Date post: | 19-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Identifying with the Work Team:Implications for Task and Contextual Performance
Michael D. JohnsonFrederick P. Morgeson
Remus Ilies
Michigan State University
2
Social Identities in Organizations
Multiple targets of identification (Johnson et al., 2006)– Teams are most proximal– Identities are apt to be subunit-specific
(Ashforth & Mael, 1989) Changes in identification over time Relationship of identification and
performance Individual difference antecedents (Johnson
& Morgeson, 2005)
3
Individual Differences & Identification
Extraversion– Related to group process (Barrick, 1998; Barry &
Stewart, 1997)– Preference for being in groups (Costa & McCrae,
1992)
H1: Extraversion is positively related to team identification
4
Individual Differences & Identification
Agreeableness– Altruistic, unselfish, sympathetic, eager to
help others (Costa & McCrae, 1992)– “...the fundamental trait associated with the
intention to strive for communion with others” (Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002)
H2: Agreeableness is positively related to team identification
5
Team Identification and Performance
Contextual performance– Identification leads to “intragroup cohesion,
cooperation, and altruism” (Ashforth & Mael, 1989)
– Empirical association between OID and OCB (Bartel, 2001; Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Christ et al., 2003)
H5: Team identification is associated with higher contextual performance both between- and within-persons
6
Team Identification and Performance
Task performance– Causes people to act in ways that are
consistent with and support the organization (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991)
– Social loafing is reduced when people identify with the group (Hogg et al., 2004)
H6: Team identification is associated with higher task performance both between- and within-persons
7
Method
Participants– 266 undergraduates in 4-5 member teams
with MBA team leader
– Weeks 1-4: Assessment, selection and recruitment
– Week 5: Team member selection– Weeks 6-14: Training, development, and
performance– Week 15: Disbandment
8
Method
Measures– Team members
» Personality: NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992)» Cognitive ability: Wonderlic Personnel Test
(Wonderlic, 1992)» Team identification: Cognitive and affective
identification (Johnson & Morgeson, 2005)
– Team leaders» Task performance (Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993)» Contextual performance (Van Scotter & Motowidlo,
1996)
9
Method
Individual Differences
TeamIdentification
only
Team identification
Task andcontextual
performance
Assessment, selection,
recruitmentTeams formed
Training, development, performance
Disbandment
10
Cognitive identification Affective identification Fixed effect Coefficient SE Coefficient SE For intercept1, β0
Intercept 2, γ00 3.42** .05 4.31** .03 Extraversion, γ01 .33** .11 .15* .06 Neuroticism, γ02 .17† .10 -.03 .06 Agreeableness, γ03 - .01 .11 .16* .06 Cognitive ability, γ04 .00 .01 .00 .01
For time slope, β1 Intercept 2, γ10 .18** .02 .07** .01 Extraversion, γ11 .04 .03 -.01 .03 Neuroticism, γ12 .02 .03 -.04 .03 Agreeableness, γ13 - .03 .04 -.05† .03 Cognitive ability, γ14 .00 .00 .00 .00
Results
HLM of identification scales, time, and individual differences
† p < .10 * p < .05 ** p < .01
11
Results
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4
Cognitive identification
Affective identification
12
Results
Between-subjects regression of performance on identification scales
* p < .05** p < .01
Task performance Contextual performance β β Cognitive identification .01 .05 Affective identification .19* .24** F 5.18* 10.41** R2 .04 .08
13
Task performance
Contextual performance
Fixed effect Coefficient SE Coefficient SE For intercept1, β0
Intercept 2, γ00 4.10** .04 4.09** .03 Extraversion, γ01 .25** .08 .24** .07 Cognitive ability, γ04 .02* .01 .00 .01
For time slope, β1 Intercept 2, γ10 .01 .02 .05** .02 Agreeableness, γ13 - .11* .05 .03 .03
For cognitive identification slope, β2
Intercept 2, γ20 .14** .04 .06* .03 For affective identification slope, β3
Intercept 2, γ30 - .09 .06 .00 .04
Results
Within-subjects HLM of performance, identification scales, time, and individual differences
† p < .10 * p < .05 ** p < .01
14
Discussion
Theoretical implications– People vary in their
propensity to identify with work teams
– Team identification increases over time
– Identification with the team is important for both task and contextual performance