Compatibility of Small Team Personalities in Computer-Based Tasks
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Participants
3.2. Team Formation
3.3. The Task
3.4. After the Task
4. Results
4.1. Team Level
4.2. Individual Level
5. Findings and Discussion
5.1. Team Level
5.2. Individual Level
6. Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Work
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Belbin, R.M. Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail, 3rd ed.; Butterworth Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Whichard, J.; Kees, N.L. The Manager as Facilitator; Greenwood Publishing Group: Westport, CT, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Gilley, J.W.; Morris, M.L.; Waite, A.M.; Coates, T.; Veliquette, A. Integrated theoretical model for building effective teams. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 2010, 12, 7–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolton, R.; Bolton, D.G. People Styles at Work: Making Bad Relationships Good and Good Relationships Better; Amacom: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Gilley, J.W.; Gilley, A. Strategically Integrated HRD: Partnering to Maximize Organizational Performance; Perseus Books: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Furumo, K.; de Pillis, E.; Green, D. Personality influences trust differently in virtual and face-to-face teams. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Dev. Manag. 2008, 9, 36–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halfhill, T.; Sundstrom, E.; Lahner, J.; Calderone, W.; Nielsen, T.M. Group personality composition and group effectiveness: An integrative review of empirical research. Small Group Res. 2005, 36, 83–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathieu, J.; Maynard, M.T.; Rapp, T.; Gilson, L. Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. J. Manag. 2008, 34, 410–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muchinsky, P.M.; Monahan, C.J. What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. J. Vocat. Behav. 1987, 31, 268–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holton, J.A. Building trust and collaboration in a virtual team. Team Perform. Manag. Int. J. 2001, 7, 36–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lykourentzou, I.; Antoniou, A.; Naudet, Y.; Dow, S.P. Personality Matters: Balancing for Personality Types Leads to Better Outcomes for Crowd Teams. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW ’16), San Francisco, CA, USA, 27 February–2 March 2016; pp. 260–273. [Google Scholar]
- Di Loreto, I.; Mora, S.; Divitini, M. Collaborative Serious Games for Crisis Management: An Overview. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE 21st International Workshop on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for. Collaborative Enterprises (WETICE), Hammamet, Tunisia, 25–27 June 2012; pp. 352–357. [Google Scholar]
- Wendel, V.; Gutjahr, M.; Göbel, S.; Steinmetz, R. Designing collaborative multiplayer serious games. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2013, 18, 287–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Isaac, R.M.; Walker, J.M. Group Size Effects in Public Goods Provision: The Voluntary Contributions Mechanism. Q. J. Econ. 1988, 103, 179–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Isaac, R.M.; Walker, J.M.; Williams, A.W. Group size and the voluntary provision of public goods. J. Public Econ. 1994, 54, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barcelo, H.; Capraro, V. Group size effect on cooperation in one-shot social dilemmas. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 7937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Capraro, V.; Barcelo, H. Group Size Effect on Cooperation in One-Shot Social Dilemmas II: Curvilinear Effect. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0131419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pereda, M.; Capraro, V.; Sánchez, A. Group size effects and critical mass in public goods games. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 5503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carparo, V.; Rand, D.G. Do the right thing: Experimental evidence that preferences for moral behavior, rather than equity and efficiency per se, drive human prosociality. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2018, 13, 99–111. [Google Scholar]
- Carparo, V.; Jordan, J.J.; Rand, D.G. Heuristics guide the implementation of social preferences in one-shot Prisoner’s Dilemma experiments. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 6790. [Google Scholar]
- Engel, C.; Zhurakhovska, L. When is the risk of cooperation worth taking? The prisoner’s dilemma as a game of multiple motives. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2016, 23, 1157–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majchrzak, A.; Rice, R.E.; King, N.; Malhotra, A.; Ba, S. Computer-mediated inter-organizational knowledge-sharing: Insights from a virtual team innovating using a collaborative tool. Inf. Resour. Manag. J. 2000, 13, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ehsan, N.; Mirza, E.; Ahmad, M. Impact of computer-mediated communication on virtual teams’ performance: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 2008 International Symposium on Information Technology, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 26–28 August 2008; Volume 3, pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- O’Neill, T.A.; Hancock, S.E.; Zivkov, K.; Larson, N.L.; Law, S.J. Team decision making in virtual and face-to-face environments. Group Decis. Negot. 2016, 25, 995–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warkentin, M.E.; Sayeed, L.; Hightower, R. Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: An exploratory study of a web-based conference system. Decis. Sci. 2007, 28, 975–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hlynka, D. Postmodernism in educational technology: Update 1996–2002. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 243–246. [Google Scholar]
- Furnham, A. The Psychology of Behaviour at Work: The Individual in the Organization; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Neuman, G.A.; Wagner, S.H.; Christiansen, N.D. The Relationship between Work-Team Personality Composition and the Job Performance of Teams. Group Organ. Manag. 1999, 24, 28–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreland, R.L.; Levine, J.M.; Wingert, M.L. Creating the ideal group: Composition effects at work. Underst. Group Behav. 2013, 2, 11–35. [Google Scholar]
- Olson, G.M.; Olson, J.S. Distance matters. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2000, 15, 139–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, K.; Ferguson, E.; Smillie, L.D. Prosocial personality traits differentially predict egalitarianism, generosity, and reciprocity in economic games. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pita, J.; John, R.; Maheswaran, R.; Tambe, M.; Kraus, S. A robust approach to addressing human adversaries in security games. In Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montpellier, France, 27–31 August 2012; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 660–665. [Google Scholar]
- Alper, T.G. Memory for completed and incompleted tasks as a function of personality: An analysis of group data. J. Soc. Psychol. 1946, 41, 403–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, P.T.; McCrae, R.R. Revised NEO Personality (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Journal Manual; Psychological Assessment Resources: Odessa, FL, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Holland, J.L. Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Careers; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
- Eysenck, H. The Inequality of Man; EdITS Publishers: Harmondsworth, UK, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Engel, D.; Woolley, A.W.; Jing, L.X.; Chabris, C.F.; Malone, T.W. Reading the Mind in the Eyes or Reading between the Lines? Theory of Mind Predicts Collective Intelligence Equally Well Online and Face-To-Face. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e115212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woolley, A.W.; Chabris, C.F.; Pentland, A.; Hashmi, N.; Malone, T.W. Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups. Science 2010, 330, 686–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sugerman, J. Using the DiSC® model to improve communication effectiveness. Ind. Commer. Train. 2009, 41, 151–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diekmann, J.; König, C.J. Personality Testing in Personnel Selection. In Employee Recruitment, Selection, and Assessment: Contemporary Issues for Theory and Practice; Psychology Press: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2015; p. 117. [Google Scholar]
- Reynierse, J.H.; Ackerman, D.; Fink, A.A.; Harker, J.B. The Effects of Personality and Management Role on Perceived Values in Business Settings. Int. J. Value-Based Manag. 2000, 13, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scullard, M.; Baum, D. Everything DiSC® Manual; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, L.A.; Watson, D. Temperament: A new paradigm for trait psychology. In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 399–423. [Google Scholar]
- LePine, J.A.; Van Dyne, L. Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with Big Five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 326–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Johnson, D.W.; Maruyama, G.; Johnson, R.; Nelson, D.; Skon, L. Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 1981, 89, 47–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emerson, T.L.N.; English, L.; McGoldrick, K.M. Cooperative learning and personality types. Int. Econ. Educ. 2016, 21, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Proto, E.; Rustichini, A. Cooperation and Personality; Working Paper, Warwick Economics Research Papers Series (TWERPS); Department of Economics, University of Warwick: Coventry, UK, 2014; Volume 2014, Unpublished. [Google Scholar]
- Steiner, I.D. Group Process and Productivity (Social Psychological Monograph); Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Lord, C.G. Social Psychology; Harcourt Brace College Publishers: Fort Worth, TX, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Straus, S.G. Testing a Typology of Tasks. An Empirical Validation of McGrath’s (1984) Group Task Circumplex. Small Group Res. 1999, 30, 166–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pekrun, R.; Goetz, T.; Frenzel, A.C.; Barchfeld, P.; Perry, R.P. Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ). Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2011, 36, 36–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myers, I.B.; McCaulley, M.H.; Most, R. Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator; Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Suman, E. Role of behavioral and personality instruments in the improvement of team effectiveness in the organization. Perspect. Innov. Econ. Bus. 2009, 2, 80–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Triandis, H.C. The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychol. Rev. 1989, 96, 506–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 2015, 349, aac4716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Niederle, M.; Vesterlund, L. Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? Q. J. Econ. 2007, 122, 1067–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byrnes, J.P.; Miller, D.C.; Schafer, W.D. Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 1999, 125, 367–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rand, D.G. Social dilemma cooperation (unlike Dictator Game giving) is intuitive for men as well as women. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2017, 73, 164–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rand, D.G.; Brescoll, V.L.; Everett, J.A.C.; Capraro, V.; Barcelo, H. Social heuristics and social roles: Intuition favors altruism for women but not for men. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2016, 145, 389–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brañas-Garza, P.; Capraro, V.; Rascón-Ramírez, E. Gender differences in altruism on Mechanical Turk: Expectations and actual behavior. Econ. Lett. 2018, 170, 19–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carparo, V. Gender differences in lying in sender-receiver games: A meta-analysis. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2018, 13, 345–355. [Google Scholar]
Task Type | Description | Values |
---|---|---|
I | Whether a task can be divided to further subtasks or not | 1.Divisible—existence of subtasks 2.Unitary—no subtasks |
II | Whether the team focuses on the quality or the quantity of the task | 1. Maximizing—importance placed on quantity 2. Optimizing—importance placed on quality |
III | Mechanism used by the team to combine the contributions of its individual members | 1. Additive—individual inputs are added 2. Compensatory—group product is the average of individual judgments 3. Disjunctive—product is selected from pool of individual judgments 4. Conjunctive—product is a synthesis of all member contributions 5. Discretionary—group can decide how individual inputs relate to group product |
IV | Way of co-operation among the team members | 1. Collaborative—commonality of interests 2. Competitive—conflict of interests 3. Mixed motive—both common and conflicting interests |
V | Level of difficulty of the task | 1. Easy 2. Difficult |
VI | Task’s duration | 1. Short 2. Medium 3. Long tasks |
VII | Subjectivity of the task | 1. Intellective—there is a correct answer 2. Judgmental—no demonstrably correct answer |
Imbalanced Teams | Balanced Teams | |
---|---|---|
Females | 10 | 5 |
Males | 19 | 16 |
Present work | Reference Study [11] | |
---|---|---|
Task | Divisible Optimizing Discretionary Collaborative Easy Short Intellective | Divisible Optimizing Discretionary Collaborative Easy Medium Judgmental |
Method | Face-to-face, members knew each other from before. All participants were Greek, undergraduate students. | Asynchronous through crowdsourcing platform. Members did not know each other from before. Participants from multiple cultural backgrounds. |
Finding 1 | No difference in the task outcome. Balanced and imbalanced teams equally found the task solution. | Significant differences in the task outcome. Balanced teams produced better product commercials. |
Finding 2 | When emotions were measured, imbalanced team members reported significantly lower levels of boredom. High acceptance levels were only reported by leader type personalities. | Balanced team members reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction, lower levels of in-group conflict and higher levels of acceptance of members’ individual opinions by the team. |
Finding 3 | No differences in the quality of intra-group communication. | Balanced teams reported increased quality of intra-group communication. |
© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Antoniou, A. Compatibility of Small Team Personalities in Computer-Based Tasks. Challenges 2019, 10, 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/challe10010029
Antoniou A. Compatibility of Small Team Personalities in Computer-Based Tasks. Challenges. 2019; 10(1):29. https://doi.org/10.3390/challe10010029
Chicago/Turabian StyleAntoniou, Angeliki. 2019. "Compatibility of Small Team Personalities in Computer-Based Tasks" Challenges 10, no. 1: 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/challe10010029