Team learning: collectively connecting the dots.

This article tests the degree to which personal and situational variables impact the acquisition of knowledge and skill within interactive project teams. On the basis of the literature regarding attentional capacity, constructive controversy, and truth-supported wins, the authors examined the effects of cognitive ability, workload distribution, Agreeableness, Openness to Experience, and structure on team learning. Results from 109 four-person project teams working on an interdependent command and control simulator indicated that teams learned more when composed of individuals who were high in cognitive ability and when the workload was distributed evenly. Conversely, team learning was negatively affected when teams were composed of individuals who were high in Agreeableness. Finally, teams using a paired structure learned more than teams structured either functionally or divisionally. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed, as well as possible limitations and directions for future research.

Effects of the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01 on employee attitudes.

Much has been stated in the popular press about the effects of the events of 9/11/01 on employee attitudes about work. This study examined a large sample (N = 70,671) of employees of a multinational manufacturer whose annual employee survey data collection was interrupted by the events. After demonstrating measurement equivalence across time and countries, changes in attitudes pre- and post-9/11 were examined. Only negligible differences were found in Job Satisfaction, Supervisor Evaluation, Stress, and Organizational Commitment to Diversity for U.S. employees or for employees worldwide. Demographic differences in response to events were not found. Implications for understanding effects of stressful external events on employee perceptions of work are discussed.

Backing up behaviors in teams: the role of personality and legitimacy of need.

In this article, the authors developed several hypotheses regarding both the main and interactive effects of 2 types of team inputs on backing up behaviors in teams: (a) team composition characteristics in terms of the personality of the members of the team and (b) team task characteristics in terms of the extent to which the nature of the task is one that legitimately calls for some members of the team to back up other members of the team. Results from a study of 71 4-person teams performing a computerized tactical decision-making task suggest that the legitimacy of the need for back up has an important main effect on the extent to which team members provide assistance to and receive assistance from each other. In addition, the legitimacy of the need for back up also has important interactive effects with both the personality of the back up recipient and the personality of the back up providers on backing up behaviors in teams.

Structural contingency theory and individual differences: examination of external and internal person-team fit.

This article develops and tests a structurally based, integrated theory of person-team fit. The theory developed is an extension of structural contingency theory and considers issues of external fit simultaneously with its examination of internal fit at the team level. Results from 80 teams working on an interdependent team task indicate that divisional structures demand high levels of cognitive ability on the part of teammembers. However, the advantages of high cognitive ability in divisional structures are neutralized when there is poor external fit between the structure and the environment. Instead, emotional stability becomes a critical factor among teammembers when a divisional structure is out of alignment with its environment. Individual differences seem to play little or no role in functional structures, regardless of the degree of external fit.

The use of impression management tactics in structured interviews: a function of question type?

This study investigated impression management tactic use during structured interviews containing both experience-based and situational questions. Specifically, the authors examined whether applicants' use of impression management tactics depended on question type. Results from 119 structured interviews indicated that almost all of the applicants used some form of impression management. Significantly more assertive than defensive impression management tactics were used, and among assertive tactics, applicants tended to use self-promotion rather than ingratiation. However, different question types prompted the use of different impression management tactics. Ingratiation tactics were used significantly more when applicants answered situational questions, whereas self-promotion tactics were used significantly more when applicants answered experience-based questions. Furthermore, the use of self-promotion and ingratiation tactics was positively related to interviewer evaluations.