Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:30:01.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predicting Team Output Using Indices at Group Level

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Amara Andrés ,
Lluís Salafranca  and
Antonio Solanas
Amara Andrés*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Barcelona (Spain)
Lluís Salafranca
Affiliation:
Universidad de Barcelona (Spain)
Antonio Solanas
Affiliation:
Universidad de Barcelona (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Amara Andrés, Departamento de Metodología de las Ciencias del Comportamiento, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Barcelona, Paseo Vall d'Hebron 171, 08035, Barcelona, (Spain). Phone: +34-933125844. E-mail: aandres@ub.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study explores the usefulness of dyadic quantification of group characteristics to predict team work performance. After reviewing the literature regarding team member characteristics predicting group performance, percentages of explained variance between 3% and 18% were found. These studies have followed an individualistic approach to measure group characteristics (e. g., mean and variance), based on aggregation. The aim of the present work was testing whether by means of dyadic measures group output prediction percentage could be increased. The basis of dyadic measures is data obtained from an interdependent pairs of individuals. Specifically, the present research was intended to develop a new dyadic index to measure personality dissimilarity in groups and to explore whether dyadic measurements allow improving groups' outcome predictions compared to individualistic methods. By means of linear regression, 49.5 % of group performance variance was explained using the skewsymmetry and the proposed dissimilarity index in personality as predictors. These results support the usefulness of the dyadic approach for predicting group outcomes.

El presente estudio explora la utilidad de la cuantificación diádica de las características grupales para predecir el rendimiento en equipos de trabajo. Tras revisar la literatura relacionada con el estudio de las características de los miembros de un grupo para predecir el rendimiento grupal, se encontraron porcentajes de varianza explicada de entre el 3% y el 18%. Estos estudios han seguido el denominado enfoque individual, fundamentado en la agregación, para resumir las características de los grupos (e. g., media y varianza). El objetivo del presente estudio es poner a prueba si, mediante medidas diádicas se puede incrementar el porcentaje de predicción del rendimiento grupal. La base de las medidas diádicas son datos obtenidos a partir de pares de individuos interdependientes. Concretamente, en la presente investigación se pretende desarrollar un nuevo índice diádico para medir disimilitud en personalidad en grupos y verificar si las medidas diádicas mejoran la predicción del rendimiento grupal en comparación con las predicciones obtenidas mediante índices basados en la perspectiva individual. Mediante regresión lineal fue explicado el 49.5% de la variabilidad en el rendimiento grupal utilizando como predictoras las medidas tomadas mediante los índices diádicos de antisimetría y disimilitud en personalidad. Estos resultados apoyan la utilidad de la perspectiva diádica para predecir el rendimiento grupal.

Keywords

interpersonal perceptiondyadic measurementsteam workskew-symmetry indexdissimilarity in personalitypercepción interpersonalmedidas diádicastrabajo en equipoíndice de antisimetríadisimilitud en personalidad
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , November 2011 , pp. 773 - 788
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, M. G., & Tett, R. P. (2006, May). Who prefers to work with whom? Trait activation in classroom teams. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
Arthur, W. Jr., Bell, S. T., & Edwards, B. D. (2007). A longitudinal examination of the comparative criterion-related validity of additive and referent-shift consensus operationalizations of team efficacy. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 35–58. doi:10.1177/1094428106287574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, D. P., & Salas, E. (1992). Principles for measuring teamwork skills. Human Factors, 34, 469–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595–615. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biemann, T., & Kearney, E. (2009). Size does matter: How varying group sizes in a sample affect the most common measures of group diversity. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1–6. doi:10.1177/1094428109338875Google Scholar
Bolin, A. U., & Neuman, G. A. (2006). Personality, process, and performance in interactive brainstorming groups. Journal of Business & Psychology, 20, 565–585. doi:10.1007/s10869-005-9000-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Cook, W. L. (2005). The SRM approach to family assessment: An introduction and case example. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 216–225. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.21.4.216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, N. J., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Stout, R. J. (2000). Measuring team knowledge. Human Factors, 42, 151–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McRae, R. R. (2002). Manual NEO PI-R. Madrid, Spain: Tea Ediciones.Google Scholar
Cummings, J. N., & Cross, R. (2003). Structural properties of work groups and their consequences for performance. Social Networks, 25, 197–210. doi:10.1016/S0378-8733(02)00049-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, D. C., & Horowitz, L. M. (1997). When do opposites attract? Interpersonal complementarity versus similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 592–603. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyce, J., & O'Connor, B. P. (1992). Personality complementarity as a determinant of cohesion in bar bands. Small Group Research, 23, 185–198. doi:10.1177/1046496492232003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elfenbein, H. A., & O'Reilly, C. A. III., (2007). Fitting in: The effects of relational demography and person-culture fit on group process and performance. Group & Organization Management, 32, 109–142. doi:10.1177/1059601106286882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erber, R., & Fiske, S. T. (1984). Outcome dependency and attention to inconsistent information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 709–726. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.4.709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halfhill, T., Sundstrom, E., Lahner, J., Calderone, W., & Nielsen, T. M. (2005). Group personality composition and group effectiveness: An integrative review of empirical research. Small Group Research, 36, 83–105. doi:10.1177/1046496404268538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassin, R. R., Aarts, H., & Ferguson, M. J. (2005). Automatic goal inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 129–140. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.06.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertel, G., & Fiedler, K. (1994). Affective and cognitive influences in a social dilemma game. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 131–145. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420240110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollingshead, A. B., McGrath, J. E., & O'Connor, K. M. (1993). Group task performance and communication technology: A longitudinal study of computer-mediated versus face-to-face work groups. Small Group Research, 24, 307–333. doi:10.1177/1046496493243003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. G. (2002). Interpersonal expectations as the building blocks of social cognition: An interdependence theory perspective. Personal Relationships, 9, 1–26. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, E. (1999). Test anxiety, perceived test difficulty, and test performance: Temporal patterns of their effects. Learning and Individual Differences, 11, 431–447. doi:10.1016/S1041-6080(99)80012-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hough, L. M. (1992). The ‘big five’ personality variables-construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–154. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup0501&2_8Google Scholar
Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V.I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J.A. & Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 675–689. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, A. C., & Ross, L. (2003). The perceptual push: The interplay of implicit cues and explicit situational construals on behavioral intentions in the prisoner's dilemma. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 634–643. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00057-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception. A social relations analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. J. (1984). The social relations model. In Berkovitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 142–182). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Levi, S., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). The statistical analysis of data from small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 126–137. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In Borman, W. C. & Ilgen, D. R. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333–375). New York, NY: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lashley, B. R., & Bond, C. F. Jr., (1997). Significance testing for round robin data. Psychological Methods, 2, 278–291. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.2.3.278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585–634. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.003101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2006). Small groups. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Leiva, D., Solanas, A., & Salafranca, Ll. (2008). Testing reciprocity in social interactions: A comparison between the directional consistency and skew-symmetry statistics. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 626–634. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.2.626CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mohammed, S., Mathieu, J. E., & Bartlett, A. L. (2002). Technicaladministrative task performance, leadership task performance, and contextual performance: Considering the influence of teamand task-related composition variables. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 795–814. doi:10.1002/job.169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1992). The composition of small groups. In Lawler, E., Markovsky, B., Ridgeway, C., & Walker, H. (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 9, pp. 237–280). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Morris, C. G. (1966). Task effects on group interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 545–554. doi:10.1037/h0023897CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morse, J. J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1979). Effects of personality and perception of the environment on satisfaction with task group. The Journal of Psychology, 103, 183–192. doi:1140-1979-103-02-000005Google Scholar
Mullen, B., & Cooper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuberg, S. L., & Fiske, S. T. (1987). Motivational influences on impression formation: Outcome dependency, accuracy-driven attention, and individuating processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 431–444. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.431CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. (1999). The relationship between work-team personality composition and the job performance of teams. Group Organization Management, 24, 28–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Reilly, C. A. III, Cadwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21–37. doi:10.2307/2392984Google Scholar
Peeters, M. A. G., Van Tuijl, H. F. J. M., Rutte, C. G., & Reymen, I. M. M. J. (2006). Personality and team performance: A metaanalysis. European Journal of Personality, 20, 377–396. doi:10.1002/per.588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, H. T. (2007). Steps toward the ripening of relationship science. Personal Relationships, 14, 1–23. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00139.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberson, Q. M., Sturman, M. C., & Simons, T. L. (2007). Does the measure of dispersion matter in multilevel research? A comparison of the relative performance of dispersion indexes. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 564–588. doi:10.1177/1094428106294746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379-423, 623–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smeesters, D., Wheeler, S. C., & Kay, A. C. (2009). The role of interpersonal perceptions in the prime-to-behavior pathway. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 395–414. doi:10.1037/a0012959CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solanas, A., Salafranca, Ll., Riba, C., Sierra, V., & Leiva, D. (2006). Quantifying social asymmetric structures. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 390–399. doi:10.3758/BF03192792CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 316–325. doi:10.2307/3069458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundstrom, E., McIntyre, M., Halfhill, T., & Richards, H. (2000). Work groups: From the Hawthorne studies to work teams of the 1990s and beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 44–67. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tett, R. P., & Murphy, P. J. (2002). Personality and situations in coworker preference: Similarity and complementary in worker compatibility. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 223–241. doi:10.1023/A:1019685515745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O'Reilly, C. A. III., (1992). Being Different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549–579. doi:10.2307/2393472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsui, A. S., & O'Reilly, C. A. III., (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 402–423. doi:10.2307/256368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Utz, S., Ouwerkerk, J. W., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2004). What is smart in a social dilemma? Differential effects of priming competition on cooperation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 317–332. doi:10.1002/ejsp.200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, R. T. (1987). A study of group decision support system use in three and four-person groups for a preference allocation decision. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation), University of Minnesota, MN.Google Scholar
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617. doi:10.1177/014920639101700305CrossRefGoogle Scholar