Psychological diversity and teaminteraction processes

A study of oil-drilling work teams in Nigeria

Olukayode A. AfolabiDepartment of Psychology, Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma, Edo State,

Nigeria, and

Benjamin Osayawe EhigieDepartment of Psychology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria

Abstract

Purpose – To examine how psychological diversity among work team members affects teaminteraction processes. Psychological diversity is described in terms of personality attributes (emotionalstability, extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and agreeableness), need forachievement (nAch), and emotional intelligence. Team interaction processes include workload sharing,team communication, member flexibility, social cohesion, team viability.

Design/methodology/approach – A survey research was conducted that involved 1,421oil-drilling workers in 54 work teams. The participants were drawn from five major oil drillingcompanies in Nigeria. Standardized measures were used to collect data on each of the variablesexamined.

Findings – It was found that each of the measures of team interaction processes is predicted bydifferent psychological diversity measures. However, emotional stability, extraversion, agreeablenessand emotional intelligence are significant in predicting overall team interaction processes.

Research limitations/implications – The psychological diversity measures examined are notexhaustive. It is also not clear the extent to which the findings can be generalized to other worksettings that are different from oil-drilling companies.

Practical implications – Human resources management in organizations that work in teams needsto include in their selection programs, psychological measures for identifying applicants who possessrequisite psychological features for team work.

Originality/value – Study of the efficacy of psychological variables in enhancing work teams in oildrilling firms in Nigeria.

Keywords Nigeria, Oil industry, Teams, Team working, Individual behaviour, Personnel psychology

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionAcross the globe, there has been an increasing shift from work organized aroundindividual jobs to team-based work structures. Organizations believe that this willbring about maximum customer satisfaction (Barrick et al., 1998). Groups became anew focus of attention in the 1940s after the Hawthorne studies were published(Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939). A team is a formal work group, consists ofinterdependent workers with complementary skills working toward a shared goal(Riggio, 2003). Teams therefore breed psychological diversity, resulting fromdifferences in team member composition. Psychological diversity refers todifferences in underlying attributes of members, which include human features likeskills, 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

TPM11,7/8

280

Team Performance ManagementVol. 11 No. 7/8, 2005pp. 280-301q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1352-7592DOI 10.1108/13527590510635161

Invariably, a work team is a heterogeneous group. While studies have shown thatheterogeneous teams outperform homogeneous teams (e.g. Magjuka and Baldwin,1991; McGrath, 1984), it is also revealed that heterogeneous teams have greaterdifficulty coordinating their efforts (Illgen, 1999). Thus, psychological diversity is adouble-edged sword that provides both great challenges and great opportunities forteams 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 peoplewith relevant knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) for aparticular team task (LePine et al., 2000b; Stevens and Campion, 1999). It isacknowledged that effective team members should possess the kind of characteristicsthat will make them highly functional in the team (Stevens and Campion, 1999).Identification of characteristics that would facilitate team effectiveness calls forscientific research. Though studies abound on teams and performance but the type oftask performed is relevant (Baker et al., 1998) as research outcomes cannot begeneralized 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; amongthese is the production team. A production team is an autonomous work group thatproduces tangible output (Landy and Conte, 2004). Zigon (1998) reports that many USoil companies use self-directed and cross-functional work teams, which are types ofproduction teams (Landy and Conte, 2004). Oil drilling teams are made up of core teammembers (geologist, reservoir engineer, production engineer, land person, foreman)and floating team members (geophysicist, drilling engineer, environmental staff,technicians). The core team members are permanently assigned to specific geographicregions, while the floating 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 inNigeria witnessed decline in oil field that led to re-engineering of its operations and theintroduction of work teams in 1992. The consequence was increased production from80,000 barrels a day in the early 1990s to above 100,000 by 1998; production per workersurged from 150 to 250 barrels a day. With this success story, other oil companies inNigeria like Mobil, Agip, Schlumberger, NNPC, and Chevron adopted work teams(Odili, 2000). However, Olawepo (2001) reports that some organizations that engagedwork teams in Nigeria did not benefit from it. Mohsen and Nguyen (2000) report also,the failure of Chevron Oil Company in Nigeria to achieve efficiency with work teamsuntil a restructuring was initiated that focused on self-managed work process teams(empowerment). Thus, the introduction of work teams alone is not sufficient to gain theefficiency desired.

Though work teams continue to expand (Sundstrom et al., 2000), some scholarshave 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 theconditions 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 interactionprocesses

281

team effectiveness (Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987). The input-process-output modelproposes that inputs have direct effects on team outputs (Campion et al., 993) andindirect effects on outputs through team processes (Landy and Conte, 2004). Moststudies on teams have focused on the input-performance model with less concern forthe input-process aspect of the model.

Processes are the operations within a team that permit it to function smoothly andefficiently (Muchinsky, 2003). Hackman (1987, p. 315) defines it as “the interaction thattakes place among members”. The way groups operate and how group membership isset up are aspects of group processes and are crucial to management andorganizational effectiveness (Torrington and Weightman, 1994). The variables thatreflect these intragroup process include team viability, team communication, socialcohesiveness, workload sharing, and member flexibility (see Barrick et al., 1998;Huszczo;, 1996; Wellins et al., 1994). These variables contribute to team-membereffectiveness (Spencer and Spencer, 1993) and mediate between input and output(Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987). Gladstein (1984) suggests that there is substantialoverlap among the process measures. Based on this, it is hypothesized in the presentstudy that all the measures of team interaction processes will correlate positivelyamong themselves.

Team viability is the capability of the members of a team to continue workingtogether. Such cooperative spirit makes a team develop long-term capability to workinterdependently (Hackman, 1990). Team cohesion is the degree to which teammembers desire to remain in the team, and are committed or attracted to the team’sgoal (Forsyth, 1990). Most studies have tried to relate team cohesion with teamperformance (e.g. Goodman et al., 1987; Mullen and Cooper, 1994) with few related withteam composition. Studies relating team cohesion with member composition havecentered on demographic features of teams. For instance, Jehn et al. (1997) argue thatone of the quickest ways to reduce group cohesion is to make the composition of thegroup more diverse as to gender, race, and organizational status. While these relate todemographic diversity, it is expedient to expand studies on how psychologicaldiversity affects group cohesion. Studies on team cohesion are essential forunderstanding team effectiveness because members of less interacting teams areexpected to be less concerned about the team’s activities (Bar-On et al., 1992). Green(2001) found that members of highly interacting groups held uniform opinions andusually acted in conformity with group standards. Members of a team that interactpositively, according to Green (1989), are better satisfied with the team than aremembers of non-interacting teams. Research shows that successful teams manifestdiversity in their members (Muchinsky, 2003). A problem for research is discoveringwhat these diversities are and how such diversities affect team cohesion. The rolesteam viability and team cohesion play for the realization of team effectiveness, raisesthe question of what factors of psychological diversity would promote both?

Another team process is workload sharing, which is the ability of team members todo their fair share of the work. The major difference between successful teamwork andunsuccessful teamwork is largely based upon team members sharing common goalsand working together to achieve them (Johnson and Johnson, 1995; Scarnati, 2001).Harris and Harris (1996) explain that teams are successful and effective when theyovercome difficulties; achieved through interdependence. Workload sharing creates theopportunity for social interdependence (Johnson and Johnson, 1999). Closely related to

TPM11,7/8

282

workload sharing is member flexibility, which is the extent to which members of ateam are adaptable. Both workload sharing and team flexibility are essential for teameffectiveness but what personnel variables would promote these in work teams?

Team communication, another team process, is the sharing of information amongteam members to reach a common understanding. Formal, regularly scheduledmeetings are held among production team members to discuss team progress andensure that members are communicating and working interdependently to reach theirproduction goals (Landy and Conte, 2004). Team members’ communication skillspredict team performance (Dionne, 1998). But what personnel qualities wouldencourage team communication?

Answers to the foregoing questions are found among the input variables of theinput-process-output model. A significant personnel aspect of the input-variable isteam 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 organizedinto teams (e.g. Klimoski and Jones 1995; Stevens and Campion, 1994). The studiesshow that knowledge, skill, and ability (KSA) test scores correlate positively withsupervisor and peer-ratings of teamwork and overall performance (Stevens andCampion, 1999). The relationship between intelligence and team outcomes has alsobeen 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 people’sprofessional, interpersonal and social success is accounted for by cognitiveintelligence. It is argued that the remaining 80 percent is explained by personalitytraits, motivation and multiple interpersonal and social abilities of which emotionalintelligence is one (Bar-On and Parker, 2000). Based on this argument, theinput-variables of interest in the present study, which serve as psychologicaldiversity of teams are emotional intelligence, personality and motivation.

Emotional intelligence is the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings andemotions, to discriminate among them and use this information to guide one’s thinkingand actions (Salovey and Mayer, 1990). Individuals high on emotional intelligence deferimmediate gratification and exhibit self-control in order to optimize pleasure over theirlifetime. Also, they display enlightened self-interest by engaging in activities that areboth pro-individual and pro-social (Goleman, 1995). They neither over-repress norover-express emotionality, but rather feel emotions flexibly and appropriately to thesituation (Mayer and Salovey, 1995).

Researchers are becoming interested on the influence of emotional intelligence onteam processes (Robins, 2002). Regardless of the construct’s slow evolution, numerousresearchers do insist that emotional intelligence is real and should be a valuable andnecessary 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 couldcreate positive atmosphere among team members. Work teams with fairly highemotional intelligence are found to have indicated their willingness to continue to worktogether (Fisher, 1998). It is opined that emotional intelligence affects team interactionprocesses (Folkerts, 2002; Williams, 2000). Researchers found positive relationshipbetween emotional intelligence and team cohesiveness (e.g. Almandar, 2002; Ashforthand Humphry, 1995; Janovics and Christiansen, 2001; Ratzburg, 2002). Any team that

Team interactionprocesses

283

is cohesive has an above average emotional intelligence (Stein and Book, 1999) andeveryone 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, emotionalintelligence will correlate positively with each of the dimensions of team processes.Some writers have, however, argued that emotional intelligence is simply a subset ofpersonality (Barrett et al., 2001). It will also be necessary to examine if emotionalintelligence correlates with dimensions of personality.

Personality traits, though relevant in everyday behavior, is often ignored incontemporary 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 beneficial for selectingemployees who will work well in teams. Some researches on the effects of groupcomposition have examined the influence of group-member personality on teamoutcomes (e.g. van Vianen and De Dreu, 2001). Personality traits of team members arereported as important predictors of team performance (Burchfield, 1997, Huszczo,1996). It is necessary to investigate the effects of team composition, in terms ofpersonality of team members, on team processes. Most studies on teams have beenconducted in laboratory settings rather than field settings, using creativity asperformance measures. It is important to examine how studies in the laboratory can begeneralized to the field. Also studies on personality have been common at individuallevel (e.g. (Barrick and Mount, 1991; Mount and Barrick, 1995). The extent to whichresults obtained on individual level can be generalized to team level needs to beexamined. These form the basis for the present study.

The most talked about personality theory is the five-factor theory, also known asthe Big Five (Wiggins, 1996). The Big Five dimensions, according to McCrae and Costa(1987), include emotional stability, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, andopenness to experience. Low emotional stability personality is associated with fear,guilt, disgust, sadness, anger, and embarrassment that cause significant emotionaldistress as well as irrational thinking, impulsiveness, and poor coping. Highextraversion personality tend to like large groups and gatherings, be outgoing andsocial, assertive and talkative. They have strong social needs, and may have troublebeing alone. Those who are oriented to openness to experience tend to be more curiousand tolerant of differences. They experience a greater range of emotions and feel themmore intensely, are focused on better understanding their own and others’ worlds andhave greater empathy for others. They may entertain novel or unconventional ideas,question authority, and be more creative and intelligent. Those exhibitingagreeableness tend to be altruistic, optimistic, and sympathetic to others. They maybe more popular, but may have difficulty standing up for their beliefs and seen asgullible by some. They may give too much, too easily, and hurt themselves in theprocess. Those who exhibit conscientiousness lead ordered lives and can control theirimpulses, work towards their desires and show self-control in resisting temptations.They plan and follow through to reach their goals. They “put business beforepleasure”, and are likely to be seen as hardworking, reliable, and persevering.

Team-level conscientiousness seems to be fairly consistent in its positive predictionof team effectiveness (Barrick et al., 1998). Barry and Stewart (1997) found thatextraverts were perceived by other team members as having greater effect thanintroverts on team outcomes, but no correlation was found between conscientiousness

TPM11,7/8

284

and performance. Their results also show a curvilinear relationship between theproportion of individuals who are high on extraversion and team performance. Otherstudies by Barrick et al. (1998) show that teams composed of members higher inconscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability received highersupervisor ratings of team performance. Barrick et al. (1998) found that agreeablenessfactor predicted ratings of the interpersonal skills of team members. The moreagreeable each member is, the more likely the team is to work together cooperatively.Viability criterion is influenced by personality traits associated with positive socialinteraction that fosters cooperation and trust (Forsyth, 1990). In contrast, lowemotional stability, or negative affectivity suppress or inhibit cooperation (Heslin,1964). George (1990) reported that teams with negative effective tones engaged in lessprosocial behaviour. Extraverts are likely to have higher positive affectivity (Watsonand Clark, 1984), which increases social cohesion.

The influence of personality on team outcomes is a function of the type of task(Kozlowski and Bell, 2003). For instance, team-level conscientiousness is more stronglyrelated to effectiveness for performance and planning tasks than for creativity anddecision-making tasks, whereas team-level extraversion has greater impact on teameffectiveness for decision-making tasks than for performance or planning tasks (Barryand Stewart, 1997; Newman and Wright, 1999). Team conscientiousness and opennessdid not predict team decision effectiveness (LePine et al., 2000a). Following thesereports, it is reasoned that type of task could interfere with the relationship betweenpersonality attributes and team processes hence the present study is focused onoil-drilling teams. It is hypothesized, however, that the five personality attributes willcorrelate with each of the dimensions of team processes and overall score on teamprocesses among oil-drilling teams.

One of the prominent theories of motivation is the need-achievementmotivational model (McClelland, 1961). Need for achievement (nAch) is a desireor a tendency to overcome obstacles, to exercise power, and to strive forsomething difficult as quickly as possible (Murray, 1938). It is a latent dispositionto engage in a task in order to attain a standard of excellence. The need forachievement theory predicts that individuals who are high in nAch perform taskactivities with stimulated interest and are more likely to devote themselves todoing well in different spheres of activities (McClelland, 1961). These individualshave the expectations that performances are evaluated in terms of standard ofexcellence. As they do not wish to be failures, they undertake achievement-orientedactivities. Their achievement-oriented behavior is informed by the conflict betweenthe opposing tendencies to achieve success and to avoid failure.

Atkinson and Feather (1966) posit that individuals of high need for achievementpossess the strongest likelihood of attempting a task of intermediate difficulty,compared to their low need for achievement counterparts who pursue easy or toodifficult tasks. Low nAch individuals pursue easy task because of the certainty forsuccess, but pursue difficult tasks so as to rationalize any failures. People with highneed for achievement believe that, attaining achievement in any sphere of theirendeavors 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 inteams 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 interactionprocesses

285

organizations implements merit-based pay, because their accomplishments arerecognized (Turban and Keon, 1993).

Given their strong desire to excel, studies have reported that people high inachievement motivation attain greater success in their careers than others(McClelland, 1977; Turban and Keon, 1993). At the team level, team members whoare high in achievement motivation have more concern about the success of theteam (Zander and Forward, 1968). Oni and Kayode (2001) found that teamscomposed of members with higher achievement motivation scores solved complexproblems more efficiently. Also, Igbinoba and Osaretin (2001) found thatdifferences in achievement motivation of team members can make them continueto work together to increase productivity. They found that work-team memberswith low achievement motivation drive realize that other members of their teamwork harder and would strive to put in more effort. On the other hand, those withhigher achievement motivation may lose hope in the teams’ fortune and maywithdraw from those with lower achievement need as a result of the latter’s lowinput in the team. Alternatively, they may get closer to them, encourage them towork harder and put in more effort. It is therefore not clear what relationshipexists between achievement motivation and team processes.

The general purpose of the present study is to contribute to the challenge ofpromoting sound and effective work teams. Previous studies in this direction (e.g.Barry and Stewart, 1997; Burchfield, 1997, Huszczo, 1996) have focused more on teamperformance as the dependent variable whereas the present study is concerned withteam processes. Team processes are revealed as having a mediating link between otherpredictor 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 dependentvariables in their studies, but only one or two variables were examined as teamprocesses. The present study seeks to examine five variables as team interactionprocesses. These variables include team viability, workload sharing, cohesion, memberflexibility, and communication.

While it is relatively easier to determine the professional composition for workteams, it is not easy to derive the psychological factors for effective and efficientteam-member composition. Because people differ in various qualities, these differingqualities make the individuals comprising a team affect intragroup interactionprocesses differently. Among the variables often studied as team composition iscognitive intelligence but it is reasoned in the present study that emotional intelligencewould be more relevant for team work and is therefore the focus. The theory behindneed for achievement (nAch) motivation and pertinent empirical studies on work teameffectiveness have focused more on performance, creating dearth of literature on teamprocesses. The present study therefore contributes in filling this gap.

Although literature abound, relating to personality and work team processes, mostof these studies are conducted in the West and in non-oil industries. Based on thecharacteristic nature of organizations in the West and the culture that prevails, it isexpedient to examine the extent to which findings in the West could be generalized tothe developing countries and in the oil industry in particular. For instance, Williams(2000) reports that higher member emotional intelligence leads to increased socialcohesiveness for teams of oil field workers, the study and some others are narrow in

TPM11,7/8

286

scope in their conceptualization of team processes. This is because team processesexpands 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 fivemeasures of team processes.

H2. Emotional stability, extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experienceand agreeableness would positively be associated with each of the fivemeasures of team interaction processes.

H3. Need for achievement would positively be associated with each of the fivemeasures of team interaction processes.

H4. Emotional intelligence, the five-factor personality attributes and need forachievement would jointly predict team interaction processes.

H5. Emotional intelligence would correlate positively emotional stability,conscientiousness, openness to experience and agreeableness

H6. The five measures of team interaction processes would correlate positivelyamong themselves.

MethodDesignA correlation design is adopted for the present study. The predictor variables includethe five-factor personality attributes (extraversion, emotional stability,conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness to experience), need for achievement (nAch), and emotional intelligence. The outcome variable is team interaction processeswhich include team viability, social cohesion, flexibility, communication, workloadsharing.

ParticipantsParticipants are 1,421 oil-drilling workers from 54 teams in five major oil drillingcompanies in Warri, Port-Harcourt and Eket, Nigeria. The oil exploration andproduction companies are the contracting firms drilling for Mobil, Aker Maritime,Agip oil, Schlumberger, NNPC, Elf, and Chevron. The mean age of participants is 25.4years (SD ¼ 5.13), with 248 (9.8 percent) females and 1,173 (82.6 percent) males. Theaverage number of employees in each of the teams was 25 and they had workedtogether 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 otherethnic 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 (47percent) are Muslims, 600 (42.3 percent) Christians, while 153 (10.6 percent) are fromother religious groups.

MeasuresPersonality scale. The Costa and McCrae’s (1992) NEO Five factor Inventory was used.The scale has 60 items which include emotional stability, extraversion, openness toexperience, agreeableness and conscientiousness. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates

Team interactionprocesses

287

reported in the test manual are 0.87, 0.86, 0.82, 0.86 and 0.83 respectively. Test retestreliability estimated over four months (n ¼ 194) are 0.82, 0.84, 0.70, 0.82, and 0.74respectively. For the present study, coefficient alpha yielded 0.73, 0.69, 0.72, 0.68 and0.70 for the respective scales. Test-retest reliability estimates over four weeks (n ¼ 200for ten teams) are, 0.72, 0.74, 0.81, 0.68 and 0.75. The 60-item scale was constructed on afive-point Likert type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

Need for achievement scale. A modified version of Edwards’ (1970) 15-item need forachievement scale was used. The original scale was modified by Oyefeso (1988) to nineitems with a split-half reliability coefficient of 0.85 among Nigerian samples and acoefficient alpha of 0.78. Efoghe (1990) used the modified version along with its originalscale and reported a convergent validity of 0.62 among a Nigerian sample. For thepresent sample, an alpha coefficient of 0.84, corrected split-half reliability of 0.61 andan item total correlation ranging between 0.48 and 0.72 is found. Responses were alsoexpressed in Likert five-point pattern.

Emotional intelligence scale. Due to the cultural relevance of emotional intelligence, anew scale was developed for the purpose of the present study. The scale has 25 itemsthat are structured in Likert five-point response pattern, ranging from stronglydisagree to strongly agree. Content validity of the scale was based on 80 percentagreement of expert judgment on the items. Item-total analysis of the 25-item scaleyielded a minimum coefficient of 0.47 and a maximum coefficient of 0.88. Alphareliability of the scale is 0.90 and the split-half reliability using the Spearman-Brownformula yielded a coefficient of 0.88.

Team member interaction processes scale. The five variables for the scale werederived from team interaction and process literature theories and features of effectiveteam work (Barrick et al., 1998; Hoffman and Maier, 1961; Szilagyi and Wallace, 1982).The five variables identified are perceived team viability, workload sharing, memberflexibility, social cohesiveness and team communication. Team viability factor ismeasured using a four-item team viability scale developed by Leanna (1985). Workloadsharing is measured using a three-item scale developed by Campion et al. (1993).Member flexibility is measured using a modified version of member flexibility scaleoriginally developed by Campion et al. (1993). This originally contained three items.Two of the items that were found to be ambiguous, complex and difficult to understandwere split into two each, resulting in five items. Social cohesiveness is measured usingan eight-item social cohesiveness scale developed by Stokes (1983). Teamcommunication is assessed using a five-item openness-to-communication scaleoriginally developed by O’Reilly and Roberts (1976) and is restructured and enlargedby Barrick et al. (1998).

Each of the subscales is expressed in a five-point Likert type format and put in aquestionnaire format. The scales were pre-tested in a pilot study (n ¼ 210 of 20 teams)to ascertain the psychometric properties of the 25-item measure. The items haveitem-total correlation of above 0.40. Alpha reliability of the 25 items is 0.88 while thecorrected spilt-half reliability coefficient is 0.87. Factor analysis using principalcomponent analysis followed by varimax rotation procedure supported the five factorswith eigen values for each factor exceeding 1.00. The least item loading of 0.54 on thefactors satisfied the criterion of 0.30 for acceptance (Pedhazur, 1982). Alpha reliabilitycoefficients is 0.76, 0.78, 0.81, 0.83, and 0.69 for workload sharing, team communication,

TPM11,7/8

288

member flexibility, social cohesiveness, and team viability respectively. Test-retestreliability over two weeks (n ¼ 20 teams) is 0.68, 0.72, 0.73, 0.69, and 0.80 respectively.

ProcedurePilot study. Prior to the main study, a pilot study was carried out. The pilot study wasto determine the psychometric properties of the instruments, which involved twostages. The first stage involved the collection of scale items that were used to constructthe emotional intelligence scale. This was a qualitative study that adopted focus groupdiscussions to collect base line information. The second stage tested the psychometricproperties of the measures that were later put in a questionnaire to collect data for themain study.

The development of items for the emotional intelligence scale involved literaturereview that led to generating the first set of items included in the emotional intelligencescale. Secondly, four focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted among 32 teammembers from four teams, with eight members in each group. These teams were drawnform oil-drilling firms that were not originally selected for the main study. A contentanalysis of responses received from the members was made for content pertaining toemotional intelligence. Questions were based on the concept, adjectives and factors thatare considered important and used to qualify emotional intelligence. Themes related toemotional intelligence were drawn from the discussions and combined with those fromthe literature search to compile an item pool consisting of 40-item measure of emotionalintelligence. These were presented to ten expert judges, who are social, industrial andclinical psychologists, for scrutiny.

In order to determine the content validity of the scale, the judges were given theconstruct definition of emotional intelligence, which is the ability to monitor one’s ownand others’ emotions, to discriminate among them and to use the information to guideone’s thinking and actions. Items were included in the instrument if consideredrelevant, essential, meaningful, and properly worded by the experts. An item wasaccepted if it received 80 percent support by the judges. During the process, ten itemswere deleted. This method was employed following its justification derived from theassertion that the use of expert technique is an acceptable method for achieving contentvalidity (Nunnally, 1978).

The resultant 30 items were organized into a scale, using five-point Likert-typeresponse alternatives, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Theseitems were put together with other scales in a questionnaire format and administeredin a pilot study comprising of 241 respondents in 10 oil-drilling teams in Warri, DeltaState. The scale items were subjected to item analysis to ascertain the psychometricproperties 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 anda significant item-total correlation of 0.40 and above (Rust and Golombok, 1995) wereselected. From the analysis, five items were deleted and the remaining 25 items wereused for the final scale.

Main study. The investigation employed ethnographic research technique, wherekey informants were interviewed to find out generally about the use of teams in oilfields. The major informants were the leaders of teams in seven oil-drilling firms.Structured questions were put before each of the leaders to find out if team memberswere working as team or working individually. The key informants were asked to

Team interactionprocesses

289

enumerate the benefits of work teams in their organizations. This was aimed atensuring that organizations had benefited by drawing on talented people from differentbackgrounds and perspectives, facilitating communication among them, bringingtogether the resources of different people, and fostering parallelism (concurrentengineering). 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 workteams would have contributed to the satisfaction of the teams on the job. This wouldlead to proper interdependence and improved work team interaction. Any organizationwhose representatives (team leaders) were able to identify an average of seven out ofthe ten benefits, were included in the study. Five out of seven organizations initiallycontacted met the criteria and were selected for the study. In selecting the teams for themain study the level of task interdependence within the work teams was verified usinga five-item task interdependence scale (Kiggundu, 1983). Teams that scored halfstandard deviation above average, on the scale, were selected for the main study.Consequently, 54 teams were fit for the main study.

One thousand five hundred (1,500) copies of the questionnaire, comprising all thescales measuring the variables of study were administered on the members of the 54teams from five drilling firms located in Warri, PortHarcourt, and Eket. Thequestionnaires were administered during office hours but it took eight weeks to collectdata for the study. Of the 1,500 copies of the questionnaire administered, only 1,420were returned. From these, 1,405 were found useful for analysis (a response rate of 84.1percent); others were either unfilled or not properly responded to.

ResultsThe prediction that each of the variables of psychological diversity, that is personalityattributes, need for achievement, and emotional intelligence would correlate with teaminteraction processes was examined with Pearson correlation analysis and the resultsare presented in a correlation matrix (see Table I). It is revealed that emotional stability(r ¼ 0.45, p , 0.01), openness to experience (r ¼ 0.46; p , 0.01), agreeableness(r ¼ 0.65), and conscientiousness (r ¼ 0.27; p , 0.05) are positively associated withworkload sharing. Thus, higher scores on these personality attributes are associatedwith higher level of workload sharing. Team communication correlates positively withemotional stability (r ¼ 0.50; p , 0.01), extraversion (r ¼ 0.43; p , 0.01), openness toexperience (r ¼ 0.49; p , 0.01), conscientiousness (r ¼ 0.27; p , 0.05), and emotionalintelligence (r ¼ 0.30; p , 0.05). This suggests that team communication wouldimprove among team members that are higher on each of these psychological diversityvariables.

Emotional stability (r ¼ 0.43; p , 0.01), extraversion (r ¼ 0.43; p , 0.01), opennessto experience (r ¼ 0.53; p , 0.01), agreeableness (r ¼ 0.29; p , 0.05), need forachievement (r ¼ 0.29; p , 0.05), and emotional intelligence (r ¼ 0.28; p , 0.05) arepositively associated with member flexibility. It is inferred that team memberflexibility increases with higher scores on these measures of psychological diversity.Social cohesiveness correlates positively with emotional stability (r ¼ 0.66; p , 0.01),extraversion (r ¼ 0.40; p , . 01), openness to experience (r ¼ 0.32; p , 0.01), andagreeableness (r ¼ 0.37; p , 0.01). This implies that increased team cohesion can beassociated with higher levels of team members’ possession of these traits. Emotional

TPM11,7/8

290

Var

iab

les

Mea

nS

D1

23

45

67

89

1011

1.E

mot

ion

alst

abil

ity

22.3

30.

202

2.E

xtr

aver

sion

21.8

90.

202

0.10

–3.

Op

enn

ess

25.6

81.

092

0.06

0.23

*–

4.A

gre

eab

len

ess

22.7

10.

612

0.15

0.29

*2

0.01

–5.

Con

scie

nti

ousn

ess

20.4

40.

750.

33*

*0.

210.

072

0.02

–6.

nA

ch25

.41

3.21

0.13

20.

45*

*2

0.22

20.

012

0.25

*–

7.E

mot

ion

alin

tell

igen

ce50

.20

2.67

0.12

0.20

0.30

**

0.27

*0.

30*

0.26

*–

8.W

ork

load

shar

ing

3.00

0.52

0.45

**

0.06

0.46

*0.

65*

*0.

27*

20.

092

0.13

–9.

Tea

mco

mm

un

icat

ion

3.12

0.25

0.50

**

0.43

**

0.49

**

0.13

0.27

*0.

090.

30*

0.29

*–

10.

Mem

ber

flex

ibil

ity

3.91

0.53

0.43

**

0.43

**

0.53

**

0.29

*0.

010.

29*

0.28

*0.

44*

*0.

25*

–11

.S

ocia

lco

hes

ion

3.97

0.61

0.66

**

0.40

**

0.32

**

0.37

**

0.11

0.01

0.06

0.24

*0.

25*

0.49

**

–12

.T

eam

via

bil

ity

2.72

0.84

0.37

**

0.35

**

0.30

**

0.15

0.07

0.28

*0.

30*

0.30

*0.

31*

0.49

**

0.40

**

Notes:

*p,

0.05

;*

*p,

.0.0

1;1-

5¼

fiv

e-fa

ctor

per

son

alit

y;

6¼

nee

dfo

rac

hie

vem

ent;

7¼

emot

ion

alin

tell

igen

ce;

8-12

¼w

ork

team

inte

ract

ion

Table I.Zero order correlation

coefficient for five factorpersonality, need for

achievement, emotionalintelligence, and teaminteraction processes

(n ¼ 54)

Team interactionprocesses

291

stability (r ¼ 0.37; p ,0.01), extraversion (r ¼ 0.35; p , 0.01), openness to experience(r ¼ 0.30; p , .01) and need for achievement (r ¼ 0.28; p , 0.05) are positivelyassociated with team viability. A team would be more viable with higher levels of thesepsychological diversity measures among team members.

It is predicted also that the measures of team interaction processes would correlatepositively among themselves. The results for testing the hypothesis are presented inthe correlation matrix on Table I. It is revealed that workload sharing correlatespositively with team communication (r ¼ 0.29; p , 0.05), member flexibility (r ¼ 0.44;p , 0.01), social cohesion (r ¼ 0.24; p , 0.05), and team viability (r ¼ 0.30; p , 0.01).Team communication correlates positively with member flexibility (r ¼ 0.25;p , 0.05), social cohesion (r ¼ 0.25; p , 0.05), and team viability (r ¼ 0.31; p , 0.05).Member flexibility correlates positively with social cohesion (r ¼ 0.49; p , 0.01) andteam viability (r ¼ 0.49; p , 0.01) and social cohesion correlates positively with teamviability (r ¼ 0.40; p , .0 01). With these positive associations among the measures ofteam interaction processes, it is implied that a composite score of all the measures canbe used as a single measure of team interaction processes.

Further analysis involved testing the input-process model. A multiple regressionanalysis results of team interaction processes on personality attributes, need forachievement, and emotional intelligence are presented on Table II.

It is revealed that all the predictor variables jointly account for 37 percent variancein team interaction processes F (7, 47) ¼ 16.27; p , 0.001; R 2 ¼ 0.37. However, onlythe contributions of emotional stability (b 0.42; t ¼ 9.05; p , 0.001), extraversion(b ¼ .29; t ¼ 1.80; p , 0.05), agreeableness (b ¼ 0.09; t ¼ 1.89; p , 0.05) andemotional intelligence (b ¼ 0.16; t ¼ 1.90; p , 0.05) are significant in explainingvariations in team interaction processes. These are presented in Figure 1. The highestcontributing variable is emotional stability, followed by extraversion, emotionalintelligence and agreeableness. It implies that when the influences of other variablesare controlled, only emotional stability, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotionalintelligence are positively associated with team interaction processes.

DiscussionsThe present study tested the aspect of input-process-output model which proposes thatinputs 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 , 0.001Extraversion 0.29 1.80 , 0.05Openness to experience 20.01 20.22 nsAgreeableness 0.09 1.89 , 0.05Conscientiousness 0.01 0.24 nsNeed for achievement 20.10 20.11 nsEmotional intelligence 0.16 1.90 , 0.05R ¼ 0.61R 2 ¼ 0.37F (7. 46) 16.27; p , 0.001

Table II.Multiple regressionanalysis of work teaminteraction processes onfive-factor personality,need for achievement andemotional intelligence

TPM11,7/8

292

extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness to experience), need forachievement (nAch), and emotional intelligence. Team processes examined includeviability, team communication, social cohesiveness, workload sharing, and memberflexibility (Barrick et al., 1998; Huszczo;, 1996; Wellins et al., 1994).

The present study shows that higher level of emotional stability among teammembers promotes team viability. This finding supports Haythorn’s (1953) findingsthat emotional stability is positively related to team viability and team’s capability tocontinue to work together is affected by emotional stability (Heslin, 1964; Cozens,2000). Emotional stability influences cooperation; higher aggregate levels of emotionalstability leads to a more relaxed atmosphere and therefore promote capability tocontinue 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 psychologicaldiversity that could increase team viability. This supports Tziner’s (1986) findings thatgroups composed of individuals with high emotional stability and extraversion, andmoderate interpersonal skills perform better in tasks that involve physical ability. Thefindings also compare with Barrick et al.’s (1998), who found that work teams withhigher mean levels of extraversion and emotional stability received higher ratings ofteam viability. Extraversion promotes team viability because it incorporates a measureof positive affectivity (McCrae and Costa, 1987). Although Barry and Stewart (1997)suggest that the distribution of extraversion is important but warns that teams aremore viable when some members are introverted.

The finding that conscientiousness is positively associated with workload sharingsupports other findings (e.g. Dasofunjo, 1995; Kelly, 1998) that conscientiousnessenhances workload sharing among employees of manufacturing companies. The sameresult was found by Barrick et al. (1998) that link exists between conscientiousness andworkload sharing in teams. Of the five personality constructs, conscientiousness is

Figure 1.The input-process model

Team interactionprocesses

293

found to have the most consistent and strongest relationship with workload sharing(Barrick and Mount, 1991; Mount and Barrick, 1995). This finding is reported to begeneralized across different work settings and also confirmed in the present study,among oil-drilling work teams. However, conscientiousness is not a significantpredictor of overall team interaction processes when other psychological diversitymeasures are controlled; as revealed in the multiple regression analysis results. Thepresent study also shows that work teams that demonstrate a higher level ofagreeableness score significantly higher on workload sharing. This is in line with thefindings in other studies (e.g. Barrick and Mount, 1991; Barrick et al., 1998; Hackmanand Morris, 1983; Mount and Barrick, 1995).

Need for achievement is positively associated with member flexibility and teamviability. This finding is explained from McClelland’s (1977) view that given theirdesire to excel, people high in achievement motivation attain greater success in theircareers than others. In teams, the desire for success probably induces flexibility andcooperation among team members with nAch.

Quality of interpersonal relationships has been found to affect communicationeffectiveness (Turban and Jones, 1988). The present study also reveals that emotionalintelligence is positively associated with team communication. With goodinterpersonal skills therefore, team members are able to relate more effectively dueto their ability to recognize and regulate others’ emotions. The bivariate correlationbetween emotional intelligence and social cohesion is not significant. This fails toconfirm other research findings (e.g. Folkerts, 2002; Mayer and Salovey, 1995;Ratzburg, 2002; Williams, 2000). Emotional intelligence, however, correlated positivelywith member flexibility and team viability. The results of the multiple regression showalso that emotional intelligence is positively associated with work team overallinteraction processes.

Emotional intelligence is positively associated with team communication, memberflexibility, team viability and overall team interaction processes because teammembers of high emotional intelligence are able to monitor own and others’ feelingsand emotions, discriminate among themselves and guide own thinking and actions(Salovey and Mayer, 1990). They are able to engage in activities that are bothpro-individual and pro-social (Goleman, 1995) and feel emotions flexibly andappropriately to the situation (Mayer and Salovey, 1995). These virtues enhance socialresponsibility, problem solving, reality testing, stress tolerance, impulse control andhappiness (Folkerts, 2002) and this could explain the positive association betweenemotional intelligence and team communication, member flexibility, team viability andoverall team interaction processes. Contrary to some reports however, (e.g. Ashforthand Humphry, 1995; Janovics and Christiansen, 2001; Ratzburg, 2002; Stein and Book,1999) there was no significant relationship between emotional intelligence and socialcohesion. This might have resulted from differences in the research settings. Butfollowing the argument that team process expands beyond team cohesiveness (seeBarrick et al., 1998; Huszczo;, 1996; Wellins et al., 1994), the present study shows thatemotional 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 intelligencewill correlate positively with each dimension of the five-factor personality measures.This was confirmed only for openness to experience, agreeableness, and

TPM11,7/8

294

conscientiousness while those of emotional stability and extraversion are notsignificant. This shows that though emotional stability and extraversion relate toaffective behaviors, they are quite different constructs from emotional intelligence.

Implication of findingsWith the expanding adoption of work teams in organizations, it is evident that humanresources systems such as selection, training, and performance appraisal must beconceptualized and managed at the team level (Schneider et al., 2000). One importantstrategy for enhancing team effectiveness is to select the individuals who can make thebest contributions to the team. Thus, considerations should be on selecting individualswho would work well in an oil-drilling work team rather than individuals who wouldcomplement an existing team. The present study has revealed the roles of teamcomposition, in terms of personality, need for achievement and emotional intelligence,in enhancing the processes of work teams. Findings from the present study havepractical value in the staffing of work teams. The knowledge gained about the selectionof individuals into organizations is not wholly transferable to the selection of teams(Muchinsky, 2003). As observed, some personality variables like conscientiousnessthat significantly predict individual performances are not significant in predictingoverall work team process.

It is revealed also that different variables of psychological diversity explaindifferent aspects of team interaction processes. To enhance work load sharing in teams,for example, the management of organizations has to consider incorporating in workteams, personnel of higher levels of emotional stability, openness to experience,agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Personnel of such personality attributes wouldmore likely do their fair share of the job. In getting a team that would readily shareinformation among themselves, teams should be composed of personnel of higheremotional stability, extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, andemotional intelligence. For a task that requires much flexibility for taskaccomplishment, teams should be constituted of personnel of higher emotionalstability, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, need for achievement,and emotional intelligence. Where team cohesion is highly advantageous for taskaccomplishment, teams need to be composed with personnel of higher scores inemotional stability, extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness. Where aconstituted team needs to exist over a long period (viability), team members have to becomposed of personnel of higher emotional stability, extraversion, openness toexperience, need for achievement, and emotional intelligence.

It is evident that all work tasks would not simultaneously require all these measuresof team interaction processes. By implication, task analysis needs to be conducted so asto identify which, among these team interaction processes, are relevant for specifictasks. Accordingly, personnel composition should be aligned with identified teaminteracting processes. However, where all the team interaction processes are essential,like the oil-drilling teams, personnel requirements should emphasize higher scores onemotional stability, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional intelligence. This isbecause these are the significant predictors for overall team interaction processes.

The inferences drawn from the present study is the need for psychological measuresto be used, not only in selecting personnel into organizations that emphasize teamwork, but also in the placement of personnel into teams, based on task need. People

Team interactionprocesses

295

come into an organization with differing qualities; it is the suitability of their personalattributes to the organization that will make it possible for them to contributemeaningfully to the growth of the organization (McCormick and Illgen, 1980). Choosingteam members on the basis of individual task need might be faulty. Also knowledge,skills and abilities (KSAs) alone are not sufficient to ensure optimal team effectiveness(Klimoski and Jones, 1995), or are professional skills alone sufficient for teamcomposition. The results from the present study will, thus, help practitioners to selectand constitute more productive work teams. Apart from the professional skills that arerequired in constituting work teams for oil drillage, psychological dispositions of teammembers are as well essential for successful internal interactions that could yield moreeffective teams.

The present study focused on psychological variables that could enhance teaminteraction process, not how they could be complemented in teams. This is becausemean scores, not variance scores, were used for the predictor variables. The studyreveals that extraversion increases team member communication. While extraversionincreases the quantity of communication it might not necessarily increase the qualityof communication (Landy and Conte, 2004). Thus, managers should be aware that teamperformance may suffer if team selection decisions overemphasize the importance ofextraversion. Moreover, the psychological variables examined in the present study arenot exhaustive as there could be other variables that also explain team interactionprocesses that were not considered. The present study is also limited as mainlyscientists and researchers in oil firms were the participants; it is not certain how thefindings can be generalized to non oil-drilling firms. The sample size is relatively smallbecause 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”, HumanRelations, 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), “Team task analysis: lost but hopefully notforgotten”, 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 MadisonAvenue approach to science and professional practice”, paper presented at the 16thAnnual Conference of Society of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, San Diego,CA, April.

Barrick, M. and Mount, M.K. (1991), “The big five 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 andpersonality 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-managedgroups: the role of personality”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 62-78.

TPM11,7/8

296

Burchfield, M.A. (1997), “Personality composition as it relates to team performance”, PhDdissertation, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ.

Campion, M.A., Medscar, G.J. and Higgs, A.C. (1993), “Relations between work groupcharacteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 823-50.

Cory, D. (2000), Increasing Effectiveness Through Emotional Intelligence, Cory Consultingseminar paper series, Cory Consulting, Stafford, VA.

Costa, P.T. Jr and McCrae, R.R. (1992), Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEOFive-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual, Psychological AssessmentResources, 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 sharingin teams”, unpublished thesis, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri.

Dionne, S.D. (1998), “Team training and development in organizations: a multiple levels ofanalysis field 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, BendelState 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, Pacific 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”, AdministrativeScience 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 performanceand effectiveness”, Annual Review of psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 307-38.

Hackman, J. (1987), “The design of work teams”, in Lorsch, J.W. (Ed.), Handbook ofOrganizational Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Hackman, J. (1990), “Conclusion: creating more effective work groups in organizations”, inHackman, J.R. (Ed.), Groups That Work (and Those That Don’t), Jossey-Bass,San Francisco, CA.

Hackman, J.R. (1998), “Why teams don’t work”, in Tindale, R.S. (Ed.), Theory and Research onSmall Groups, Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 245-647.

Hackman, R.J. and Morris, C.G. (1983), “Group tasks, group interaction process and groupperformance 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 PerformanceManagement: An International Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 23-36.

Haythorn, W. (1953), “The influence of individual members on the characteristics of smallgroups”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 48, pp. 276-84.

Team interactionprocesses

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 ofhomogenous 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”, AmericanPsychologist, Vol. 54, pp. 129-39.

Janovics, J. and Christiansen, N.D. (2001), “Emotional intelligence in the work place”, paperpresented at the 16th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, San Diego, CA.

Jehn, K., Northcraft, G. and Neale, M. (1999), “Field study of diversity, conflict, and performancein 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 ofvalue congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity and conflict on work groupoutcomes”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 287-305.

Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1995), Conflict, Cooperation, and Justice, Jossey-Bass,San Francisco, CA.

Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1999), Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative andIndividualistic Learning, Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.

Kelly, B.S. (1998), “Relationship between conscientiousness and interpersonal skills on workloadsharing in groups”, Industrial Activities, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 23-36.

Kiggundu, M. (1983), “Task interdependent and job design: test of a theory”, OrganizationalBehaviours and Human Performance, Vol. 31, pp. 145-72.

Klimoski, R. and Jones, R. (1995), “Staffing for effective group decision making: key issues inmatching people and teams”, in Guzzo, R.A. and Salas and Associates, A. (Eds), TeamEffectiveness 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”, inBorman, W.C., Illgen, D.R. and Klimosky, R.J. (Eds), Comprehensive Handbook ofPsychology: 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 ofgeneral cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience”, PersonnelPsychology, Vol. 53, pp. 563-93.

LePine, J.A., Hansom, M.A., Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (2000b), “Contextual performanceand teamwork: implications for staffing”, in Ferris, G.R. (Ed.), Research in Personnel andHuman 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”, inBramletter, C. (Ed.), The Individual and the Future of Organizations, Georgia StateUniversity, Atlanta, GA.

McCormick, E.J. and Illgen, D. (1980), Industrial Psychology, 7th ed., George Allen and Unwin,London.

TPM11,7/8

298

McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. Jr (1987), “Validation of the five-factor model of personality acrossinstruments 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 ofdesign and administration”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 793-812.

Mayer, J.D. and Salovey, P. (1995), “Emotional intelligence and the construction and regulation offeelings”, Applied and Preventive Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 197-208.

Milliken, E.J. and Martins, L.L. (1996), “Searching for common threads: understanding themultiple 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 fit 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 five personality dimensions: implications forresearch and practice in human resources management”, Research in Personnel andHuman 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: anintegration”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 115, pp. 210-27.

Murray, H. (1938), Exploration in Personality: a Clinical and Experimental Study of Fifty Men ofCollege 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.

O’Reilly, C.A. and Roberts, K.H. (1976), “Relationships among components of credibility andcommunication 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”, unpublishedPhD thesis, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.

Oni, B.C. and Kayode, A.A. (2001), “The influence of achievement motivation on team processesin a manufacturing industry”, Industrial Behaviour Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 16-27.

Oyefeso, A.O. (1988), “Cross validation of Edward personal schedule”, unpublished researchpaper, 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.), OrganizationalBehavior, Parker Educ. Books, IL.

Rice, E.M. and Schneider, G.T. (1994), “A decade of teacher empowerment: an empirical analysisof teacher involvement in decision making”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 32No. 1, pp. 43-58.

Riggio, R.E. (2003), Introduction to Industrial/Organizational Psychology, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Team interactionprocesses

299

Robins, S. (2002), “A consultant’s guide to understanding and promoting emotional intelligencein the workplace”, in Lowman, R. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational ConsultingPsychology, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY.

Roethlisberger, F.J. and Dickson, W.J. (1939), Management and the Worker, Harvard UniversityPress, Cambridge, MA.

Rust, J. and Golombok, S. (1995), Modern Psychometrics: The Science of PsychologicalAssessment, Routledge, New York, NY.

Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990), “Emotional intelligence”, Imagination, Cognition, andPersonality, 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-levelconsiderations”, 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 forteamwork: implications for human resources management”, Journal of Management,Vol. 20, pp. 503-30.

Stevens, M.J. and Campion, M.A. (1999), “Staffing work teams: development and validation of aselection 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 themediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 135-48.

Stokes, J.P. (1983), “Components of group cohesion, intermember attraction, instrumental valueand risk taking”, Small Group Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 163-73.

Sundstrom, E., Mclntyre, M., Halfhill, T.R. and Richards, H. (2000), “Work groups: from theHawthorne 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 interactionistperspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 184-93.

Turban, D.B. and Jones, A.P. (1988), “Supervisor-subordinate similarity: types, effects andmechanisms”, 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 socialcohesion, task cohesion, and team performance”, European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 97-120.

Watson, D. and Clark, L.A. (1984), “Negative affectivity: the disposition to experience aversiveemotional states”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 96, pp. 465-90.

TPM11,7/8

300

Watson, D. and Tellegen, A. (1985), “Toward a consensual structure of mood”, PsychologicalBulletin, Vol. 98, pp. 219-35.

Weiss, C.H., Cambone, J. and Wyeth, A. (1992), “Trouble in paradise: teacher conflicts in shareddecision 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-classOrganizations 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 dailybehavior”, Journal of Research in Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 231-56.

Zander, A. and Forward, J. (1968), “Position in group, achievement motivation, and groupaspirations”, 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 EmotionalIntelligence 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 interactionprocesses

301