Mohammed Et Al-2002-Journal of Organizational Behavior

Journal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 23, 795–814 (2002)

Published online 23 August 2002 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/job.169
Technical-administrative task performance,

leadership task performance, and contextual
performance: considering the influence of
team- and task-related composition
variablesy
SUSAN MOHAMMED1*, JOHN E. MATHIEU2
AND A. L. ‘BART’ BARTLETT1
1
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, U.S.A
2
The University of Connecticut, Storrs, U.S.A
Summary The purpose of the present study was to examine how the mix of ability, experience, and per-
sonality impacts three types of team performance: technical-administrative task performance,
leadership task performance, and contextual performance. Relationships were tested using data
collected from student management teams, who were required to plan and supervise the pre-
paration and service of meals in a cafeteria-style dining room patronized by university students,
staff, and faculty. Results revealed that both team- and task-related composition variables pre-
dicted leadership and contextual performance. Specifically, grade point average was signifi-
cantly related to technical-administrative task performance, and extraversion, neuroticism,
and grade point average were related to leadership task performance. Agreeableness and restau-
rant experience predicted contextual performance. Surprisingly, conscientiousness did not
account for significant variance in any of the three types of performance measured. The impli-
cations of these findings for the study of team performance in organizations are discussed.
Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
Composition is a broad term referring to configurations of attributes within small groups (Levine &
Moreland, 1990). Clearly, the effectiveness of team-based organizations depends, in part, on how suc-
cessfully the diverse backgrounds and characteristics of group members are utilized (e.g., Hackman,
1990). Not all group members work together effectively, and the consequences can sometimes be
* Correspondence to: Susan Mohammed, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, 415 Moore Building,
University Park, PA 16802, U.S.A. E-mail: sxm40@psu.edu
y
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial/Organizational
Psychology, New Orleans, LA (April, 2000).
Received 20 September 2001

Revised 4 December 2001
Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 10 January 2002
796 S. MOHAMMED ET AL.
disastrous. Therefore, team-based organizations must not only seek the best individuals for the job, but
the best combination of individuals for the team in terms of the mix of knowledge, skills, abilities, and
other factors (KSAOs) such as personality characteristics.
Although team composition has been recognized as a significant predictor of team effectiveness for
years (e.g., Mann, 1959; Sundstrom, DeMeuse, & Futrell, 1990), research findings are often equivocal
across studies, especially with regard to the impact of personality on team outcomes (e.g., Barrick, Stew-
art, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Barry & Stewart, 1997; Driskell, Hogan, & Salas, 1987; Neuman &
Wright, 1999). Therefore, there is still much to learn about which individual differences relate to team
effectiveness and under what conditions. The purpose of the present research was to examine how the
mix of ability, experience, and personality within a team impacts both task and contextual performance.
Theoretical framework
Levine and Moreland (1990) noted that ‘research on the effects of group composition is often atheore-
tical’ (p. 594), and other authors have echoed similar concerns about the lack of theoretical develop-
ment (e.g., Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Lawrence, 1997). Part of the difficulty stems from the
complexity in having to consider various types of heterogeneity existing in a team (e.g., demographics,
personality, ability), various types of team tasks (e.g., high/low interdependence; additive/conjunctive/
disjunctive, Steiner, 1972), as well as various statistical operationalizations of team composition (e.g.,
mean, variance, minimum, maximum). According to Kozlowski and Klein (2000), ‘Collective phe-
nomena may emerge in different ways under different contextual constraints and patterns of interac-
tion. Emergence is often equifinal rather than universal in form’ (p. 59). Consequently, the emerging
conceptual framework suggests that how and why composition variables influence team outcomes will
depend on several factors, including the nature of the team task, the composition variable being
assessed, and the particular outcomes studied (e.g., Argote & McGrath, 1993; Barrick et al., 1998;
Jackson, May, & Whitney, 1995).
We utilized this contingency framework to generate the hypothesized relationships illustrated in
Figure 1. The purpose of this research is to examine the multidimensional nature of team performance
and to explore how various types of team composition differentially predict team performance dimen-
sions. In the following sections, we organize the discussion around several factors that have been pro-
posed to affect the relationship between team composition and team outcomes.
Task and contextual performance

The present research broadens the criterion domain to include two aspects of task performance, as well
as contextual performance. Although industrial/organizational (I/O) psychologists have traditionally
conceptualized performance unidimensionally (e.g., Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993),
teams rarely perform only one type of task (e.g., Argote & McGrath, 1993). It is important to examine
multiple performance dimensions within the same study because the influence of individual differ-
ences on team performance may vary considerably across tasks (Driskell et al., 1987).
Researchers now recognize that there are at least two distinguishable dimensions that contribute
independently to overall performance (e.g., Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Conway, 1996; Van Scotter
& Motowidlo, 1996). Task performance bears a direct relation to the organization’s technical core,
either by executing its technical processes or by maintaining and servicing its technical requirements
(Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). In contrast, contextual performance supports the broader, organiza-
tional, social, and psychological environment in which the technical core must function.
As shown in Figure 1, the current study measured two types of task performance advocated by
Conway (1999): (1) technical-administrative task performance, and (2) leadership task performance.
Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 23, 795–814 (2002)
TEAM- AND TASK-RELATED COMPOSITION VARIABLES 797
Figure 1. Hypothesized relationships between team- and task-related composition variables
Technical-administrative task performance includes all non-leadership oriented tasks such as paper-
work, organizing, planning, quality of output, and business judgment. In contrast, leadership task per-
formance involves human relations and people management, as well as motivating, supervising, and
evaluating subordinates. Although similar in some ways, leadership task performance is distinguished
from contextual performance in that it is specifically oriented toward goal achievement and focuses
primarily on guidance and motivation, whereas contextual performance emphasizes promoting morale
and showing personal concern (Conway, 1999).
Virtually identical to Organ’s (1997) recent conception of organizational citizenship, contextual per-
formance includes volunteering to carry out task activities that are not formally part of the job, helping
and cooperating with others, and following rules and procedures even when personally inconvenient
(Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, 1997). Contextual performance is critical for team success because it
captures many of the interpersonally oriented behaviors that support the social and motivational context
in which organizational work is accomplished (e.g., Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; LePine, Hanson,
Borman, & Motowidlo, 2000; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). Ironically, however, contextual perfor-
mance has been largely ignored by the team literature. A recent study by Chattopadhyay (1999) did
examine organizational citizenship behavior in work groups, but the focus was on demographic simi-
larity, as opposed to personality, ability, and experience in the present study. Furthermore, existing con-
textual performance research has primarily been conducted at the individual-level of analysis (e.g.,
Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; Conway, 1999; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; see Podsakoff, Ahearne,
& MacKenzie, 1997 for an exception). Therefore, the current study contributes to both literatures by
examining the impact of various composition variables on task and contextual performance at the team
level of analysis. Moreover, task and contextual performance are assessed at two points in time.
Task- and team-related composition variables

In addition to multiple performance dimensions, researchers have identified many types of diversity
that can exist in a team (e.g., Driskell et al., 1987; Milliken & Martins, 1996). In order to build upon
previous research, and because existing studies have shown them to be important predictors of perfor-
mance at the team level (e.g., Barrick et al., 1998; Neuman & Wright, 1999; Neuman, Wagner, &
Christiansen, 1999), the present study assessed academic ability and personality as composition vari-
ables. In addition, the current work also expanded the range of input variables to include previous task-
and team-related experiences. Although examined at the individual-level (e.g., Quinones, Ford, &
Teachout, 1995; Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998), empirical research linking various experience indices and
outcomes at the team level is lacking. Insufficient variability in the sample precluded demographic
variables from being considered in the current study. Therefore, ability, personality, and experience
were the three categories of KSAOs examined.
Personality was characterized in terms of the Five Factor Model (FFM), which includes conscien-
tiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness to experience (Goldberg, 1993).
Because openness to experience is the least clearly defined construct in the FFM (Barrick & Mount,
1991), and there was no logical basis for expecting it to predict task or contextual performance, only
four of the five factors were investigated in this study.
For organizational and prediction purposes, the individual difference variables of interest were
grouped into team- and task-related categories (see Figure 1). Academic ability, previous task experi-
ence, and conscientiousness were categorized as task-related KSAOs. Both ability (e.g., Campbell,
1990; Hattrup, O’Connell, & Wingate, 1998) and previous experience (e.g., Motowidlo & Van Scotter,
1994; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996) have been found to be strong predictors of task performance. In
addition, conscientiousness was considered task-oriented because it is ‘not intrinsically interpersonal
in nature,’ and involves self-discipline, competency, and achievement (McCrae & Costa, 1989, p. 586).
Moreover, Stewart, Barrick, and Piotrowski (2000—Paper presented at the 15th Annual Conference
of the SIOP, New Orleans, USA) found that conscientiousness was positively correlated with the
motivational intention to ‘get things done,’ but not significantly correlated with the motivation to
‘get along.’
Previous team experience, agreeableness, extraversion, and neuroticism were considered team-
related KSAOs. Agreeableness, neuroticism, and extraversion are considered socially oriented charac-
teristics (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Indeed, recent meta-analyses have found that agreeableness and
emotional stability are especially important traits for jobs requiring teamwork (Hough, 1992; Mount,
Barrick, & Stewart, 1998). In addition, a meta-analysis by Organ and Ryan (1995), as well as a variety
of theoretical arguments, suggest that extraversion is a valid predictor of jobs requiring interpersonal
interaction.
The nature of the task and aggregation issues

In addition to the particular outcomes studied and the type of diversity being assessed, the emerging
theoretical framework in the team literature suggests that the nature of the task will strongly affect the
relationship between team composition and team outcomes (LePine, Hollenbeck, Illgen, & Hedlund,
1997; Neuman & Wright, 1999). According to Barrick et al. (1998), ‘future studies regarding team-
level personality and team processes and effectiveness should therefore be careful to account for group
tasks when developing hypotheses’ (p. 388). There are numerous dimensions by which tasks can be
classified, including interdependence (pooled, sequential, reciprocal, intensive; Thompson, 1967) and
member contributions (conjunctive, disjunctive, discretionary; Steiner, 1972).
In addition to considerable variation in the nature of group tasks, team composition research is
further complicated by variation in the ways that individual scores can be aggregated to arrive at a
group score. Several methods exist for operationalizing team composition, including calculating the
mean score for individual measures, the variability of individual characteristics, and the maximum or
minimum individual team member score (see Chan, 1998; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000 for a thorough
review and critique of various composition models). Expanding upon Steiner’s (1972) work,
Kozlowski and Klein (2000) developed a typology of emergence to illustrate various ways in which
lower-level properties form a collective phenomena. They suggest several models that range from iso-
morphic composition (higher-level property is essentially the same as its constituent elements) to dis-
continuous compilation (higher-level property is a complex combination of diverse lower-level
contributions).
In the present study, student teams played a management role in which they planned and supervised
the preparation and service of meals in a cafeteria-style dining room patronized by university students,
staff, and faculty. The level of interaction resembled reciprocal interdependence (Van de Ven & Ferry,
1980) in which work flowed back and forth between team members with food preparation responsi-
bilities (‘back-of-the-house’) and those with service responsibilities (‘front-of-the-house’). In addition,
there were group goals and feedback as well as outcome interdependence. Various contextual con-
straints, including the threat of dismissal from the team, group grades, competitiveness with other
teams, and the responsibility of daily food service to the public restricted how little could be contrib-
uted to the team effort. Therefore, interdependence was managed through a process where the inputs of
each team member combined into a collective output. Composition measures aggregated by mean
scores are considered most appropriate for additive tasks (Barrick et al., 1998; Steiner, 1972).
Development of hypotheses
Because universal conceptualizations of emergence often do not exist, hypothesis development needs
to consider the complex interactions involved with the composition variables being assessed, the out-
comes studied, the nature of the team task, and aggregation issues. Given these factors, we argue that
the theoretical underpinnings of emergence point to a linear, composition model, which is based on the
premise that lower-level phenomena are isomorphic with each other and with the higher level construct
(Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Therefore, we utilize past research at the individual-level of analysis to
support the rationale for our hypotheses.
In the current study, student management teams were graded on how well they organized and super-
vised student employees during their two meal management days (leadership task performance), as
well as on detailed written descriptions of food purchasing, menu planning, and cost accounting
(technical-administrative task performance). Because leadership task performance, technical-
administrative task performance, and contextual performance contribute to team effectiveness in dif-
ferent ways, relationships between composition variables were expected to differ, depending on the
type of performance required. The rationale underlying specific hypotheses is elaborated upon below.
Technical-administrative task performance

Because technical-administrative performance includes tasks such as planning, paperwork, organiz-
ing, and technical ability, it was expected that task-related KSAOs would positively influence this out-
come variable. Although students worked collectively to complete this aspect of performance, it
required a lower level of interdependence than the leadership component because much of the written
reports could be accomplished by dividing up the tasks amongst members and then working indepen-
dently. Indeed, anecdotal information from students confirmed that teams allocated parts of written
reports to different members and then pooled their efforts in an additive fashion. According to Tesluk,
Zaccaro, Marks, and Mathieu (1997), primary emphasis should be placed on individual KSAOs in
tasks with lower levels of interdependence.
Specifically, teams with higher mean academic ability, previous restaurant experience, and conscien-
tiousness were expected to score higher on technical-administrative task performance than teams with
lower mean levels of these variables. A fair amount of research has investigated the dispositional deter-
minants of task performance at the individual level of analysis and has found that both ability and work
experience significantly predict task performance (e.g., Campbell, 1990; Hattrup et al., 1998; Motowi-
dlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). For example, a meta-analysis by Quinones
et al. (1995) confirmed experience–performance linkages, especially when the levels were commensu-
rate and at the task-level of specification. Ability has also been found to positively influence perfor-
mance at the team level (e.g., Barrick et al., 1998; Neuman & Wright, 1999; Tziner & Eden, 1985).
Of the FFM, conscientiousness has emerged as the strongest and most consistent predictor of indi-
vidual job performance, regardless of task requirements (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Because conscien-
tious individuals are described as being thorough, responsible, organized, hardworking, self-
disciplined, and achievement oriented (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1993), it is likely that teams
with higher scores on this variable would be more likely to produce superior written reports. In pre-
vious research, teams high on conscientiousness have experienced positive performance outcomes on
additive tasks in field settings (Barrick et al., 1998; Neuman et al., 1999).
Hypothesis 1: Task-related composition variables will significantly predict technical-administrative
task performance. Specifically, teams with higher mean grade point averages (GPA), previous res-
taurant experience, and conscientiousness will receive higher scores on technical-administrative
task performance than teams with lower mean levels of these variables. Team-related composition
variables will not account for unique variance in technical/administrative task performance beyond
task-related variables (re: increment from the second set).
Although team-related composition variables were not expected to relate strongly with technical-
administrative task performance, they were predicted to assume increased importance with respect
to leadership task performance and contextual performance.
Leadership task performance

In many ways, leadership task performance in a team setting can be considered a hybrid of task per-
formance and the interpersonal dimensions of contextual performance (Conway, 1999). Conway
(1996) found that the distinction between task and contextual performance was less clear for manage-
rial jobs, but the difference between the two dimensions is also likely to be blurred in team settings
because of the social activities that underlie effective collective performance (LePine et al., 2000). In
the present study, the ability of student management teams to successfully train and motivate their
employees during the meals was linked to adequate planning, technical ability, and organization.
Therefore, it was expected that both task- and team-related KSAOs would contribute to effective lea-
dership task performance.
As with technical-administrative task performance, teams with higher mean GPAs, restaurant
experience, and conscientiousness were expected to earn higher scores on leadership task perfor-
mance. In addition, teams with higher mean levels of previous team experience, agreeableness, and
extraversion were also hypothesized to achieve higher leadership task performance, whereas higher
mean neuroticism levels were predicted to result in lower performance. According to previous
research, individuals with team experience have produced superior teamwork knowledge structures
(e.g., Rentsch et al., 1994), and by extension, should perform better as a group than would teams with
less aggregate experience. With regard to personality variables, agreeableness and emotional stability
(the opposite of neuroticism) have been found to be important traits for jobs requiring teamwork
(Hough, 1992). According to Mount et al. (1998), ‘when work is to be accomplished in situations
where teamwork is critical, it is particularly important that individuals be cooperative, considerate,
trusting, and friendly (agreeable) as well as secure, calm, and steady (emotionally stable)’ (p. 162).
In addition, because of the high levels of interpersonal interaction required by service and team-
oriented jobs, it is likely that extraverts would be particularly suited to leadership task performance
in a restaurant setting. Indeed, extraversion has been found to be especially important in work settings
where social interaction is salient (Barrick & Mount, 1991), and extraverts are more likely to exhibit
leader behaviors (Littlepage, Schmidt, Whisler, & Frost, 1995).
In contrast to technical-administrative task performance, a greater level of team interdependence
was necessary for successful leadership of the meals. Because of the high amounts of communication
and coordination required to organize student employees, relationships among members had to be
facilitated by team rather than individual principles of work structure. According to Cannon-Bowers
et al. (1995), team-related competencies are likely to be more critical in nature than task-related com-
petencies in interdependent teams that perform a variety of tasks. Similarly, Tesluk et al. (1997) pro-
posed that a premium be placed on team-related KSAOs in reciprocally interdependent tasks.
Adopting this reasoning, it was expected that team-related KSAOs would account for unique variance
in leadership task performance beyond task-related variables.
Hypothesis 2: Both task- and team-related composition variables will significantly predict leadership
task performance.
Hypothesis 2A: Teams with higher mean GPAs, previous restaurant experience, and conscientious-
ness will receive higher scores on leadership task performance than teams with lower mean levels of
these variables.
Hypothesis 2B: Team-related composition variables will account for unique variance in leadership
task performance beyond task-related composition variables. Teams with higher mean levels of
team experience, agreeableness, and extraversion will receive higher scores on leadership task per-
formance than teams with lower mean levels of these variables. Teams with higher mean levels of
neuroticism will receive lower scores on leadership task performance.
Contextual performance
Because contextual performance reflects a set of interpersonal and volitional behaviors that support the
social and motivational context in which work is accomplished (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, 1997),
team-related KSAOs are expected to be significant predictors. As discussed by LePine et al. (2000),
there are many parallels that can be drawn between the dimensions of contextual performance and
teamwork. At the individual level of analysis, a fair amount of research has demonstrated that person-
ality accounts for significant variance in contextual performance (e.g., Motowidlo & Van Scotter,
1994). For example, Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) found that extraversion and agreeableness cor-
related with the interpersonal facilitation dimension of contextual performance. Furthermore, a meta-
analysis by Organ and Ryan (1995) suggested that agreeableness, and to a lesser extent, extraversion
and emotional stability were related to measures of voluntary helping and cooperativeness. Conse-
quently, with regard to contextual performance, a positive relationship was expected with previous
team experience, agreeableness, and extraversion, while a negative relationship was predicted with
neuroticism.
Unlike leadership task performance, task-related composition variables were not expected to exert a
significant influence on contextual performance. In advancing a theory of individual differences and
task/contextual performance, Motowidlo, Borman, and Schmit (1997) propose that the strongest
effects of ability and personality are on task and contextual performance, respectively. Although
their theory does not preclude personality influences on task performance and ability influences on
contextual performance, their impact is clearly secondary. In addition, previous research has found that
ability and work experience did not explain significant variance in contextual performance (e.g.,
Hattrup et al., 1998; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996).
The results of several studies at the individual level of analysis indicate that conscientiousness does
predict contextual performance (e.g., Hattrup et al., 1998; Hogan, Rybicki, Motowidlo, & Borman,
1998; Organ & Ryan, 1995). However, in a team context, conscientiousness may not exert such a sig-
nificant influence on interpersonally oriented behaviors without a task component. Based on a meta-
analysis of personality and jobs involving interpersonal interactions, Mount et al. (1998) concluded,
‘in contrast to emotional stability and agreeableness, theoretical expectations do not suggest that the
relation between conscientiousness and performance is necessarily stronger in team-based settings’

(p. 152). Based on this reasoning, conscientiousness, along with other task-related KSAOs, were
not expected to account for significant variance in contextual performance.
Hypothesis 3: Team-related composition variables will significantly predict contextual perfor-
mance. Specifically, teams with higher mean levels of team experience, agreeableness, and extra-
version will receive higher scores on contextual performance than teams with lower mean levels of
these variables. Teams with higher mean levels of neuroticism will receive lower scores on contex-
tual performance. Task-related composition variables will not account for unique variance in con-
textual performance beyond team-related variables (re: increment from the second set).
In summary, task-related KSAOs were expected to predict technical-administrative task performance,
team-related KSAOs were expected to predict contextual performance, and both task- and team-related
KSAOs were expected to predict leadership task performance. Figure 1 illustrates the hypothesized
relationships.
Method
Participants
Participants were one hundred and twenty students enrolled in an undergraduate Hotel, Restaurant, and
Institutional Management (HRIM) course at the Pennsylvania State University. The mean age of the
students was 21.45 (SD ¼ 1.55), and 74 per cent of the sample was female. Caucasian, Asian, and
Hispanic students accounted for 95.7, 2.6, and 1.7 per cent of the sample, respectively. All participants
were upper-level students (60.3 per cent seniors and 29.7 per cent juniors), and either HRIM (64.1 per
cent) or nutrition (35.9 per cent) majors. Students received extra credit in return for their participation
in the study.
Team composition and task
On the first day of the 15-week course, the students were divided into 25 management teams, each
consisting of 4–5 members (mean team size ¼ 4.8, SD ¼ 0.41). Each participant was a member of only
one of the 25 teams studied. The basis for group formation was primarily random, with some inter-
vention by the course instructor to ensure an even distribution of gender. Because membership
remained consistent throughout the semester and teams were held mutually accountable for outcomes
(grades, food service to the public), they approximate real, but newly established teams.
Twice during the semester, each team was required to plan and supervise the preparation and service
of meals in a cafeteria-style dining room patronized by approximately 400 customers daily. With the
exception of two full-time employees, students in the course ran the cafeteria and were responsible for
purchasing, menu planning, cost accounting, and supervising work staff. Students who do not perform
can be fired from their team, and customers behave in the same manner as in restaurants when they are
pleased or unhappy with the food or service. Therefore, students participated in a real-life educational
laboratory. Each team’s first and second ‘meal day’ was separated by five weeks. While one team
served as managers on their assigned meal day, all other class members served as their employees
and followed the instruction of the management team. Each team had three designated roles: General
Manager, Food Production Manager, or Service Manager. While each team had only one General
Manager, there were either one or two Food Production and/or Service Managers, depending on the
size of the team. These roles were changed from the first meal day to the second.
Procedure
The data reported in this paper were collected as part of a larger study investigating the effects of team
building and task training interventions on multidimensional training outcomes and team effective-
ness. Because there were no main effects for training or significant interactions between training
interventions and the variables of interest in this study, the current paper will not report the data con-
cerning training type.
During the first two weeks of the semester, students completed an initial survey that measured the
individual difference variables of interest in this study: ability, personality, and experience. Twice dur-
ing the semester, student teams managed the food production and service delivery of lunch meals and
were graded by the course instructor on their leadership performance. One week after each team’s
management meal day, students completed a post production report (technical-administrative task per-
formance), which required a complete financial accounting of the meal and a detailed critique of their
team and management performance. When they turned in their post-production reports, team members
were also asked to rate each others’ contextual performance behaviors.
Measures of predictors
Academic ability
Academic ability was measured by self-reports of GPA, which was measured on a 0 to 4.0 scale.
Among a sample of 267 Pennsylvania State University undergraduates, Zajac (1991) found
r ¼ 0.81, p < 0.001 between self-reported GPA and the score that was available from administrative
records. It should also be noted that students’ motivation, personality, and other individual differences,
as well as the academic institutions and majors that students are enrolled in, may also lead to higher or
lower GPAs. However, because we sampled students from only two roughly comparable majors in a
single university and included measures of personality in our analyses, the variance attributable to GPA
should mainly reflect differences in academic ability in this setting.
Personality
Personality was measured with the short form five factor inventory (NEO-FFI) consisting of
neuroticism, extroversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness scales (Costa & McCrae, 1992). This
instrument is one of the most widely used and researched measures of the FFM, and provides a
‘brief, comprehensive measure of the five domains of personality’ (Costa & McCrae, 1992, p. 11).
Each personality dimension was assessed by 12 items, and respondents used a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from strongly disagree/definitely false to strongly agree/definitely true. The Cronbach
alphas for this sample were 0.86 (neuroticism), 0.74 (extroversion), 0.72 (agreeableness), and 0.83
(conscientiousness).
Experience
Past team and restaurant experience was measured by an experience record adapted from Hough’s
(1984) accomplishment record. Participants were asked to describe their previous team-related experi-
ences in terms of the type of team, their role, how long they were a member, awards/recognition
received, and the level/setting of each team experience. Notably, this approach explicitly recognizes
that not all experiences are equal and permits us to consider the relative quality, duration, and quantity
of individuals’ past experiences (Quinones et al., 1995; Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998). Two coders rated each
team experience in terms of interdependence (pooled, sequential, reciprocal, intensive; Thompson,
1967; Van de Ven & Ferry, 1980), how applicable the team experience was to the HRIM course
(high, moderate, low), duration of the team experience in months, role (leadership, specific roles,
general team membership), level/setting (advanced, intermediate, novice), and awards/recognition
(formal, informal, nothing). Inter–rater reliabilities across the various dimensions ranged from
0.69 to 0.91.
We then consulted with the HRIM course instructors and developed a consensus-based weighting
scheme for integrating the multiple dimensions to yield a single composite that reflects what Quinones
et al. (1995) called the ‘developmental punch’ and Tesluk and Jacobs (1998) called the ‘density’ of
previous experiences. Specifically, we had them split 100 per cent across the six facets of restaurant
experience reports. The idea was for them to assign more points (higher weights) to those attributes
of experience that would be more valuable for performing well in the course. They did this first indi-
vidually, discussed their relative allocations, and then derived a consensus set of weights. The coded
team experience dimensions were standardized and then weighted by those means as follows:
team experience ¼ sum (0.30 applicability þ 0.25 interdependence þ 0.23 role þ 0.12 durationþ
0.5 level þ 0.5 awards).
Students were also asked to describe their previous restaurant-related experiences in terms of the
type of restaurant, their role, how long they were a member, awards/recognition received, and the level
of each restaurant experience. Two coders rated each restaurant experience in terms of the type of res-
taurant (fine dining, table-service, cafeteria/deli, fast food), role (management, prep cook, host/server,
bartender/cashier), duration of experience in months, awards (formal, informal, nothing), and level
(supervisory, middle-level, entry-level.). Inter–rater reliabilities ranged from 0.80 to 0.96. Because
they were highly correlated (0.70), level and role were averaged to create a position score. Here again,
we developed a consensus-derived weighting algorithm from our discussion with course instructors to
yield a density of restaurant experience measure. Specifically, the coded dimensions were standardized
and combined as follows: restaurant experience ¼ sum (0.45 restaurant þ 0.25 position þ 0.20
duration þ 0.10 awards).
Measures of criteria
In order to avoid same rater bias, data on dependent variables were collected from both instructor (tech-
nical-administrative and leadership performance) and peer (contextual performance) ratings. Moreover,
rating sources are consistent with research indicating that peers attend more to contextual performance
dimensions, whereas supervisors attend more to task performance dimensions (Conway, 1999).
Technical-administrative task performance

Technical-administrative task performance was measured by instructor ratings of two post-production
reports, each of which was completed one week after each team’s meal days. Teams were required to
compute a profit/loss statement, calculate the final purchase order, and cost out recipes, as well as pro-
vide a written evaluation of employees’ and co-managers’ performance. In addition, participants cri-
tiqued their meal performance in terms of meeting deadlines, food quality and quantity, managing
employees, and customer service. The first and second post-production reports were worth 7 and 10
per cent of the students’ final course grade, respectively. Individuals in each team received the same
grade on the post-production reports, which were each worth a total of 100 points. The scores for the
first meal averaged 84.46 (SD ¼ 6.71) and 89.56 (SD ¼ 5.63) for the second meal. To guard against
bias, the course instructor was not aware of how students had scored on any of the predictor measures.
Leadership task performance

Leadership task performance was assessed by instructor ratings of the teams’ management perfor-
mance on each meal day. In a qualitative sense, the instructor considered a number of dimensions
including each individual participants’ decision making, professional appearance, attention to detail,
training employees, meeting deadlines, motivation, and leadership. In addition, each member was
scored on the basis of the average quality of the communication between co-managers, communication
with employees, service, and quality/quantity of food preparation. Whereas detailed qualitative feed-
back reports were created for each student according to these factors, the leadership task performance
score was simply an overall 0–100 clinical composite assigned by the instructor. Therefore, we do not
have internal consistency or inter–rater reliabilities available. Nevertheless, these scores were taken
quite seriously as they constituted 13 per cent and 20 per cent of the final grade for the first and second
meal day, respectively. Further, the instructor was a savvy and well respected professor who had taught
this class for many years. The scores for the first meal averaged 82.70 (SD ¼ 3.95) and 84.55
(SD ¼ 4.42) for the second meal.
Contextual performance
Contextual performance data were collected with a 9-item measure that contained items written by
Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994). The scale was altered to remove items that pertained to military
personnel and supervisors. Items measured different aspects of contextual performance, including
volunteering, cooperating, taking initiative, and working enthusiastically. This scale was completed
by peers (average n ¼ 3.75 and 3.31 for Times 1 and 2, respectively) within the management team
who were told that the ratings were developmental and would not impact the student managers’ course
grades. Because self-ratings are often inflated (e.g., Mount, 1984), only peer ratings were included in
the analyses. Participants used a 5-point scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree or definitely false; 5 ¼ strongly
agree or definitely true). Team members completed the contextual performance measure following
each meal day, and the Cronbach alphas were 0.93 for Time 1 and 0.96 for Time 2. The correlation
between Time 1 and Time 2 composites was 0.71 at the individual level of analysis. The average
weighted inter–rater correlation for these ratings was 0.52 for Time 1 and 0.50 for Time 2. Accord-
ingly, given that on average, there were approximately 3.5 ratings available at each time, applying the
Spearman-Brown prophecy formula for linear composites described by Nunnally and Berstein (1994,
pp. 266–270) yields reliability estimates of r ¼ 0.80 and r ¼ 0.77 for the average peer ratings of con-
textual performances at Times 1 and 2, respectively. The first meal’s ratings averaged 4.47 (SD ¼ 0.33)
and 4.50 (SD ¼ 0.42) for the second meal.
Results
Preliminary analyses
Because contextual performance was based on the average of the ratings made by peers, it was neces-
sary to determine if raters agreed in their assessments. To make this determination, estimates were
computed using James, Demaree, and Wolf’s (1984) within-group agreement index (rwg) for
a multiple-item scale using a rectangular response distribution as the referent. Values of 0.70 or higher
are considered to be indicators of good agreement among raters (e.g., George & Bettenhausen, 1990).
The rwg for peer ratings of contextual performance was computed for each of the 120 participants. The
mean rwg for Time 1 was 0.98, with all values exceeding 0.90. For Time 2, the mean rwg was 0.97, with
one value less than 0.70 and all other values exceeding 0.81.
According to Chan (1998), the direct consensus composition model uses within-group agreement of
scores to index consensus at the lower level and to justify aggregation of lower level scores to represent
scores at the higher level. Therefore, in order to determine whether team member agreement justified
aggregation to the team level, the rwg for contextual performance was calculated for each group. The
average rwg for Time 1 was 0.99, with all values exceeding 0.96. For Time 2, the average rwg was 0.93,
with one value less than 0.70, and the remaining values exceeding 0.86. At the team level, Cronbach’s
alpha for the contextual performance scale was 0.96 at Time 1 and 0.95 at Time 2.
As further evidence of validity of using the average of individual criteria scores as group level
indices, we calculated intraclass correlations (ICC) for contextual performance (Shrout & Fleiss,
1979). The ICC1 values indicate that there is sufficient homogeneity within groups to warrant aggre-
gation to the team level of analysis, whereas the ICC2 values reveal that those averages can reliably
differentiate groups (Bliese, 2000). The ICC1 value was 0.65 for Time 1 and 0.39 for Time 2. The
ICC2 values for contextual performance were 0.90 and 0.76 for Times 1 and 2, respectively. All values
were significant ( p < 0.001) and support the use of the average scores as team criteria measures.
Team size was considered as a control variable (e.g., Steiner, 1972). However, because team size did
not correlate significantly with any of the criterion measures included in this study, we excluded it from
the analyses reported below to preserve power in our team sample. Due to the fact that student teams
operated in the context of an additive task, all composition variables collected at the individual level
were aggregated by mean and analysed at the team level (e.g., Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).
Tests of hypotheses
The means, standard deviations, and correlations for all study variables are reported in Table 1. The
correlations between technical-administrative, leadership, and contextual performance are not signifi-
cant, which supports the contention that these are distinct aspects of team performance. As predicted,
mean GPA scores are positively related to technical-administrative and leadership task performance,
but not to contextual performance. In addition, agreeableness is positively correlated with contextual
performance, and extraversion is strongly related to leadership task performance at Time 2.
Repeated measures multiple regression (RMMR: Cohen & Cohen, 1983; Hollenbeck, Illgen, &
Sego, 1994) was used to test all hypotheses. Despite the small team sample employed in this study,
RMMR offers a more powerful test of longitudinal data because it allows the partitioning of total var-
iance into that which exists between teams and that which occurs within teams over time. In our
context, between team variance accounted for the majority of the total variance that was observed
for each dependent variable: technical-administrative ¼ 72 per cent leadership ¼ 83 per cent and
contextual ¼ 93 per cent. A RMMR design essentially stacks observations from each team over time,
analyses the relationships among variables using this stacked data with traditional multiple regression
techniques, and then adjusts the results because observations from the same teams over time are not
independent. By utilizing RMMR, the number of observations in this study was increased from 25 to
50 because of the two measures of each of the three criterion variables assessed during the course of the
semester.
Table 2 displays the RMMR results. Depending on hypotheses, either task- or team-related compo-
sition variables were entered first, followed by the alternate block of variables. Recall that Hypothesis 1
predicted that task-related composition variables, but not team-related composition variables, would
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations at the team level
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Task-related KSAOs
1. GPA 3.0 0.27
2. Restaurant experience 0.2 0.62 0.18
Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

3. Conscientiousness 3.9 0.27 0.44y 0.31
Team-related KSAOs
4. Team experience 0.0 1.20 0.10 0.53* 0.27
5. Agreeableness 3.9 0.23 0.21 0.04 0.46y 0.07
6. Extraversion 3.8 0.23 0.23 0.27 0.59* 0.05 0.26
7. Neuroticism 2.7 0.31 0.26 0.28 0.46y 0.15 0.10 0.37
Criterion measures
8. Tech.-admin. task perf., Time 1 84.46 6.71 0.25 0.13 0.04 0.05 0.11 0.10 0.07
9. Tech.-admin. task perf., Time 2 89.56 5.63 0.52y 0.13 0.03 0.02 0.17 0.10 0.03 0.64y
10. Leadership task perf., Time 1 82.70 3.95 0.46y 0.17 0.20 0.24 0.11 0.26 0.19 0.27 0.34
11. Leadership task perf., Time 2 84.55 4.42 0.45y 0.18 0.42 0.28 0.20 0.63* 0.04 0.03 0.37 0.71*
12. Contextual perf., Time 1 4.47 0.33 0.19 0.02 0.42y 0.03 0.66* 0.32 0.38 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.16
13. Contextual perf., Time 2 4.50 0.42 0.34 0.61* 0.31 0.25 0.48y 0.10 0.29 0.21 0.19 0.09 0.01 0.60y
Note: n ¼ 19–25.
*p < 0.01; y p < 0.05.
TEAM- AND TASK-RELATED COMPOSITION VARIABLES
J. Organiz. Behav. 23, 795–814 (2002)

807
Table 2. Repeated measures multiple regression analyses beta weights

Technical-administrative Leadership task Contextual
task performance performance performance
Predictors Task KSAOs Full Task KSAOs Full Team KSAOs Full
only model only model only model
Task-related predictors
GPA 0.44* 0.46* 0.45y 0.52* 0.05
Restaurant experience 0.01 0.06 0.23 0.12 0.41*
Conscientiousness 0.19 0.22 0.04 0.14 0.18
Team-related predictors
Team experience 0.17 0.31 0.30y 0.13
Agreeableness 0.02 0.04 0.50* 0.41*
Extraversion 0.04 0.47y 0.08 0.08
Neuroticism 0.10 0.42y 0.21 0.21
R2 0.15 0.25y 0.34*
R2 increment 0.03 0.28y 0.13
2 y
Total R 0.18 0.52 0.47y
n ¼ 25 teams, 50 observations.
*p < 0.01; y p < 0.05.
Full model, all predictors entered simultaneously.
significantly predict technical-administrative performance. When introduced as a set, task factors

entered in Step 1 accounted for only 15 per cent (F(3, 21) ¼ 12.54, n.s.) of the variance in technical-
administrative performance. However, the unique effect of GPA was significant (beta ¼ 0.44,
p < 0.05). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is not supported, although the effect of GPA is encouraging. As
expected, introducing the team block as a second step did not account for additional unique variance
(R2 increment ¼ 0.03, F(4, 17) ¼ 0.20, n.s.).
Hypotheses 2A and 2B predicted that both task- and team-related composition variables would pre-
dict leadership task performance. Task factors accounted for 25 per cent (F(3, 21) ¼ 3.10, p < 0.05) of
the variance in leadership task performance. When introduced as a second set, team factors explained
an additional 28 per cent (F(4, 17) ¼ 3.92, p < 0.05) of variance. Collectively, the two sets explained 52
per cent (F(7, 17) ¼ 4.03, p < 0.05) of the variance in leadership task performance. As expected, GPA
(beta ¼ 0.52, p < 0.05), team experience (marginal, beta ¼ 0.31, p < 0.10), and extraversion
(beta ¼ 0.47, p < 0.05) emerged as positive predictors of leadership performance. Surprisingly, higher
mean neuroticism levels positively influenced the ability of teams to effectively manage their meals
(beta ¼ 0.42, p < 0.05). However, because neither of the zero order correlations were significant (and
in fact were in the opposite direction), we suspect that this may well be a suppressor type effect (see
Cohen & Cohen, 1983). In addition, conscientiousness, restaurant experience, and agreeableness failed
to significantly predict leadership performance. In summary, although support for the overall effects
advanced in Hypothesis 2 were obtained, the direction and magnitudes of the individual beta weights
were not consistent with our expectations. Therefore, we conclude that Hypotheses 2A and B were
only partially supported.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that team- but not task-related composition variables would predict contex-
tual performance. When entered in Step 1 of the regression, team-related KSAOs accounted for 34 per
cent of the variance (F(4, 20) ¼ 3.44, p < 0.05) observed for contextual performance. When introduced
as a second step, the task block accounted for an additional 13 per cent, but was not significant
(F(3, 17) ¼ 2.03, n.s.). Notably, however, the unique influence of restaurant experience was significant
from this set (beta ¼ 0.41, p < 0.05). In sum, agreeableness emerged as a strong positive predictor
(beta ¼ 0.50, p < 0.05), but extraversion, neuroticism, and team experience failed to significantly
affect contextual performance. Contrary to expectations, restaurant experience related to contextual
performance rather than technical administrative or leadership task performance. Specifically, higher
restaurant experience in the team lowered contextual performance ratings (beta ¼ 0.41, p < 0.05).
Consequently, we conclude that Hypothesis 3 was only partially supported.
Discussion
Despite an increasing number of organizations structuring work through the use of teams, we know
relatively little about how diverse individuals comprising a team influence team outcomes. Team-
based organizations must not only seek the best individuals for the team, but the best combination
of individuals for the team in terms of the mix of KSAOs. The current study was designed to examine
the impact of ability, personality, and experience on both task and contextual performance in the set-
ting of student management teams performing an additive task. Overall, moderate support was found
for hypotheses regarding the differential effects of team- and task-related KSAOs on technical-
administrative, leadership, and contextual performance.
GPA was the only variable that accounted for significant variance in technical-administrative tasks
such as planning, paperwork, organizing, and technical ability. This result is consistent with previous
research at the individual level showing that ability positively predicts task performance (e.g.,
Campbell, 1990; Hattrup et al., 1998). As expected, team-related variables were not related to success
on this criterion. In contrast, the role of team-related composition variables increased in importance for
both leadership and contextual performance. Specifically, team experience (marginal), extraversion,
and neuroticism predicted leadership task performance. Of the task-related variables, only GPA was
significantly related to this criterion variable. Therefore, team-related competencies proved to be
critical for the successful leadership of meals, which required high levels of communication and coor-
dination (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995).
As with leadership performance, team-related composition variables played an important role in the
prediction of contextual performance, but agreeableness was the primary driver. This is consistent with
previous research at the individual level demonstrating that cooperativeness (similar to agreeableness)
shows the greatest differential prediction between contextual and task performance (e.g., Conway,
1996; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994). Given the importance of interpersonal relations in an inter-
dependent context, it is not surprising that agreeable team members would be more inclined to volun-
teer for extra-role tasks as well as support and encourage their peers.
Although hypothesized to influence both leadership and contextual performance, extraversion was
only found to impact leadership task performance. Teams with individuals high in extraversion were
particularly well suited to the service orientation of dealing with customers in a restaurant setting, as
well as the interpersonal interaction required to work in teams. However, extraversion did not predict
behaviors such as volunteering to carry out extra tasks, helping others, and persisting with extra enthu-
siasm when necessary. Stewart (1996) found that the relationship between extraversion and the perfor-
mance of sales representatives was moderated by reward structure, such that extraverts only excelled
on the performance dimensions that were specifically rewarded. Consistent with these results, high
extraversion teams only performed well on tasks that were explicitly graded.
Although it was expected that restaurant experience would predict technical-administrative and
leadership task performance, it was found to influence contextual performance. Furthermore, the
direction of the relationship was negative, such that higher mean levels of restaurant experience in the
team lowered contextual performance ratings. We suspect that this result may be indicative of team
members with more restaurant experience requiring less help from teammates because of their prior
experience. One would also expect a negative relationship if the quality of previous restaurant experi-
ence was low and appropriate contextual performance behaviors were not modelled. As this is post-hoc
theorizing, however, further research is needed to confirm these explanations.
In examining across columns in Table 2, it is interesting to note that a different mix of composition
variables resulted for the three types of performance measured. Specifically, GPA, extraversion, and
neuroticism predicted leadership task performance, whereas restaurant experience and agreeableness
predicted contextual performance. In addition, GPA was the only variable that accounted for signifi-
cant variance in technical-administrative task performance. These findings emphasize the fact that
careful attention must be given to the matching of traits and performance criteria (LePine et al.,
1997; Neuman & Wright, 1999). Individual differences do influence team performance, but uncover-
ing the effects depends substantially on a thorough consideration of the nature of the task and the spe-
cific composition variables being explored.
Interestingly, conscientiousness failed to account for significant variance in either task or contextual
performance. Of the FFM, conscientiousness has emerged as the strongest and most consistent predic-
tor of individual job performance, regardless of task requirements (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Mount &
Barrick, 1995). However, this study demonstrates that personality determinants in group settings may
depart in important ways from those that apply to individual job effectiveness. One explanation may be
that GPA combines motivational and personality dimensions such as conscientiousness. Therefore,
GPA may have removed some of the variance in performance due to conscientiousness in the regres-
sion equations. However, conscientiousness still did not emerge as a significant predictor after deleting
GPA from the regression equations.
In contrast to individual-level findings, team-level results have yielded a mixed picture with regard
to the conscientiousness–performance relationship (e.g., Barrick et al., 1998; Barry & Stewart, 1997;
Neuman & Wright, 1999). Based on a meta-analysis of personality and jobs involving interpersonal
interactions, Mount et al. (1998) concluded that importance of conscientiousness decreases for jobs
involving teamwork, while the importance of the emotional stability and agreeableness increases.
Furthermore, conscientiousness predicted interactions with others better in non-team jobs than in
work teams (Mount et al., 1998). Therefore, the value of conscientiousness may decrease at the
team level.
Contributions and implications
Whereas existing research has largely considered the impact of team composition on performance in
only one task context (e.g., Barrick et al., 1998; Barry & Stewart, 1997; Neuman & Wright, 1998), the
current work contributes to the literature by examining two types of task performance, as well as con-
textual performance within the same study. Existing contextual performance research has primarily
been conducted at the individual-level of analysis, and the research on teams has largely ignored con-
textual performance as a relevant outcome variable. Therefore, the current study contributes to both of
these literatures by examining the impact of composition variables on task and contextual performance
at the team level of analysis.
Because technical-administrative, leadership, and contextual performance differed with regard to
their task requirements, the team composition–performance relationship varied considerably across
the three types of outcomes. Indeed, different predictors emerged for each type of performance, which
emphasizes that differences in task type reflect a major source of variation across teams and that a
single optimal composition for work teams does not exist. Rather, the role of the task and team must
carefully be accounted for in designing effective teams.
A growing body of research at the individual level has found that task performance is better pre-
dicted by ability and work experience, whereas contextual performance is better predicted by person-
ality factors (e.g., Hattrup et al., 1998; McManus & Kelly, 1999; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994;
Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). However, group-level analyses in the present study found that both
task-and team-related competencies accounted for significant variance in task as well as contextual
performance. Therefore, in a team setting, where roles are interdependent and members are held
mutually accountable for team goals, there may not be such a clear pattern of findings in terms of indi-
vidual differences and team outcomes. Whereas Conway (1996, 1999) found that the distinction
between task and contextual performance was less clear for managerial jobs, the present study suggests
that this distinction may also be less straightforward for team-based jobs.
Limitations and future research
It is important to consider the study’s weaknesses and strengths when interpreting these results. Meth-
odologically, a strength of the present research is that it investigated team members performing a real
rather than contrived task over the course of several weeks that had real consequences (e.g., grades,
serving meals to the public). Nevertheless, the use of groups in an academic setting that disband after a
few months limits generalizability, and further research in organizational contexts should be con-
ducted. It should also be noted that the leniency bias in the peer ratings most likely attenuated effects,
and results regarding contextual performance may have been stronger without the restriction in range
problem. In addition, the team sample size was small, suggesting that statistical power was relatively
weak. However, the RMMR analyses improved the power of analyses due to the repeated measures
component. The fact that we were able to find statistically significant effects even with a small sample
indicates that the relationships we were studying had considerable strength. Regardless, the results
should be replicated with a larger sample.
Teams may have had many other diversity elements affecting their performance that were not
indexed. According to Steiner (1972, p. 107), because of the multifaceted nature of individuals,
‘research on group composition always requires a simplification of unmanageable complexities.’
Nevertheless, the current study did attempt to broaden the range of variables considered in this litera-
ture to examine both previous task and team experience composition variables. Future research should
continue to expand the range of diversity dimensions considered to include behavioral styles, values,
and beliefs (Jackson et al., 1995).
Team composition can influence group performance both as an input variable and in interaction with
process considerations (Driskell et al., 1987). Although finding that individual differences predict team
performance, the current study does not account for several process variables that may affect the relation-
ship between inputs and outcomes. Future research should therefore consider the potentially mediating
role of conflict resolution, communication skills, leadership, cohesiveness, and other team processes.
Clearly, more research should examine contextual performance at the team-level of analysis, and the
literature on teams should incorporate contextual performance as an outcome variable of interest.
According to LePine et al. (2000), the team setting is a fertile test-bed in which to study discretionary,
extra-role behaviors because of the close correspondence between many teamwork skill competencies
(e.g., cooperation, communication, morale building) and dimensions of contextual performance (e.g.,
helping, cooperation, interpersonal facilitation). As noted by Borman and Motowidlo (1997), contex-
tual performance will become more important in organizations because of the growing popularity of
team-based work arrangements.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Sophia Cho, Greg Loviscky, Jon Probber, Adam Rosenberg, and
Tamara Williams for their help with data collection.
Author biographies
Susan Mohammed, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Industrial/Organizational Psychology at The

Pennsylvania State University. Her research focuses on teams and decision making, with a specific
emphasis on shared cognition, team mental models, and team composition.
John E. Mathieu is a Professor of Management at the University of Connecticut. He has published
over 50 articles and chapters mostly in the areas of Micro- and Meso-Organizational Behavior. His
current research interests include models of training effectiveness, team and multi-team processes,
and cross-level models of organizational behavior.
A. L. ‘Bart’ Bartlett, MBA, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the School of Hotel, Restaurant, and
Recreation Management at The Pennsylvania State University, where he teaches in Hospitality
Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management. His research interests focus on hospital-
ity teams and hospitality job design to enhance employee job performance and job satisfaction.
References
Argote, L., & McGrath, J. E. (1993). Group processes in organizations: continuity and change. In C. I. Cooper, &
T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 333–389).
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bales, R. F. (1970). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to
work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377–391.
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.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: implications for data
aggregation and analyses. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and
methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). Sam Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual
performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, et al. (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: the meaning for
personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99–109.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). An overview of the army selection and classification project (Project A). Personnel
Psychology, 43, 231–239.
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt, & W.
C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35–70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining competencies and
establishing team training requirements. In R. Guzzo, & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision
making in organizations (pp. 333–380). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis:
a typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.
Chattopadhyay, P. (1999). Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: the influence of demographic similarity on
organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 273–287.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlational analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conway, J. M. (1996). Additional construct validity evidence for the task/contextual performance distinction.
Human Performance, 9, 309–329.
Conway, J. M. (1999). Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for managerial jobs. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 84, 3–13.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual (pp. 1–65). Florida: Psychological Assessment Resource, Inc.
Driskell, J. E., Hogan, R., & Salas, E. (1987). Personality and group performance. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group
processes and intergroup relations (pp. 91–112). Newbury Park: Sage.
George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: a
group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698–709.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of personality. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34.
Hackman, J. R. (1990). Work teams in organizations: an orienting framework. In J. R. Hackman (Ed.), Groups that
work (and those that don’t). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hattrup, K., O’Connell, M. S., & Wingate, P. H. (1998). Prediction of multidimensional criteria: distinguishing
task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 11, 305–319.
Hogan, J., Rybicki, S. L., Motowidlo, S. J., & Borman, W. C. (1998). Relations between contextual performance,
personality, and occupational advancement. Human Performance, 11(2/3), 189–207.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Illgen, D. R., & Sego, D. J. (1994). Repeated measures regression and mediational tests:
enhancing the power of leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 3–23.
Hough, L. M. (1984). Development and evaluation of the ‘accomplishment record’ method of selecting and
promoting professionals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 135–146.
Hough, L. (1992). The ‘Big Five’ predictors: construct confusion: description versus prediction. Human
Performance, 5, 139–155.
Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision-making
teams. In R. A. Guzzo, & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations
(pp. 204–261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group inter–rater reliability with and without
response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.
Kozlowski, S. W. J, & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations:
contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,
research, and methods in organizations (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Lawrence, B. S. (1997). The black box of organizational demography. Organization Science, 8, 1–22.
LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Illgen, 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.
LePine, J. A., Hanson, M. A., Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2000). Contextual performance and teamwork:
implications for staffing. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 9, 53–90.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small-group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41,
585–634.
Littlepage, G. E., Schmidt, G. W., Whisler, E. W., & Frost, A. G. (1995). An input-process–output analysis of
influence and performance in problem-solving groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 877–889.
Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationships between personality and performance in small groups.
Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241–270.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins’ circumplex and the five-
factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 586–595.
McManus, M. A., & Kelly, M. L. (1999). Personality measures and biodata: evidence regarding their incremental
predictive value in the life insurance industry. Personnel Psychology, 52, 137–148.
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of
diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21, 402–433.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from
contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475–480.
Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual
performance. Human Performance, 10, 71–83.
Mount, M. K. (1984). Psychometric properties of subordinate ratings of managerial performance. Personnel
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The Big Five personality dimensions: implications for research and practice
in human resource management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, 153–200.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five-factor model of personality and performance in jobs
involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11, 145–165.
Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. (1999). Team effectiveness: beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied
Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. (1999). The relationship between work-team personality
composition and the job performance of teams. Group and Organization Management, 24, 28–45.
Nunnally, J. C., & Berstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd edn). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: it’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10,
85–97.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of
organizational citizenship behaviors. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802.
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity
and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262–270.
Quinones, M. A., Ford, J. K., & Teachout, M. S. (1995). The relationship between work experience and
performance: a conceptual and meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 48, 887–910.
Rentsch, J. R., Heffner, T. S., & Duffy, L. T. (1994). What you know is what you get from experience. Group and
Organization Management, 14, 450–474.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological
Bulletin, 86, 420–428.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Stewart, G. L. (1996). Reward structure as a moderator of the relationship between extraversion and sales
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 619–627.
Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: applications and effectiveness. American
Psychologist, 45, 120–133.
Tesluk, P. E., & Jacobs, R. J. (1998). Toward an integrated model of work experience. Personnel Psychology, 51,
321–355.
Tesluk, P. E., Zaccaro, S., Marks, M., & Mathieu, J. (1997). Task and aggregation issues in the analysis and
assessment of team performance. In M. Brannick, & E. Salas (Eds.), Assessment and measurement of team
performance: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 197–226). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tziner, A., & Eden, D. (1985). Effects of crew composition on crew performance: does the whole equal the sum of
its parts? Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 85–93.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Ferry, D. L. (1980). Measuring and assessing organizations. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of
contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525–531.

Mohammed Et Al-2002-Journal of Organizational Behavior

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Mohammed Et Al-2002-Journal of Organizational Behavior

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Journal of Organizational Behavior

J. Organiz. Behav. 23, 795–814 (2002)

Technical-administrative task performance,

Received 20 September 2001

Task and contextual performance

Figure 1. Hypothesized relationships between team- and task-related composition variables

Task- and team-related composition variables

The nature of the task and aggregation issues

Technical-administrative task performance

Leadership task performance

relation between conscientiousness and performance is necessarily stronger in team-based settings’

Team composition and task

Technical-administrative task performance

Leadership task performance

Copyright # 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 23, 795–814 (2002)

Table 2. Repeated measures multiple regression analyses beta weights

significantly predict technical-administrative performance. When introduced as a set, task factors

Contributions and implications

Limitations and future research

Susan Mohammed, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Industrial/Organizational Psychology at The

Вам также может понравиться