Modern complex systems require effective team performance, yet the question of which factors determine effective teams remains to be answered. Group researchers suggest that collective or interdependent behavior is a critical component of team interaction. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence suggests that some team members are less collectively oriented than others and that the tendency to ignore task inputs from others is one factor that contributes to poor team performance. In this study we develop a procedure for differentiating collectively oriented versus egocentric team members. Experimental results confirm that collectively oriented team members were more likely to attend to the task inputs of other team members and to improve their performance during team interaction than were egocentric team members.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allport, F. H. (1962). A structuronomic conception of behavior: Individual and collective. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, 3–30.
2.
Cooper, G. E., White, M. D., and Lauber, I. K. (Eds.). (1979). Resource management on the flight deck (NASA Conference Publication 2120). Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center.
3.
Davis, J. H. (1969). Individual-group problem solving, subject preference, and problem type. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 362–374.
4.
Driskell, J. E. (1982). Personal characteristics and performance expectations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 229–237.
5.
Driskell, J. E., Hogan, R., and Salas, E. (1987). Personality and group performance. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 91–112). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6.
Driskell, J. E., and Salas, E. (1991). Group decision-making under stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 473–478.
7.
Foushee, H. C. (1982). The role of communications, socio-psychological, and personality factors in the maintenance of crew coordination. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 53, 1062–1066.
8.
Foushee, H. C. (1984). Dyads and triads at 35, 000 feet: Factors affecting group process and aircrew performance. American Psychologist, 39, 885–893.
9.
Foushee, H. C., and Helmreich, R. L. (1988). Group interaction and flight crew performance. In E. L. Weiner and D. C. Nagel (Eds.), Human factors in aviation (pp. 189–228). San Diego, CA: Academic.
10.
Foushee, H. C., Lauber, J. K., Baetge, M. M., and Acomb, D. B. (1986). Crew performance as a function of exposure to high-density, short-haul duty cycles (NASA Tech. Memorandum 88322). Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center.
11.
Foushee, H. C., and Manos, K. L. (1981). Information transfer within the cockpit: Problems in intracockpit communications. ln C. E. Billings and E. S. Cheaney (Eds.), Information transfer problems in the aviation system(NASA Tech. Paper 1875, pp. 63–71). Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center.
12.
Goldstein, I. L. (1986). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
13.
Golembiewski, R. T. (1962). The small group: An analysis of research concepts and operations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14.
Hackman, J. R., and Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8. pp. 45–99). New York: Academic.
15.
Herold, D. M. (1978). Improving the performance effectiveness of groups through a task-contingent selection of intervention strategies. Academy of Management Review, 3, 315–325.
16.
Hill, G. W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are N + I heads better than one?. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517–539.
17.
Hoffman, L. R. (1965). Group problem solving. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 99–132). New York: Academic.
18.
Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
19.
Lanzetta, J. T., and Roby, T. B. (1960). The relationship between certain group process variables and group problem-solving efficiency. Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 135–148.
20.
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper.
21.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
22.
McGrath, J. E., and Kravitz, D. A. (1982). Group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 195–230.
23.
Meeker, B. F. (1983). Cooperative orientation, trust, and reciprocity. Human Relations, 37, 225–243.
24.
National Transportation Safety Board. (1982). Aircraft accident report-Air Florida, Inc., Boeing 737-222, N62AF, collision with 14th Street Bridge, near Washington National Airport, Washington, D.C., January 13, 1982 (NTSB-AAR-82-8). Washington, DC: Author.
25.
Sampson, E. E. (1977). Psychology and the American ideal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 767–782.
26.
Shaw, Marjorie E. (1932). A comparison of individuals and small groups in the rational solution of complex problems. American Journal of Psychology, 44, 491–504.
27.
Shaw, Marvin E. (1973). Scaling group tasks: A method for dimensional analysis. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 3, 8 (Ms. 294).
28.
Shaw, Marvin E. (1981). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic.
30.
Steiner, I. D. (1986). Paradigms and groups. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 251–289). Orlando, FL: Academic.
31.
Swezy, R., and Salas, E. (Eds.). (1992). Teams: their training and performance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
32.
Thomas, E. J. (1957). Effects of facilitative role interdependence in group functioning. Human Relations, 10, 347–366.
33.
Van de Yen, A. H., Delbecq, A. L., and Koenig, R. (1976). Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 41, 322–338.
