Team Performance as a Joint Function of Team Member Satisfaction and Agreeableness

Abstract

Recent research on team personality has paid growing attention to team agreeableness; yet the literature is replete with mixed findings regarding the relationship between team agreeableness and team performance. Following the emerging trend of examining the moderating role of team personality traits in team dynamics, we propose a novel view of team agreeableness as a moderator for the relationship between team member satisfaction and team performance. With 230 senior-level professionals in 42 self-managed teams, we found that when team agreeableness was low, team member satisfaction was positively related to team performance, whereas when team agreeableness was high, team member satisfaction was not significantly related to team performance. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

Keywords

agreeableness personality team performance team member satisfaction

As the use of work teams has become more prevalent in organizations, research on how to increase team effectiveness via personality composition has grown rapidly (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005; LePine, Buckman, Crawford, & Methot, 2011; Moynihan & Peterson, 2001). Many models of team effectiveness call out individual characteristics as a key determinant (see Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, 2011; Harrison & Klein, 2007; Mathieu, Tannenbaum, Donsbach, & Alliger, 2014; Moynihan & Peterson, 2001 for reviews). Various researchers have suggested that personality traits are important predictors of teamwork and should be considered in team design (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; LePine et al., 2011; Stewart, 2006).

“The focus of the majority of research on personality in teams has been on its direct effects on team outcomes” (Bradley, Klotz, Postlethwaite, & Brown, 2013, p. 386); yet empirical evidence for such effects is rather mixed. For example, team agreeableness has largely been found to have a positive (e.g., Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Neuman & Wright, 1999) or null (e.g., Ellis et al., 2003; O’Neill & Allen, 2011) relationship with team performance, although some research studies also reported a slightly negative relationship (see Bell, 2007). Such mixed findings may be attributed to the distal relationship between personality and team performance or may reflect the presence of moderators for the relationship between team agreeableness and team performance. However, they may also suggest that team agreeableness serves as a moderator for the effect of psychological processes on team performance (Bradley, Klotz, et al., 2013). A better understanding of the moderating role of team agreeableness in team dynamics can advance team research.

In the present study, we take a novel view of team agreeableness as a moderator, examining how team agreeableness attenuates the relationship between team member satisfaction and team performance. Team member satisfaction is an affect-based emergent state (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001) specifically related to “affective feelings that team members hold toward each other and the team” (Ilgen et al., 2005, p. 526). Although team member satisfaction may facilitate team performance, it could induce teams to fall victim to groupthink (e.g., creating team members’ excessive optimism, making team members discount warnings, and precluding team members from reconsidering their assumptions) and ultimately impair team decision making (Janis, 1982). We argue that, given the trust-related aspects of agreeableness, lower levels of agreeableness may help teams evince heightened skepticism and critical evaluation of the information they possess, reduce the probability of groupthink, and increase information search for problem solving. Agreeableness, by definition, reflects how individuals view human nature (e.g., trustworthiness versus untrustworthiness) and interpersonal relationships (e.g., trust versus skepticism; Costa & McCrae, 1992).

Team Member Satisfaction as an Affect-Based Emergent State

In team research, one important distinction is made between behavior-based processes and affect-based emergent states (Marks et al., 2001). Behavior-based processes represent interactions among team members, whereas affect-based emergent states require more time to develop and serve as affective inputs for subsequent processes and outcomes (Bradley, Bauer, Banford, & Postlethwaite, 2013). Common processes include communication, cooperation, and conflict, whereas common emergent states include cohesion and team affective tone (Bradley, Bauer, et al., 2013). The empirical lack of distinction between processes and emergent states largely stems from the scarce data collected at multiple time points (Bradley, Bauer, et al., 2013).

Team member satisfaction is a prototypical form of emergent state. Although team member satisfaction can be targeted at specific aspects of group interactions such as communication (Hecht, 1978), we conceptualize it as a holistic, affective state (Marston & Hecht, 1988). Our conceptualization of team member satisfaction as an affect-based emergent state follows prior conflict management research (e.g., Curhan, Neale, Ross, & Rosencranz-Engelmann, 2008; Gelfand, Major, Raver, Nishii, & O’Brien, 2006). Team member satisfaction does not exist initially but emerges over time, reflecting the converged perception of relationships and interactions among team members (Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, & Trochim, 2008). Unlike some prior research (e.g., Rockmann & Northcraft, 2010; Tekleab, Quigley, & Tesluk, 2009), we deem team member satisfaction as a determinant of team performance rather than an outcome simultaneous with performance (Moynihan & Peterson, 2001). Although some studies operationalized team member satisfaction as an individual-level construct (e.g., Shaw et al., 2011), team members’ responses often converge, making it a team-level construct (e.g., Tekleab et al., 2009). In the present research, we conceptualize it as a team-level construct.

Moderating the Satisfaction–Performance Relationship

Team member satisfaction, a holistic evaluation individuals make about their interactions with teammates, can have significant performance effects. Team member satisfaction can enable team members to work effectively or collaboratively and thus facilitate team performance, whereas team member dissatisfaction can disrupt intra-team collaboration inhibiting team performance (Gladstein, 1984; Nerkar, McGrath, & MacMillan, 1996). Specifically, when team members are dissatisfied with their intra-team relationships and interactions, they are likely to have destructive conflict with teammates, thus inhibiting information flow and team functioning (Bradley, Klotz, et al., 2013; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Nerkar et al., 1996; Tekleab et al., 2009). In contrast, team member satisfaction may facilitate ongoing team performance. As a positive emergent state, it can buffer team members from destructive conflict and even undo the negative consequences of conflict (Fredrickson, 2001), thereby reducing team dysfunctions. Simply put, team member satisfaction can inhibit destructive intra-team conflict and its escalation.¹

However, team member satisfaction may not guarantee effective team performance. Effective team performance (e.g., the effectiveness of team decision making) may require constructive forms of disagreement and information search. When constructive conflict and information search are necessary, lack of skeptical inquiry can preclude teams from achieving optimal performance (Gelfand et al., 2006; Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996). Teams with high member satisfaction will be highly susceptible to groupthink and likely to make flawed decisions, which ultimately undermine team performance (Aldag & Fuller, 1993; Terborg, Castore, & DeNinno, 1976). When team members engage in constructive conflict and information search, they are likely to share critical information with one another, reduce information asymmetry and uncertainty, and acquire more information for problem solving. So team member satisfaction does not necessarily enhance team performance, and their positive relationship is likely to be modest.

Team Agreeableness as a Moderator

Problem solving requires team members’ satisfaction with their relationships and interactions, yet in conjunction with team members’ accurate understanding of the broader group context (Weingart & Jehn, 2009). Developing and maintaining such an accurate understanding requires a degree of skepticism, critical thinking, and information search (Sinaceur, 2010). We hypothesize that team agreeableness serves as a critical moderator for the relationship between team member satisfaction and team performance. Agreeableness is related to individuals’ tendency to trust others and engage in altruistic behaviors. A high level of agreeableness reflects the degree to which an individual will be trusting, friendly, and altruistic. A lower level reflects the degree to which an individual is skeptical, egocentric, and assertive (Bono, Boles, Judge, & Lauver, 2002; Costa & McCrae, 1992). From an evolutionary psychology perspective, Nettle (2006) noted that the benefits of agreeableness include attention to others’ mental states, harmonious interpersonal relationships, and successful coalition formation, and its costs include susceptibility to social cheating and failure to maximize selfish advantage.

Team member satisfaction can make teams susceptible to groupthink (e.g., excessive optimism, discounting of warnings, failure to reconsider assumptions), directing group actions toward safeguarding positive relations rather than enhancing performance. A low level of team agreeableness, associated with ongoing skepticism and motivated information search (Sinaceur, 2010), may curb this group tendency. Heightened team member satisfaction provides low-agreeableness teams with stronger buffers from destructive conflict within the teams. Consequently, problem solving, which is a joint function of positive relationships and good knowledge/information (Weingart & Jehn, 2009), is likely to occur; members can utilize their emergent state of satisfaction in conjunction with their accurate knowledge to make well-informed decisions that facilitate team performance. In sum, when team agreeableness is low, team member satisfaction is likely to be positively related to team performance.

High-agreeableness team members are likely to trust one another without questioning or challenging one another, and thus are unlikely to reduce their susceptibility to groupthink (e.g., excessive optimism, discounting of warnings, failure to reconsider assumption). Satisfied team members are motivated to maintain harmonious interpersonal relationships (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2001), and as team member satisfaction increases, they have even stronger motivation to inhibit behaviors that promote disagreement and information search. This pattern will impair the quality of team decisions and ultimately erode team performance.

Hypothesis 1: Team agreeableness moderates the relationship between team member satisfaction and team performance, such that when team agreeableness is low, team member satisfaction is positively related to team performance, but when team agreeableness is high, team member satisfaction is negatively related to team performance.

Method

Participants

A total of 230 senior-level professionals enrolled in a U.S.-based executive MBA (EMBA) program participated in the study as part of their coursework. The average age of the participants was 38.44 years (SD = 8.11). Sixty-one of them were women. They had an average of 15 or more years of work experience on entering the program, most of which was in senior-level positions. Most of them had more than 5 years of teamwork experience. They were assigned into self-managed teams of four to seven members (M = 5.48).

Procedure

Data for this study were collected routinely as part of EMBA coursework. The EMBA program takes 20 months to complete. Data from teams from six classes spanning a 6-year period (2008 to 2013) were collected and analyzed. From the start of the program, students worked within their teams to complete all major assignments, providing each other with peer mentoring and support. They completed an online personality assessment early in the program; approximately 5 months later, they reported their team member satisfaction. Several months later, they worked as a team to complete a computer-based business simulation as part of their coursework, which occurred at approximately the midpoint of the program. By then, participants had completed numerous assignments individually and in teams, including complex case analysis, problem sets, and formal presentations in subjects ranging from accounting to corporate strategy.

Measures

Team performance

We assessed team performance using a computer-based change management simulation, in which teams played the roles of change consultants who were hired by the target company’s president and sought to help improve business results. Due to changes in the market including a decrease in government defense contracts and the emergence of several competitors, the target company in this simulation was losing market share rapidly with accompanying decreases in revenue and profits. To address these issues, the firm’s president decided that the assistance of an external consulting team to help facilitate a turnaround and guide change efforts would be beneficial. The simulation involved the planning and application of a change management process model derived from Kotter (1996). Each team was given half a day for planning their change approach and then another half a day for actual implementation of their plan.

We chose this simulation as it provided a good platform for a variety of team-related behaviors that have been identified as important to team performance. These included communication, coordination, conflict resolution, and decision making (Tannenbaum, Beard, & Salas, 1992). The simulation also portrayed a realistic business simulation in a computer-based medium that we had previously found to be highly engaging with executive participants. The simulation included an objective scoring system that assigned a score to each change tactic based on its implementation relative to the underlying change model, which assumed particular tactics at each stage of the change initiative. Points assigned were based on an internal scoring algorithm that assigned a score for each tactic implemented based on the following criteria: (a) timing of the tactic relative to the stage of the model, and (b) sequencing of the tactic within the particular stage of the model (ExperienceChange, 2013). More specifically, the change model delineated seven discrete stages with specified tactics within each and assumed a linear progression. As an example, Stage 3 of the model concerned developing vision and strategy. The scoring algorithm assumed that in terms of timing, the change tactics in this stage should precede those in Stage 4, motivate, and Stage 5, communication of the vision, and so on. Within a particular stage of the model, the scoring algorithm assumed a preferred sequencing of change tactics (e.g., the tactic of stakeholder mapping should precede the tactic of appoint core change team within Stage 2 of the model, which is concerned with identifying change agents to manage the change process). Based on these criteria, an overall effectiveness score expressed in a percentage was calculated by the computer program for each team at the end of the simulation, representing team performance.

Team member satisfaction

Participants responded to three items that assessed team member satisfaction on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree): “All things considered, I am satisfied with my team experience,” “I like being a part of this team,” and “Overall, I am satisfied with my team.” We adapted these items from previous studies such as those of Dineen, Noe, Shaw, Duffy, and Wiethoff (2007), and Peeters, Rutte, van Tuijl, and Reymen (2006). The items were similar to those used by Tekleab et al. (2009). The individual responses were aggregated to the team level as the mean score (α = .95). The mean r_wg(j) was .85 and the median r_wg(j) was .92 (cf. James, 1982). The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) also supported our data aggregation (cf. Bliese, 2000): ICC(1) = .29, ICC(2) = .69, F(41, 173) = 3.20, p < .001.

Team agreeableness

Participants completed the Interpersonal Sensitivity subscale of the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI; Hogan & Hogan, 2007) to assess their agreeableness. Sample questions included, “I can get along with just about anybody,” “It upsets me to hurt other people’s feeling,” and “I am often irritated by faults in others” (reverse scored). The HPI is one of the most widely used and well-validated personality assessment instruments currently available (Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004). The HPI consists of 206 true–false items, which comprise seven primary scales or dimensions that have acceptable reliability in terms of internal consistency and test–retest reliability (Hogan & Hogan, 2007). The Interpersonal Sensitivity subscale of the HPI shows good convergence with other measures of agreeableness (e.g., NEO Personality Inventory; Hogan & Hogan, 2007) and also predicts a range of managerial competencies including sponsoring change, communicating business concepts, persuading others, teaming with others, and overall job performance (Hogan & Hogan, 2007).

In aggregating individual scores of agreeableness to the team level, we took a task-oriented approach (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Neuman & Wright, 1999). The team task in the current study entails collective decision making in a changing environment, which requires intra-team coordination, open communication, conflict resolution, and problem solving. No participant was assigned to the leadership position beforehand. The task was neither a prototypically conjunctive nor a disjunctive one in which one team member would have a disproportionally large influence on team performance; instead, participants had to make joint decisions with the other team members. Therefore, we chose the mean score approach to aggregating data to the team level (i.e., simple averaging). After data aggregation, a larger score indicated a higher level of team agreeableness. As a robustness check, we also included team agreeableness aggregated using the minimum score approach, because mean-scored team agreeableness was strongly correlated with minimum-scored team agreeableness both in our sample (r = .66) and in that of Barrick et al. (1998; r = .71).² In addition, Barrick et al. (1998) noted that disagreeable members are likely to disrupt within-team interactions and destroy interpersonal relationships, and thus may have significant influences on team performance.

Control variables

We also assessed participants’ other broad personality traits using the HPI and aggregated their individual scores using the mean score approach. We included the size, the average age, and the gender distribution (the percentage of women) of a team as control variables.

Results

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and correlations among the study variables. Table 2 presents the regression results of the hypothesized interactive effect. We tested the model of interest (Model 1) and checked its robustness by including minimum-scored team agreeableness and the interaction of team member satisfaction and mean-scored team agreeableness (Model 2). In addition, we performed regression analysis without the control variables of extraversion, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness (Model 3). Prior to the regression analysis, we centered team member satisfaction and team personality traits (Aiken & West, 1991). With the size, the average age, and the gender distribution of a team, as well as the other six mean-scored team personality traits (extraversion–ambition, extraversion–sociability, conscientiousness, emotional stability, openness–inquisitiveness, and openness–learning approach) controlled for, the interaction of team member satisfaction and mean-scored team agreeableness was negatively related to team performance (Model 1), β = −.51, p < .01. See Figure 1 for the interactive effect. Standardized residual plots gave no evidence of any considerable violation of assumptions for the ordinary least squares regression analysis.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (N = 42).

Team variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Performance	53.40%	13.33%
2. Member satisfaction	4.08	0.59	.23
3. Agreeableness (interpersonal sensitivity; M)	17.67	1.79	.29	.28
4. Extraversion (ambition; M)	23.60	1.36	.08	.15	.54
5. Extraversion (sociability; M)	14.78	2.40	−.00	.14	.42	.46
6. Conscientiousness (prudence; M)	18.49	2.15	.21	.03	.32	.06	−.30
7. Emotional stability (interpersonal sensitivity; M)	24.17	3.49	.35	.19	.66	.47	−.05	.64
8. Openness (inquisitiveness; M)	16.59	2.31	−.06	.21	.19	.29	.47	−.30	−.01
9. Openness (learning approach; M)	9.09	1.43	.02	.18	.03	.37	.06	.07	.12	.51
10. Agreeableness (interpersonal sensitivity; minimum)	13.83	3.12	.12	.46	.66	.39	.19	.32	.52	.22	.30
11. Size	5.48	0.74	.32	.02	.46	.30	.00	.13	.48	−.23	−.30	.10
12. Age average	38.28	3.98	−.05	−.05	−.01	.02	−.36	.48	.24	−.18	.21	.05	−.01
13. Gender distribution (percentage of women)	.27	.16	.17	−.04	.01	.14	−.23	.14	.17	.27	.37	.07	−.10	.14

Note. The labels in the parentheses are from the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI). Correlations of .31 or above are significant at the level of .05; correlations of .40 or above are significant at the level of .01; and correlations of .49 or above are significant at the level of .001 (two-tailed tests).

Table 2.

Team Agreeableness (Mean Score) as a Moderator for the Relationship Between Team Member Satisfaction and Team Performance (N = 42).

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Team variable	β	β	β
Size	.25	.16	.21
Age average	−.07	−.08	−.05
Gender distribution	.32	.27	.17
Extraversion–ambition (M)	−.42	−.41
Extraversion–sociability (M)	.50	.40
Conscientiousness (M)	−.10	−.11
Emotional stability (M)	.51	.52
Openness–inquisitiveness (M)	−.31	−.28
Openness–learning approach (M)	.07	.13
Agreeableness (M)	−.21	.11	.31
Member satisfaction	.01	.08	.12
Member satisfaction × Agreeableness (mean)	−.51**	−.94*	−.98*
Agreeableness (minimum)		−.29	−.24
Member satisfaction × Agreeableness (minimum)		.49	.67
R²	.44	.51	.39

p < .05. **p < .01 (two-tailed).

Figure 1.

Team agreeableness (mean score) as a moderator for the relationship between team member satisfaction and team performance.

A simple slope test (Aiken & West, 1991; Hayes, 2013) with the control variables suggested that at a low level of mean-scored team agreeableness (−1 SD), team member satisfaction was positively related to team performance as predicted (b = 8.77, standard error [SE] = 3.72, t = 2.35, p < .05). Contrary to our prediction, at a high level of mean-scored team agreeableness (+1 SD), team member satisfaction was not significantly related to team performance (b = −8.22, SE = 5.57, t = −1.48, p = .15). Therefore, our hypothesis was partially supported. The relationship proved robust to alternative specifications of the team composition function. When minimum-scored team agreeableness (β = −.29, p = .20) and its interaction with team member satisfaction (β = .49, p = .23) were simultaneously included in the equation, the interactive effect of team member satisfaction and mean-scored team agreeableness remained significant (β = −.94, p < .05).³

Discussion

Because of mixed evidence on the relationship between team agreeableness and team performance, we examined the novel perspective of team agreeableness as a moderator for the relationship between team member satisfaction and team performance. We argue that high agreeableness is inherently related to trust and relationship maintenance whereas low agreeableness is inherently related to skepticism and critical views. A low level of agreeableness enables more satisfied team members to reduce their susceptibility to groupthink, searching for more information and engaging more in problem solving, whereas a high level of agreeableness impairs these functions that facilitate team performance. By investigating 42 self-managed teams of 230 senior-level professionals who worked and learned together over a period of 20 months, we found empirical support for our hypothesis. Specifically, team member satisfaction was not significantly related to team performance when team agreeableness was high but was positively related to team performance when team agreeableness was low. These findings yield both theoretical and practical implications.

Theoretical Implications

Team personality as a moderator

As Bradley, Klotz, et al. (2013) noted, the majority of team personality research has focused on the main effects of team personality on team performance; yet, the findings are rather inconsistent. Team agreeableness has been given particular attention recently in team research (e.g., Bradley, Bauer, et al., 2013). Yet, like other broad personality traits, the findings regarding the relationship between team agreeableness and team performance are rather mixed, pointing out the possible new direction of treating team agreeableness as a moderator for the relationship between psychological processes and team performance. Thus, we proposed and tested the novel view of team agreeableness as a moderator for the relationship between team member satisfaction (emergent state) and team performance, which we believe will encourage more research on the moderator role of team personality traits in the future.

We treated team member satisfaction as a determinant of team performance and measured team member satisfaction months before team performance. This sequencing facilitated examining team agreeableness as a moderator. The current study is different from previous ones that treated team member satisfaction and team performance as simultaneous outcomes, finding a positive correlation between them (e.g., Rockmann & Northcraft, 2010; Tekleab et al., 2009). Although the two factors also had a positive correlation in the current study, it was not significant. One possible reason for the non-significant association was the sample size. The correlation may have been smaller than those in previous studies (e.g., Rockmann & Northcraft, 2010) also because of the temporal lag between measurements. However, team member satisfaction and team performance may not be significantly related, particularly when team performance is evaluated using objective measures indicative of team effectiveness as mentioned earlier (see Note 1).

Insight from mean- versus minimum-scored team agreeableness

Bradley, Klotz, et al. (2013) noted that “minimum or maximum scores may provide even more insight into the contingent effects of personality composition in teams” (p. 390). Based on the task-oriented approach, we focused on the mean-score approach in aggregating personality scores, but we also used the minimum score approach for a robustness check. Mean-scored team agreeableness was a significant moderator in this sample whereas minimum-scored team agreeableness was not. Minimum-scored team agreeableness was not a significant predictor of team performance either, despite past evidence suggesting that it is (Bell, 2007). In other words, the most disagreeable team member had no disproportionally large influence on team performance in the current study. However, minimum-scored team agreeableness was significantly correlated with team member satisfaction whereas mean-scored team agreeableness was not, suggesting that the most disagreeable team member had a disproportionally large influence on team member satisfaction (affect-based emergent state). These findings are consistent with Barrick et al.’s (1998) argument: “A very disagreeable person may make team membership overly costly in terms of social rewards (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) and thereby destroy interpersonal relationships within the team” (p. 381).

Directions for Future Research

First, we urge researchers to adopt a trait-emergent state/process interactive approach and further examine the moderating effect of team personality on the relationship between psychological states/processes and team performance (e.g., Beersma et al., 2003; Bradley, Klotz, et al., 2013). Such investigations are likely to help gain insights into team dynamics and reconcile the inconsistency of previous findings.

The main limitation that exists in many studies on team personality is the lack of a strong theoretical framework that provides logic for empirical testing. Gardner, Gino, and Staats’s (2012) resource-based view on team dynamics may be a promising framework. Gardner et al. (2012) proposed three types of resources—relational, experiential, and structural resources. Team member satisfaction can be conceptualized as a form of team relational resource. For example, Gelfand et al. (2006) conceptualized negotiators’ relationship satisfaction as relational capital. Gardner et al. (2012) found that task uncertainty strengthened the effect of team relational resources on knowledge integration capability, which in turn facilitated team performance. A comparison of Gardner et al.’s (2012) and the current study’s results reveals that team agreeableness may reduce perceived task uncertainty. This is very likely to occur, given that trust reduces perceived task uncertainty (Colquitt, LePine, Piccolo, Zapata, & Rich, 2012) and agreeableness is characterized by trust (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Thus, future research can investigate how team personality traits influence team members’ perception of the nature of their team task.

Second, future research should continue examining team member satisfaction as an affect-based emergent state and a determinant of team performance. The widely adopted framework for studying team dynamics is the input–process–output model (cf. Ilgen et al., 2005), in which the process component is largely represented by behavior-based processes (e.g., communication). A shift of research focus, from behavior-based processes to affect-based emergent states, may proffer new insights into how teams operate to transform their resources into satisfactory/optimal outputs.

Third, as Bradley, Klotz, et al. (2013) have noted, different types of tasks or teams may change the effects of team personality traits on team performance. In the present research, the team task requires within-team coordination, collaboration, and problem solving. Therefore, team agreeableness, which is related to trust versus skepticism, should be a critical factor. Future research can investigate the moderator role of team agreeableness in other types of team tasks (e.g., routine production tasks) to replicate our findings or identify the boundary conditions of our findings.

Practical Implications

Given that the participants of the present research were senior-level professionals enrolled in an EMBA program, our findings may also offer some insights into managerial practice and top management team (TMT) design. Numerous studies have shown that TMTs often fail to engage in real teamwork and suffer from conflict and lack of commitment (Edmondson, Roberto, & Watkins, 2003). Team design is the very first step that leads to the success of TMTs. It requires deliberate considerations of team members’ personality, task design, and leadership (Stewart, 2006). Yet, research that focuses on the relationship between team personality and TMT performance is strikingly scarce, except for Colbert, Barrick, and Bradley’s (2014) recent work. Colbert et al. (2014), however, found that TMT agreeableness (mean-scored) was not significantly related to TMT transformational leadership, collective organizational commitment, or organizational performance. TMT agreeableness (mean-scored), thus, may not play a determinant role in TMT team dynamics but instead a moderator role as we have proposed in the current research. Our findings provide somewhat counterintuitive advice on TMT practice: Disagreeable team members are not burdens of TMTs and should not be excluded; instead, TMTs should keep disagreeable team members while focusing on increasing team member satisfaction. Only when both conditions are met can team performance be enhanced.

Conclusion

The present research has revealed the moderating effect of team agreeableness on the relationship between team member satisfaction and team performance. Only when team agreeableness was low was team member satisfaction positively related to team performance. Our findings highlight the promise of an interactive approach by which team personality traits operate as moderators for the relationship between psychological processes/states and team performance. We urge researchers to continue this line of inquiry (also see Bradley, Bauer, et al., 2013).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Notes

Author Biographies

Dejun Tony Kong (PhD, Washington University in St. Louis) is an assistant professor of leadership studies and management in the University of Richmond, Virginia, the United States. His research examines the role of trust in negotiation, leadership, team, and cross-cultural contexts and the psychology of leader–member relationships, negotiation relationships, and peer relationships.

Lee J. Konczak (PhD, University of Missouri–St. Louis) is the academic director of the Executive MBA Program and senior lecturer of organizational behavior and leadership development at the Olin Business School at Washington University in St. Louis, the United States. His research interests include leadership assessment and development and employee selection.

William P. Bottom (PhD, University of Illinois–Urbana Champaign) is the Joyce and Howard Wood Distinguished Professor of organizational behavior at the Olin Business School at Washington University in St. Louis, the United States. His research has focused on the perception of risk and its effects on decision making and negotiation.

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Aldag

R. J.

Fuller

S. R.

(1993). Beyond fiasco: A reappraisal of the groupthink phenomenon and a new model of group decision processes. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 533-552. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.533

Barrick

M. R.

Mount

M. K.

Judge

T. A.

(2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9-30. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00160

Barrick

M. R.

Stewart

G. L.

Neubert

M. J.

Mount

M. K.

(1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 377-391. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.377

Beal

D. J.

Cohen

R. R.

Burke

M. J.

McLendon

C. L.

(2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989-1004. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989

Beersma

Hollenbeck

J. R.

Humphrey

S. E.

Moon

Conlon

D. E.

Ilgen

D. R.

(2003). Cooperation, competition, and team performance: Toward a contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 572-590. doi:10.2307/30040650

Behfar

K. J.

Peterson

R. S.

Mannix

E. A.

Trochim

W. M. K.

(2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 170-188. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.170

Bell

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

Bliese

P. D.

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

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W.

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

10.

Bono

J. E.

Boles

T. L.

Judge

T. A.

Lauver

K. J.

(2002). The role of personality in task and relationship conflict. Journal of Personality, 70, 311-344. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.05007

11.

Bradley

B. H.

Bauer

J. E.

Banford

C. G.

Postlethwaite

B. E.

(2013). Team players and collective performance: How agreeableness affects team performance over time. Small Group Research, 44, 680-711. doi:10.1177/1046496413507609

12.

Bradley

B. H.

Klotz

A. C.

Postlethwaite

B. E.

Brown

K. G.

(2013). Ready to rumble: How team personality composition and task conflict interact to improve performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 385-392. doi:10.1037/a0029845

13.

Cannon-Bowers

J. A.

Bowers

(2011). Team development and functioning. In Zedeck

(Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 597-650). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

14.

Colbert

A. E.

Barrick

M. R.

Bradley

B. H.

(2014). Personality and leadership composition in top management teams: Implications for organizational effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 67, 351-387. doi:10.1111/peps.12036

15.

Colbert

A. E.

Mount

M. K.

Harter

J. K.

Witt

L. A.

Barrick

M. R.

(2004). Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 599-609. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.599

16.

Colquitt

J. A.

LePine

J. A.

Piccolo

R. F.

Zapata

C. P.

Rich

B. L.

(2012). Explaining the justice–performance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer? Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1-15. doi:10.1037/a0025208

17.

Costa

P. T.

Jr. McCrae

R. R.

(1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

18.

Curhan

J. R.

Neale

M. A.

Ross

Rosencranz-Engelmann

(2008). Relational accommodation in negotiation: Effects of egalitarianism and gender on economic efficiency and relational capital. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107, 192-205. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.02.009

19.

De Dreu

C. K. W.

Weingart

L. R

. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741-749. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741

20.

Dineen

B. R.

Noe

R. A.

Shaw

J. D.

Duffy

M. K.

Wiethoff

(2007). Level and dispersion of satisfaction in teams: Using foci and social context to explain and the satisfaction–absenteeism relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 623-643. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.25525987

21.

Edmondson

A. C.

Roberto

M. A.

Watkins

M. D.

(2003). A dynamic model of top management team effectiveness: Managing unstructured task streams. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 297-325. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00021-3

22.

Ellis

A. P. J.

Hollenbeck

J. R.

Ilgen

D. R.

Porter

C. O. L. H.

West

B. J.

Moon

(2003). Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 821-835. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.821

23.

Evans

C. R.

Dion

K. L.

(1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22, 175-186. doi:10.1177/1046496491222002

24.

ExperienceChange. (2013). Globaltech player’s guide. Menlo Park, CA: ExperiencePoint.

25.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218

26.

Gardner

H. K.

Gino

Staats

B. S.

(2012). Dynamically integrating knowledge in teams: Transforming resources into performance. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 998-1022. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0604

27.

Gelfand

M. J.

Major

V. S.

Raver

J. L.

Nishii

L. H.

O’Brien

(2006). Negotiating relationally: The dynamics of the relational self in negotiations. Academy of Management Review, 31, 427-451. doi:10.2307/20159210

28.

Gladstein

D. L.

(1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517. doi:10.2307/2392936

29.

Graziano

W. G.

Jensen-Campbell

L. A.

Hair

E. C.

(1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 820-835. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.820

30.

Gully

S. M.

Devine

D. J.

Whitney

D. J.

(1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26, 497-520. doi:10.1177/1046496495264003

31.

Harrison

D. A.

Klein

K. J.

(2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199-1228. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.26586096

32.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

33.

Hecht

M. L.

(1978). Toward a conceptualization of communication satisfaction. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 64, 47-62. doi:10.1080/00335637809383411

34.

Hogan

(2007). Hogan Personality Inventory Manual (3rd ed.). Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.

35.

Ilgen

D. R.

Hollenbeck

J. R.

Johnson

Jundt

(2005). Teams in organizations: From input–process–output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517-543. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250

36.

James

L. R.

(1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 219-229. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67.2.219

37.

Janis

I. L.

(1982). Victims of groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

38.

Jehn

K. A.

Mannix

E. A.

(2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238-251. doi:10.2307/3069453

39.

Jensen-Campbell

L. A.

Graziano

W. G.

(2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69, 323-362. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00148

40.

Kotter

J. P.

(1996). Leading change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.

41.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Klein

K. J.

(2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

42.

LePine

J. A.

Buckman

B. R.

Crawford

E. R.

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, 21, 311-330. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.004

43.

Marks

M. A.

Mathieu

J. E.

Zaccaro

S. J.

(2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376. doi:10.5465/amr.2001.4845785

44.

Marston

P. J.

Hecht

M. L.

(1988). Group satisfaction. In Cathcart

R. S.

Samovar

L. A.

(Eds.), Small group communication: A reader (pp. 236-246). Dubuque, IA: Brown.

45.

Mathieu

J. E.

Tannenbaum

S. I.

Donsbach

J. S.

Alliger

G. M.

(2014). A review and integration of team composition models moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40, 130-160. doi:10.1177/0149206313503014

46.

Moynihan

L. M.

Peterson

R. S.

(2001). A contingent configuration approach to understanding the role of personality in organizational groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 327-378. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23008-1

47.

Nerkar

A. A.

McGrath

R. G.

MacMillan

I. C.

(1996). Three facets of satisfaction and their influence on the performance of innovation teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 11, 167-188. doi:10.1016/0883-9026(96)00002-X

48.

Nettle

(2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. American Psychologist, 61, 622-631. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.6.622

49.

Neuman

G. A.

Wright

(1999). Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 376-389. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.376

50.

O’Neill

T. A.

Allen

N. J.

(2011). Personality and the prediction of team performance. European Journal of Personality, 25, 31-42. doi:10.1002/per.769

51.

Peeters

M. A. G.

Rutte

C. G.

van Tuijl

H. F. J. M.

Reymen

I. M. M. J

. (2006). The Big Five personality traits and individual satisfaction with the team. Small Group Research, 37, 187-211. doi:10.1177/1046496405285458

52.

Rockmann

K. W.

Northcraft

G. B.

(2010). Expecting the worst? The dynamic role of competitive expectations in team member satisfaction and team performance. Small Group Research, 41, 308-329. doi:10.1177/1046496410363744

53.

Shaw

J. D.

Zhu

Duffy

M. K.

Scott

K. L.

Shih

H.-A.

Susanto

(2011). A contingency model of conflict and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 391-400. doi:10.1037/a0021340

54.

Sinaceur

(2010). Suspending judgment to create value: Suspicion and trust in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 543-550. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.11.002

55.

Stewart

G. L.

(2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32, 29-54. doi:10.1177/0149206305277792

56.

Tannenbaum

Beard

Salas

(1992). Team building and its influence on team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. In Kelley

(Ed.), Issues, theory and research in industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 117-153). Oxford, UK: North-Holland.

57.

Tekleab

A. G.

Quigley

N. R.

Tesluk

P. E.

(2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 34, 170-205. doi:10.1177/1059601108331218

58.

Terborg

J. R.

Castore

DeNinno

J. A.

(1976). A longitudinal field investigation of the impact of group composition on group performance and cohesion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 782-790. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.5.782

59.

Thibaut

J. W.

Kelley

H. H.

(1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: John Wiley.

60.

Weingart

Jehn

K. A.

(2009). Manage intra-tram conflict through collaboration. In Locke

E. A.

(Ed.), Handbook of principles of organizational behavior (2nd ed., pp. 327-346). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.