Psychological diversity and team

interaction processes
A study of oil-drilling work teams in Nigeria
Olukayode A. Afolabi
Department of Psychology, Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma, Edo State,
Nigeria, and
Benjamin Osayawe Ehigie
Department of Psychology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
Abstract
Purpose To examine how psychological diversity among work team members affects team
interaction processes. Psychological diversity is described in terms of personality attributes (emotional
stability, extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and agreeableness), need for
achievement (nAch), and emotional intelligence. Team interaction processes include workload sharing,
team communication, member exibility, social cohesion, team viability.
Design/methodology/approach A survey research was conducted that involved 1,421
oil-drilling workers in 54 work teams. The participants were drawn from ve major oil drilling
companies in Nigeria. Standardized measures were used to collect data on each of the variables
examined.
Findings It was found that each of the measures of team interaction processes is predicted by
different psychological diversity measures. However, emotional stability, extraversion, agreeableness
and emotional intelligence are signicant in predicting overall team interaction processes.
Research limitations/implications The psychological diversity measures examined are not
exhaustive. It is also not clear the extent to which the ndings can be generalized to other work
settings that are different from oil-drilling companies.
Practical implications Human resources management in organizations that work in teams needs
to include in their selection programs, psychological measures for identifying applicants who possess
requisite psychological features for team work.
Originality/value Study of the efcacy of psychological variables in enhancing work teams in oil
drilling rms in Nigeria.
Keywords Nigeria, Oil industry, Teams, Team working, Individual behaviour, Personnel psychology
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Across the globe, there has been an increasing shift from work organized around
individual jobs to team-based work structures. Organizations believe that this will
bring about maximum customer satisfaction (Barrick et al., 1998). Groups became a
new focus of attention in the 1940s after the Hawthorne studies were published
(Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939). A team is a formal work group, consists of
interdependent workers with complementary skills working toward a shared goal
(Riggio, 2003). Teams therefore breed psychological diversity, resulting from
differences in team member composition. Psychological diversity refers to
differences in underlying attributes of members, which include human features like
skills, abilities, personality characteristics, and attitudes (Landy and Conte, 2004).
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7592.htm
TPM
11,7/8
280
Team Performance Management
Vol. 11 No. 7/8, 2005
pp. 280-301
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1352-7592
DOI 10.1108/13527590510635161
Invariably, a work team is a heterogeneous group. While studies have shown that
heterogeneous teams outperform homogeneous teams (e.g. Magjuka and Baldwin,
1991; McGrath, 1984), it is also revealed that heterogeneous teams have greater
difculty coordinating their efforts (Illgen, 1999). Thus, psychological diversity is a
double-edged sword that provides both great challenges and great opportunities for
teams and organizations (Milliken and Martins, 1996). The problem arising, therefore,
is how to manage psychological diversity in teams to achieve desirable outcomes.
Getting a team to achieve maximum performance requires selecting the right people
with relevant knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) for a
particular team task (LePine et al., 2000b; Stevens and Campion, 1999). It is
acknowledged that effective team members should possess the kind of characteristics
that will make them highly functional in the team (Stevens and Campion, 1999).
Identication of characteristics that would facilitate team effectiveness calls for
scientic research. Though studies abound on teams and performance but the type of
task performed is relevant (Baker et al., 1998) as research outcomes cannot be
generalized to all team tasks. The impact of diversity on team performance is, thus,
dependent on the type of task performed (Jehn et al., 1999).
Different kinds of teams exist to perform different tasks in the workplace; among
these is the production team. A production team is an autonomous work group that
produces tangible output (Landy and Conte, 2004). Zigon (1998) reports that many US
oil companies use self-directed and cross-functional work teams, which are types of
production teams (Landy and Conte, 2004). Oil drilling teams are made up of core team
members (geologist, reservoir engineer, production engineer, land person, foreman)
and oating team members (geophysicist, drilling engineer, environmental staff,
technicians). The core team members are permanently assigned to specic geographic
regions, while the oating team members lend their expertise to several core teams.
The use of work teams has been on the increase (see McCreery and Bloom, 2000).
This is basically because teams are important to organizational effectiveness
(McCreery and Bloom, 2000; Mohrman et al., 1995). In contemporary times in Nigeria,
the use of work teams is increasing. Odili (2000) reports that Texaco Incorporation in
Nigeria witnessed decline in oil eld that led to re-engineering of its operations and the
introduction of work teams in 1992. The consequence was increased production from
80,000 barrels a day in the early 1990s to above 100,000 by 1998; production per worker
surged from 150 to 250 barrels a day. With this success story, other oil companies in
Nigeria like Mobil, Agip, Schlumberger, NNPC, and Chevron adopted work teams
(Odili, 2000). However, Olawepo (2001) reports that some organizations that engaged
work teams in Nigeria did not benet from it. Mohsen and Nguyen (2000) report also,
the failure of Chevron Oil Company in Nigeria to achieve efciency with work teams
until a restructuring was initiated that focused on self-managed work process teams
(empowerment). Thus, the introduction of work teams alone is not sufcient to gain the
efciency desired.
Though work teams continue to expand (Sundstrom et al., 2000), some scholars
have reported that teams do not always produce the desired results (e.g. Weiss et al.,
1992; Rice and Schneider, 1994). Contemporary researchers have attributed this to the
conditions teams and team works are executed (Hackman, 1998; Stewart and Barrick,
2000). Psychologists are, thus, challenged with team composition and team processes
(Landy and Conte, 2004). The focus is drawn from the Input-Process-Output model of
Team interaction
processes
281
team effectiveness (Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987). The input-process-output model
proposes that inputs have direct effects on team outputs (Campion et al., 993) and
indirect effects on outputs through team processes (Landy and Conte, 2004). Most
studies on teams have focused on the input-performance model with less concern for
the input-process aspect of the model.
Processes are the operations within a team that permit it to function smoothly and
efciently (Muchinsky, 2003). Hackman (1987, p. 315) denes it as the interaction that
takes place among members. The way groups operate and how group membership is
set up are aspects of group processes and are crucial to management and
organizational effectiveness (Torrington and Weightman, 1994). The variables that
reect these intragroup process include team viability, team communication, social
cohesiveness, workload sharing, and member exibility (see Barrick et al., 1998;
Huszczo;, 1996; Wellins et al., 1994). These variables contribute to team-member
effectiveness (Spencer and Spencer, 1993) and mediate between input and output
(Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987). Gladstein (1984) suggests that there is substantial
overlap among the process measures. Based on this, it is hypothesized in the present
study that all the measures of team interaction processes will correlate positively
among themselves.
Team viability is the capability of the members of a team to continue working
together. Such cooperative spirit makes a team develop long-term capability to work
interdependently (Hackman, 1990). Team cohesion is the degree to which team
members desire to remain in the team, and are committed or attracted to the teams
goal (Forsyth, 1990). Most studies have tried to relate team cohesion with team
performance (e.g. Goodman et al., 1987; Mullen and Cooper, 1994) with few related with
team composition. Studies relating team cohesion with member composition have
centered on demographic features of teams. For instance, Jehn et al. (1997) argue that
one of the quickest ways to reduce group cohesion is to make the composition of the
group more diverse as to gender, race, and organizational status. While these relate to
demographic diversity, it is expedient to expand studies on how psychological
diversity affects group cohesion. Studies on team cohesion are essential for
understanding team effectiveness because members of less interacting teams are
expected to be less concerned about the teams activities (Bar-On et al., 1992). Green
(2001) found that members of highly interacting groups held uniform opinions and
usually acted in conformity with group standards. Members of a team that interact
positively, according to Green (1989), are better satised with the team than are
members of non-interacting teams. Research shows that successful teams manifest
diversity in their members (Muchinsky, 2003). A problem for research is discovering
what these diversities are and how such diversities affect team cohesion. The roles
team viability and team cohesion play for the realization of team effectiveness, raises
the question of what factors of psychological diversity would promote both?
Another team process is workload sharing, which is the ability of team members to
do their fair share of the work. The major difference between successful teamwork and
unsuccessful teamwork is largely based upon team members sharing common goals
and working together to achieve them (Johnson and Johnson, 1995; Scarnati, 2001).
Harris and Harris (1996) explain that teams are successful and effective when they
overcome difculties; achieved through interdependence. Workload sharing creates the
opportunity for social interdependence (Johnson and Johnson, 1999). Closely related to
TPM
11,7/8
282
workload sharing is member exibility, which is the extent to which members of a
team are adaptable. Both workload sharing and team exibility are essential for team
effectiveness but what personnel variables would promote these in work teams?
Team communication, another team process, is the sharing of information among
team members to reach a common understanding. Formal, regularly scheduled
meetings are held among production team members to discuss team progress and
ensure that members are communicating and working interdependently to reach their
production goals (Landy and Conte, 2004). Team members communication skills
predict team performance (Dionne, 1998). But what personnel qualities would
encourage team communication?
Answers to the foregoing questions are found among the input variables of the
input-process-output model. A signicant personnel aspect of the input-variable is
team composition. This relates to the attributes of team members such as knowledge,
skills, abilities, experiences, and personality characteristics (Guzzo and Dickson, 1996).
Studies abound on the knowledge, skills, and abilities required of workers organized
into teams (e.g. Klimoski and Jones 1995; Stevens and Campion, 1994). The studies
show that knowledge, skill, and ability (KSA) test scores correlate positively with
supervisor and peer-ratings of teamwork and overall performance (Stevens and
Campion, 1999). The relationship between intelligence and team outcomes has also
been examined in a couple of studies (e.g. Barrick et al., 1998; Stevens and Campion,
1994). However, Goleman (1995) asserts that only 20 percent of the variance of peoples
professional, interpersonal and social success is accounted for by cognitive
intelligence. It is argued that the remaining 80 percent is explained by personality
traits, motivation and multiple interpersonal and social abilities of which emotional
intelligence is one (Bar-On and Parker, 2000). Based on this argument, the
input-variables of interest in the present study, which serve as psychological
diversity of teams are emotional intelligence, personality and motivation.
Emotional intelligence is the ability to monitor ones own and others feelings and
emotions, to discriminate among them and use this information to guide ones thinking
and actions (Salovey and Mayer, 1990). Individuals high on emotional intelligence defer
immediate gratication and exhibit self-control in order to optimize pleasure over their
lifetime. Also, they display enlightened self-interest by engaging in activities that are
both pro-individual and pro-social (Goleman, 1995). They neither over-repress nor
over-express emotionality, but rather feel emotions exibly and appropriately to the
situation (Mayer and Salovey, 1995).
Researchers are becoming interested on the inuence of emotional intelligence on
team processes (Robins, 2002). Regardless of the constructs slow evolution, numerous
researchers do insist that emotional intelligence is real and should be a valuable and
necessary component of every work force, especially the work team (Folkerts, 2002).
Emotional intelligence is believed to enhance social responsibility, problem solving,
reality testing, stress tolerance, impulse control and happiness. These conditions could
create positive atmosphere among team members. Work teams with fairly high
emotional intelligence are found to have indicated their willingness to continue to work
together (Fisher, 1998). It is opined that emotional intelligence affects team interaction
processes (Folkerts, 2002; Williams, 2000). Researchers found positive relationship
between emotional intelligence and team cohesiveness (e.g. Almandar, 2002; Ashforth
and Humphry, 1995; Janovics and Christiansen, 2001; Ratzburg, 2002). Any team that
Team interaction
processes
283
is cohesive has an above average emotional intelligence (Stein and Book, 1999) and
everyone needs to be emotionally intelligent in order to succeed in any task (Cory,
2000). It is predicted in the present study that, among oil-drilling teams, emotional
intelligence will correlate positively with each of the dimensions of team processes.
Some writers have, however, argued that emotional intelligence is simply a subset of
personality (Barrett et al., 2001). It will also be necessary to examine if emotional
intelligence correlates with dimensions of personality.
Personality traits, though relevant in everyday behavior, is often ignored in
contemporary personality assessment (Wu and Clark, 2003). It is reported that
systematic research on personality predictors of team performance is relatively new
(Landy and Conte, 2004, p. 492). But personality measures are benecial for selecting
employees who will work well in teams. Some researches on the effects of group
composition have examined the inuence of group-member personality on team
outcomes (e.g. van Vianen and De Dreu, 2001). Personality traits of team members are
reported as important predictors of team performance (Burcheld, 1997, Huszczo,
1996). It is necessary to investigate the effects of team composition, in terms of
personality of team members, on team processes. Most studies on teams have been
conducted in laboratory settings rather than eld settings, using creativity as
performance measures. It is important to examine how studies in the laboratory can be
generalized to the eld. Also studies on personality have been common at individual
level (e.g. (Barrick and Mount, 1991; Mount and Barrick, 1995). The extent to which
results obtained on individual level can be generalized to team level needs to be
examined. These form the basis for the present study.
The most talked about personality theory is the ve-factor theory, also known as
the Big Five (Wiggins, 1996). The Big Five dimensions, according to McCrae and Costa
(1987), include emotional stability, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and
openness to experience. Low emotional stability personality is associated with fear,
guilt, disgust, sadness, anger, and embarrassment that cause signicant emotional
distress as well as irrational thinking, impulsiveness, and poor coping. High
extraversion personality tend to like large groups and gatherings, be outgoing and
social, assertive and talkative. They have strong social needs, and may have trouble
being alone. Those who are oriented to openness to experience tend to be more curious
and tolerant of differences. They experience a greater range of emotions and feel them
more intensely, are focused on better understanding their own and others worlds and
have greater empathy for others. They may entertain novel or unconventional ideas,
question authority, and be more creative and intelligent. Those exhibiting
agreeableness tend to be altruistic, optimistic, and sympathetic to others. They may
be more popular, but may have difculty standing up for their beliefs and seen as
gullible by some. They may give too much, too easily, and hurt themselves in the
process. Those who exhibit conscientiousness lead ordered lives and can control their
impulses, work towards their desires and show self-control in resisting temptations.
They plan and follow through to reach their goals. They put business before
pleasure, and are likely to be seen as hardworking, reliable, and persevering.
Team-level conscientiousness seems to be fairly consistent in its positive prediction
of team effectiveness (Barrick et al., 1998). Barry and Stewart (1997) found that
extraverts were perceived by other team members as having greater effect than
introverts on team outcomes, but no correlation was found between conscientiousness
TPM
11,7/8
284
and performance. Their results also show a curvilinear relationship between the
proportion of individuals who are high on extraversion and team performance. Other
studies by Barrick et al. (1998) show that teams composed of members higher in
conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability received higher
supervisor ratings of team performance. Barrick et al. (1998) found that agreeableness
factor predicted ratings of the interpersonal skills of team members. The more
agreeable each member is, the more likely the team is to work together cooperatively.
Viability criterion is inuenced by personality traits associated with positive social
interaction that fosters cooperation and trust (Forsyth, 1990). In contrast, low
emotional stability, or negative affectivity suppress or inhibit cooperation (Heslin,
1964). George (1990) reported that teams with negative effective tones engaged in less
prosocial behaviour. Extraverts are likely to have higher positive affectivity (Watson
and Clark, 1984), which increases social cohesion.
The inuence of personality on team outcomes is a function of the type of task
(Kozlowski and Bell, 2003). For instance, team-level conscientiousness is more strongly
related to effectiveness for performance and planning tasks than for creativity and
decision-making tasks, whereas team-level extraversion has greater impact on team
effectiveness for decision-making tasks than for performance or planning tasks (Barry
and Stewart, 1997; Newman and Wright, 1999). Team conscientiousness and openness
did not predict team decision effectiveness (LePine et al., 2000a). Following these
reports, it is reasoned that type of task could interfere with the relationship between
personality attributes and team processes hence the present study is focused on
oil-drilling teams. It is hypothesized, however, that the ve personality attributes will
correlate with each of the dimensions of team processes and overall score on team
processes among oil-drilling teams.
One of the prominent theories of motivation is the need-achievement
motivational model (McClelland, 1961). Need for achievement (nAch) is a desire
or a tendency to overcome obstacles, to exercise power, and to strive for
something difcult as quickly as possible (Murray, 1938). It is a latent disposition
to engage in a task in order to attain a standard of excellence. The need for
achievement theory predicts that individuals who are high in nAch perform task
activities with stimulated interest and are more likely to devote themselves to
doing well in different spheres of activities (McClelland, 1961). These individuals
have the expectations that performances are evaluated in terms of standard of
excellence. As they do not wish to be failures, they undertake achievement-oriented
activities. Their achievement-oriented behavior is informed by the conict between
the opposing tendencies to achieve success and to avoid failure.
Atkinson and Feather (1966) posit that individuals of high need for achievement
possess the strongest likelihood of attempting a task of intermediate difculty,
compared to their low need for achievement counterparts who pursue easy or too
difcult tasks. Low nAch individuals pursue easy task because of the certainty for
success, but pursue difcult tasks so as to rationalize any failures. People with high
need for achievement believe that, attaining achievement in any sphere of their
endeavors heavily rests on their skills as they easily utilize avenues to improve this.
This suggests that high need for achievement individuals would not be as effective in
teams as they would on independent tasks, so as to be solely associated with success.
Employees of high need for achievement are attracted to work in teams if the
Team interaction
processes
285
organizations implements merit-based pay, because their accomplishments are
recognized (Turban and Keon, 1993).
Given their strong desire to excel, studies have reported that people high in
achievement motivation attain greater success in their careers than others
(McClelland, 1977; Turban and Keon, 1993). At the team level, team members who
are high in achievement motivation have more concern about the success of the
team (Zander and Forward, 1968). Oni and Kayode (2001) found that teams
composed of members with higher achievement motivation scores solved complex
problems more efciently. Also, Igbinoba and Osaretin (2001) found that
differences in achievement motivation of team members can make them continue
to work together to increase productivity. They found that work-team members
with low achievement motivation drive realize that other members of their team
work harder and would strive to put in more effort. On the other hand, those with
higher achievement motivation may lose hope in the teams fortune and may
withdraw from those with lower achievement need as a result of the latters low
input in the team. Alternatively, they may get closer to them, encourage them to
work harder and put in more effort. It is therefore not clear what relationship
exists between achievement motivation and team processes.
The general purpose of the present study is to contribute to the challenge of
promoting sound and effective work teams. Previous studies in this direction (e.g.
Barry and Stewart, 1997; Burcheld, 1997, Huszczo, 1996) have focused more on team
performance as the dependent variable whereas the present study is concerned with
team processes. Team processes are revealed as having a mediating link between other
predictor variables and team performance (see Campion et al., 1993; Gladstein, 1984;
Hackman, 1987; Landy and Conte, 2004). Although some researchers (e.g. Barrick et al.,
1998; Huszczo;, 1996; Wellins et al., 1994) have considered team processes as dependent
variables in their studies, but only one or two variables were examined as team
processes. The present study seeks to examine ve variables as team interaction
processes. These variables include team viability, workload sharing, cohesion, member
exibility, and communication.
While it is relatively easier to determine the professional composition for work
teams, it is not easy to derive the psychological factors for effective and efcient
team-member composition. Because people differ in various qualities, these differing
qualities make the individuals comprising a team affect intragroup interaction
processes differently. Among the variables often studied as team composition is
cognitive intelligence but it is reasoned in the present study that emotional intelligence
would be more relevant for team work and is therefore the focus. The theory behind
need for achievement (nAch) motivation and pertinent empirical studies on work team
effectiveness have focused more on performance, creating dearth of literature on team
processes. The present study therefore contributes in lling this gap.
Although literature abound, relating to personality and work team processes, most
of these studies are conducted in the West and in non-oil industries. Based on the
characteristic nature of organizations in the West and the culture that prevails, it is
expedient to examine the extent to which ndings in the West could be generalized to
the developing countries and in the oil industry in particular. For instance, Williams
(2000) reports that higher member emotional intelligence leads to increased social
cohesiveness for teams of oil eld workers, the study and some others are narrow in
TPM
11,7/8
286
scope in their conceptualization of team processes. This is because team processes
expands beyond team cohesiveness (Barrick et al., 1998).
Following the literature review presented, it is hypothesized that:
H1. Emotional intelligence would positively be associated with each of the ve
measures of team processes.
H2. Emotional stability, extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience
and agreeableness would positively be associated with each of the ve
measures of team interaction processes.
H3. Need for achievement would positively be associated with each of the ve
measures of team interaction processes.
H4. Emotional intelligence, the ve-factor personality attributes and need for
achievement would jointly predict team interaction processes.
H5. Emotional intelligence would correlate positively emotional stability,
conscientiousness, openness to experience and agreeableness
H6. The ve measures of team interaction processes would correlate positively
among themselves.
Method
Design
A correlation design is adopted for the present study. The predictor variables include
the ve-factor personality attributes (extraversion, emotional stability,
conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness to experience), need for achievement (n
Ach), and emotional intelligence. The outcome variable is team interaction processes
which include team viability, social cohesion, exibility, communication, workload
sharing.
Participants
Participants are 1,421 oil-drilling workers from 54 teams in ve major oil drilling
companies in Warri, Port-Harcourt and Eket, Nigeria. The oil exploration and
production companies are the contracting rms drilling for Mobil, Aker Maritime,
Agip oil, Schlumberger, NNPC, Elf, and Chevron. The mean age of participants is 25.4
years (SD 5.13), with 248 (9.8 percent) females and 1,173 (82.6 percent) males. The
average number of employees in each of the teams was 25 and they had worked
together in the team for at least 24 months. The sample had 497 (35 percent) Hausas,
302 (21.3 percent) Ibos, 211 (14.8 percent) Yorubas, and 410 (28.9) were from other
ethnic groups. In total 667 (47 percent) are married, 533 (37.6 percent) are single, 189
(13.3 percent) are separated through divorce while 31 (1.9 percent) are widowed; 667 (47
percent) are Muslims, 600 (42.3 percent) Christians, while 153 (10.6 percent) are from
other religious groups.
Measures
Personality scale. The Costa and McCraes (1992) NEO Five factor Inventory was used.
The scale has 60 items which include emotional stability, extraversion, openness to
experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness. Coefcient alpha reliability estimates
Team interaction
processes
287
reported in the test manual are 0.87, 0.86, 0.82, 0.86 and 0.83 respectively. Test retest
reliability estimated over four months (n 194) are 0.82, 0.84, 0.70, 0.82, and 0.74
respectively. For the present study, coefcient alpha yielded 0.73, 0.69, 0.72, 0.68 and
0.70 for the respective scales. Test-retest reliability estimates over four weeks (n 200
for ten teams) are, 0.72, 0.74, 0.81, 0.68 and 0.75. The 60-item scale was constructed on a
ve-point Likert type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
Need for achievement scale. A modied version of Edwards (1970) 15-item need for
achievement scale was used. The original scale was modied by Oyefeso (1988) to nine
items with a split-half reliability coefcient of 0.85 among Nigerian samples and a
coefcient alpha of 0.78. Efoghe (1990) used the modied version along with its original
scale and reported a convergent validity of 0.62 among a Nigerian sample. For the
present sample, an alpha coefcient of 0.84, corrected split-half reliability of 0.61 and
an item total correlation ranging between 0.48 and 0.72 is found. Responses were also
expressed in Likert ve-point pattern.
Emotional intelligence scale. Due to the cultural relevance of emotional intelligence, a
new scale was developed for the purpose of the present study. The scale has 25 items
that are structured in Likert ve-point response pattern, ranging from strongly
disagree to strongly agree. Content validity of the scale was based on 80 percent
agreement of expert judgment on the items. Item-total analysis of the 25-item scale
yielded a minimum coefcient of 0.47 and a maximum coefcient of 0.88. Alpha
reliability of the scale is 0.90 and the split-half reliability using the Spearman-Brown
formula yielded a coefcient of 0.88.
Team member interaction processes scale. The ve variables for the scale were
derived from team interaction and process literature theories and features of effective
team work (Barrick et al., 1998; Hoffman and Maier, 1961; Szilagyi and Wallace, 1982).
The ve variables identied are perceived team viability, workload sharing, member
exibility, social cohesiveness and team communication. Team viability factor is
measured using a four-item team viability scale developed by Leanna (1985). Workload
sharing is measured using a three-item scale developed by Campion et al. (1993).
Member exibility is measured using a modied version of member exibility scale
originally developed by Campion et al. (1993). This originally contained three items.
Two of the items that were found to be ambiguous, complex and difcult to understand
were split into two each, resulting in ve items. Social cohesiveness is measured using
an eight-item social cohesiveness scale developed by Stokes (1983). Team
communication is assessed using a ve-item openness-to-communication scale
originally developed by OReilly and Roberts (1976) and is restructured and enlarged
by Barrick et al. (1998).
Each of the subscales is expressed in a ve-point Likert type format and put in a
questionnaire format. The scales were pre-tested in a pilot study (n 210 of 20 teams)
to ascertain the psychometric properties of the 25-item measure. The items have
item-total correlation of above 0.40. Alpha reliability of the 25 items is 0.88 while the
corrected spilt-half reliability coefcient is 0.87. Factor analysis using principal
component analysis followed by varimax rotation procedure supported the ve factors
with eigen values for each factor exceeding 1.00. The least item loading of 0.54 on the
factors satised the criterion of 0.30 for acceptance (Pedhazur, 1982). Alpha reliability
coefcients is 0.76, 0.78, 0.81, 0.83, and 0.69 for workload sharing, team communication,
TPM
11,7/8
288
member exibility, social cohesiveness, and team viability respectively. Test-retest
reliability over two weeks (n 20 teams) is 0.68, 0.72, 0.73, 0.69, and 0.80 respectively.
Procedure
Pilot study. Prior to the main study, a pilot study was carried out. The pilot study was
to determine the psychometric properties of the instruments, which involved two
stages. The rst stage involved the collection of scale items that were used to construct
the emotional intelligence scale. This was a qualitative study that adopted focus group
discussions to collect base line information. The second stage tested the psychometric
properties of the measures that were later put in a questionnaire to collect data for the
main study.
The development of items for the emotional intelligence scale involved literature
review that led to generating the rst set of items included in the emotional intelligence
scale. Secondly, four focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted among 32 team
members fromfour teams, with eight members in each group. These teams were drawn
form oil-drilling rms that were not originally selected for the main study. A content
analysis of responses received from the members was made for content pertaining to
emotional intelligence. Questions were based on the concept, adjectives and factors that
are considered important and used to qualify emotional intelligence. Themes related to
emotional intelligence were drawn from the discussions and combined with those from
the literature search to compile an item pool consisting of 40-item measure of emotional
intelligence. These were presented to ten expert judges, who are social, industrial and
clinical psychologists, for scrutiny.
In order to determine the content validity of the scale, the judges were given the
construct denition of emotional intelligence, which is the ability to monitor ones own
and others emotions, to discriminate among them and to use the information to guide
ones thinking and actions. Items were included in the instrument if considered
relevant, essential, meaningful, and properly worded by the experts. An item was
accepted if it received 80 percent support by the judges. During the process, ten items
were deleted. This method was employed following its justication derived from the
assertion that the use of expert technique is an acceptable method for achieving content
validity (Nunnally, 1978).
The resultant 30 items were organized into a scale, using ve-point Likert-type
response alternatives, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). These
items were put together with other scales in a questionnaire format and administered
in a pilot study comprising of 241 respondents in 10 oil-drilling teams in Warri, Delta
State. The scale items were subjected to item analysis to ascertain the psychometric
properties of the scale and to improve on the construct validity of the test instrument
(Rust and Golombok, 1995). Items with a wide distribution of response alternatives and
a signicant item-total correlation of 0.40 and above (Rust and Golombok, 1995) were
selected. From the analysis, ve items were deleted and the remaining 25 items were
used for the nal scale.
Main study. The investigation employed ethnographic research technique, where
key informants were interviewed to nd out generally about the use of teams in oil
elds. The major informants were the leaders of teams in seven oil-drilling rms.
Structured questions were put before each of the leaders to nd out if team members
were working as team or working individually. The key informants were asked to
Team interaction
processes
289
enumerate the benets of work teams in their organizations. This was aimed at
ensuring that organizations had beneted by drawing on talented people fromdifferent
backgrounds and perspectives, facilitating communication among them, bringing
together the resources of different people, and fostering parallelism (concurrent
engineering). Ten judgment criteria, based on the principles of effective work teams,
were set and used as checklist.
The idea was that organizations that attain these set criteria for effective work
teams would have contributed to the satisfaction of the teams on the job. This would
lead to proper interdependence and improved work team interaction. Any organization
whose representatives (team leaders) were able to identify an average of seven out of
the ten benets, were included in the study. Five out of seven organizations initially
contacted met the criteria and were selected for the study. In selecting the teams for the
main study the level of task interdependence within the work teams was veried using
a ve-item task interdependence scale (Kiggundu, 1983). Teams that scored half
standard deviation above average, on the scale, were selected for the main study.
Consequently, 54 teams were t for the main study.
One thousand ve hundred (1,500) copies of the questionnaire, comprising all the
scales measuring the variables of study were administered on the members of the 54
teams from ve drilling rms located in Warri, PortHarcourt, and Eket. The
questionnaires were administered during ofce hours but it took eight weeks to collect
data for the study. Of the 1,500 copies of the questionnaire administered, only 1,420
were returned. From these, 1,405 were found useful for analysis (a response rate of 84.1
percent); others were either unlled or not properly responded to.
Results
The prediction that each of the variables of psychological diversity, that is personality
attributes, need for achievement, and emotional intelligence would correlate with team
interaction processes was examined with Pearson correlation analysis and the results
are presented in a correlation matrix (see Table I). It is revealed that emotional stability
(r 0.45, p , 0.01), openness to experience (r 0.46; p , 0.01), agreeableness
(r 0.65), and conscientiousness (r 0.27; p , 0.05) are positively associated with
workload sharing. Thus, higher scores on these personality attributes are associated
with higher level of workload sharing. Team communication correlates positively with
emotional stability (r 0.50; p , 0.01), extraversion (r 0.43; p , 0.01), openness to
experience (r 0.49; p , 0.01), conscientiousness (r 0.27; p , 0.05), and emotional
intelligence (r 0.30; p , 0.05). This suggests that team communication would
improve among team members that are higher on each of these psychological diversity
variables.
Emotional stability (r 0.43; p , 0.01), extraversion (r 0.43; p , 0.01), openness
to experience (r 0.53; p , 0.01), agreeableness (r 0.29; p , 0.05), need for
achievement (r 0.29; p , 0.05), and emotional intelligence (r 0.28; p , 0.05) are
positively associated with member exibility. It is inferred that team member
exibility increases with higher scores on these measures of psychological diversity.
Social cohesiveness correlates positively with emotional stability (r 0.66; p , 0.01),
extraversion (r 0.40; p ,. 01), openness to experience (r 0.32; p , 0.01), and
agreeableness (r 0.37; p , 0.01). This implies that increased team cohesion can be
associated with higher levels of team members possession of these traits. Emotional
TPM
11,7/8
290
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
M
e
a
n
S
D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
.
E
m
o
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
2
2
.
3
3
0
.
2
0
2
2
.
E
x
t
r
a
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
2
1
.
8
9
0
.
2
0
2
0
.
1
0

3
.
O
p
e
n
n
e
s
s
2
5
.
6
8
1
.
0
9
2
0
.
0
6
0
.
2
3
*

4
.
A
g
r
e
e
a
b
l
e
n
e
s
s
2
2
.
7
1
0
.
6
1
2
0
.
1
5
0
.
2
9
*
2
0
.
0
1

5
.
C
o
n
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
o
u
s
n
e
s
s
2
0
.
4
4
0
.
7
5
0
.
3
3
*
*
0
.
2
1
0
.
0
7
2
0
.
0
2

6
.
n
A
c
h
2
5
.
4
1
3
.
2
1
0
.
1
3
2
0
.
4
5
*
*
2
0
.
2
2
2
0
.
0
1
2
0
.
2
5
*

7
.
E
m
o
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
t
e
l
l
i
g
e
n
c
e
5
0
.
2
0
2
.
6
7
0
.
1
2
0
.
2
0
0
.
3
0
*
*
0
.
2
7
*
0
.
3
0
*
0
.
2
6
*

8
.
W
o
r
k
l
o
a
d
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
3
.
0
0
0
.
5
2
0
.
4
5
*
*
0
.
0
6
0
.
4
6
*
0
.
6
5
*
*
0
.
2
7
*
2
0
.
0
9
2
0
.
1
3

9
.
T
e
a
m
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
2
0
.
2
5
0
.
5
0
*
*
0
.
4
3
*
*
0
.
4
9
*
*
0
.
1
3
0
.
2
7
*
0
.
0
9
0
.
3
0
*
0
.
2
9
*

1
0
.
M
e
m
b
e
r

e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
3
.
9
1
0
.
5
3
0
.
4
3
*
*
0
.
4
3
*
*
0
.
5
3
*
*
0
.
2
9
*
0
.
0
1
0
.
2
9
*
0
.
2
8
*
0
.
4
4
*
*
0
.
2
5
*

1
1
.
S
o
c
i
a
l
c
o
h
e
s
i
o
n
3
.
9
7
0
.
6
1
0
.
6
6
*
*
0
.
4
0
*
*
0
.
3
2
*
*
0
.
3
7
*
*
0
.
1
1
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
6
0
.
2
4
*
0
.
2
5
*
0
.
4
9
*
*

1
2
.
T
e
a
m
v
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
2
.
7
2
0
.
8
4
0
.
3
7
*
*
0
.
3
5
*
*
0
.
3
0
*
*
0
.
1
5
0
.
0
7
0
.
2
8
*
0
.
3
0
*
0
.
3
0
*
0
.
3
1
*
0
.
4
9
*
*
0
.
4
0
*
*
N
o
t
e
s
:
*
p
,
0
.
0
5
;
*
*
p
,
.
0
.
0
1
;
1
-
5

v
e
-
f
a
c
t
o
r
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
i
t
y
;
6

n
e
e
d
f
o
r
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
;
7

e
m
o
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
t
e
l
l
i
g
e
n
c
e
;
8
-
1
2

w
o
r
k
t
e
a
m
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Table I.
Zero order correlation
coefcient for ve factor
personality, need for
achievement, emotional
intelligence, and team
interaction processes
(n 54)
Team interaction
processes
291
stability (r 0.37; p ,0.01), extraversion (r 0.35; p , 0.01), openness to experience
(r 0.30; p ,.01) and need for achievement (r 0.28; p , 0.05) are positively
associated with team viability. A team would be more viable with higher levels of these
psychological diversity measures among team members.
It is predicted also that the measures of team interaction processes would correlate
positively among themselves. The results for testing the hypothesis are presented in
the correlation matrix on Table I. It is revealed that workload sharing correlates
positively with team communication (r 0.29; p , 0.05), member exibility (r 0.44;
p , 0.01), social cohesion (r 0.24; p , 0.05), and team viability (r 0.30; p , 0.01).
Team communication correlates positively with member exibility (r 0.25;
p , 0.05), social cohesion (r 0.25; p , 0.05), and team viability (r 0.31; p , 0.05).
Member exibility correlates positively with social cohesion (r 0.49; p , 0.01) and
team viability (r 0.49; p , 0.01) and social cohesion correlates positively with team
viability (r 0.40; p ,.0 01). With these positive associations among the measures of
team interaction processes, it is implied that a composite score of all the measures can
be used as a single measure of team interaction processes.
Further analysis involved testing the input-process model. A multiple regression
analysis results of team interaction processes on personality attributes, need for
achievement, and emotional intelligence are presented on Table II.
It is revealed that all the predictor variables jointly account for 37 percent variance
in team interaction processes F (7, 47) 16.27; p , 0.001; R
2
0.37. However, only
the contributions of emotional stability (b 0.42; t 9.05; p , 0.001), extraversion
(b .29; t 1.80; p , 0.05), agreeableness (b 0.09; t 1.89; p , 0.05) and
emotional intelligence (b 0.16; t 1.90; p , 0.05) are signicant in explaining
variations in team interaction processes. These are presented in Figure 1. The highest
contributing variable is emotional stability, followed by extraversion, emotional
intelligence and agreeableness. It implies that when the inuences of other variables
are controlled, only emotional stability, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional
intelligence are positively associated with team interaction processes.
Discussions
The present study tested the aspect of input-process-output model which proposes that
inputs have direct effects on team processes (Campion et al., 1993; Landy and Conte,
2004). Inputs in this context include personality attributes (emotional stability,
b t p
Emotional stability 0.42 9.05 , 0.001
Extraversion 0.29 1.80 , 0.05
Openness to experience 20.01 20.22 ns
Agreeableness 0.09 1.89 , 0.05
Conscientiousness 0.01 0.24 ns
Need for achievement 20.10 20.11 ns
Emotional intelligence 0.16 1.90 , 0.05
R 0.61
R
2
0.37
F (7. 46) 16.27; p , 0.001
Table II.
Multiple regression
analysis of work team
interaction processes on
ve-factor personality,
need for achievement and
emotional intelligence
TPM
11,7/8
292
extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness to experience), need for
achievement (nAch), and emotional intelligence. Team processes examined include
viability, team communication, social cohesiveness, workload sharing, and member
exibility (Barrick et al., 1998; Huszczo;, 1996; Wellins et al., 1994).
The present study shows that higher level of emotional stability among team
members promotes team viability. This nding supports Haythorns (1953) ndings
that emotional stability is positively related to team viability and teams capability to
continue to work together is affected by emotional stability (Heslin, 1964; Cozens,
2000). Emotional stability inuences cooperation; higher aggregate levels of emotional
stability leads to a more relaxed atmosphere and therefore promote capability to
continue working together cooperatively (Watson and Tellegen, 1985).
From the present study it is revealed also that extraversion, openness to experience,
need for achievement and emotional intelligence are other measures of psychological
diversity that could increase team viability. This supports Tziners (1986) ndings that
groups composed of individuals with high emotional stability and extraversion, and
moderate interpersonal skills perform better in tasks that involve physical ability. The
ndings also compare with Barrick et al.s (1998), who found that work teams with
higher mean levels of extraversion and emotional stability received higher ratings of
team viability. Extraversion promotes team viability because it incorporates a measure
of positive affectivity (McCrae and Costa, 1987). Although Barry and Stewart (1997)
suggest that the distribution of extraversion is important but warns that teams are
more viable when some members are introverted.
The nding that conscientiousness is positively associated with workload sharing
supports other ndings (e.g. Dasofunjo, 1995; Kelly, 1998) that conscientiousness
enhances workload sharing among employees of manufacturing companies. The same
result was found by Barrick et al. (1998) that link exists between conscientiousness and
workload sharing in teams. Of the ve personality constructs, conscientiousness is
Figure 1.
The input-process model
Team interaction
processes
293
found to have the most consistent and strongest relationship with workload sharing
(Barrick and Mount, 1991; Mount and Barrick, 1995). This nding is reported to be
generalized across different work settings and also conrmed in the present study,
among oil-drilling work teams. However, conscientiousness is not a signicant
predictor of overall team interaction processes when other psychological diversity
measures are controlled; as revealed in the multiple regression analysis results. The
present study also shows that work teams that demonstrate a higher level of
agreeableness score signicantly higher on workload sharing. This is in line with the
ndings in other studies (e.g. Barrick and Mount, 1991; Barrick et al., 1998; Hackman
and Morris, 1983; Mount and Barrick, 1995).
Need for achievement is positively associated with member exibility and team
viability. This nding is explained from McClellands (1977) view that given their
desire to excel, people high in achievement motivation attain greater success in their
careers than others. In teams, the desire for success probably induces exibility and
cooperation among team members with nAch.
Quality of interpersonal relationships has been found to affect communication
effectiveness (Turban and Jones, 1988). The present study also reveals that emotional
intelligence is positively associated with team communication. With good
interpersonal skills therefore, team members are able to relate more effectively due
to their ability to recognize and regulate others emotions. The bivariate correlation
between emotional intelligence and social cohesion is not signicant. This fails to
conrm other research ndings (e.g. Folkerts, 2002; Mayer and Salovey, 1995;
Ratzburg, 2002; Williams, 2000). Emotional intelligence, however, correlated positively
with member exibility and team viability. The results of the multiple regression show
also that emotional intelligence is positively associated with work team overall
interaction processes.
Emotional intelligence is positively associated with team communication, member
exibility, team viability and overall team interaction processes because team
members of high emotional intelligence are able to monitor own and others feelings
and emotions, discriminate among themselves and guide own thinking and actions
(Salovey and Mayer, 1990). They are able to engage in activities that are both
pro-individual and pro-social (Goleman, 1995) and feel emotions exibly and
appropriately to the situation (Mayer and Salovey, 1995). These virtues enhance social
responsibility, problem solving, reality testing, stress tolerance, impulse control and
happiness (Folkerts, 2002) and this could explain the positive association between
emotional intelligence and team communication, member exibility, team viability and
overall team interaction processes. Contrary to some reports however, (e.g. Ashforth
and Humphry, 1995; Janovics and Christiansen, 2001; Ratzburg, 2002; Stein and Book,
1999) there was no signicant relationship between emotional intelligence and social
cohesion. This might have resulted from differences in the research settings. But
following the argument that team process expands beyond team cohesiveness (see
Barrick et al., 1998; Huszczo;, 1996; Wellins et al., 1994), the present study shows that
emotional intelligence associates positively with overall team interaction processes.
Following the opinion that emotional intelligence is simply a subset of personality
(Barrett et al., 2001), it was predicted in the present study that emotional intelligence
will correlate positively with each dimension of the ve-factor personality measures.
This was conrmed only for openness to experience, agreeableness, and
TPM
11,7/8
294
conscientiousness while those of emotional stability and extraversion are not
signicant. This shows that though emotional stability and extraversion relate to
affective behaviors, they are quite different constructs from emotional intelligence.
Implication of ndings
With the expanding adoption of work teams in organizations, it is evident that human
resources systems such as selection, training, and performance appraisal must be
conceptualized and managed at the team level (Schneider et al., 2000). One important
strategy for enhancing team effectiveness is to select the individuals who can make the
best contributions to the team. Thus, considerations should be on selecting individuals
who would work well in an oil-drilling work team rather than individuals who would
complement an existing team. The present study has revealed the roles of team
composition, in terms of personality, need for achievement and emotional intelligence,
in enhancing the processes of work teams. Findings from the present study have
practical value in the stafng of work teams. The knowledge gained about the selection
of individuals into organizations is not wholly transferable to the selection of teams
(Muchinsky, 2003). As observed, some personality variables like conscientiousness
that signicantly predict individual performances are not signicant in predicting
overall work team process.
It is revealed also that different variables of psychological diversity explain
different aspects of team interaction processes. To enhance work load sharing in teams,
for example, the management of organizations has to consider incorporating in work
teams, personnel of higher levels of emotional stability, openness to experience,
agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Personnel of such personality attributes would
more likely do their fair share of the job. In getting a team that would readily share
information among themselves, teams should be composed of personnel of higher
emotional stability, extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and
emotional intelligence. For a task that requires much exibility for task
accomplishment, teams should be constituted of personnel of higher emotional
stability, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, need for achievement,
and emotional intelligence. Where team cohesion is highly advantageous for task
accomplishment, teams need to be composed with personnel of higher scores in
emotional stability, extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness. Where a
constituted team needs to exist over a long period (viability), team members have to be
composed of personnel of higher emotional stability, extraversion, openness to
experience, need for achievement, and emotional intelligence.
It is evident that all work tasks would not simultaneously require all these measures
of team interaction processes. By implication, task analysis needs to be conducted so as
to identify which, among these team interaction processes, are relevant for specic
tasks. Accordingly, personnel composition should be aligned with identied team
interacting processes. However, where all the team interaction processes are essential,
like the oil-drilling teams, personnel requirements should emphasize higher scores on
emotional stability, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional intelligence. This is
because these are the signicant predictors for overall team interaction processes.
The inferences drawn from the present study is the need for psychological measures
to be used, not only in selecting personnel into organizations that emphasize team
work, but also in the placement of personnel into teams, based on task need. People
Team interaction
processes
295
come into an organization with differing qualities; it is the suitability of their personal
attributes to the organization that will make it possible for them to contribute
meaningfully to the growth of the organization (McCormick and Illgen, 1980). Choosing
team members on the basis of individual task need might be faulty. Also knowledge,
skills and abilities (KSAs) alone are not sufcient to ensure optimal team effectiveness
(Klimoski and Jones, 1995), or are professional skills alone sufcient for team
composition. The results from the present study will, thus, help practitioners to select
and constitute more productive work teams. Apart from the professional skills that are
required in constituting work teams for oil drillage, psychological dispositions of team
members are as well essential for successful internal interactions that could yield more
effective teams.
The present study focused on psychological variables that could enhance team
interaction process, not how they could be complemented in teams. This is because
mean scores, not variance scores, were used for the predictor variables. The study
reveals that extraversion increases team member communication. While extraversion
increases the quantity of communication it might not necessarily increase the quality
of communication (Landy and Conte, 2004). Thus, managers should be aware that team
performance may suffer if team selection decisions overemphasize the importance of
extraversion. Moreover, the psychological variables examined in the present study are
not exhaustive as there could be other variables that also explain team interaction
processes that were not considered. The present study is also limited as mainly
scientists and researchers in oil rms were the participants; it is not certain how the
ndings can be generalized to non oil-drilling rms. The sample size is relatively small
because teams scores, not individual scores, were used for analysis.
References
Almandar, J.E. (2002), Emotional intelligence and social cohesiveness among work-teams,
Indian Behavioral Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 9-14.
Ashforth, B.E. and Humphrey, R.H. (1995), Emotion in the workplace: a reappraisal, Human
Relations, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 97-125.
Atkinson, J.W. and Feather, N.T. (1966), A Theory of Achievement Motivation, Wiley, New York,
NY.
Baker, D.P., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (1998), Teamtask analysis: lost but hopefully not
forgotten, The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 79-83.
Bar-On, R. and Parker, J.D. (Eds) (2000), The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence, Jossey Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Barrett, G.V., Miguel, R.F., Tan, J.A. and Hurud, J.M. (2001), Emotional intelligence: the Madison
Avenue approach to science and professional practice, paper presented at the 16th
Annual Conference of Society of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, San Diego,
CA, April.
Barrick, M. and Mount, M.K. (1991), The big ve personality dimensions and job performance:
a meta-analysis, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 1-26.
Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L., Neubert, M.J. and Mount, M. (1998), Relating member ability and
personality to work team processes and team effectiveness, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 83 -377.
Barry, B. and Stewart, G.L. (1997), Composition, process and performance in self-managed
groups: the role of personality, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 62-78.
TPM
11,7/8
296
Burcheld, M.A. (1997), Personality composition as it relates to team performance, PhD
dissertation, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ.
Campion, M.A., Medscar, G.J. and Higgs, A.C. (1993), Relations between work group
characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 823-50.
Cory, D. (2000), Increasing Effectiveness Through Emotional Intelligence, Cory Consulting
seminar paper series, Cory Consulting, Stafford, VA.
Costa, P.T. Jr and McCrae, R.R. (1992), Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO
Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual, Psychological Assessment
Resources, Odessa, FL.
Cozens, A.E. (2000), Predictors of viability in work teams, Industrial Activities, Vol. 5, pp. 15-33.
Dasofunjo, S.S. (1995), Agreeableness and conscientiousness as predictors of workload sharing
in teams, unpublished thesis, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri.
Dionne, S.D. (1998), Team training and development in organizations: a multiple levels of
analysis eld experiment, Dissertation Abstract International, Vol. 59, p. 4A.
Edwards, A.L. (1970), The Measurement of Personality Traits by Scales and Inventories, Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY.
Efoghe, G.B. (1990), Predictors of aggressiveness among married couples in Ekpoma, Bendel
State of Nigeria, unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
Fisher, A. (1998), Success secret: a high emotional IQ, Fortune, October 26, pp. 293-8.
Folkerts, K. (2002), The emotionally intelligent team, CSWT Papers, Vol. 7 No. 7.
Forsyth, D. (1990), Group Dynamics, 2nd ed., Brooks/Cole, Pacic Grove, CA.
George, J.M. (1990), Personality, affect and behavior in groups, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 75 No. 107, p. 116.
Gladstein, D.L. (1984), Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 499-517.
Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional Intelligence, Bantam Books, New York, NY.
Goodman, P.S., Ravlin, E. and Schminke, M. (1987), Understanding groups in organizations,
Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9, pp. 121-73.
Guzzo, R.A. and Dickson, M.W. (1996), Teams in organizations: recent research on performance
and effectiveness, Annual Review of psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 307-38.
Hackman, J. (1987), The design of work teams, in Lorsch, J.W. (Ed.), Handbook of
Organizational Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hackman, J. (1990), Conclusion: creating more effective work groups in organizations, in
Hackman, J.R. (Ed.), Groups That Work (and Those That Dont), Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Hackman, J.R. (1998), Why teams dont work, in Tindale, R.S. (Ed.), Theory and Research on
Small Groups, Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 245-647.
Hackman, R.J. and Morris, C.G. (1983), Group tasks, group interaction process and group
performance effectiveness, in Blumberg, H.H., Hare, A.P., Kent, V. and Davies, M.P. (Eds),
Small Groups and Social Interaction, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Harris, P.R. and Harris, K.G. (1996), Managing effectively through teams, Team Performance
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 23-36.
Haythorn, W. (1953), The inuence of individual members on the characteristics of small
groups, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 48, pp. 276-84.
Team interaction
processes
297
Heslin, R. (1964), Predicting group task effectiveness from member characteristics,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 62, pp. 248-56.
Hoffman, L. and Maier, R.F. (1961), Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of
homogenous and heterogeneous groups, Journal of Abnormal and social Psychology,
Vol. 62, pp. 401-7.
Huszczo, G.E. (1996), Tools for Team Excellence, Davies-Black, Palo Alto, CA.
Igbinoba, O.E. and Osaretin, O. (2001), The team that achieves, (monograph).
Illgen, D.R. (1999), Teams embedded in organizations: some implications, American
Psychologist, Vol. 54, pp. 129-39.
Janovics, J. and Christiansen, N.D. (2001), Emotional intelligence in the work place, paper
presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Jehn, K., Northcraft, G. and Neale, M. (1999), Field study of diversity, conict, and performance
in workgroups, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 741-63.
Jehn, K.A., Chadwick, C. and Thatcher, S.M.B. (1997), To agree or not to agree: the effects of
value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity and conict on work group
outcomes, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 287-305.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1995), Conict, Cooperation, and Justice, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1999), Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative and
Individualistic Learning, Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.
Kelly, B.S. (1998), Relationship between conscientiousness and interpersonal skills on workload
sharing in groups, Industrial Activities, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 23-36.
Kiggundu, M. (1983), Task interdependent and job design: test of a theory, Organizational
Behaviours and Human Performance, Vol. 31, pp. 145-72.
Klimoski, R. and Jones, R. (1995), Stafng for effective group decision making: key issues in
matching people and teams, in Guzzo, R.A. and Salas and Associates, A. (Eds), Team
Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 219-332.
Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Bell, B.S. (2003), Work groups and teams in organizations, in
Borman, W.C., Illgen, D.R. and Klimosky, R.J. (Eds), Comprehensive Handbook of
Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 333-75.
Landy, F. and Conte, J.M. (2004), Work in the 21st century, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Leanna, A.O. (1985), How effective are work teams?, Work Activities, Vol. 7, pp. 52-65.
LePine, J.A., Colquitt, J.A. and Erez, A. (2000a), Adaptability to changing task context: effects of
general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 53, pp. 563-93.
LePine, J.A., Hansom, M.A., Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (2000b), Contextual performance
and teamwork: implications for stafng, in Ferris, G.R. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Management, Vol. 19, Elsevier, New York, NY, pp. 53-90.
McClelland, D.C. (1961), The Achieving Society, Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ.
McClelland, D.C. (1977), Enterpreneurship and management in the years ahead, in
Bramletter, C. (Ed.), The Individual and the Future of Organizations, Georgia State
University, Atlanta, GA.
McCormick, E.J. and Illgen, D. (1980), Industrial Psychology, 7th ed., George Allen and Unwin,
London.
TPM
11,7/8
298
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. Jr (1987), Validation of the ve-factor model of personality across
instruments and observers, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 81-90.
McCreery, J.K. and Bloom, M.C. (2000), Teams: design and implementation, in Swamidass, P.M.
(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Production and Manufacturing Management, Kluwer, Boston, MA.
McGrath, J.J. (1984), Groups: Interaction and Performance, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Magjuka, R.J. and Baldwin, T.T. (1991), Team-based employee involvement programs: effects of
design and administration, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 793-812.
Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1995), Emotional intelligence and the construction and regulation of
feelings, Applied and Preventive Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 197-208.
Milliken, E.J. and Martins, L.L. (1996), Searching for common threads: understanding the
multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 21, pp. 402-33.
Mohrman, S.A., Cohen, S.G. and Morhman, A.M. (1995), Designing Team-based Organizations:
New Forms for Knowledge Work, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Mohsen, A. and Nguyen, T.T. (2000), Creating the right structural t for self-directed teams,
Team Performance Management, Vol. 6 Nos 1/2, pp. 25-33.
Mount, M.K. and Barrick, M.R. (1995), The big ve personality dimensions: implications for
research and practice in human resources management, Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Management, Vol. 13, pp. 153-200.
Muchinsky, P.M. (2003), Psychology Applied to Work, 7th ed., Wadsworth/Thomson, Belmont, CA.
Mullen, B. and Cooper, C. (1994), The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: an
integration, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 115, pp. 210-27.
Murray, H. (1938), Exploration in Personality: a Clinical and Experimental Study of Fifty Men of
College Age, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Newman, G.A. and Wright, J. (1999), Team effectiveness: beyond skills and cognitive ability,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 3, pp. 376-89.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
OReilly, C.A. and Roberts, K.H. (1976), Relationships among components of credibility and
communication behavior in work units, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 61, pp. 99-102.
Odili, S.E. (2000), Work teams in Nigeria oil industry: a historical perspective (monograph).
Olawepo, W.O. (2001), Effectiveness of work teams in Nigerian organizations, unpublished
PhD thesis, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.
Oni, B.C. and Kayode, A.A. (2001), The inuence of achievement motivation on team processes
in a manufacturing industry, Industrial Behaviour Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 16-27.
Oyefeso, A.O. (1988), Cross validation of Edward personal schedule, unpublished research
paper, University of Ibadan, Ibadan.
Pedhazur, E. (1982), Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and Prediction,
Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, New York, NY.
Ratzburg, W.H. (Ed.) (2002), Group cohesiveness, in Ratzburg, W. (Ed.), Organizational
Behavior, Parker Educ. Books, IL.
Rice, E.M. and Schneider, G.T. (1994), A decade of teacher empowerment: an empirical analysis
of teacher involvement in decision making, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 32
No. 1, pp. 43-58.
Riggio, R.E. (2003), Introduction to Industrial/Organizational Psychology, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Team interaction
processes
299
Robins, S. (2002), A consultants guide to understanding and promoting emotional intelligence
in the workplace, in Lowman, R. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Consulting
Psychology, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY.
Roethlisberger, F.J. and Dickson, W.J. (1939), Management and the Worker, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Rust, J. and Golombok, S. (1995), Modern Psychometrics: The Science of Psychological
Assessment, Routledge, New York, NY.
Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990), Emotional intelligence, Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality, Vol. 9, pp. 185-211.
Scarnati, J.T. (2001), On becoming a team player, Team Performance Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 5-10.
Schneider, B., Smith, D.B. and Sipe, W.P. (2000), Personnel selection psychology: multi-level
considerations, in Klein, K.J. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds), Multilevel Theory, Research,
and Methods in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 91-120.
Spencer, L.M. Jr and Spencer, S. (1993), Competence at Work: Models for Superior Performance,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Stein, S. and Book, H. (1999), The EQ Edge: Emotional Intelligence and Your Success, Stoddart,
Toronto.
Stevens, M.J. and Campion, M. (1994), The knowledge, skills and ability requirements for
teamwork: implications for human resources management, Journal of Management,
Vol. 20, pp. 503-30.
Stevens, M.J. and Campion, M.A. (1999), Stafng work teams: development and validation of a
selection test for teamwork settings, Journal of Management, Vol. 25, pp. 207-28.
Stewart, G.L. and Barrick, M.R. (2000), Team structure and performance: assessing the
mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 135-48.
Stokes, J.P. (1983), Components of group cohesion, intermember attraction, instrumental value
and risk taking, Small Group Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 163-73.
Sundstrom, E., Mclntyre, M., Halfhill, T.R. and Richards, H. (2000), Work groups: from the
Hawthorne studies to work teams of the 1990s and beyond, Group Dynamics, Vol. 4,
pp. 44-67.
Szilagyi, A.D. and Wallace, M.Y. (1982), Organizational Behavior and Performance,
HarperCollins, New York, NY.
Torrington, D. and Weightman, J. (1994), Effective Management: People and Organization,
Prentice-Hall, New York, NY.
Turban, D.B. and Keon, T.L. (1993), Organisational attractiveness: an interactionist
perspective, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 184-93.
Turban, D.B. and Jones, A.P. (1988), Supervisor-subordinate similarity: types, effects and
mechanisms, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73, pp. 228-34.
Tziner, A.E. (1986), Group composition effects on task performance: a theoretical analysis,
Small Group Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 343-54.
van Vianen, A.E.M. and De Dreu, C.K.W. (2001), Personality in teams: its relationship to social
cohesion, task cohesion, and team performance, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 97-120.
Watson, D. and Clark, L.A. (1984), Negative affectivity: the disposition to experience aversive
emotional states, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 96, pp. 465-90.
TPM
11,7/8
300
Watson, D. and Tellegen, A. (1985), Toward a consensual structure of mood, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 98, pp. 219-35.
Weiss, C.H., Cambone, J. and Wyeth, A. (1992), Trouble in paradise: teacher conicts in shared
decision making, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 350-67.
Wellins, R.S., Byham, W.C. and Dixon, G.R. (1994), Inside Teams: How 20 World-class
Organizations are Winning Through Teamwork, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Wiggins, J. (Ed.) (1996), The Five Factor Model of Personality: Theoretical Perspectives, Guilford,
New York, NY.
Williams, A.O. (2000), Relevant Theories in Emotional Intelligence: A Handbook, ABC Books,
Singapore.
Wu, K.D. and Clark, L.A. (2003), Relations between personality traits and self-reports of daily
behavior, Journal of Research in Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 231-56.
Zander, A. and Forward, J. (1968), Position in group, achievement motivation, and group
aspirations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 8, pp. 282-8.
Zigon, J. (1998), Measuring the performance of oil company work teams, available at: http://
dothr.ost.dot.gov/toolkit/PerformMan/PM
Further reading
Bar-On, R. and Handley, R. (1999), Optimizing People: A Practical Guide for Applying Emotional
Intelligence to Improve Personal and Organisational Effectiveness, Pro-Philes Press,
New Braunfels, TX.
Goleman, D. (1998), Working with Emotional Intelligence, Bantam Books, New York, NY.
Team interaction
processes
301