations of resources and demands in a team performance situation. It was hypothesized that, assuming team identity engagement, individuals who worked with superior teammates would perceive more resources available to them and exhibit a challenge response (a physiological change that indicates relatively high perceived resources), whereas individuals who worked with inferior teammates would perceive less resources and exhibit a threat response (a physiological change that indicates relatively low perceived resources). For four weeks, 38 teams completed team-building exercises and competed in an anagram tournament, during which measures of cardiovascular reactivity were collected. Participants teamed with two confederates who were either inferior or superior performers. The results of the study revealed that despite the fact that they were the best performers on their team, individuals who worked with inferior teammates were threatened. However, individuals who worked with superior teammates were challenged. Explanations of the observed findings and applications for work/organizational contexts are discussed.

Keywords:

• Cardiovascular reactivity
• Challenge
• Motivation
• Team building
• Team identity
• Threat

Notes

 ¹Participants were told that they would be competing, returning to the laboratory for a third competition round (Week 5) in order to maintain task engagement during the second competition round (Week 4). If participants expected the second round of the competition to be the last one, they may have disengaged as they may have perceived that they would not win the tournament.

 ²A total of 45 participants completed the study. Seven participants completed all elements of the study but were excluded from analyses: four participants yielded cardiovascular data which were impossible to score reliably due to poor impedance cardiograph signal quality (i.e., ambiguous aortic valve opening); two participants were excluded due to experimenter error in conducting the study; one participant was excluded because she was suspicious of the use of confederates in the study and reported this suspicion during the debriefing.

 ³We also examined intragroup comparisons to determine any effects of individual or paired confederates on cardiovascular reactivity. Although we lacked adequate power to detect differences less than Cohen's d = 1.20, we did not observe any differences between confederates that suggested that our results were driven by any one confederate or any confederate pair.

 ⁴ Anagram performance. Recall that each participant was given the opportunity to solve 12 anagrams during each competition. Anagram performance was assessed by calculating the number of anagrams that were correctly solved as well as the average amount of time in milliseconds it took for the participant to solve each anagram. A single anagram performance index was calculated by converting the number of anagrams correctly solved and the average time to complete each anagram into z-scores and summing them. For Phase 2, an independent-samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the effects of teammate performance condition on anagram performance. The t-test did not reveal a significant effect, t(38) = 0.888, p = .378. Participants who were teamed with inferior teammates did not perform significantly better or worse (M = 0.1356, SD = 1.24) relative to those who were teamed with superior teammates (M = −0.1325, SD = 1.16). For Phase 3, an independent-samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the effect of teammate performance on anagram performance. The results of the t-test did not reveal any significant results (M = −0.0012, SD = 1.300). For Phase 4, an independent-samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the effects of team status and teammate performance on anagram performance. The results of the t-test did not reveal any significant results (M = −0.0008, SD = 1.111).