Core-Self Evaluations and Team Performance

Abstract

Team composition literature has established associations of team personality composition and performance in previous research. This study adds to this literature by examining the positive relationship of mean core self-evaluations (CSE) and team performance as well as the moderating effect of team-member exchange (TMX) on this relationship. Using 63 senior business student teams engaged in a management-simulation exercise, there was no support for the main effect of CSE above any variance explained in team performance by mean levels of the Big 5 factors. However, there was strong support for TMX as a moderator where mean CSE was only found to positively relate with team performance when TMX was high. The discussion will detail the results and future directions for research.

Keywords

core self-evaluations team-member exchange team performance team composition

A substantive body of research has examined the importance of team composition in relation to outcomes such as performance and satisfaction using an input-process-output framework (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008). The Big 5 factors (i.e., emotional stability, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Digman, 1989), in particular, have been utilized in team personality studies which have established the five-factor model as a useful taxonomy in team research. Specifically, Bell’s (2007) meta-analysis found significant positive correlations of mean levels of conscientiousness, agreeableness, and extraversion with team performance across both field and lab studies.

Although the Big 5 factors influence team performance, these traits fail to capture differences in how individuals evaluate themselves. Judge and colleagues (Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997; Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998) responded to this need with the development of a disposition termed core self-evaluations (CSE). CSE represents an assessment of how individuals perceive their self-worth, competence, and capabilities in general (Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005). The positive self-concept (i.e., high CSE) is thought to motivate individual performance at work, and studies have found a positive association between CSE and individual task performance (Erez & Judge, 2001; Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003). Teams with high CSE individuals should also gain from the added benefit of having members who are highly motivated toward task completion. Additive models consider the summative contribution of a lower-level unit variable (e.g., CSE) regardless of group variance (Chan, 1998). Thus, mean CSE is argued to positively relate with team performance.

Despite theory supporting CSE as a team personality composition variable, it is not certain that teams with high mean CSE will perform well. Kacmar, Collins, Harris, and Judge (2009) found CSE did not always relate with performance, but did interact with low perceptions of politics by triggering self-regulatory processes leading to higher individual performance using trait activation theory (TAT; Tett & Burnett, 2003). TAT argues that performance-related behaviors inherent in certain personality traits are promoted in the presence of environmental factors. One key contextual factor at work is the social relationship individuals hold with team members (Graen, 1976). These team-member relationships can have substantial influence on individual attitudes and behaviors (Ilgen, 1999). Team-member exchange (TMX) represents the quality of interpersonal exchanges within the team (Seers, 1989). According to TAT, witnessing favorable TMX quality may promote inherent behaviors within CSE individuals leading to more performance-enhancing behaviors. In other words, in the presence of high TMX, high CSE individuals may respond with motivation and persistent effort necessary for task completion, which is not found with low CSE individuals. This study therefore aims to examine the positive relationship between team-level CSE and team performance as well as the moderating role of TMX on this relationship. The results of this study should advance theory in CSE and TAT, and provide practitioners with insight into unique combinations of composition and context which should be considered in team selection practices.

Background and Hypotheses

CSE and Team Performance

CSE can be defined as a higher order construct representing the fundamental ways in which individuals evaluate their self-worth (Judge et al., 2005). This higher order construct is comprised of four subfacets: high self-esteem (i.e., overall appraisal of self-worth; Harter, 1990), low neuroticism (i.e., tendency to focus on negative aspects of the self; Costa & McCrae, 1992), high generalized self-efficacy (i.e., confidence to complete tasks in general; Locke, McClear, & Knight, 1996), and internal locus of control (i.e., a belief that events are influenced by one’s own behavior; Rotter, 1966). The aggregation of these four self-evaluations is thought to comprise CSE (Judge et al., 1997). Because of these positive self-concepts, high CSE individuals are rarely unsure of their abilities to successfully complete tasks, and they typically exhibit persistent effort toward task completion (Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998). Researchers have even found task motivation to partially explain the relationships of CSE with performance (Erez & Judge, 2001). CSE has also been found to positively relate with problem-solving coping strategies and less avoidance coping strategies (Kammeyer-Mueller, Judge, & Scott, 2009). When teams contain individuals who have high task motivation, persistent effort, and a willingness to address problems instead of avoid them, they should benefit from being comprised of these goal-driven individuals evident in higher team performance.

The positive self-concept is considered different from the Big 5 factors. Judge, Van Vianen, and De Pater (2004) were able to show the distinctiveness of CSE and the Big 5 factors with task performance. To determine the utility of team-level CSE, I examined the relationship of team CSE with performance above any main effects due to team compositions of the Big 5 factors. Judge et al. (2003) were able to show the incremental variance of individual-level CSE and task performance above main effects of the Big 5 factors. Thus, I expect a similar effect at the team level using an additive model perspective. Or formally stated,

Hypothesis 1: Mean levels of CSE will positively relate with team performance and explain incremental variance above main effects exhibited by mean levels of the Big 5 factors.

TMX as a Moderator

Trait activation theory uses the combination of personality and environment to explain and predict individual behavior (Tett & Burnett, 2003). The relation of mean CSE with performance is thought to be influenced by TMX. TMX represents a team climate of social exchange (Seers, 1989). Social exchange theory suggests individuals engage in social interactions of nonmonetary goods, such as trust, and feel a sense of obligation to reciprocate on receipt of favorable exchanges (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960). When witnessing high TMX quality, individuals may react by attempting to respond to these social exchanges by participating in the team task. However, how individuals react to these team social exchanges may be different when teams are comprised of high CSE individuals versus low CSE individuals, especially when behavioral norms may not be established. Okhuysen (2001) suggested newly established teams, which represent the teams surveyed here, do not always have preestablished behavioral norms to guide desired behaviors. Thus, TMX alone may not be sufficient for experiencing high team performance. High CSE individuals may react to team social exchanges with a motivation and persistent effort necessary for successful task completion, not found with low CSE individuals. This persistent effort should only be enhanced when teams contain members with higher levels of CSE. The additive effect of this effort should make team success dependent on the combination of TMX and mean CSE. Thus, I expect TMX to moderate the positive relationship of mean CSE with team performance such that the relationship is present when TMX is high instead of low or otherwise stated,

Hypothesis 2: TMX will moderate the positive relationship between mean levels of CSE and performance, such that the relationship will be activated when TMX is high and inactive when TMX is low.

Method

Participants

As part of a strategic management course at a large southeastern university, professors in each of the course sections randomly assigned students to 114 teams ranging in size from four to six members. These teams were temporary and engaged in a 15-week computerized management simulation. Permission to contact professors’ students was obtained prior to approaching students for study participation. Student participation was completely voluntary, and professors were unaware of participants. Of the 581 students invited to participate, 448 completed the first survey and 441 completed the second survey. The first survey, given at task inception, contained items assessing the Big 5 factors and CSE, and the second survey, given at task midpoint, contained items assessing TMX. Because team level means were the basis of the study, only teams with at least three members having complete data were retained so at least half the team (e.g., three out of six) was represented in the computed averages. After this initial screening, there were cases where 1% or less of the data had missing values. To retain these cases, maximum likelihood imputations were performed on these data (Enders, 2001). The result was 251 respondents across 63 teams for an individual response rate of 43.20% and a team representation rate of 55.30% (Range = three to six members; M = 3.98; SD = .85). Participants were 59% male, 93.2% White, 5.6% Black, .4% Hispanic, .4% Asian, and .4% Unanswered.

Procedure

For the team task, student teams made decisions relating to operation of an artificial company within five functional areas including marketing, finance, human resources, production, and research and development, using the Capstone Business Simulation (Stephen, Parente, & Brown, 2002). The Capstone Business Simulation is designed for undergraduate seniors and is considered sufficiently complex, so no manipulation checks for task complexity were performed. The simulation also allowed the researcher to obtain an objective team performance outcome.

Survey Measures

All survey items were reported on a 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree Likert-type scale unless otherwise noted.

I measured CSE using Judge et al.’s (2003) 12-item scale. The items assess the confidence and positive self-worth one has in general. A sample item is “I am confident I get the success I deserve in life” (α = .84, team-level α = .83). The Big 5 factors were measured using the 50-item NEO-IPIP (Goldberg, 1999). The NEO-IPIP was designed to measure all five factors using 10 items for each factor. Emotional stability assesses individuals’ propensity to not be tense, moody, and anxious. A sample item for Emotional stability is “I get stressed out easily” (reverse scored; α = .84, team level α = .84). Extraversion assesses individuals’ tendency to be talkative, energetic, and assertive. A sample item for Extraversion is “I am the life of the party” (α = .89, team level α = .89). Openness appraises one’s level of imagination, creativeness, and artistic sensitivity. A sample item for Openness is “I have a rich vocabulary” (α = .80, team level α = .78). Agreeableness appraises how cooperative, warm, and trusting individuals are. A sample item for Agreeableness is “I feel little concern for others” (reverse scored; α = .81, team level α = .84). Conscientiousness assesses how responsible, organized, dependable, and persistent individuals are in general. A sample item for Conscientiousness is “I am always prepared” (α = .83, team-level α = .83).

TMX quality was measured using Seers’ (1989) 10-item scale. The items measure the quality of team social exchange based on perceptions of team recognition, information, and assistance. Each of the items was measured on a 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree Likert-type scale. A sample item is “When I am in a bind, my team will take on extra work to help ensure the completion of my important tasks” (α = .84; team-level α = .89).

Team performance was measured using the teams’ overall performance ranging from 0 to 100, derived from the computer simulation algorithm, which is based on success in several metrics including company stock price and profit. The system determines a raw score for each category ranging from 0 to 100 and these scores are weighted producing an overall average. For example, if a team’s profit weight were 20% with a 100% raw score, the team would receive a 20 for that category. The adjusted scores are then summed and this composite was used in the analysis.

Data Aggregation

The data were aggregated because the unit of analysis is the work team. Team performance was already given at the team level, and team-level averages of CSE and the Big 5 factors were computed as additive compositional variables not requiring interrater agreement (r _WG) and reliability (ICC[1], ICC[2]) statistics (Chen, Mathieu, & Bliese, 2004). However, TMX is a climate variable requiring justification for aggregation. The ANOVA results gave some evidence that TMX varied significantly across teams, F(62,188) = 1.90; p < .001. ICC[1], ICC[2], and median r _WG were .18, .47, and .98. Although ICC[1] and r _WG are sufficient for aggregation, the low ICC[2] may indicate that relationships found between TMX and other study variables may be underestimated (Bliese, 2000). ICC[2] values are a function of ICC[1] values and team size, so low team sizes (i.e., three to six members) may have influenced this statistic. However, because relationships found between TMX and other team-level variables may be attenuated due to the lower ICC[2] value, results presented here should be viewed as conservative in light of reliability estimates. Thus, TMX was averaged and used in the analysis. Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, correlations, and Level 1 Cronbach’s alphas among study variables.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities for Study Variables

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Team size	3.98	0.85	—
2. Mean emotional stability	3.35	0.33	.16	(.84)
3. Mean extraversion	3.49	0.35	−.05	.09	(.89)
4. Mean openness	3.57	0.26	.18	.15	.17	(.80)
5. Mean agreeableness	3.83	0.27	.01	−.03	.48***	.06	(.81)
6. Mean conscientiousness	3.64	0.31	−.18	.05	.21	.18	.40**	(.83)
7. Team-member exchange	3.58	0.39	−.02	.08	.37**	.24	.26*	.20	(.84)
8. Mean core self-evaluations	3.73	0.25	.02	.49***	.31*	.36**	.06	30*	.19	(.84)
9. Team performance	48.13	32.95	.13	.30*	.15	.34**	.24	.09	.13	.32*	—

Note: N = 63; Cronbach’s alphas appear on the diagonal in parentheses and based on individual-level data.

***

p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05, two-tailed test.

Results

Hypothesis Testing

Due to teams being nested within course sections, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was proposed for hypothesis testing (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). HLM would allow for controlling any course section effects on team performance. The null model, however, did not contain significant Level 2 random variance in the intercept, χ² = 16.55, p = .35, and the percentage of variance in team performance attributed to course section was only 3.5%. Thus, there was not sufficient evidence for using HLM, so all hypothesis testing was performed using linear regression in PASW 18.0, formerly called SPSS (Norusis, 2010). All independent variables except team size (i.e., control variable) were grand-mean centered prior to being entered into the regression model. Table 2 displays regression analysis results.

Table 2.

Hierarchical Linear Regression With Team Performance as Dependent Variable

Step and variable	B	SE	β	R ²	ΔR²
Step 1				.23*	.23*
Intercept	49.33*	19.43
Team size	−.42	4.76	−.01
Mean emotional stability	18.32	13.53	.37
Mean extraversion	−9.47	13.62	−.12
Mean openness	30.02	16.53	.18
Mean agreeableness	44.87*	17.83	−.10*
Mean conscientiousness	−13.27	14.64	.24
Step 2				.25*	.02
Mean core self-evaluations	22.19	20.25	.17
Step 3				.25*	.00
Team-member exchange	2.04	10.85	.02
Step 4				.30*	.05*
CSE/TMX interaction	77.57*	38.66	.25*

Note: N = 63.

p < .05.

Hypothesis 1 stated that mean levels of CSE will positively relate with team performance and explain incremental variance above main effects exhibited by mean levels of the Big 5 factors. Mean CSE was not found to positively relate with team performance, β = .17, p = .28, after accounting for the variance explained by the Big 5 factors, ΔR² = .02, ΔF = 1.28, p = .26. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was not supported. Hypothesis 2 stated that TMX will moderate the positive relationship of mean levels of CSE with team performance, such that the relationship will be activated when TMX is high and inactive when TMX is low. The interaction between TMX and mean CSE was significant providing initial support for the hypothesis, β = .25, p < .05. Figure 1 displays the interaction. A simple slopes test was performed to determine the slopes for high (+1 SD) and low (−1 SD) values of the moderator (Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006). The slope for high TMX was significant, β = 52.33 (24.88), t = 2.10, p = .04, whereas the slope for low TMX was not significant, β = −7.95 (25.54), t = -.31, p = .76, providing full support for Hypothesis 2.

Figure 1.

The interaction between mean CSE and TMX

Discussion

Using an input-process-output framework applied to team composition (Mathieu et al., 2008), mean levels of CSE were expected to positively relate with team performance above any effects due to Big 5 factor means. Although previous research has found CSE to explain incremental variance in performance above that by the Big 5 factors (Judge et al., 2003), this effect was not found at the team level. Thus, the incremental variance in performance explained by CSE at the individual level does not appear to be found in teams comprised of CSE individuals. High CSE individuals must need to witness favorable contexts to enact performance-enhancing behaviors within a team environment.

The study’s major contribution, thus, is the examination of trait activation theory (TAT) at the team level. TAT indicates the importance of environmental factors for activating personalities required for performance (Tett & Burnett, 2003). Much of the research in TAT has been at the individual level, and the results of this study appear to support the applicability of TAT at the team level. Using a TAT framework, TMX (Seers, 1989), the quality of interpersonal exchanges within the team, was found to moderate the relationship between mean CSE and team performance. When TMX was high, mean CSE positively related to team performance, and when TMX was low, mean CSE was unrelated to performance. Individuals respond to favorable social exchanges and feel the need to reciprocate on these exchanges to maintain the relationship between the individual and social other (Blau, 1964). However, it is important to consider the substance of these exchanges. Individuals high in CSE are more motivated and engage in persistent effort toward goal attainment, so when these individuals react to perceptions of high TMX, they respond with more performance-enhancing behaviors than found in teams with low mean CSE. The interaction of CSE and context in relation to performance has been found at the individual level (Kacmar et al., 2009), and this study indicates the effect can also be found at the team level. Therefore, managers need to consider both team compositions of CSE and contextual factors such as TMX to gain the greatest return-on-investment and enact behaviors inherent within CSE individuals.

Limitations and Future Research

This study contributes to the team personality composition literature by examining the importance of both mean CSE and TMX in relation to team performance. Future research should examine the content within these social exchanges to extend the findings here. Social exchanges are thought to be based on nonmonetary factors including trust, respect, and obligation (Blau, 1964). Trust is a willingness to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of future treatment by the trusted target which can be the individual, group, or organization (Hosmer, 1995; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). Therefore, team trust may explain the moderating effect of TMX, and future research should examine the moderating role of team trust and other social exchange content. Future research is also needed to examine other contexts that activate performance-enhancing behaviors of high CSE individuals in a team context. For example, shared leadership may represent another contextual factor activating team compositions of CSE. Shared leadership is defined as a team property where leadership is interdependently shared across members (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007). This leadership interdependency may appeal to CSE members and enact more goal-directed behaviors resulting in higher team performance.

Despite the interesting and theoretically driven results, there are limitations worth noting. First, the sample size of 63 teams was small for multivariate analyses and may have led to some relationships being undetected. However, given the results with the current sample size, relationships found give strong support to theory and the sample size is consistent with team personality research (Halfhill, Sundstrom, Lahner, Calderone, & Nielsen, 2005). Second, the use of student teams may limit the generalizability of the results, so future research should examine this model in a field study. Third, the ICC[2] value for TMX aggregation was low which may have led to undetected or weaker relationships between TMX and performance. Future research would benefit from a field examination with larger team sizes to ensure sufficient ICC[2] values. Fourth, all variables excluding team performance were collected from the same source creating potential common source bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). To limit this potential bias, the independent variables and moderator were assessed at two different times. Future research could still benefit by having a separate source rate the moderator or using a quasi-experimental design where TMX quality is manipulated.

Conclusion

This study adds to the team personality composition literature by examining TAT at the team level. High TMX was found to activate the positive relationship of mean CSE and team performance. Future research is needed to build on this study’s findings by testing other environmental factors and personalities within a TAT lens to gain a further understanding of the unique combinations of team CSE and context positively influencing team performance.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Drs. Alan Witt and Sandra Hartman for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bio

Jeffrey J. Haynie is a PhD candidate in the Department of Management at Auburn University, USA. The effects of individual and team personality on performance represent his secondary interest. His current and primary research areas are organizational justice and work-related uncertainty.

References

Bell

S. T.

(2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595-615. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.59510.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

Bliese

P. D.

(2000). Within-group agreement, non-indepedence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Carson

J. B.

Tesluk

P. E.

Marrone

J. A.

(2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1217-1234. doi:10.2307/2015992110.2307/20159921

Chan

(1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234-246. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.23410.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234

Chen

Mathieu

J. E.

Bliese

P. D.

(2004). A framework for conducting mutlilevel construct validation. In Yammarino

F. J.

Dansereau

(Eds.), Research in multilevel issues: Multilevel issues in organizational behavior and processes (Vol. 3, pp. 273-303). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Costa

P. T.

McCrae

R. R.

(1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 5-13. doi:10.1037//1040-3590.4.1.510.1037//1040-3590.4.1.5

Digman

J. M.

(1989). Five robust trait dimensions: Development, stability, and utility. Journal of Personality, 57, 195-214. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00480.x10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00480.x

Enders

C. K.

(2001). A primer on maximum likelihood algorithms available for use with missing data. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 128-141. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0801_710.1207/S15328007SEM0801_7

10.

Erez

Judge

T. A.

(2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1270-1279. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.127010.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1270

11.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In Miervielde

Deary

De Fruyt

Ostendorf

(Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

12.

Gouldner

A. W.

(1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178. doi:10.2307/209262310.2307/2092623

13.

Graen

G. B.

(1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In Dunnette

M. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201-1245). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

14.

Halfhill

Sundstrom

Lahner

Calderone

Nielsen

T. M.

(2005). Group personality composition and group effectiveness: An integrative review of empirical research. Small Group Research, 36, 83-105. doi:10.1177/104649640426853810.1177/1046496404268538

15.

Harter

(1990). Causes, correlates, and the functional role of global self-worth: A life-span perspective. In Sternberg

R. J.

Kolligan

Jr (Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 67-97). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

16.

Hosmer

L. T.

(1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 379-403. doi:10.2307/25885110.2307/258851

17.

Ilgen

D. R.

(1999). Teams embedded in organizations: Some implications. American Psychologist, 54, 129-139. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.2.12910.1037/0003-066X.54.2.129

18.

Judge

T. A.

Bono

J. E.

(2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80-92. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.8010.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80

19.

Judge

T. A.

Bono

J. E.

Erez

Locke

E. A.

(2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 257-268. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.25710.1037/0021-9010.90.2.257

20.

Judge

T. A.

Erez

Bono

J. E.

(1998). The power of being positive: The relation between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11, 167-187. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1102&3_410.1207/s15327043hup1102&3_4

21.

Judge

T. A.

Erez

Bono

J. E.

Thoresen

C. J.

(2003). The core self- evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303-331. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00152.x10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00152.x

22.

Judge

T. A.

Locke

E. A.

Durham

C. C.

(1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluation approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151-188. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.1.1710.1037/0021-9010.83.1.17

23.

Judge

T. A.

Locke

E. A.

Durham

C. C.

Kluger

A. N.

(1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17-34. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.1.1710.1037/0021-9010.83.1.17

24.

Judge

T. A.

Van Vianen

A. E. M.

De Pater

I. E.

(2004). Emotional stability, core self-evaluations, and job outcomes: A review of the evidence and an agenda for future research. Human Performance, 17, 325-346. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1703_410.1207/s15327043hup1703_4

25.

Kacmar

K. M.

Collins

B. J.

Harris

K. J.

Judge

T. A.

(2009). Core self-evaluations and job performance: The role of the perceived work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1572-1580. doi:10.1037/a001749810.1037/a0017498

26.

Kammeyer-Mueller

J. D.

Judge

T. A.

Scott

B. A.

(2009). The role of core self-evaluations in the coping process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 177-195. doi:10.1037/a001321410.1037/a0013214

27.

Locke

E. A.

McClear

Knight

(1996). Self-esteem and work. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11, 1-32.

28.

Mathieu

J. E.

Maynard

M. T.

Rapp

Gilson

(2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410-476. doi:10.1177/014920630831606110.1177/0149206308316061

29.

Norusis

M. J.

(2010). PASW statistics 18 guide to data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Press.

30.

Okhuysen

G. A.

(2001). Structuring change: Familiarity and formal interventions in problem-solving groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 794-808. doi:10.2307/306941610.2307/3069416

31.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.87910.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

32.

Preacher

K. J.

Curran

P. J.

Bauer

D. J.

(2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437-448. doi:10.3102/1076998603100443710.3102/10769986031004437

33.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

(2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

34.

Rotter

J. B.

(1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (Whole No. 609).

35.

Rousseau

D. M.

Sitkin

S. B.

Burt

R. S.

Camerer

(1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393-404. doi:10.5465/AMR.1998.92661710.5465/AMR.1998.926617

36.

Seers

(1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 118-135. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(89)90060-510.1016/0749-5978(89)90060-5

37.

Stephen

Parente

D. H.

Brown

R. C.

(2002). Seeing the forest and the trees: Balancing functional and integrative knowledge using large-scale simulations in capstone business strategy classes. Journal of Management Education, 26, 164-193. doi:10.1177/10525629020260020410.1177/105256290202600204

38.

Tett

R. P.

Burnett

D. D.

(2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500-517. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.50010.1037/0021-9010.88.3.500