Group Personality Composition and Performance in Military Service Teams

REFERENCES

• Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K.,& Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives:Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 ,715–722.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, J. M., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377–391.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 43–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 62–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–850.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853–863.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO–PI–R) and five-factor inventory (NEO–FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
   Google Scholar
• Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. In M. R. Rosenweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 417–440). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
   Google Scholar
• Driskell, J. E., Hogan, R., & Salas, E. (1988). Personality and group performance. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 91–112.
   Google Scholar
• Frei, R. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (1998). Validity of customer service measures in personnel selection: A review of criterion and construct evidence. Human Performance, 11, 1–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hackman, J. R. (1976). Group influences on individuals. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 199–267). Chicago: Rand-McNally.
   Google Scholar
• Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). New York: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Halfhill, T. R., Huff, J. W., Sundstrom, E., & Nielsen, T. M. (2003). Group personality composition and work team effectiveness: Key factor in staffing the team-based organization? In M. Beyerlein, D. Johnson, & S. Beyerlein (Eds.), Team based organizing: Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (Vol. 9, pp. 147–168). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Halfhill, T. R., Sundstrom, E., Lahner, J. E., Calderone, W. S., & Nielsen, T. M. (2005). Group personality composition and group effectiveness: An integrative review of empirical research. Small Group Research, 36, 83–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halfhill, T. R., Sundstrom, E., & Nielsen, T. M. (2001, April). Military work team personality composition, norms, and effectiveness. Paper presented at the 16th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Heslin, R. (1964). Predicting group task effectiveness from member characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 248–256.
   Google Scholar
• Hough, L. M. (1992). The “Big-Five” personality variables—Construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–155.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 675–689.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group inter-rater agreement with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E. (1998). Strategies for high performance organizations: Employee involvement, TQM, and reengineering programs in Fortune 1,000 corporations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Hedlund, J. (1997). Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierarchical decision-making teams: Much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 803–811.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationships between personality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241–270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1988). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1992). The composition of small groups. Advances in Group Processes, 9, 237–280.
   Google Scholar
• Moritz, S. E., & Watson, C. B. (1998). Levels of analysis issues in group psychology: Using efficacy as an example of a multilevel model. Group Dynamics, 2, 285–298.
   Google Scholar
• Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuman, G. A. (2000). Personality: An IPO model of team effectiveness. Unpublished manuscript, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb.
   Google Scholar
• Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. (1999). The relationship between work-team personality composition and the job performance of teams. Group & Organization Management, 24, 28–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. (1999). Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 376–389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, T. M., Soulen, S. K., Halfhill, T., & Sundstrom, E. (2003). Team norms, task interdependence, and performance: A longitudinal analysis. Paper presented at the 2003 American Psychological Society Convention, Atlanta, GA.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, T. M., Sundstrom, E., & Halfhill, T. ( in press). Group dynamics and effectiveness: Five years of applied research. In S. A. Wheelan (Ed.), Handbook of group research and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Steiner, I. D., & Vannoy, J. S. (1966). Personality correlates of two types of conformity behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 307–315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundstrom, E. (1999). Challenges of supporting work team effectiveness. In E. Sundstrom & Associates (Eds.), Supporting work team effectiveness: Best management practices for fostering high performance (pp. 3–23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundstrom, E., McIntyre, M., Halfhill, T. R., & Richards, H. (2000). Work groups: From the Hawthorne studies to work teams of the 1990s and beyond. Group Dynamics, 4, 44–67.
   Google Scholar
• Tziner, A., & Eden, D. (1985). Effects of crew composition on crew performance: Does the whole equal the sum of the parts? Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 85–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar