International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management Personality predictors of team taskwork understanding and transactive memory systems in service management teams Priyanko Guchait Katherine Hamilton Nan Hua

Article information:

Downloaded by University of Houston At 13:45 02 October 2014 (PT)

To cite this document: Priyanko Guchait Katherine Hamilton Nan Hua , (2014),"Personality predictors of team taskwork understanding and transactive memory systems in service management teams", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 26 Iss 3 pp. 401 - 425 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2013-0197 Downloaded on: 02 October 2014, At: 13:45 (PT) References: this document contains references to 98 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 170 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Afolabi A. Olukayode, Benjamin Osayawe Ehigie, (2005),"Psychological diversity and team interaction processes: A study of oil#drilling work teams in Nigeria", Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 11 Iss 7/8 pp. 280-301 Terry Halfhill, Joseph W. Huff, Eric Sundstrom, Tjai M. Nielsen, (2003),"Group personality composition and work team effectiveness: Key factor in staffing the team-based organization?", Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, Vol. 9 pp. 147-167 Jeffrey A. LePine, Mary Ann Hanson, Walter C. Borman, Stephan J. Motowidlo, (2000),"Contextual performance and teamwork: Implications for staffing", Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 19 pp. 53-90

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 173748 []

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm

Personality predictors of team taskwork understanding and transactive memory systems in service management teams

Personality predictors of team taskwork

Priyanko Guchait

Received 4 May 2013 Revised 19 July 2013 22 September 2013 Accepted 22 September 2013


Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA

Katherine Hamilton

401

College of Information Sciences and Technology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA, and

Nan Hua Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA Abstract Purpose – The aim of this paper is to examine how personality composition in teams related to team taskwork understanding (TTU) and transactive memory systems (TMS) over time. Additionally, the study examined the relationship between TTU and TMS, and three team criteria variables: performance, satisfaction, and cohesion. Design/methodology/approach – A longitudinal study was conducted with 27 service management teams involving 178 undergraduate students in a restaurant setting. The restaurant was open to the public so the team outcomes had real world consequences. Each team served between 90-140 customers. Findings – Results showed that team mean-level conscientiousness was significantly positively related to TTU and TMS in the initial stage of team formation. On the other hand, team mean-level agreeableness had a significant positive relationship with TTU and TMS later on in the team’s lifecycle. Furthermore, significant positive relationships were found between TMS and team performance, TMS and team satisfaction, and TTU and team cohesion. Originality/value – The current work looked at how various team cognitions develop in teams over time as a result of personality composition in teams which has not been tested before. Unlike prior research, this study was conducted in a field setting instead of an experimental study in the laboratory. Finally, no research exists studying these relationships in a hospitality context. Therefore, the current work extends the generalizability of the team composition and team cognition theories. Keywords Human resource management, Service quality, Personality, Team/shared cognition, Team/shared mental models, Transactive memory Paper type Research paper

Introduction Teamwork is becoming popular in service, hospitality, and tourism organizations because of its influence on service quality, productivity, and organizational effectiveness (De Jong et al., 2008; Hu et al., 2007). Welch Foods and Taco Bell are

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management Vol. 26 No. 3, 2014 pp. 401-425 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0959-6119 DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-05-2013-0197

IJCHM 26,3


402

examples of companies that have effectively restructured their customer-service operations around service-management teams (Cohen et al., 1997; Batt, 1999). Tourism researchers have noted that tourists in particular are more than ever before looking for new and unique experiences; to meet this new challenge, there has been recently more emphasis on teamwork and knowledge sharing in teams (Hu et al., 2007). Organizations have turned to teams as a better way to use employee talents and to compete more effectively and efficiently (Robbins and Judge, 2012). As more hospitality and tourism organizations are introducing service-management teams in their operations, there is a need to focus on the predictors of success of these teams. An abundance of research has been conducted to examine factors that contribute to high team performance (cf. Mathieu et al., 2008). Among these factors, team cognition has begun to receive much research attention as evidenced by recent meta-analyses on the topic (DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus, 2010a, b). Team cognition has been referred to as an emergent state in which knowledge important for team functioning is mentally organized, represented, and distributed within the team (Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006). It has been used as a mechanism to explain how successful teams accurately predict and execute actions (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993). Research has commonly explored two types of team cognitions: shared mental models and transactive memory systems (DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus, 2010a). Shared mental models (SMM) refer to “team members’ shared, organized understanding and mental representation about the key elements of the team’s relevant environment” (Mohammed and Dumville, 2001, p. 90). Transactive memory systems (TMS), on the other hand, refer to a set of individual memory systems that combine the knowledge possessed by particular members with a shared awareness of who knows what (Wegner, 1987). Research on SMM and TMS has been conducted in diverse settings across a variety of team types using various measures and various team criteria (e.g. Cooke et al., 2004; Ellis, 2006; Mathieu et al., 2000; Rentsch and Klimoski, 2001). A significant number of these studies have firmly established the positive relationship between team cognition (SMM and TMS) and team outcomes (e.g. Austin, 2003; Lewis, 2004; Mathieu et al., 2005; Lim and Klein, 2006). Despite the proliferation of research in this area, there is a lack of research investigating the antecedents of team cognition, particularly as it relates to SMMs (cf. Mohammed et al., 2010) and TMS. The purpose of the current study is therefore to examine team personality composition as an antecedent to team cognition. Resick et al. (2010) is the only known study to evaluate the link between these two constructs. The authors found that team mean agreeableness was positively related to the similarity of taskwork SMMs, whereas team mean conscientiousness was not positively related to the formation of SMMs. As indicated by Resick et al. (2010), key limitations of their study include the fact that their findings were derived from a lab study in which participants interacted for a short three-hour period-of-time, collaborated using an off-the-shelf simulation (which limited the ability to customize the task to the students), and were likely influenced by fatigue in completing the questionnaires at the end of three-hour sessions. The authors suggest that their findings are most likely generalizable to action teams in the early stages of formation and solicit that future researchers evaluate the external validity of their findings.


Building on the limitations of Resick et al. (2010), the current study collected data over a period of 16 weeks, using students who are engaged in a customized activity based on their course major, and who were less likely to be influenced by fatigue in data collection due to the collection of data spaced over multiple time points in the 16-week semester. The findings of the current study will most likely be generalizable to service management teams across multiple stages of formation. In addition to the differences in research design and work setting between the current study and that of Resick et al. (2010), we will also address calls to research to examine the congruence of findings across multiple types of team cognition domains (TTU/SMM and TMS) (cf. Salas and Wildman, 2009), to evaluate research models on team cognition over time (cf. Mohammed et al., 2010), and to expand the criterion base on team cognitions from team performance to affective outcomes (e.g. team satisfaction) and other emergent states (e.g. team cohesion) (Mohammed et al., 2010; DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus, 2010a). Furthermore, this study will investigate the suggested relationships with service-management teams, studies which have not been done before. Recently, researchers in the area of team cognition have noted the need for studies with project management, service-management, and decision-making teams to increase the generalizability of SMM and TMS theories (e.g. Chou et al., 2008). Literature review Team cognition: team taskwork understanding and transactive memory systems The first type of team cognition discussed in the study is team taskwork understanding, a representation of shared mental models. Whereas individuals have cognitive representations of the task at hand (Johnson-Laird, 1983), individuals working in teams develop a team-level cognitive representation of the team’s task referred to as a SMM (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993). According to SMM theory, the more compatible or similar these cognitive representations are at the team-level, the more likely teams will develop common expectations for taskwork and teamwork processes (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993); these mutual expectations allow teams to coordinate and make predictions about the behavior and needs of their teammates, resulting in high team performance (Mohammed et al., 2010). Whereas taskwork mental models involve a shared understanding of work goals and performance requirements, teamwork mental models involves shared understanding of interpersonal interaction requirements and skills of teammates. The current work focuses on team taskwork understanding, which is a representation of shared taskwork mental models. Team taskwork understanding (TTU) refers to the extent to which team members understand the tasks that need to be performed for team success. SMM and TTU will be used interchangeably in the current work. Hospitality and tourism researchers have also understood the importance of a common understanding of expectations, values, rules, norms, roles, interaction patterns, and perceptions to facilitate team performance (Hu et al., 2007). Therefore, TTU, which involve a common understanding among teammates about taskwork (such as performance requirements, expectations, rules, and work goals), and which has been noted to be a critical predictor of team performance (DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus, 2010a), is investigated in the current context of service-management teams. The second type of team cognition discussed in this study is transactive memory systems. Transactive memory systems (TMS) have been defined as a shared division

Personality predictors of team taskwork 403

IJCHM 26,3


404

of cognitive labor for learning, remembering, and communicating team knowledge (Lewis, 2004). TMS can be broken down into three dimensions: specialization, credibility, and coordination (Lewis, 2003). Specialization captures the differentiated nature of each team member’s knowledge. Credibility refers to beliefs among team members on the reliability of other’s knowledge. Coordination refers to the process of sharing knowledge within the team. TMS allows team members to divide among themselves the cognitive labor for their tasks, with each member specializing in different domains (Lewis, 2004). It improves team outcomes since it allows for quicker access to a greater amount of expertise and also improves coordination among team members (Hollingshead, 2001; Moreland, 1999). Furthermore, service researchers have advised that there is a need to encourage better communication and interactions among members to improve teamwork (Moultrie et al., 2007). Hospitality and tourism scholars have also linked knowledge sharing in teams with team performance (Hu et al., 2007; Magnini, 2008). Knowledge sharing was defined as the process by which teammates mutually exchange their knowledge and create new knowledge collaboratively (Magnini, 2008). Yang (2010) argued that knowledge sharing (by individual employees) results in group/organizational learning which ultimately results in greater organizational effectiveness. Researchers also identified that expert consulting and experience sharing leads to innovation (Hertog, 2000). Overall, knowledge and information sharing has been considered to be a most important resource for team, department, and organizational effectiveness (Osterloh and Frey, 2000; Bartol and Srivastava, 2002). Therefore, TMSs, which involve being aware of each other’s expertise and sharing and coordinating one’s expert knowledge with that of others, is investigated in the current context of hospitality teams. SMM and TMS are considered to be conceptually distinct. The key difference between the two constructs is that SMM captures knowledge that is held in common in teams, whereas TMS captures knowledge that is distributed (Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006). A recent meta-analysis on both types of team cognition has argued that “effective teamwork requires members to hold similar cognitive structures (degree of similarity/sharedness of knowledge or mental representations) (typical of SMMs), but also to possess distinctive knowledge configurations (distributed knowledge/expertise across team members) (typical of TMSs)” (DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus, 2010a, p. 3). Team personality: conscientiousness and agreeableness Schmitt and Chan (1998) noted that personality traits are particularly important for team success because of the need to interact with team members effectively. Scholars have suggested that personality composition plays an important role in the development of team cognitions (Resick et al., 2010; Bell, 2007; Driskell et al., 2006). The two types of personality variables examined in the current study are conscientiousness and agreeableness. Team conscientiousness captures the extent to which team members are thorough, detail oriented, and engaged in task-focused roles (Stewart et al., 2005). Among the Big Five traits, conscientiousness has been referred to as the “universal” personality predictor of work performance (Barrick et al., 2001). It has been linked to higher job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2002), higher work motivation (Judge and Ilies, 2002), a greater likelihood of being an emergent leader (Judge et al., 2002), higher success of expatriates (Shaffer et al., 2006), and lower counterproductive behaviors (Salgado,


2002). Conscientious individuals have the tendency to be ambitious, persistent, careful, and industrious (Roberts et al., 2005; Goldberg, 1990). Therefore, it has been suggested that team conscientiousness composition is particularly important for successful team performance (Bell, 2007) Team agreeableness reflects the extent to which team members are flexible, cooperative, compliant, work well with others, and tend to be less argumentative and competitive with other team members (Costa and McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1990). Agreeableness has been described as a “niche” predictor, in which its relationship with work performance seems to occur most strongly in team settings (Barrick et al., 2001). Agreeableness has been found to be a particularly important trait for work in team settings because highly agreeable team members have the tendency to be flexible, cooperative, compliant, and work well with others while less agreeable members tend to be argumentative and competitive (Goldberg, 1990). An integrative review of empirical research on team personality composition and team effectiveness has shown that, among the Big Five traits, conscientiousness and agreeableness were associated with the highest levels of team performance (Halfhill et al., 2005). Similarly, a recent review of the personality literature concluded that conscientiousness along with agreeableness is an integral component in explaining team performance (Lepine et al., 2011). Extensive research has been conducted related to employee personality traits in the hospitality and tourism field. Employee personality has been linked with job satisfaction and commitment (Silva, 2006), job burnout (Kim et al., 2007), engagement (Kim et al., 2009), hospitality employment aspirations (Teng, 2008), emotional exhaustion (O’Neill and Xiao, 2010), service delivery (Crawford, 2013), and counterproductive work behaviors (Zhao et al., 2013). Even in these hospitality and tourism studies, two personality traits that consistently emerged as dominant predictors were conscientiousness and agreeableness. However, all these studies have focused on individual employee personality traits and their influence on employee attitudes and behaviors. Hospitality and tourism research has not focused on personality composition of teams, which is investigated in the current study.

Development of hypotheses: team personality and team cognition There are multiple theoretical perspectives on the relationship between personality variables and work outcomes, among these, the socioanalytic perspective is one of the most popular (cf. Hogan and Holland, 2003). The socioanalytic perspective states that people are driven by two motives: the desire to “get along” with others or to “get ahead” (Hogan and Holland, 2003). Getting along involves behaving in a way that increases cooperation, developing relationships, and gaining others’ approval. Getting ahead, on the other hand, focuses on actions that promote achievement striving, taking initiative, and seeking responsibility. Meta-analytic evidence has shown that among the Big Five personality dimensions, agreeableness is positively related to behaviors associated with “getting along”, whereas conscientiousness is positively related to both “getting along” and “getting ahead”. The latter finding is consistent with Morgeson et al.’ (2005) study, which found that conscientiousness is significantly related to contextual performance in a team setting.


IJCHM 26,3


406

Team cognition and conscientiousness The concept of “getting along” and “getting ahead” can also be used to understand team cognition. This is most evident when the stages of team cognitive development are examined over time. Theoretical models on the development of SMMs suggest that teams progress through three sequential phases: declarative, knowledge compilation, and proceduralized/ expert knowledge phases (cf. Langan-Fox, 2003). In the first phase of development, team members are focused on acquiring knowledge/facts about the task and team. In this phase, team members actively gather and share information with other teammates. Successful progression through this phase requires that team members take the initiative to establish who knows what in the team and organize that knowledge through developing implicit connections among that information. This phase of TTU development is consistent with conceptualizations of TMS, which suggest that TMS involves members gaining expertise/knowledge in one area and helping teammates develop expertise in another domain (i.e. allocating new information to the responsible team member) (Lewis, 2003). The process of seeking out information is similar to the concept of “getting ahead” in which members need to take the initiative to establish who knows what in the team. Consistent with this idea, research on conscientiousness has shown that conscientious individuals are more likely to voluntarily and continuously share information (Fang and Chiu, 2010) and seek information (Hyldegard, 2009). Conscientious individuals tend to be ambitious, persistent, careful, and industrious (Roberts et al., 2005). At the team level, Stewart et al. (2005) have shown consistent results, in which conscientious teammates tend to be more detail-oriented and engage in task-focused roles. Therefore, highly conscientious team members are motivated to develop a comprehensive and detailed understanding of the task demands and the roles each member will play on the team (Resick et al., 2010). Furthermore, because highly conscientious team members are achievement-oriented, systematic, and organized, they are likely to immediately focus on gaining an understanding of their objectives and task requirements to ensure team success (Resick et al., 2010). Based on these findings and suggestions, it is likely that conscientious teammates are more likely to actively engage in the early stages of team cognition formation, in which it is important to actively seek out rule-based information from the environment. Therefore, it is expected that team conscientiousness composition will enhance the development of team taskwork understanding (TTU) and TMS in the initial stages of team formation: H1. Team mean-level conscientiousness will be positively related to team taskwork understanding at early stages of the teams’ life (Time 1). H2. Team mean-level conscientiousness will be positively related to transactive memory systems at early stages of the teams’ life (Time 1). Team cognition and agreeableness Whereas the first stage of team cognitive development involves knowledge acquisition, the second phase involves knowledge compilation (Langan-Fox, 2003). Once individuals acquire the rule-based knowledge needed to form the basis of their mental models, they then need to refine the knowledge through increased interactions with their teammates (Langan-Fox, 2003). The success of the second phase depends on the extent to which team members are able to manage their internal and external


relations (Langan-Fox, 2003). This phase is consistent with the process of coordination as discussed in TMS development (Lewis, 2003). In coordination, team members need to focus on who knows what, which results in coordinated and efficient interactions among team members (Lewis, 2003). The process of building relationships within and outside of the team is similar to the concept of “getting along” in socioanalytic theory and with the behaviors associated with individuals high in agreeableness. Consistent with this argument, research on agreeableness has shown that agreeable individuals are able to work well with others (Costa and McCrae, 1992). At the team level, agreeableness has been linked to higher levels of trust and the use of more cooperative team behaviors (Dirks, 1999). Teams that are high in agreeableness are also more open to incorporating other teammates’ viewpoints into their own in the formation of more similar taskwork SMMs (Resick et al., 2010), or TTU in this study. In contrast, less agreeable team members are likely to be more suspicious of others, more rigid in their beliefs about how to accomplish team’s goals, and generally less concerned about complying with team norms (Resick et al., 2010). Moreover, Driskell et al. (2006) argued that the cooperative tendencies of highly agreeable team members should result in members being aware of their teammates’ capabilities. Based on these findings and suggestions, it is likely that team-level agreeableness would have a positive relationship with team cognition during the knowledge compilation phase, in which the management of relationships is particularly important. Consistent with this line of reasoning, the following hypotheses were evaluated: H3. Team mean-level agreeableness will be positively related to team taskwork understanding at later stages of the teams’ life (Time 2). H4. Team mean-level agreeableness will be positively related to transactive memory systems at later stages of the teams’ life (Time 2). Development of hypotheses: team cognition and team outcomes According to SMM theory, being on the same page regarding what a task is and how to get it done can improve team effectiveness through increasing the efficiency and adaptability among team members thereby reducing team process losses (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993). Often not discussed is the positive relationship that higher sharing in SMMs can have on distal and proximal affective outcomes (cf. Mohammed et al., 2010). Having similar opinions related to the task can help teammates reduce task-based conflicts and encounter higher levels of cohesion. This idea is consistent with social identity theory, which states that heterogeneity among members of a social group can have adverse effects on its effectiveness by creating tension and subgrouping (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). It would therefore follow that members with similar cognitive perspectives would experience stronger positive affective outcomes in working with their team (Choi et al., 2013). Consistent with this view, Chou et al. (2008) found that teams with shared values had higher levels of performance, satisfaction, and interpersonal trust. The authors argued that higher shared values helped team members better predict other teammates’ behaviors and potential needs, which resulted in team members obtaining required support from other members easily. Such support made it convenient for members to accomplish their individual sub-tasks, which helped to reduce friction and improve satisfaction among team members (Chou et al., 2008).


IJCHM 26,3


408

Similar arguments regarding the relationship between SMM and team outcomes can be made for TMS. Regarding team performance, research has shown that teams with well-developed TMSs have a common understanding about who knows what, which makes it easier for individuals to allocate tasks, efficiently gather information from teammates during task processing, and thus have higher levels of performance (Lewis, 2003; Austin, 2003; Volmer and Sonnentag, 2011). Not only do effective TMS systems involve having an understanding of who knows what in the team (i.e. specialization) but, similar to SMMs, well-developed TMSs also involve actively engaging in synchronizing those different sources of expertise (i.e. coordination) (Lewis, 2003). Teams that are better able to get on the same page by coordinating who knows what have stronger TMSs. According to social identity theory, having shared perceptions such as these can contribute to having a more positive regard for team members and the team experience (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). More importantly, a study in the tourism area by Hu et al. (2007) indicated the importance of a team culture for enhanced service innovation performance and employee innovative behaviors. The scholars argued that members in teams high in team culture are more likely to be supportive, coordinative, and cohesive. Based on this rationale, we propose the following hypotheses: H5a.

Team taskwork understanding and (b) transactive memory systems will be positively related to team performance.

H6a.

Team taskwork understanding and (b) transactive memory systems will be positively related to team satisfaction.

H7a.

Team taskwork understanding and (b) transactive memory systems will be positively related to team cohesion.

Methodology Sample A total of 27 teams involving 178 undergraduate students in a large northeastern university in the US participated in the study. They were enrolled in a senior food production and service management course. All participants were seniors in college. Their ages ranged from 20 to 47 years ðM ¼ 22:37; SD ¼ 2:26Þ: The majority of the respondents were Caucasian (77.5 percent), followed by Asian (12.9 percent), and Hispanic (3.4 percent). The sample included almost equal representation of both genders with 53 percent being female. Team size ranged from 4 to 9 team members (M ¼ 6:59; SD ¼ 1:22Þ: All the teams were newly formed for the management course and had a lifespan of 16 weeks. Most participants had high overall work experience ðM ¼ 4:22; SD ¼ 0:40Þ; high experience working in teams ðM ¼ 4:48; SD ¼ 0:36Þ; moderately high experience working in the “front-of-the-house” ðM ¼ 3:63; SD ¼ 0:64Þ; moderate experience working in the “back-of-the-house” ðM ¼ 2:98; SD ¼ 0:83Þ; moderately high experience working in restaurants ðM ¼ 3:78; SD ¼ 0:79Þ; and moderate experience working as managers/supervisors ðM ¼ 2:92; SD ¼ 0:57Þ: Team members reported their prior work experience ð1:00 ¼ very low; 5 ¼ very highÞ; which was aggregated to the team-level using the mean.


Context: service-management teams in restaurants Twice during the semester, each team planned and supervised the preparation and service of meals in a restaurant setting that was open to the public. The objective of the team was the creation of a marketable theme restaurant, a complete business plan, and then the development, production, and evaluation of an authentic dining experience. Each team provided service to 90 to 140 guests for each dinner. These teams were ideal for the study since the team members depended on each other to accomplish tasks. These type of teams can be best defined as self-managed service management teams since each team was responsible for performing technical-administrative tasks (such as cost accounting, menu planning, purchasing, and budgeting), leadership tasks (such as supervising employees, developing strategy, and decision-making), as well as managing the preparation and delivery of menu items, in order to provide quality service product to customers. The context is comparable to any real-life restaurant setting as participants (team members) were held mutually accountable for outcomes such as food service to public. The customers also behaved in the same manner as they would in any restaurant based on their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the service quality and food. Procedure Data were collected at three different time points. These time points were strategically selected to be representative of the declarative and knowledge compilation phases of team cognitive development through their relationship with key planning and implementation stages in the teams’ life cycle. Times 1 and 2 were at 6 weeks and 14 weeks, respectively, into the teams’ 16-week lifespan. Time 1 was one week earlier to the teams’ first meal delivery which represented the teams’ first planning stage. The first round of data was collected on team personality composition, TTU, and TMS at Time 1. Time 2 represented the teams’ second planning stage. At this time, a second round of data was collected on TTU and TMS. Finally, at 16 weeks (Time 3), after the teams’ final meal delivery, data was collected on team cohesion and team satisfaction. A temporal separation was created to introduce a time lag between the measurement of the predictor (TTU and TMS) and criterion variables (satisfaction and cohesion) to control for common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Additionally, the instructors rated the team performance. Obtaining measures of predictors and criterion variables from different sources was suggested as another way to control for common method biases (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Measures, reliability, and aggregation Team taskwork understanding. Similar to numerous earlier SMM studies, TTU were assessed using questionnaires (Rapert et al., 2002; Mathieu et al., 2006; Smith-Jentsch et al., 2005; Knight et al., 1999;). Questionnaires are easier to administer in field settings over multiple time points compared to other SMM elicitation methods because little cognitive effort is required to complete the questionnaires (cf. Mohammed et al., 2010; DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus, 2010b). Following the recommendations of Mohammed and Hamilton (2012), a thorough team task analysis was conducted to develop the questionnaire items (Lorenzet et al., 2003). The final measure included ten questionnaire items. A five-point Likert scale was used with anchors ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item was “Our team members have a


IJCHM 26,3


410

shared understanding about how best to ensure we meet our sales goals.” There was internal consistency among the items ða ¼ 0:85Þ: Both rwg and ICC estimates were acceptable ðmean rwg ¼ 0:88; ICC1 ¼ 0:21; ICC2 ¼ 0:61Þ ( James et al., 1984; Bliese, 2000). Aggregation was therefore conducted to the team level using the mean. Transactive memory systems. Lewis’ (2003) scale was used to evaluate TMS. The scale contained 15 items. A five-point Likert scale was used with anchors ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item was “Different team members are responsible for expertise in different areas.” The internal consistency reliability of the scale was 0.83. Both rwg and ICC estimates were acceptable ðmean rwg ¼ 0:91; ICC1 ¼ 0:26; ICC2 ¼ 0:67Þ ( James et al., 1984; Bliese, 2000). Based on these estimates, responses were aggregated to the team using the mean. Personality. Conscientiousness and agreeableness were measured using the subscales from the International Personality Item Pool Five-Factor Model measure (IPIP-FFM) (Goldberg, 1999). We used the Mini-IPIP personality scale which was developed as a 20-item short form of the 50-item IPIP-FFM (Goldberg, 1999). Researchers have demonstrated the suitability and effectiveness of the Mini-IPIP personality scale as a short form measure of the FFM (Cooper et al., 2010; Donnellan et al., 2006). Each subscale contained four items which were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item was “I get chores done right away.” The internal consistency reliabilities for each scale were 0.83 for conscientiousness and 0.77 for agreeableness. As the student teams performed in the context of an additive task, both personality variables collected at the individual level were aggregated by mean and analyzed at the team level (e.g. Kozlowski and Klein, 2000; Mohammed et al., 2002). Team performance. In total, five items were used to measure team performance; four items were used from a team performance scale developed by Lewis (2004). Furthermore, the course instructors who evaluated the teams’ performance suggested the addition of an item to the existing scale – “The team paid attention to detail.” All items were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item was “The team’s deliverables were of excellent quality.” The team performance scale was found to be internally consistent ða ¼ 0:82Þ: Team satisfaction. To measure team satisfaction, six items were used from Lewis (2004) and Bushe and Coetzer (2007). The satisfaction scale was found to be internally consistent ða ¼ 0:94Þ: A sample item from the scale was, “Being a member of this team was a positive experience.” All items were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Both rwg and ICC estimates were acceptable ðrwg ¼ 0:80; ICC 1 (0.29) and ICC 2 (0.67)) ( James et al., 1984; Bliese, 2000). Based on these estimates, team members’ responses were aggregated to the team level. Team cohesion. To measure team cohesion, six items were used from Tekleab et al. (2009). The cohesion scale was found to be internally consistent ða ¼ 0:89Þ: A sample item from the scale was, “We all take responsibility for any loss or poor performance by our team.” All items were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Both rwg and ICC estimates were acceptable ðrwg ¼ 0:83; ICC 1 (0.27) and ICC 2 (0.69)) (James et al., 1984; Bliese, 2000). Based on these estimates, team members’ responses were aggregated to the team level.


Results Preliminary analysis As shown in Table I, team conscientiousness was positively correlated with TTU ðr ¼ 0:52; p , 0.01) and TMS ðr ¼ 0:55; p , 0.01) at Time 1. In contrast, agreeableness was marginally correlated with taskwork SMM at Time 1 ðr ¼ 0:36; p, 0.10) and with TMS ðr ¼ 0:37; p , 0.10). At Time 2, agreeableness was positively correlated with TTU ðr ¼ :49; p , 0.05) and marginally correlated with TMS ðr ¼ 0:41; p , 0.10). Positive correlations were also observed between TTU at Time 1 and Time 2 ðr ¼ 0:60; p , 0.01) and TMS at Time 1 and Time 2 ðr ¼ 0:63; p , 0.01). Furthermore, TTU and TMS were positively correlated both at Time 1 ðr ¼ 0:72; p , 0.01) and Time 2 ðr ¼ 0:61; p , 0.01). Even though some of these correlations were high, all tolerance values were over 0.20, and all VIF values were below 5.00 suggesting that the results were not strongly influenced by multicollinearity. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted for construct validity and to test for common method bias. CFA results are discussed in detail in Appendix 1 and 2. Team size was considered as a control variable (Steiner, 1972). There was no significant relationship between team size and any of the study variables, so we pooled all teams into a single sample and excluded team size from further analyses reported below to preserve power in our regression models (Mohammed et al., 2002). Hypothesis testing Linear regression analysis was used to test all hypotheses. H1 stated that team mean-level conscientiousness would be positively related to team taskwork understanding at early stages of the teams’ life (Time 1). As shown in Table II, conscientiousness had a significant relationship with TTU at Time 1 ðb ¼ 0:46; p , 0.01). Similarly, H2 stated that team mean-level conscientiousness will be positively related to transactive memory systems at early stages of the teams’ life (Time 1). Conscientiousness was also found to have a significant relationship with TMS at Time 1 ðb ¼ 0:49; p , 0.01). The results therefore provided support for both H1 and H2. H3 stated that team mean-level agreeableness would be positively related to team taskwork understanding at later stages of the teams’ life (Time 2). Agreeableness had a significant relationship with TTU at Time 2 ðb ¼ 0:47; p , 0.05). H3 was therefore supported. Similarly, H4 stated that team mean-level agreeableness would be positively related to transactive memory systems at later stages of the teams’ life (Time 2). The relationship was not found to be significant ðb ¼ 0:42; p . 0.05). Based on these results, H4 was not supported. H5 proposed that (a) team taskwork understanding (TTU) and (b) transactive memory systems (TMS) would be positively related to team performance. TTU and TMS accounted for 58 percent total variance in team performance ðF ¼ 13:27; p , 0.01). Within this regression model, TMS was significantly positively related to team performance ðb ¼ 0:89; p , 0.01). H5b was therefore partially supported. TTU was not significantly positively related to team performance; therefore, H5a was not supported. H6 stated that: (a) TTU and (b) TMS would have a positive relationship with team satisfaction. TTU and TMS explained 66 percent of the total variance in team satisfaction ðF ¼ 18:37; p , 0.01). Among the predictors, TMS was found to have a significant positive relationship with team satisfaction ðb ¼ 0:52; p , 0.05),


***

0.15 0.28 0.35

0.70 * * * 0.71 * * * 0.54 * * *

0.56 * * 0.57 * * 0.45 * *

0.70 * * * 0.76 * * * 0.82 * * *

0.61 * * * 0.76 * * * 0.79 * * * 0.76 * * *

6

p , 0.01; TMS ¼ Transactive memory systems; TTU ¼ Team taskwork understanding

p , 0.05;

**

0.03 20.02 20.08

0.60 * * * 0.62 * * *

0.62 * * * 0.63 * * *

5

Note: *p , 0.10;

0.74 0.37 0.48

0.49 * * 0.41 *

0.72 * * *

4

3.77 4.05 4.04

0.15 20.01

0.35 * 0.37 *

3

Time 3 7. Team performance 8. Team satisfaction 9. Team cohesion

0.28 0.25

0.26 0.52 * * * 0.55 * * *

2

4.04 3.74

0.26 0.29 0.25 0.33

1

Time 2 5. TTU 6. TMS

Table I. Variable intercorrelations and descriptive statistics 3.64 3.97 3.94 3.70

SD

0.67 * * * 0.43 * *

7

412

Time 1 1. Team conscientiousness 2. Team agreeableness 3. TTU 4. TMS

Mean


0.79 * * *

8

9

IJCHM 26,3


supporting H6b. However, the relationship between TTU and team satisfaction was not significant; therefore, H6a was not supported. H7 suggested that (a) TTU and (b) TMS would be positively associated with team cohesion. TTU and TMS helped to account for 69 percent of the total variance in team cohesion ðF ¼ 21:54; p , 0.01). Specifically, TTU had a significant positive relationship with team cohesion ðb ¼ 0:65; p , 0.01), supporting H7a. H7b was not supported as the relationship between TMS and team cohesion was not significant.


Discussion The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between personality composition and team cognition over time. Results from the study indicate that conscientiousness is most important for initial emergence of TTU and TMS in teams, whereas, agreeableness is more important later on in the team’s tenure. The findings of the current study help to indicate that different personality traits relate to team cognitions differently based on the developmental stage of team cognition being examined. The results are in line with some of the hospitality research that has been done in this area. Tews et al. (2009, 2011) found that both restaurant and hotel managers have similar hiring preferences, and they give high importance to conscientiousness and agreeableness when hiring hospitality employees. The second objective of the study was to investigate the relationship between team cognitions and team outcomes. Overall, results indicate that team cognitions have a positive relationship with three different team criteria: team performance; team satisfaction; and team cohesion. Whereas transactive memory systems significantly related to team performance and team satisfaction, team taskwork understanding was significantly related to team cohesion. These findings are in line with earlier tourism studies which showed that a team culture is essential for employee performance and service innovative behaviors (Hu et al., 2007). The implications and limitations of these findings are discussed next. Practical implications Service organizations are increasingly using service management teams (SMTs) at all hierarchical levels to improve service quality, productivity, and organizational effectiveness (De Jong et al., 2008). SMTs consist of interdependent employees who are jointly responsible for planning, developing work routines, decision-making, and monitoring team performance (De Jong et al., 2008). Organizations such as Prudential, Time 1 Team taskwork understanding B t Team conscientiousness Team agreeableness R2 F(2,24) Note: *p , 0.06;

0.46 * * * 0.24 0.33 5.84 * * *

p , 0.05;

**

***

2.67 * * * 1.38

p , 0.01

Transactive memory systems b t

Time 2 Transactive Team memory taskwork systems understanding b t

0.49 * * * 0.26 0.37 7.07 * * *

0.35 0.47 * * 0.24 3.02

2.90 * * * 1.56

0.07 2.34 * *

2 0.08 0.42 * 0.17 1.96

2 0.38 1.98

Table II. Regression analyses for the relationships between team-mean personality composition and team cognition

IJCHM 26,3


414

Taco Bell, Cigna, and Welch Foods have effectively used SMTs in their customer-service operations (Cohen et al., 1997). Organizational success depends on the teams’ ability to work efficiently and collaborate effectively (DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus, 2010a). Given the increased utilization of front-line SMTs in service operations, this study provides valuable insights to hospitality managers on the factors that improve functionality of SMTs over time, particularly in the areas of staffing and training and development. The critical implication of the study for staffing in service organizations is the need to adjust staffing decisions based on the tenure of the team or familiarity of its members. If the team has not been working together for a very long time or if its members are not very familiar with each other, they are likely to have difficulties moving through the transition phase of team development. Based on the results of the study, when teams are in this stage, it would be helpful to increase the level of conscientiousness in the team. This could be done through adding team members with high conscientiousness to the team to serve as catalysts through the transition phase of team development. This could also be done by increasing the influence of conscientious individuals on team functioning by giving such individuals a more prominent leadership role in the coordination of work activities. On the other hand, teams with a longer tenure may get past the transition phase of group development but have difficulties moving through the maintenance phase. Based on the result of the study, such teams are more likely to be successful if members have higher levels of agreeableness. If introducing highly agreeable members to the team is not possible or feasible, it may be beneficial to raise the influence of agreeable members on team processes through increasing the leadership role of such members. For ongoing teams that have difficulties alternating between multiple transition and maintenance phases, leaders high in both conscientiousness and agreeableness may be most helpful in creating the culture needed to move from one phase to the next. Another key implication of the findings of this study is that hospitality and tourism organizations need to carefully tailor their selection tools based on the setting in which individuals will be working. Personality variables are independent of other selection factors such as general mental ability, experience, knowledge and skills. The results of the study help to show that hiring employees based on desirable personality characteristics such as conscientiousness and agreeableness is as important as hiring based on other factors. Hospitality and tourism organizations should therefore focus on valid means to select employees based on personality, such as through situational and behavioral interviewing questions, situational judgment tests, and personality tests such as the “The Big Five.” The critical implication of the study for training and development in service organizations relates to the need to improve shared knowledge/cognition among team members. Given the cross-functional nature of many teams in service organizations, breakdowns in having a shared understanding of task or process variables often take place. The study pointed to how team composition could boost shared cognition among disparate team members but also showed the importance of these variables in increasing both task-based (team performance) and socio-emotional outcomes (team satisfaction and team cohesion) in the team. Service organizations can apply these results and leverage their limited resources for training and development by focusing training efforts on improving shared cognition in teams (such as, team taskwork


understanding and transactive memory systems). Based on previous research, training interventions that focus on improving shared task-based cognition in teams include cross-training, in which team members are given information on their role and the roles and responsibilities of their teammates (cf. Blickensderfer et al., 1998; Marks et al., 2002). Such training initiatives help to increase the level of awareness and understanding of each team member’s role and builds shared task-based cognition among team members. Theoretical implications The critical implication of this study for theory is the need to focus on time in both personality research and in team cognition research. Examining either or both variables in a static on-shot study could result in findings that fail to capture their dynamic nature. Personality researchers have argued that personality remains fairly stable after age 30 (McCrae and Costa, 1990) but have also argued that personality varies quite a bit in weak situations (Mischel, 1977). This highlights the need for examining contextual variables such as time in personality research. Team cognition researchers have shown that several factors have been linked with team cognition emergence, such as team member characteristics (e.g. cognitive ability, experience, education, personality), team interventions (e.g. leadership, training), and contextual factors (e.g. stress, workload) (cf. Mohammed et al., 2010). However, very few studies have been conducted over time (Mohammed et al., 2010). A strong theoretical implication of the current study’s findings is the need to examine the integral nature of time when considering potential antecedents of team cognition. Team cognition is a dynamic process (cf. Langan-Fox, 2003); therefore, variations in results across studies may be best explained by temporal differences in the measurement of team cognition. Finally, in examining both personality and team cognition, the only known study collected data in a three-hour time period (Resick et al., 2010). The authors found that agreeableness but not conscientiousness was related to team performance. However, given the short duration of the study and the strong demand characteristics of the experiment, it is likely that the Resick et al. (2010) study collected data in a strong situation which did not allow much variability to take place in the personality of the team members or the developmental stages of the team. Based on these differences in results, additional research is needed that incorporates theoretical perspectives on team development in models of personality and team cognition such as that discussed in the current study. Limitations and future research Although the current work makes several important contributions to the team cognition, team composition, and service management literature, there are some limitations that should be noted. First, questionnaires were used to evaluate TTU and TMS. Questionnaires are one of the common team cognition measures (e.g. Mathieu et al., 2006; Smith-Jentsch et al., 2005; Knight et al., 1999; Rapert et al., 2002). The current study chose these measures as little cognitive effort was required to complete them, which makes it easier for researchers to administer the questionnaires in field settings and over multiple time points (cf. Mohammed et al., 2010; DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus, 2010b). However, TTU/SMMs elicited through questionnaires may have a different relationship with its antecedents or consequences than TTU/SMMs


IJCHM 26,3


416

elicited through concept maps or similarity ratings. Recent meta-analysis demonstrated that the relationship between SMMs and team process was non-significant and weak when measured using questionnaires ðr ¼ 20:05Þ; but notably stronger and significant when measured using concept maps/card sorting ðr ¼ 0:17Þ or similarity ratings ðr ¼ 0:27Þ (DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus, 2010b). A rationale for these differences could be the fact that paired similarity ratings and concept maps are able to assess both structure and content, whereas questionnaires are limited to only be able to assess the content of team understanding (Mohammed and Dumville, 2001). Because this drawback is associated with questionnaires, it is anticipated that the outcomes of this research may be stronger with the use of other types of TTU/SMM measurements, such as similarity ratings and concept maps. Therefore, future studies in this area are needed. Second, low sample size may have limited the results of this study. Results indicate that agreeableness had a marginal relationship with TMS at Time 2. Cohen (1988) explained that sample size is positively associated with the statistical power of an inferential test. Based on this problem, the alpha level for this study was relaxed from a ¼ 0:05 to a ¼ 0:10 to interpret marginal effects (Cohen, 1988). Regardless of this adjustment, the statistical conclusion validity of the current work is supported by the strengths of the effect sizes observed. Scholars recommend that the magnitude of the effect size provides more reliable information than p-values (e.g. Schmidt and Hunter, 1997; Oakes, 1986). Effect size is not as sensitive to differences in sample size as p-values (Oakes, 1986). Despite the marginal relationship observed between agreeableness and TMS, the effect size for the relationship was moderate to high ðb ¼ 0:42; Cohen, 1992). However, some scholars have suggested the use of both effect size estimates and p-values to determine both the strength and probability of an observed effect (e.g. Denis, 2003). Therefore, future studies are required that attempt to replicate the findings of the current research using a bigger sample. Finally, the use of student teams might seem to raise the issue of generalizability to organizational work teams. However, most studies in the TMS literature have used MBA student teams, working on consulting projects (Lewis, 2004), and most studies in the SMM/TTU literature have used teams that engaged in command-and-control simulations (Ellis, 2006). Lewis (2004) argued that the projects that the MBA teams tackled, however, were very similar to professional consulting projects and, therefore, his findings about TMS were generalizable to organizational work teams. In the current study, the student teams were involved in performing real-life tasks that had a direct impact on real customers. These teams are comparable to organizational work teams because of the realistic tasks and consequences of their performance, which is similar to professional service-management teams. Based on the typology of task types and team types suggested by Straus (1999) and Sundstrom et al. (1990) respectively, the student teams of the current study are similar to work teams in organizations because of the similarity in task and performance requirements. Additionally, along with the similarity in task type and team type, there is similarity in terms of team’s life span as well. The current student teams worked together for 16 weeks with a defined termination date, which is similar to organizational teams which are assembled to tackle a project within a specified time frame (Sundstrom et al., 1990). Therefore, the findings of this study may generalize to similar project-based teams. Although according to team cognition scholars (Mathieu et al., 2000; Lewis, 2004) the current


sample was appropriate for testing the model, future researchers need to test this model with other samples in different contexts (e.g. restaurant unit management teams; departmental teams in hotels;) and with other types of teams (e.g. top management teams).

Personality predictors of team taskwork

References Austin, J.R. (2003), “Transactive memory in organizational groups: the effects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy on group performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 866-878. Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K. and Judge, T.A. (2001), “The FFM personality dimensions and job performance: meta-analysis of meta-analyses”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 9, pp. 9-30. Bartol, K.M. and Srivastava, A. (2002), “Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizational reward systems”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 9, pp. 64-76. Batt, R. (1999), “Work organization, technology and performance in customer service and sales”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 52, pp. 539-563. Bell, S.T. (2007), “Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92, pp. 595-615. Blickensderfer, E., Cannon-Bowers, J.A. and Salas, E. (1998), “Cross-training and team performance”, in Cannon-Bowers, J.A. and Salas, E. (Eds), Making Decisions Under Stress: Implications for Individual and Team Training, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 299-311. Bliese, P.D. (2000), “Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: implications for data aggregation and analyses”, in Klein, K.J. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 349-381. Bushe, G.R. and Coetzer, G.H. (2007), “Group development and team effectiveness: using cognitive representations to measure group development and predict task performance and group viability”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 43, pp. 184-212. Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Salas, E. and Converse, S.A. (1993), “Shared mental models in expert team decision making”, in Castellan, N.J. Jr (Ed.), Current Issues in Individual and Group Decision Making, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 221-246. Choi, Y.G., Kwon, J. and Kim, W. (2013), “Effects of attitudes vs experience of workplace fun on employee behaviors: focused on generation Y in the hospitality industry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 25, pp. 410-427. Chou, L., Wang, A., Wang, T., Huang, M. and Cheng, B. (2008), “Shared work values and team member effectiveness: the mediation of trustfulness and trustworthiness”, Human Relations, Vol. 61, pp. 1713-1742. Cohen, J. (1992), “A power primer”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 112, pp. 115-159. Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Cohen, S.G., Chang, L. and Ledford, G.E. Jr (1997), “A hierarchical construct of self-management leadership and its relationship to quality of work life and perceived work group effectiveness”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 275-308. Cooke, N.J., Salas, E., Kiekel, P.A. and Bell, B. (2004), “Advances in measuring team cognition”, in Salas, E. and Fiore, S.M. (Eds), Team Cognition: Understanding the Factors that Drive

417

IJCHM 26,3


418

Process and Performance, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 83-106. Cooper, A.J., Smillie, L.D. and Corr, P.J. (2010), “A confirmatory factor analysis of the Mini-IPIP five-factor model personality scale”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 48, pp. 688-691. Costa, P.T. Jr and McCrae, R.R. (1992), Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual, Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL. Crawford, A. (2013), “Hospitality operators’ understanding of service: a qualitative approach”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 25, pp. 65-81. DeChurch, L.A. and Mesmer-Magnus, J.R. (2010a), “The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95, pp. 32-53. DeChurch, L.A. and Mesmer-Magnus, J.R. (2010b), “Measuring team shared mental models: a meta-analysis. The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: a meta-analysis”, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 14, pp. 1-14. De Jong, A., Wetzels, M. and DeRuyter, K. (2008), “Linking employee perceptions of collective efficacy in self-managing service teams with customer-perceived service quality: a psychometric assessment”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 19, pp. 353-378. Denis, D.J. (2003), “Alternatives to null hypothesis significance testing alternatives to null hypothesis significance testing”, Theory and Science, Vol. 4, pp. 1-23. Dirks, K.T. (1999), “The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84, pp. 445-455. Donnellan, M.B., Oswald, F.L., Baird, B.M. and Lucas, R.E. (2006), “The Mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality”, Psychological Assessment, Vol. 18, pp. 192-203. Driskell, J.E., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E. and O’Shea, P.G. (2006), “What makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness”, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 10, pp. 249-271. Ellis, A.P.J. (2006), “System breakdown: the role of mental models and transactive memory in the relationship between acute stress and team performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49, pp. 576-589. Fang, Y. and Chiu, C. (2010), “In justice we trust: exploring knowledge-sharing continuance intentions in virtual communities of practice”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 235-246. Goldberg, L.R. (1990), “An alternative “description of personality”: the Big-Five factor structure”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 1216-1229. Goldberg, L.R. (1999), “A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models”, in Mervielde, I., Deary, I., De Fruyt, F. and Ostendorf, F. (Eds), Personality Psychology in Europe, Tilburg University Press, Tilburg, pp. 7-28. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Halfhill, T., Sundstrom, E., Lahner, J., Caldrone, W. and Nielsen, T.M. (2005), “Group personality composition and group effectiveness: an integrative review of empirical research”, Small Group Research, Vol. 36, pp. 83-105.

Hertog, P. (2000), “Knowledge-intensive business services as co-producers of innovation”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 4, pp. 491-528. Hogan, A. and Holland, B. (2003), “Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: a socioanalytic perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 100-112. Hollingshead, A.B. (2001), “Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in transactive memory”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 1080-1089. Hu, M., Horng, M.J. and Sun, Y. (2007), “Hospitality teams: knowledge sharing and service innovation performance”, Tourism Management, Vol. 30, pp. 41-50.


Hyldegard, J. (2009), “Personality traits and group-based behavior: an exploratory study”, Information Research, Vol. 14, p. 402, available at: http://informationr.net/ir/14-2/paper402. html (accessed 20 February 2012). James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1984), “Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 85-98. Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983), “A computational analysis of consciousness”, Cognition & Brain Theory, Vol. 6, pp. 499-508. Judge, T.A. and Ilies, R. (2002), “Relationship of personality to performance motivation: a meta-analytic review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 797-807. Judge, T.A., Heller, D. and Mount, M.K. (2002), “Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 530-541. Kim, H.J., Shin, K.H. and Swanger, N. (2009), “Burnout and engagement: a comparative analysis using the Big Five personality dimensions”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 28, pp. 96-104. Kim, H.J., Shin, K.H. and Umbreit, W.T. (2007), “Hotel job burnout: the role of personality characteristics”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 26, pp. 421-434. Knight, D., Pearce, C.L., Smith, K.G., Olian, J.D., Sims, H.P., Smith, K.A. and Flood, P. (1999), “Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 445-465. Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Ilgen, D.R. (2006), “Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams”, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 7, pp. 77-124. Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Klein, K.J. (2000), “A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes”, in Klein, K.J. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds), Multilevel Theory, Research and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 3-90. Langan-Fox, J. (2003), “Skill acquisition and the development of the team mental model: an integrative approach to analyzing organizational teams”, in West, M., Tjosvold, D. and Smith, K.G. (Eds), International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Co-operative Working, Wiley, London, pp. 321-360. Lepine, J.A., Buckman, B.R., Crawford, E.R. and Methot, J.R. (2011), “A review of research on personality in teams: accounting for pathways spanning levels of theory and analysis”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 21, pp. 311-330. Lewis, K. (2003), “Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: scale development and validation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 587-604. Lewis, K. (2004), “Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: a longitudinal study of transactive memory systems”, Management Science, Vol. 50, pp. 1519-1533.


IJCHM 26,3


420

Lim, B.C. and Klein, K. (2006), “Team mental models and team performance: a field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27, pp. 403-418. Lorenzet, S.J., Eddy, E.R. and Klein, G.D. (2003), “The importance of team task analysis for team human resource management”, Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, Vol. 9, pp. 113-145. McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. Jr (1990), Personality in Adulthood, Guilford, New York, NY. Magnini, V. (2008), “Practicing effective knowledge sharing in international hotel joint ventures”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 27, pp. 249-258. Marks, M.A., Sabella, M.J., Burke, C.S. and Zaccaro, S.J. (2002), “The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 3-13. Mathieu, J.E., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T.L. and Gilson, L. (2008), “Team effectiveness 1997-2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34, pp. 410-476. Mathieu, J.E., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T.L. and Mangos, P.M. (2006), “Interactive effects of team and task shared mental models as related to air traffic controllers’ team efficacy and effectiveness”, In Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the Academy of Management Conference, Atlanta, GA. Mathieu, J.E., Heffner, T.S., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2000), “The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 273-283. Mathieu, J.E., Heffner, T.S., Goodwin, G.F., Cannon-Bowers, J.A. and Salas, E. (2005), “Scaling the quality of teammates’ mental models: equifinality and normative comparisons”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 37-56. Mischel, W. (1977), “The interaction of person and situation”, in Magnusson, D. and Endler, N.S. (Eds), Personality at the Crossroads: Current Issues in Interactional Psychology, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 333-352. Mohammed, S. and Dumville, B.C. (2001), “Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: expending theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, pp. 89-106. Mohammed, S. and Hamilton, K. (2012), “Studying team cognition: the good, the bad, and the practical”, in Hollingshead, A.B. and Poole, M.S. (Eds), Research Methods for Studying Groups: A Guide to Approaches, Tools, and Technologies, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY, pp. 132-153. Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L. and Hamilton, K. (2010), “Metaphor no more: a 15-year review of the team mental model construct”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36, pp. 876-910. Mohammed, S., Mathieu, J.E. and Bartlett, A.L. (2002), “Technical-administrative task performance, leadership task performance, and contextual performance: considering the influence of team- and task-related composition variables”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 795-814. Moreland, R.L. (1999), “Transactive memory: learning who knows what in work groups and organizations”, in Thompson, L., Messick, D. and Levine, J. (Eds), Shared Cognition in Organizations: The Management of Knowledge, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 3-31. Morgeson, F.P., Reider, M.H. and Campion, M.A. (2005), “Selecting individuals in team settings: the importance of social skills, personality characteristics, an teamwork knowledge”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 583-611.


Moultrie, J., Nilsson, M., Dissel, M.U.E., Janssen, S. and Van der Lugt, R. (2007), “Innovation spaces: towards a framework for understanding the role of the physical environment in innovation”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 16, pp. 53-65. Oakes, M. (1986), Statistical Inference: A Commentary for the Social and Behavioral Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. O’Neill, J.W. and Xiao, Q. (2010), “Effects of organizational/occupational characteristics and personality traits on hotel manager emotional exhaustion”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 29, pp. 652-658. Osterloh, M. and Frey, B.S. (2000), “Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organization forms”, Organization Science, Vol. 11, pp. 538-550. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 879-903. Rapert, M.I., Velliquette, A. and Garretson, J.A. (2002), “The strategic implementation process: evoking strategic consensus through communication”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55, pp. 301-310. Rentsch, J.R. and Klimoski, R.J. (2001), “Why do “great minds” think alike? Antecedents of team member schema agreement”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, pp. 107-120. Resick, C.J., Dickson, M.W., Mitchelson, J.K., Allison, L.K. and Clark, M.A. (2010), “Team composition, cognition, and effectiveness: examining mental model similarity and accuracy”, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 14, pp. 174-191. Robbins, S.P. and Judge, T.A. (2012), Essentials of Organizational Behavior, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Roberts, B.W., Chernyshenko, O.S., Stark, S. and Goldberg, L.R. (2005), “The structure of conscientiousness: an empirical investigation on seven major personality questionnaires”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 103-139. Salas, E. and Wildman, J.L. (2009), “Ten critical research questions: the need for new and deeper explorations”, in Salas, E., Goodwin, G.F. and Burke, C.S. (Eds), Team Effectiveness in Complex Organizations, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY, pp. 525-547. Salgado, J.F. (2002), “The Big Five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors”, International Journal of Selection & Assessment, Vol. 10, pp. 117-125. Schmidt, F.L. and Hunter, J.E. (1997), “Eight common but false objections to the discontinuation of significance testing in the analysis of research data”, in Harlow, L., Muliak, S. and Steiger, J. (Eds), What if There Were No Significance Tests?, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 37-64. Schmitt, N. and Chan, D. (1998), Personnel Selection: A Theoretical Approach, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Shaffer, M.A., Harrison, D.A., Gregersen, H., Black, J.S. and Ferzandi, L.A. (2006), “You can take it with you: individual differences and expatriate effectiveness”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91, pp. 109-125. Silva, P. (2006), “Effects of disposition on hospitality employee job satisfaction and commitment”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 4, pp. 317-328. Smith-Jentsch, K.A., Mathieu, J.E. and Kraiger, K. (2005), “Investigating linear and interactive effects of shared mental models on safety and efficiency in a field setting”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, pp. 523-535.


IJCHM 26,3


422

Steiner, I.D. (1972), Group Process and Productivity, Academic Press, New York, NY. Stewart, G.L., Fulmer, I.S. and Barrick, M.R. (2005), “An exploration of member roles as a multilevel linking mechanism for individual traits and team outcomes”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 343-365. Straus, S.G. (1999), “Testing a typology of tasks: an empirical validation of McGrath’s (1984) group task circumplex”, Small Group Research, Vol. 30, pp. 166-187. Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K.P. and Futrell, D. (1990), “Work teams: applications and effectiveness”, American Psychologist, Special Issue: Organizational Psychology, Vol. 45, pp. 120-133. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986), “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior”, in Worchel, S. and Austin, W.G. (Eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA, pp. 33-47. Tekleab, A.G., Quigley, N.R. and Tesluk, P.E. (2009), “A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness”, Group Organization Management, Vol. 34, pp. 170-205. Teng, C. (2008), “The effects of personality traits and attitudes on student uptake in hospitality employment”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 27, pp. 76-86. Tews, M.J., Stafford, K. and Tracey, J.B. (2011), “What matters most? The perceived importance of ability and personality for hiring decisions”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 52, pp. 94-101. Tews, M.J., Stafford, K. and Zhu, J. (2009), “Beauty revisited: the impact of attractiveness, ability, and personality in the assessment of employment suitability”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 17, pp. 92-100. Volmer, J. and Sonnentag, S. (2011), “The role of star performers in software design teams”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 26, pp. 219-234. Wegner, D.M. (1987), “Transactive memory: a contemporary analysis of the group mind”, in Mullen, B. and Goethals, G.R. (Eds), Theories of Group Behavior, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, pp. 185-205. Yang, J. (2010), “Antecedents and consequences of knowledge sharing in international tourist hotels”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 29, pp. 42-52. Zhao, H., Peng, Z. and Sheard, G. (2013), “Workplace ostracism and hospitality employees’ counterproductive work behaviors: the joint moderating effects of proactive personality and political skill”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 33, pp. 219-227.

Further reading Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R. and Gerhardt, M.W. (2002), “Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 765-780. Kim, H.J. and Agrusa, J. (2011), “Hospitality service employees’ coping styles: the role of emotional intelligence, two basic personality traits, and socio-demographic factors”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30, pp. 588-598. Mathieu, J.E., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T.L. and Mangos, P.M. (2006), “Interactive effects of team and task shared mental models as related to air traffic controllers’ team efficacy and effectiveness”, Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the Academy of Management Conference, Atlanta, GA.


Appendix 1. Confirmatory factor analysis Although data on independent and dependent variables were collected at different point in times, Harman’s single-factor test was used to address the issue of common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003), which was based on the fact that all measures except team performance was reported by teams (team members). Researchers have used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for the above test. A CFA was conducted with all measures collected at Time 2 and Time 3. Results of the confirmatory factor analysis evidenced that the model fit with six factors (three dimensions of TMS, TTU, satisfaction, and cohesion) ðx2 ¼ 740:25; df ¼ 443; CFI ¼ 0:90; RMSEA ¼ 0:06Þ was acceptable (Hair et al., 2010). All standardized factor loadings were 0.50 or higher and all factor loadings were statistically significant at 0.01 level, indicating convergent validity. Next, the items of cohesion and satisfaction were forced to load on one factor, as their correlations were high. The five-factor model showed a significant worse fit compared to the six factor model ðx2 ¼ 802:74; df ¼ 450; CFI ¼ 0:88; RMSEA ¼ 0:07; Dx2 ¼ 62:49; p , 0:01Þ: Next, the items of TMS and TTU were forced to load on one factor as the correlation between TTU and TMS was high. The two-factor model showed significant poor fit ðx2 ¼ 988:26; df ¼ 459; CFI ¼ 0:82; RMSEA ¼ 0:08; Dx2 ¼ 185:82; p , 0.01) compared to the five factor model. Finally, the single factor model showed the worst fit of all models and significant worse fit compared to the two factor model ðx2 ¼ 1437:12; df ¼ 460; CFI ¼ 0:67; RMSEA ¼ 0:11; Dx2 ¼ 448:86; p ,0.01) (unacceptable; Hair et al., 2010). Therefore, we controlled for common method variance using Harman’s single-factor test as suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003). The CFA results also provided evidence of discriminant validity as model fit changed significantly for each model (Hair et al., 2010). Additionally, another CFA was conducted with all measures collected at Time 1. The first objective was to evaluate the construct distinctiveness between TTU and TMS. These results showed that the fit of the one factor model was significantly worse ðx2 ¼ 512; CFI ¼ 0:71; RMSEA ¼ 0:10; Dx2 ¼ 221; p ,0.01) than the four factor model (three dimensions of TMS and one factor for TTU) ðx2 ¼ 291; CFI ¼ 0:90; RMSEA ¼ 0:06Þ: Similar to earlier studies, one TMS composite score was formed (Lewis, 2004). Validity results for TTU and TMS were consistent at both time periods. The second objective was to evaluate the distinctiveness of the two personality measures. Finally, agreeableness and conscientiousness were added to the existing model. Factor loadings of all items of both agreeableness and conscientiousness was significant at 0.01 level and the standardized factor loadings were 0.5 or higher. The model fit was acceptable ðx2 ¼ 487:34; CFI ¼ 0:90; RMSEA ¼ 0:06Þ: Next all personality items were forced to load on one factor. The one-factor model had a significant worse fit than the two factor model ðx2 ¼ 610:08; CFI ¼ 0:82; RMSEA ¼ 0:07; Dx2 ¼ 122:74; p , 0.01). Therefore, the distinctiveness of the two factor personality variables was confirmed.

Appendix 2 Team taskwork understanding Our team members. . . 1. Are in agreement about how best to manage the staff during our meal night. 2. Have similar understanding about how best to serve the guest. 3. Are in agreement about how best to ensure the highest quality food and beverage. 4. Have a common understanding about how best to ensure the service standards are maintained. 5. Are in agreement about how best to ensure we meet the time goals. 6. Have a shared understanding about how best to ensure we meet our sales goals. 7. Are in agreement about how best to handle potential “crises” that may arise during our night.


IJCHM 26,3


424

8. Are in agreement about how best to ensure we have sufficient inventory and sufficient replacement. 9. Have a common understanding about how best to train our employees. 10. Are in agreement about how best to ensure food cost is managed efficiently. Transactive memory systems 1. Each team member has specialized knowledge of some aspect of our project. 2. I have knowledge about an aspect of the project that no other team member has. 3. Different team members are responsible for expertise in different areas. 4. The specialized knowledge of several different team members is needed to complete the project deliverables. 5. I know which team members have expertise in specific areas. 6. I was comfortable accepting procedural suggestions from other team members. 7. I trusted that other members’ knowledge about the project was credible. 8. I was confident relying on the information that other team members brought to the discussion. 9. When other members gave information, I wanted to double-check it for myself. 10. I did not have much faith in other members’ “expertise”. 11. Our team worked together in a well-coordinated fashion. 12. Our team had very few misunderstandings about what to do. 13. Our team needs to backtrack and start over a lot. 14. We accomplish tasks smoothly and efficiently. 15. There is much confusion about how we would accomplish our tasks. Team cohesion 1. Our team is united in trying to reach its goals for performance. 2. We all take responsibility for any loss or poor performance by our team. 3. Our team members communicate freely about each of our personal responsibilities in getting this project done. 4. The members of this team help each other when working on our project. 5. The members of this team get along well together. 6. The members of this team stick together. Team performance 1. The team’s deliverables were of excellent quality. 2. The team managed time effectively. 3. The team met important deadlines on time. 4. The team did a good job of meeting the customer’s needs. 5. The team paid attention to detail.


Team satisfaction 1. Being a member of this team has been personally satisfying. 2. Being a member of this team has been a positive experience. 3. I would choose this team to work with on similar tasks in the future. 4. If we were assigned to another project, I am confident that this team would work well together. 5. I am satisfied with the report of this team. 6. The team’s report was better than what I could have done on my own. Personality Agreeableness 1. I sympathize with other’s feelings. 2. I feel others’ emotions. 3. I am not really interested in others. 4. I am not interested in other people’s problems. Conscientiousness 5. I get chores done right away. 6. I like order. 7. I make a mess of things. 8. I often forget to put things back in their proper place. Corresponding author Priyanko Guchait can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
