Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Study to Explore the Team Virtualization Level and Team Effectiveness from the Team Personality Composition

  • Published:
Journal of the Knowledge Economy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Types of organizations have changed with the rapid development of information and technology, and “virtual team” is the newest type of work group. Generally, team composition affects team effectiveness. Most team composition researches focused on the visible characteristics, such as demographic variables, but the implicit personality variables were ignored. Regarding personality traits, based on the “Big Five” factors, including neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, this study explores team personality composition of the virtual team, and the effect of team personality composition on team virtualization level and team effectiveness. This study sent out 188 sets of questionnaires for virtual teams from 49 enterprises in the information and electronic industries. Finally, the study sample consisted of 62 completed team questionnaires (including 62 team leaders and 234 team members). The results are as follows: “Positive and active” team and “negative and passive” team were classified according to team personality composition. Compared to a negative and passive team, personality traits of a positive and active team have higher conscientiousness, extraversion and lower neuroticism, and positive and active team virtualization level has better effect to task performance and cooperation satisfaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Milliken FJ, Martins LL (1996) Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Acad Manage Rev 21:402–433

    Google Scholar 

  2. Williams KY, O’Reilly CA (1998) Demography and diversity in organizations: a review of 40 years of research. In: Sutton RM (ed) Research in Organizational Behavior, Staw BM. JAI Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hertel G, Geister S, Konradt U (2005) Managing virtual teams: a review of current empirical research. Hum Res Manag Rev 15:69–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bell BS, Kozlowski SWJ (2002) A typology of virtual teams: implications for effective leadership. Group and Organ Manag 27:14–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Griffith TL, Neale MA (2001) Information processing in traditional, hybrid and virtual teams: form nascent knowledge to transactive memory. Res in Organ Behav 23:379–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Maznevski ML, Chudoba KM (2000) Bridging space over time: global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organ Sci 11:473–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Axtell CM, Fleck SJ, Turner N (2004) Virtual team: collaborating across distance. In: Cooper CL, Robertson IT (eds) International review of industrial and organizational psychology. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  8. Niederman F, Beise CM (1999) “Defining the virtualness of groups, teams, and meetings,” in Papers presented at SIGCPR’99 ACM, pp. 14–18

  9. LePine JA, Hanson MA, Borman WC, Motowidlo SJ (2000) Contextual performance and teamwork: implications for staffing. Res in Pers and Hum Resour Manag 19:53–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Perrow C (1967) A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. Am Sociol Rev 32:197–208

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hackman JR (1990) Groups that work. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gladstein DL (1984) Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness. Adm Sci Q 29:499–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lipnack J, Stamps J (1999) Virtual teams. Exec Excell 16:14–15

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jarvenpa SL, Leidner DE (1999) Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organ Sci 10(6):791–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Huang MP, Cheng BS, Wang CC (2003) Transformational leadership, intra-team interaction, and effectiveness of the team and team members: testing the validity of I-P-O model. J of Manag (in Chinese) 20(3):397–427

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pervin LA (1970) Personality: theory, assessment and research. Wiley, NY

    Google Scholar 

  17. Galton F (1884) Measurement of character. Fortnightly Rev 36:179–185

    Google Scholar 

  18. Borgatta E (1964) The structure of personality characteristics. Behav Sci 12:8–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Digman DW (1949) Consistency of the factorial structures of personality rating from different sources. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 44:329–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Norman WT (1963) Toward and adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 66:574–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Costa PT Jr, McCrae RR (1992) Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: the NEO Personality Inventory. Psychol Assess 4:5–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bond M, Nakazato H, Shiraishi D (1975) University and distinctiveness in dimensions of Japanese person perception. J of Cross-Cult Psychol 6:346–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Noller P, Law H, Comrey AL (1987) Cattell, Comrey and Eysenck personality factors compared: more evidence for the five robust factors. J Pers Soc Psychol 53:775–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Salgado JF (1997) The 5-factor model of personality and job-performance in the European-community. J Appl Psychol 82:30–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Huang JC (2003) Team diversity and knowledge sharing and innovation performance: the mediating effect of social capital. J of Manag and Syst (in Chinese) 10:471–498

    Google Scholar 

  26. Barsade SG, Ward AJ, Turner JDF, Sonnenfeld JA (2000) To your heart’s content: a model of affective diversity in top management teams. Adm Sci Q 45:802836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Barrick MR, Stewart GL, Neubert MJ, Mount MK (1998) Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. J Appl Psychol 83(3):377–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Neuman GA, Wagner SH and Christiansen ND (1999) “The relationship between work- team personality composition and the job performance of teams,” Group and Organization Management, vol. 24, pp. 28–45

  29. Barrick MR, Mount MK (1991) The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta–analysis. Personal Psychol 44:1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Waston D, Tllegen A (1985) Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychol Bull 98:219–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Littlepage GE, Schmidt GW, Whisler EW, Frost AG (1995) An input-process-output analysis of influence and performance in problem-solving groups. J Pers Soc Psychol 69:877–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hogan RT (1986) Manual of the Hogan Personality Inventory. National computer Systems, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hogan R, Curphy GJ, Hogan J (1994) What we know about leadership: effectiveness and personality. Am Psychol 49:485–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Joinson C (2002) Managing virtual teams. HR Mag 47:68–69

    Google Scholar 

  35. Digman JM (1990) Personality structure: emergence of the five- factor model. Annu Rev Psychol 41:417–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Digman JM, Inouye J (1986) Further specification of the five robust factors of personality. Annu Rev Psychol 50:116–123

    Google Scholar 

  37. Graziano WG, Jackson-Campbell LA, Hair EC (1996) Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: the case for agreeableness. J Pers Soc Psychol 70:820–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. McCrae RR, Costa PT Jr (1987) Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. J Pers Soc Psychol 52:81–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. James LR, Demaree RG, Wolf G (1993) rwg: an assessment of within-group interrater agreement. J Appl Psychol 78:306–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. George J (1990) Personality, affect and behavior in groups. J Appl Psychol 75:107–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. James LR, Brett JM (1984) Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. J Appl Psychol 69:307–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hsu BF, Wu WL, Man LF (2001) “A study about knowledge sharing model of service providers in travel agency (in Chinese),” in Papers presented at the sixth workshop on Taiwan business cases, Kaohsiung

  43. Tsai HL (2001) “A study of relation about job characteristics, personality traits and job satisfaction: Semiconductor firms as an example,” unpublished master’s thesis, the department of Business Administration of National Central University

  44. Huang MP, Chi SC, Huang KL (2002) Team structure and effectiveness in cross-functional teams: a structural contingency perspective. J of Manag (in Chinese) 19(6):979–1007

    Google Scholar 

  45. Tjosvold D (1988) Cooperative and competitive interdependence: collaboration between departments to service customers. Group and Organ Stud 13(3):274–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hacker ME, KleinerBM (1996) “Identify critical factors impacting virtual work group performance,” Proceedings of International Conference on Engineering and Technology Management, pp. 196–200

  47. Lin TC, Wu S, Leu WY (2003) The impact of member’s role playing on the virtual team’s cooperative performance: a study of content analysis. J of Inf Manag (in Chinese) 9(2):31–53

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lin TC, Yang YC, Wu S (2002) Exploring the impact of virtual team’s interaction behavior on cooperative performance. NTU Manag Rev (in Chinese) 13(1):187–226

    Google Scholar 

  49. Barry B, Stewart GL (1997) Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: the role of personality. J Appl Psychol 82:62–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lepine JA, Hollenbeck JR, Illgen DR, Hedlund J (1997) Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierarchical decision-making teams: much more than G. J Appl Psychol 82:803–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Schneider FW, Delaney JG (1972) Effects of individual achievement motivation on group problem-solving efficiency. J Soc Psychol 86:291–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Business Administration, Hungkuang University, No. 34, Chung-Chie Rd., Shalu, Taichung County, Taiwan, 43302, Republic of China

    Mei-Ling Wang

  2. National Yunlin University of Science & Technology, 123 University Road, Section 3, Douliou, Yunlin, 64002, Taiwan, Republic of China

    Bi-Fen Hsu

Authors
  1. Mei-Ling Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bi-Fen Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mei-Ling Wang.

Appendix

Appendix

Team virtualization level

  1. 1.

    During the operation process, the team members are used to utilizing the Internet or the Bulletin Board System (BBS) to communicate with one another and to distribute documents among themselves.

  2. 2.

    The team members can access the database in order to retrieve the information they need at any time.

  3. 3.

    Team members are used to applying information technology (IT) tools in order to distribute messages.

  4. 4.

    During the operation process, in addition to traditional face-to-face communication, the team members also use other types of IT tools as communication tools.

  5. 5.

    Please indicate the extent to which your team uses IT tools in their communication as a percentage of the tools used:

Below 20% 20%~40% 40%~60% 60%~80% Above 80%

Personality traits

  1. 1.

    I am not a person to labor under a baseless fear.

  2. 2.

    Some people think that I am a selfish and conceited person.

  3. 3.

    I rarely feel lonely or depressed.

  4. 4.

    I really like to talk to people.

  5. 5.

    I believe that letting students listen to a controversial speech will confuse and mislead them.

  6. 6.

    I work hard in order to complete all of the work that has been assigned to me.

  7. 7.

    Poetry has little or no impact on me.

  8. 8.

    I am inclined to speak to people sarcastically, or to be dubious about other people’s intentions.

  9. 9.

    I set myself clear goals, and I make plans in order to achieve these goals in an organized way.

  10. 10.

    I rarely feel afraid or nervous.

  11. 11.

    I often feel full of energy.

  12. 12.

    Most of my acquaintances like me.

  13. 13.

    I am a cheerful and energetic person.

  14. 14.

    Some people think that I am a cold and astute person.

  15. 15.

    Sometimes, when I read poetry or look at art, I feel shocked or excited.

  16. 16.

    I seldom feel sad or depressed.

  17. 17.

    I have no interest in thinking about the nature of the universe or the human existence.

  18. 18.

    I always get things done and I am a productive person.

  19. 19.

    I am a very active person.

  20. 20.

    I strive to be the best in everything I do.

Team effectiveness

  1. 1.

    The team reached the target well.

  2. 2.

    The team has followed the schedule well.

  3. 3.

    The team has performed their job well.

  4. 4.

    The team has used the available resources well.

  5. 5.

    The team solved problems very effectively.

  6. 6.

    The team controlled the budget very effectively.

  7. 7.

    I felt very happy in the process of participating in the team.

  8. 8.

    The team members enjoyed cooperating with one another.

  9. 9.

    I am willing to continue cooperating with the team.

  10. 10.

    If I have another chance to work with the team, I believe that we will cooperate successfully.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, ML., Hsu, BF. A Study to Explore the Team Virtualization Level and Team Effectiveness from the Team Personality Composition. J Knowl Econ 3, 199–216 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-011-0079-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-011-0079-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation