Abstract
In this study, the authors investigated the relationship between personality characteristics of team members and two distinct aspects of team cohesion: (i) task cohesion and (ii) social cohesion. Information technology professionals were assessed on a broad range of traits organized around the framework of the Big Five personality factors. Across the set of Big Five traits, agreeableness was positively related to task cohesion and extraversion to social cohesion. As expected, neuroticism was negatively related to both task and social cohesion. Contrary to the expectations, one other personality construct, conscientiousness, was unrelated to task cohesion at the individual level. The implications of these findings and future research needs are discussed.
Introduction
The study of work teams is becoming increasingly important, as they have been said crucial for organizational success (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert and Mount, 1998; Hackman, 1986; Neuman, Wagner, and Christiansen, 1999; Peeters, Van Tuijl, Rutte and Reymen, 2006; etc.) The composition of a work team is defined by the individual characteristic of its members. Demographic variables, attitudes, abilities and personality variables are examples of individual characteristics of team members that serve as inputs that influence team performance through intragroup processes. Intragroup processes refer to the interactions among team members including communication patterns, conflict, team cohesion, leadership development and other forms of influence (Barrick et al., 1998). In other words, the characteristics of team members influence the way in which a team operates. The purpose of this study was to assess how individual characteristics of team members (e.g., personality), relate to team processes (e.g., cohesion).
Many studies focused on team’s personality composition and its effect on team process (e.g., Barrick et al., 1998; Mount, Barrick, and Stewart, 1998; Neuman and Wright, 1999; Van Vianen and De Dreu, 2001 etc.) but very few related individual’s personality characteristics with team process (e.g., Barry and Stewart, 1997; Stewart, Fulmer and Barrick, 2005). In this study, we investigated the effects of individual’s personality characteristics on cohesion.
The present study examined the Big Five domain (i.e., conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism and openness to experience) in relation to team cohesion (i.e., task cohesion and social cohesion). Each of the five traits were analyzed at individual level. Another important objective of this study was to find out whether the effects of team’s personality composition on team processes could be replicated with individual’s personality characteristics. For this, we compared our results with those reported in Barrick et al. (1998) and Van Vianen and De Dreu (2001). With this approach, we extended the previous studies that focused on team’s personality composition only to individual’s personality characteristics.
Personality and team cohesiveness both influence team performance (Barrick and Mount, 1991; Evans and Dions, 1991; Gully, Devine and Whitney, 1995; Hough, 1992; Mount et al., 1998; Mullen and Copper, 1994; Salgado, 1997; Tett, Jackson and Rothstein, 1991; Zaccaro, 1991; etc.) thus it becomes imperative to comprehend the association between the personality characteristics of team members and team cohesion especially in organizational setups which tend to employ work groups and work teams expecting high results (Aeron and Pathak, 2012 in press).
Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
Cohesion
Cohesion has been contemplated to be the most important small group variable (Carron and Brawley, 2000; Lott and Lott, 1965; Mullen and Copper, 1994) and a critical variable in models of effective work teams (Carless and De Paola, 2000; Cohen and Bailey, 1997; Hackman, 1987).
Cohesion is typically recongnized as an individual team member’s desire to stick together within a team. Carron (1982) defined cohesion as ʻa dynamic process which is reflected in the tendency of the group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its goals and objectives’. This tendency to stick together is considered to stem from the interpersonal attraction towards the group or team. Interpersonal attraction to a group involves an individual’s degree of identification with the group or the degree to which he or she sees himself or herself belonging to a particular group and not to others (Friedkin, 2004).
The two types of cohesion identified in the literature (Carron 1982; Mullen and Copper, 1994; Mudrack 1989(a); Zaccaro and Lowe, 1988; Zaccaro, 1991; etc.) include task and interpersonal (social) cohesion. Task cohesion is defined as an attraction to the group because of a liking for or commitment to the group task (Hackman, 1976). On the other hand, interpersonal cohesion reflects an attraction to the group because of ‘satisfactory relationships and friendship with other members of the group’ (Festinger, 1950; Lott and Lott, 1965). Social cohesion is the drive of team members to develop and maintain more social relationships and to socialize with each other (i.e., interpersonal attraction). Task cohesion is the extent to which there is a drive and commitment to achieving the goals of the team (Carless and De Paola, 2000).
The task orientation represents a general orientation or motivation towards achieving the group’s objectives and social orientation represents a general orientation or motivation towards developing and maintaining social relationships and activities within group (Carron, Brawley, and Widmeyer, 2002). Teams with task cohesion feel unified in working toward the completion of task outcomes. Both of these constructs are separate components of cohesion, suggesting that team members could feel unified and attracted to the team in completing task objectives but not necessarily develop social relationships. It is also possible that team members may feel sole purpose in socializing with one another and have little commitment to reaching specific task goals. Furthermore, member of the team may sense the importance of developing social relationships while at the same time working together to complete specific objectives.
Personality
The Big Five or the Five Factor Model (FFM) (Digman, 1989; Digman, 1990; McCrae and Costa, 1989; McCrae and John, 1992) is a useful taxonomy and currently the one considered most useful in personality research. It is a robust taxonomy of personality (Costa and McCrae, 1988; Barrick and Mount, 1991) that provides a comprehensive framework to examine personality and its relationship to team process. The FFM was developed through systematic, objective and comprehensive studies of language to identify the trait domains and facets found most useful and important in describing others (Widiger and Trull, 1997).
The Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality includes five basic dimensions: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience. Extraversion has traits like sociabeility, talkativeness, assertiveness and activity level, which contrast to traits such as cautiousness, silence, retiring, sober, passivity and reserve. Agreeableness has traits like kindness, trust, warmth, good nature, gentility, cooperative, forgiving and hopeful versus traits such as hostility, selfishness, distrust, irritability, ruthlessness, suspicious, uncooperative and inflexible. Conscientiousness includes traits like organization, thoroughness, reliability, careful, achievement-oriented, responsible, organized, self-disciplined and scrupulous versus irresponsible, disorganized, undisciplined, unscrupulous, carelessness, negligence and unreliability. Neuroticism includes traits as nervousness, moodiness, temperamentality, depression, anger, emotional and insecure versus calm, enthusiastic, poised, and secure, and Openness to experience contrast traits as imagination, curiosity, creativity, sensitivity, intellectual and polished versus shallowness, imperceptiveness, down to earth, insensitivity, narrowness, crudity and simplicity. (Goldberg, 1993; John and Srivastava, 1999).
Within each of the five traits, a number of facets are notable. McCrae and John (1992) defined these terms as:
All the five factors were shown to have convergent and discriminant validity across instruments and observers, and to endure across decades in adults (McCrae and Costa, 1990).
The next section discusses previous theories and research into personality at the individual level that formulated the prediction of this study.
Personality and Cohesion
This section discusses the empirical research that has examined the big five traits conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism and openness to experience. Research were reviewed for each trait to produce specific hypotheses made for the present study. Specifically, research will support hypotheses made between each trait and cohesion (task and social).
Conscientiousness
Individuals high in conscientiousness are thorough, hard-working, responsible, planful, self-disciplined, organized, careful, achievement and task oriented (Barrick and Mount, 1991; Costa and McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1993) which are important attributes for accomplishing work tasks in all jobs (e.g., Barrick and Mount, 1991; Barrick, Mount and Judge, 2001; Hough, 1992; Salgado, 1997; Tett et al., 1991; etc.). These characteristics result in effort and perserverance towards team goal completion and commitment to task (Mohammed and Angell, 2003; Neuman and Wright, 1999; Van Vianen and De Dreu 2001).
Conscientious individuals tend to be more focused towards their work. In Barrick, Mount and Strauss (1993), conscientious sales representative were found to set higher goals for themselves. These higher goals provided the individuals with something to strive for and to achieve, possibly by focusing on specific task components of their job. Stewart, Fulmer and Barrick (2005) found that conscientiousness was related to the task role of an individual team member. In a meta-analysis by Judge and Illies (2002), conscientious individuals were found to have set goals, have high expectancy for completing these goals and believed that they will perform well.
Conscientiousness has been linked to interpersonal attraction and teamwork (e.g., Barrick et al., 2001; Hurtz and Donovan, 2000; Mount et al., 1998). The degree of responsibility felt by the conscientious individuals may influence their hard-working, assignment-oriented diligence. Preceding researches demonstrated that conscientious individuals have a need to succeed and react with a greater commitment to job in a team situation. Together these results suggest that conscientious individuals will produce greater commitment and motivation to accomplish a job. Thus, it was hypothesized that conscientious individuals will report higher task cohesion and social cohesion attitudes.
H1a: Individual conscientiousness will positively relate to task cohesion.
H1b: Individual conscientiousness will positively relate to social cohesion.
Extraversion
Extraverts are sociable, gregarious, talkative, assertive and active (Barrick and Mound, 1991; Costa and McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1993) that enhances interpersonal interaction and facilitates teamwork (e.g., Barrick and Mount, 1991; Barrick et al., 2001; Hough, 1992; Hurtz and Donovan, 2000; Mount et al., 1998; etc.).
Individuals high in extraversion are enthusiastic, energetic and optimistic. They have desire to work with others and work towards achieving team goals (Barrick et al., 1998), thus enhancing social cohesion. Meta-analyses (Barrick and Mount, 1991; Barrick et al., 2001; Hurtz and Donovan, 2000; Salgado, 1997) have suggested that extraversion emerges in jobs with more social requirements. People in these positions like people and potentially know how to influence others in their favor in order to perform their jobs effectively. Because of their social nature, extraverts have a more positive attitude toward teamwork situations and tend to develop more social relationships with other teammates. This led to the hypothesis that extraversion will relate to social cohesive attitudes in a team setting.
H2: Individual extraversion will positively relate to social cohesion.
Extraverts seems to enjoy jobs with more social components because they do not require high degree of a task focus or effort. It is possible that extraverts prefer more social interactions because these are less difficult for them than having focus on task performance. To support this assertion, Stewart et al. (2005) found that individual extraversion was negatively related to taking on a role within a team. This gives evidence that extraverts believe more in networking than in working hard to accomplish job. Thus, we expected no relationship between extraversion and task cohesion.
Agreeableness
Agreeableness was found to be related to jobs involving interpersonal interaction and teamwork (e.g., Barrick et al., 2001; Hogan and Holland, 2003; Hurtz and Donovan, 2000; Mount et al., 1998; Peeters et al., 2006). Individuals high in agreeableness are friendly, tolerant, helpful, trusted, modest, altruistic, flexible, cooperative, caring and straightforward (Costa and McCrae, 1992). These characteristics facilitate interpersonal interaction and teamwork.
Agreeable team members are helpful, friendly, warm, trusting and tolerant. The quintessence of agreeableness is cooperation. The more agreeable each individual is, the more likely the team is to work together cooperatively. Individuals low on agreeableness may not work cooperatively in a team. This may affect interpersonal relations within the team. The more agreeable an individual is within a team, the more cohesive the team will become.
Agreeable individuals also seems to be more attracted to social situations. Agreeable individuals also actively take on more social roles within a team (Stewart et al., 2005), suggesting that they enjoy social situations better than people low in agreeableness. ‘Team members who are person oriented or high on personal warmth toward others tend to enhance interpersonal (social) cohesiveness’ (Barrick et al., 1998).
Together these findings suggested that individuals high in agreeableness hold a more positive view of the social situations and teamwork. Thus it was hypothesized that individual agreeableness will relate positively to both task and social cohesion.
H3a: Individual agreeableness will positively relate to task cohesion.
H3b: Individuals agreeableness will positively relate to social cohesion.
Neuroticism
Neurotic individuals exhibit characteristics such as worry, neverousness, anxiousness, temperamentalness, stress-prone (Barrick and Mount, 1991). Neuroticism is often lebeled by the positive pole of the trait emotional stability. Emotionally stable individuals are not anxious, self-pitying, tense, touch, unstable and worrying. This trait is predictive of social interaction and teamwork (e.g., Barrick et al., 2001).
Hurtz and Donovan (2000) found that emotional stability was important for managerial, customer-service and sales position. Several job criteria (e.g., task performance, job dedication) were also related to emotional stability (e.g., Barrick and Mount, 1991; Barrick et al., 2001; Hogan and Holland, 2003; Salgado, 1997; Tett et al., 1991) but emotional stability was most prominently related to interpersonal facilitation (e.g., Hough, 1992; Hurtz and Donovan, 2000; Mount et al., 1998). Based on the findings it appeared that emotional stability produces not only social skills but also ability of an individual to be task-focused.
The task focus of emotionally stable individuals was also supported in other empirical research. A relationship was found in Stewart et al. (2005) between individual emotional stability and accepting task role in team settings. Emotionally stable individual can handle several tasks at once whereas neurotic individuals (i.e., individuals low in emotional stability) become stressed under these conditions. Therefore, emotionally stable individuals are more equipped to handle task-oriented role in a team settings. Results advocated that emotional stability (low neuroticism) at the individual level relate to both social and task components in work settings.
Neurotic individuals exhibit poor emotional adjustment and experience negative affects such as anxiety, insecurity and hostility (Judge et.al., 2002) whereas emotionally stable individuald are able to handle stress better than neurotic individuals and develop a more positive attitude toward the task and become more committed to it because of their task orientation. Teams that have members who are high on neuroticism will have difficult coordinating one another’s task and may experience disruption from temperamental and impulsive team members (Neuman et. al., 1999). Thus, if was hypothesized that neuroticism will negatively affect both task and social cohesion.
H4a: Individual neuroticism will negatively relate to task cohesion.
H4b: Individual neuroticism will negatively relate to social cohesion.
Openness to Experience
Openness to experience is the deposition to be imaginative, nonconforming, unconventional and autonomous (Judge et. al., 2002). This trait has been linked to interpersonal interaction and teamwork (e.g., Hurtz and Donvan, 2000; Niynt et al., 1998). This is so because individuals who are high on openness to experience have wide interests, and are intellectual, sophisticated, inventive, ingenious, witty, wise, logical, civilized, foresighted, resourceful, clever and dignified (John and Srivastava, 1999).
Individuals who are intelligent, curious, imaginative, artistic, insightful, original, sharpwitted, polished, and broad-minded (Barrick and Mount, 1991) are more likely to be motivated to learn than individuals who are simple, shallow, unintelligent and have narrow interests. Such motivated individuals are more likely to enhance interpersonal interaction and teamwork, thus improving team cohesion. Therefore, it was hypothesized that openness to experience will positively relate to task and social cohesion
H5a: Individual openness to experience will positively relate to task cohesion. H5b: Individual openness to experience will positively relate to social cohesion.
Overview of the Present Study
In the current research, we inspected the relationship between individual’s personality characteristics and cohesion. The present study tested a set of hypotheses regarding the relationship between the individual’s personality characteristics on the one hand and task and social chohesion on the other. We scrutinized the role of individual’s personality in a team and its effects on team cohesion.
In addition, the research tried to extend the studies by Barrick et. al. (1998) and Van Vianen and De Dreu (2001) which tested the relationship between cohesion (social and task) and teams personality composition measures (i.e., mean, variance, minimum, and maximum) rather than the individuals personality characteristics. We investigated whether the results from Barrick et al. (1998) and Van Vianen and De Dreu (2001) could be replicated with individuals’ samples than team samples.
Method
Participant sample
The sample consisted of IT professionals (N = 37) from companies located in NCR and southern region. Of the total samples, 51 per cent were males. Mean age was 28 (SD = 2.5). Tenure with the organization ranged from 0.5 to 6.5 years with the average of 2.7 years (SD = 2.1). Total experience in the industry ranged 0.5 to 7.5 years with a mean of 4.8 years (SD = 1.9).
Measures and Scoring
Personality
We used the Neo Pi R test manual (Costa and McCrae, 1992) to assess the FFM of personality. The test included 240 items on five domains (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience). Each of the five domains is represented by six, more specitic scales that measures the facets of the domain. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates for form S reported in the test manual were 0.92, 0.89, 0.87, 0.86 and 0.90 for neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, respectively. Test-retest reliability estimates over three months (N = 208) were 0.79, 0.79, 0.80, 0.75 and 0.83 respectively.
Social Cohesion
We assessed social cohesion using Group Environment Questionnaire developed by Carron, Brawley and Widmeyer (1985). Social cohesiveness reflected individual team member’s perceptions about closeness and bonding regarding the team’s social activities. Participants responded to four items using a 9-point Likert-type scale, with high scores associated with favorable (highly cohesive) responses. Group Environment Questionnaire (Carron, Brawley and Widmeyer, 2002) which was created to assess social and task cohesion was presented to individuals members. The items were reworded to apply in current setting. Examples of items include ‘Our team would like to spend time together outside of work hours’. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates reported in the test manual were 0.76.
Task Cohesion
This was measured with another five items from the Group Environment Questionnaire (Carron, Brawley and Widmeyer, 2002), on 9-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 9 = strongly agree) with coefficient alpha reliability 0.70. Task cohesiveness represented an individual team member’s perceptions about the similarity and closeness within the team about accomplishing the task. The wordings of items were changed to reflect an organizational environment. One such statement was ‘If members of our team have problems, everyone tries to help them’.
Results
Mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum for each of the variables at individual level are shown in Table 1. Correlations were calculated among the five personality variables and social and task cohesion. Intercorrelations among all individual level variables are shown in Table 2. The correlations between the five personality variables were significant except for conscientiousness and openness to experience.
Descriptives for Individual Personality Traits and Cohesion
Intercorrelations among Individual Personality Traits and Cohesion
We first analyzed relationship between individual’s personality characteristics and social and task cohesion, testing our hypothesis 1–5; then our results were compared to those from Barrick et. al. (1998) (for social cohesion) and Van Vianen and De Dreu (2001) (for task and social cohesion). Table 4 summarizes the results from the three studies.
Personality Characteristics and Social Cohesion
Table 3 contains the correlations for the relationships between the individual’s personality characteristics and social cohesion. With these data, we tested our hypotheses 1b–5b.
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations between Individuals Personality characteristics and Social and Task Cohesion
Extraverts are sociable, enthusiastic, energetic, optimistic, gregarious, talkative, assertive and active. Individuals high in extraversion have a desire to work with others and work towards achieving team goals and thus enhancing social cohesion. Our hypotheses supported this relationship. Too many extraverts in team can have negative effect on team process. A mix of different levels of extraversion will have a positive effect on team process and will enhance social cohesion.
Individual high on agreeableness are kind, trustful, warmth, courteous, flexible, good-natured, cooperative, forgiving, soft-hearted and tolerant. These characteristics facilitate interpersonal attraction and lead to cooperation and cohesion among members of a team. The more agreeable the team member, the more socially cohesive the team will be. However, the relationship could not be confirmed in our study.
Individuals high in neuroticism are anxious, depressed, angry, embarrassed, emotional, worried and insecure. They do not feel confident and secure. Thus, they lead to a stressed and tense atmosphere within team that hinders capability of team members to work cooperatively thus decreasing social cohesion within.
Relationship between Personality and Social and Task Cohesion
Personality Characteristics and Task Cohesion
Table 3 contains the correlations for the relationships between the individual’s personality characteristics and task cohesion. With these data, we tested our hypotheses 1a–5a.
Individuals high in conscientiousness are organized, thorough and reliable. Conscientiousness reflects dependability, carefulness, responsibility, organized, planful, hardworking, achievement-oriented and persevering. Teams consisting of individuals high in conscientiousness will be organized, approach task in structured way and low in disagreement, leading to achievement of team goals thus enhacing task cohesion within team. However, the relationship could not be established in our study.
Individuals high in agreeableness show strong compliance with team goals, high level of cooperation and reduce conflict within team thus strengthening task cohesion. Our study supported this relationship.
Individuals high in neuroticism are not self-confident, stable, secure and contented about their goals and decisions. They are anxious, nervous, touchy and uncertain about their ideas. Hence, individuals high in neuroticism will lower task cohesion within team.
Summary
Taken together, results showed that agreeableness contributed positively to task cohesion and as expected neuroticism negatively related to task cohesion, thus supporting hypothesis 3a and 4a. Hypothesis for conscientiousness (1a) and openness to experience (5a) were not supported. Our data showed the similar pattern observed by Van Vianen and De Dreu (2001) for the relationships between most of the personality traits agreeableness, emotional stability and openness to experience and task cohesion. The only difference found was for conscientiousness. The relationship between personality and task cohesion is shown in Table 4.
Conclusions and Discussion
The relationship between team personality and team process has been subject of many studies. Far less research has considered the relationship between individual personality characteristics and team process. The current research develops on the studies by Barrick et al. (1998) and Van Vianen and De Dreu (2001). We examined the relationships between individual personality measures on the one hand and social cohesion and task cohesion, on the other.
We compared our results on individual’s personality and cohesion with those of Barrick et al. (1998) and Van Vianen and De Dreu (2001) on team personality composition measures and social cohesion and task cohesion. This comparison allowed us to examine the difference between the relationship concerning individual’s personality and cohesion viz-a-viz team personality and cohesion.
Result on individual’s personality largely confirm the conclusions reached on team personality composition by Barrick et al. (1998) and Van Vianen and De Dreu (2001). The results from all three studies showed that social cohesion is independent of the personality composition measures of conscientiousness. Also, our study and Van Vianen and De Dreu (2001) showed no relationships between social cohesion and openness to experience. Contrary to Barrick et al. (1998), this study and Van Vianen and De Dreu (2001) did not found any relationships between social cohesion and agreeableness. A positive relationship between extraversion and social cohesion were found in all three studies. Emotional stability and social cohesion were positively related in Barrick et al. (1998) and Van Vianen and De Dreu (2001) while a negative relationship between neuroticism (low emotional stability) and social cohesion was found in our study. This implies that team members experience more positive relationships with others in the group if the emotional stability of most of the team members is reasonably high and if there is no single member who is highly introvert.
Our results for task cohesion found a positive relationship with agreeableness as in Van Vianen and De Dreu (2001). Contrary to Van Vianen and De Dreu (2001) we did not found any relationship between conscientiousness and task cohesion. A negative relationship between neuroticism (low emotional stability) and task cohesion was found in our study as positive relationship between emotional stability and task cohesion was found in Van Vianen and De Dreu (2001). No relationship with openness to experience was established in our study as well as Van Vianen and De Dreu (2001). This implies that more agreeable the team members are the more cooperatively the team will work and high emotional stability of team members will lead to a more relaxed atmosphere that should promote the capability of team to work effectively.
The current results provide some evidence on how individuals’ personality affects team processes. The work needs to be expanded and confirmed with a larger sample so that the results can be generalized. In addition, results from Barrick et al. (1998) and Van Vianen and De Dreu (2001) needs to be tested on teams in Indian scenario. This will allow us the generalizability of results across different cultures and industries. Besides, future research in this respect would significantly benefit from a meta-analysis that methodically assesses and assimilate results obtained so far. Not only would such a meta-analysis enlarge our understanding of how team member personality influences team processes, it would also provide insight into what research problems will have to be contended with in the future.
However, the study does suggest some interesting implications for both researchers and practitioners. Significant relationships were found between certain personality traits and team process. This may perhaps suggest that teams can be developed and formed to at least include individuals with certain personality types to reduce team failures. For practitioners, if confirmed, this holds exciting implications for improving overall success of IT team projects. Teams can be formed to compose of the desired personality types leading to more successful teams and projects. There are many constructive prospects to pursue as a result of these findings. The relationships between team diversity in terms of personality and team processes can be explored further. The authors are in the process of expanding this pilot analysis into a major industry study to increases the applicability of these preliminary research findings. It is hoped that this work can initiate research and validation to determine an important aspect of personality and team dynamics.