The Effects of Personality Types within Workgroup Dynamics

Personality encompasses a person’s feelings, thoughts, and patterns of behavior. Each and every person has a personality that is unique to them and differentiates them from others. Personality theories show how traits have a role in an individual’s vision, goals, self-concept, strategies, work ethics, perception, and behavior and understanding someone’s personality allows for the prediction of how that person is likely to feel and act across a variety of situations. In order to be an effective leader or manager, it is helpful to understand the distinctive personalities of the other employees they interact with within workgroups. As stated by Halfhill, Sunstrom, Lahner, Calderone, and Nielson (2005), there is a strong need for effective strategies to staff work teams as they become more prevalent in business and industries. The composition, or mix, of individual characteristics, knowledge, skills, and abilities has a vital role in determining how productive and successful the group dynamic will be. Therefore, it is important to create work teams from individuals whose personality traits are complementary to each other (Halfhill et al., 2005).

Literature Review

Personality Types

Models of personality traits. According to the five-factor model proposed by Costa and McCrae (1992), personality can be viewed as a multidimensional construct composed of five constructs: agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience. Individuals who are high in extraversion are most likely gregarious, assertive, and sociable in contrast with introverts, who are known for being reserved, timid, and quiet (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Furthermore, research by Morgan, Glickman, Woodward, Blaiwes, and Salas (1986) categorized some personality traits as either task-oriented traits or relationship-oriented traits. Task-oriented personality traits refer to the traits that are useful for aiding the completion of work-related activities, such as conscientiousness and achievement motivation. In comparison, relationship-oriented personality traits facilitate the interpersonal interactions that are necessary for working as a member of a team and can be advantageous to collaborative work environments. Examples of these traits include agreeableness and cooperation (Morgan et al., 1986)

Extroversion. Research by Bauer, Erdogan, Liden, and Wayne (2006) reported that extraverts do well in social situations and therefore are successful in certain situations, such as job interviews. Extraverts also have an easier time than introverts do when they are adjusting to a new job. This is because they actively seek out new information and feedback from co-workers, and are confident about communicating their ideas. However, extraverts do not perform well in jobs that deprive them of social interaction. Furthermore, extreme extroverts are not considered model employees as they have a higher tendency to skip work for social reasons (Bauer et al., 2006).

Conscientiousness. Conscientious individuals are usually hard-working, well organized, dependable, and firm in their actions and decisions instead of being lazy, disorganized, unreliable, and indecisive (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Conscientious individuals also tended to enjoy working in groups more when they were allowed to select their own group members because they prefer to work with others who display similar personality traits to their own (Forrester & Tashchian, 2010). Conscientiousness is associated with higher levels of adherence to rules that regulate attendance, punctuality, and respect for group processes. Highly conscientious individuals are task-oriented and tend to be very involved, contributing members of their groups (Konovsky & Organ, 1996). They will always perform all tasks that are assigned to them and work hard to accomplish the goals of the group. They display profound understanding and appreciation for the ideas of other group members and their behavior is extremely courteous. Having a strong preference for cooperation over competition, they are always willing to help other group members (Forrester & Tashchian, 2010)

Agreeableness. People who are agreeable tend to be cooperative, warm, understanding, and sympathetic as opposed to being rude, harsh, insincere, and unsympathetic (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Agreeable individuals are typically very likable people who get along with others very easily. They are usually very helpful at work, always willing to lend a hand to others despite whatever mood they might be in. However, people who are highly agreeable are less likely to engage in constructive and change-oriented communication in order to avoid conflict, which may not always be beneficial to workgroups (Barrick & Mount, 1991). The agreeable personality trait relates to sportsmanship and the inclination to absorb minor inconveniences or impositions that occur during group work. These group members significantly contribute to the social functioning of their team and report high levels of satisfaction when they are involved with group achievements. Furthermore, the presence of agreeable people in work teams has been found to increase the motivation of the other members in the group to remain with the group for future tasks (Konovsky & Organ, 1996). The inclusion of even just one disagreeable member in a group is associated with lower performance, less cohesion, more conflict, less open communication, and less equal sharing of the workload. Therefore, the performance of a group can be significantly impaired by the personality differences of just one person (Barrick et al., 1998).

Openness to experience. Another component is openness to experience, which encompasses traits such as reflectiveness, creativity, and comfort in contrast to qualities of being closed off, or conservative, practical, and resistant to change (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Research by Baer and Oldham (2006) found that people with high levels of openness thrive in situations that require flexibility and the ability for them to learn new things. Thus, they are usually highly motivated to learn new skills and information and perform very well in training settings. Additionally, individuals with very open minds seek out information and feedback about their performance in professional and workgroup settings. By doing this, they are able to build relationships in the workplace, which is a useful quality for helping an individual quickly adjust to a new job. Highly open people are also very adaptable when dealing with change, thus their presence in a workgroup is extremely beneficial for groups experiencing unforeseen changes in their tasks. The negative attributes of individuals with high levels of openness to experience are that they are prone to growing bored or impatient with routine (Baer & Oldham, 2006).

Neuroticism. Finally, neuroticism describes traits like tension, insecurity, and irritability as opposed to emotional stability, which is characterized by being calm, patient, and self-confident (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Judge and Illies (2002) reported that people who are highly neurotic tend to experience problems with emotional adjustment as well as frequently encountering stress and depression. These types’ people tend to experience a number of problems at work because they have difficulty forming and maintaining relationships with co-workers and are less likely to develop the reputation of someone that other people can approach for advice and friendship (Judge & Illies, 2002). Furthermore, neurotic individuals also tend to feel habitually unhappy in their jobs and often report high intentions for leaving their positions, which results in them achieving lower levels of career success. In contrast, individuals with low levels of neuroticism are much more successful in the workplace. They tend to experience more positive moods than negative moods and notice all of the good things about their work environment. Therefore, it is more advantageous to have individuals who are low in neuroticism in the workplace (Halfhill et al., 2005).

Social-monitoring. Since the development of the Big Five Personality model by Costa and McCrae, many researchers have identified and defined additional personality traits. These traits include self-monitoring, proactive personality, self-esteem, and self-efficacy (Judge & Illies, 2002). As defined by Synder (1974), self-monitoring refers to the extent a person is capable of monitoring their actions and appearance in social situations. Social monitors are very adaptable and have the ability to understand what specific situations demand and then plan their actions accordingly. Additionally, these individuals are very sensitive to the types of behaviors their social environment expects from them (Synder, 1974).

Proactive personalities. According to research by Major, Turner, and Fletcher (2006), people with proactive personalities are naturally inclined to try to fix things when they go wrong and are known for their innovative problem-solving abilities. Proactive people are usually more successful when they are searching for jobs and also tend to experience great success in their careers. This is because they take initiative within their companies, which leads to the acquisition of greater understanding of how the company functions. Proactive people are usually considered very valuable to workplace settings because of their high-performance levels and eagerness for learning. Their thirst for knowledge causes them to engage in many developmental and instructional activities in order to improve their skills and abilities. However, the success of a proactive individual also is dependent on their ability to understand their company’s core values, ability, and skills so that they may correctly perform their job functions and make accurate assessments of situational demands (Major et al., 2006).

Self-esteem. The self-esteem trait refers to the degree to which individuals experience overall positive feelings about themselves. A study by Judge and Bono (2001) found that people who possess high levels of self-esteem will see themselves positively, feel confident, and have a sense of self-respect. High self-esteem correlates to higher levels of job satisfaction and higher levels of job performance. In comparison, those with low levels of self-esteem are prone to experiences of self-doubt and tend to question their self-worth. Low self-esteem correlates to errors in self-perception known as self-effacement biases. This bias refers to the tendency individuals have to underestimate their performance and capabilities in the workplace. (Barrick & Mount, 1991) These types of people will prefer to work in situations where their presence is not important or noticeable. Individuals with low self-esteem are sometimes very difficult to work with. Whenever they receive negative feedback from managers or co-workers, they tend to take it personally and view the criticism as a negative judgment on their worth as an employee (Judge & Bono 2001). Furthermore, they are also more likely to assume more blame for their failures than is accurate or necessary (Major et al., 2006).

Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy, as defined by Phillips and Gully (1997), refers to an individual’s belief that they will be able to perform specific tasks successfully. This trait is similar to self-esteem, as it is greatly influenced by an individual’s levels of self-confidence and a positive sense of self-worth. Research has provided substantial evidence that when an individual believes they can accomplish something, they are more likely to succeed in their attempts. This trait is different from other traits because is job-specific. This means it depends on the areas an individual feels most confident in their abilities or skills. For example, some individuals may have high-efficacy for mathematical computations, but also have a low-efficacy for writing quality essays. Self-efficacy also relates to levels of job performance. Those with high-efficacy for their jobs tend to set higher goals for themselves and pursue them with higher levels of commitment. Comparatively, those with low self-efficacy tend to be procrastinators (Phillips & Gully, 1997).

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The five-factor model of personality reported by Costa and McCrae can have profound roles in influencing behavior. A study by Kumar, Bakhshi, and Rani ( 2009) linked these personality traits to the behaviors known as organizational citizenship behaviors. Kumar et al. define organizational citizenship behaviors as voluntary behaviors that employees perform in order to help others and benefit the organization. These behaviors consist of altruism, courtesy, civic virtue, conscientiousness, and sportsmanship as they occurred in the workplace (Kumar et al., 2009).

The study by Kumar et al. (2009) defined altruistic behavior is defined as having a selfless concern for the welfare of others. The behavior can be witnessed in workgroups when members help other members who have been absent from the workgroup setting or who are struggling with high workloads. Courtesy was observed in individuals who took steps to try to prevent problems with other workers and who are careful not to take advantage or abuse others' rights. Civic virtue refers to behavior where individuals tend to attend meetings that are considered important, even when they are not mandatory. They also keep themselves informed of all company matters, making sure they are always up to date with any changes in the company. Conscientious behaviors take place when an individual makes sure they observe all company rules and regulations, even when there is no one around to observe their behavior. For instance, they are unlikely to take extra breaks even in circumstances where their actions will not be noticed. Individuals who display sportsmanship behaviors do not spend a lot of time complaining about trivial matters and tend to place their focus on the positive aspects of their environment instead of on the negative (Kumar et al., 2009).

The extroversion and agreeableness personality traits are important predictors for organization citizenship behaviors. Individuals who display high levels of extroversion display behavior that is more flexible, which makes them more likely to exhibit organizational citizenship behavior. Additionally, extroverted individuals are more likely to have positive relationships with their co-workers and feel the motivation to put forth extra effort in order to help them out (Judge & Illies, 2002). Individuals with a highly agreeable personality tend to be courteous, flexible, trusting, good-natured, cooperative, forgiving, softhearted, and tolerant, which result in higher organizational citizenship behavior performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Research also suggests that individuals who have positive attitudes towards their work and are committed to their companies tend to perform more organizational citizenship behaviors than others (Kumar et al., 2009).

Attitudes towards Group Work

As stated by Rasmussen and Jeppesen (2006), attitudes consist of an individual’s beliefs, opinions, and feelings about all aspects of the environment in which they exist. Team related attitudes are positively correlated with attitudes such as satisfaction with other members of the team, team commitment, perceived co-operation, perception of an organization's readiness for change, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and team level extroversion. (Rasmussen & Jeppesen, 2006). Job satisfaction is the most important job attitude and refers to the feelings that people have toward their job. Organizational commitment refers to the emotional attachment people have toward the company they work for. People with high organizational commitment attitudes accept and believe in the values of their company and have a very strong desire to remain with the company in the future (Forrester & Taschian, 2010).

An individual’s behavior in workgroups is strongly affected by what is expected of them, as opposed to the manner in which they wish to behave. Behaviors in jobs that involve a lot of autonomy, or freedom, are strongly influenced by personality. A study by Forrester and Tashchian (2010) reported that group work orientation is also affected by tendencies towards individualism or collectivism. Group members might feel more comfortable working collectively instead of individually or vice versa (Forrester & Tashchian, 2010). An individual’s preference for group work is correlated with cognitive factors, such as high levels of metacognitive awareness, large numbers of positive achievement goals towards their performance and mastery of a task or skill. The desire for mastery of a goal is associated with the desire for achieving task-related competence as well as a willingness for investing the necessary amount of effort in order to achieve it (Cantwell & Andrews, 2002). Research also reports that higher levels of sociability are associated with lower levels of social anxiety. This correlation not only reveals higher levels of preference for group work but also has associations with higher levels of group performance (Forrester & Tashcian, 2010).

In contrast, individuals who report a preference for individual learning as well as higher degrees of discomfort in group learning environments correlated to psychological factors such as higher levels of anxiety, lower levels of sociability, and lower metacognitive awareness. These types of individuals usually have a fear of displaying socially inappropriate behaviors in social contexts (Cantwell & Andrews, 2002). Individuals who prefer working alone also tend to have highly neurotic personalities, which causes them to have a fear of receiving negative evaluations and be socially avoidant. Neurotic group members often felt nervous when communicating their ideas to other members of their group, were not relaxed during their interactions with the group, were afraid to ask for help, and had difficulty understanding what the group task was. These individuals are usually worriers who are riddled with anxiety because they feel inferior to the other members of their group. This causes them to have a very limited capacity for dealing with stressful situations and are easily angered by the way others treat them because they are being over-analytical of others' behavior. Their perceived inferiority causes them to incorrectly interpret the comments and behaviors of their teammates as criticism. As a result, highly neurotic individuals will be very limited and conservative in the way they participate and contribute to the group (Forrester & Tashcian, 2010).

Group Personality Composition

The performance of a group, as reported by Steiner and Vannoy (1966), is influenced by the combination of each member’s individual personality by the way the personalities are similar or different from each other. The similarity-attraction theory that Byrne (1971) proposed states that employees in groups that are composed of members whose personality traits are similar have an increased likelihood to experience higher levels of group cohesion. This is because members are attracted to the similarities they see in each other (Byrne, 1971). Research shows that groups that are high in both conscientiousness and agreeableness received better performance ratings than groups with all other personality compositions. This suggests that there is a possible synergy of the group personality composition on traits that are complementary (Halfhill et al., 2005).

Additionally, according to Halfhill, Nielsen, Sundstrom, and Weilbaecher’s (2005) study, groups have the tendency to develop interpersonal dynamics around personality traits, such as group norms. These group norms may reinforce individual inclinations around conformity and suppression of deviance. Group norms reflecting characteristics of conscientiousness may aid the group’s performance of key tasks through norms associated with attention to detail, timeliness, organization, and other related behaviors. In comparison, group norms centered around agreeableness may help groups provide excellent service through interpersonal sensitivity, responsiveness, and additional related behaviors. Furthermore, groups tended to set their norms around the member with the lowest score on desirable personality traits (Halfhill et al., 2005).

An example of how the variance of personality traits can affect group performance can be seen with high levels of extraversion. The extraversion component of personality is normally a predictor of individual performance in tasks that require social interaction. However, in the event that all members of a workgroup possess a high score in extraversion, this quality may become detrimental to the group. Extraversion will cause employees to excel at brainstorming tasks because all members will be comfortable sharing their ideas with the rest of the group. Yet, the extraverted employees will struggle more with tasks that require quick decision-making and task focus (Steiner & Vannoy, 1966).

A study conducted by Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, and Mount, (1998) found that workgroups that rate high in performance tend to contain individuals who have personalities with high levels of conscientiousness, agreeableness, cognitive ability, and emotional stability. Work teams that possessed higher levels of extraversion and emotional stability are more likely to experience positive intragroup interactions and become more socially cohesive, which enhances the group’s ability to maintain itself. In addition to these traits, team performance was also boosted when members enjoyed interacting with their group members and displayed an interest in continuing to work together after completion of a task (Barrick et al., 1998).

Additionally, when group members were all high in conscientiousness, they reported less conflict, more communication, and a relatively equal workload sharing (Barrick et al., 1998). High levels of conscientiousness at a group level result in shared attention to accuracy, timing, and the tendency to follow through with all assigned tasks (Steiner & Vannoy, 1966). However, when groups contain a mix of members with both high and low conscientiousness, performance levels are inferior to those of groups containing all highly conscientious members. The reason for decreased performance is that highly conscientious members must perform not only their own tasks within the group, but also perform or redo the tasks of the lowly conscientious members. Furthermore, attitudes toward the group become more negative as the diversity between personalities leads to feelings of contribution inequality between members (Barrick et al., 1998). The weakest links in groups are often considered to be members who display the lowest levels of conscientiousness. In comparison to the other members of the group, these members will pay the least amount of attention to detail. Additionally, they have the potential to assume disproportionately prominent adverse roles in the team’s performance in cases where their more conscientious group members were unable to compensate for them.

Workgroup Roles

The team role model in Belbin’s (1993) study was made after conducting a nine-year study on team building and team effectiveness with a multidimensional technique combining personality, critical thinking inventories, and observation methods. Belbin defines a team role as a pattern of behavior that is characteristic of the way in which one team member interacts with another member for facilitating the progress of the team as a whole. Unexpected behaviors in team roles do not solely stem from an individual’s role within the team but result from a constant negotiation process between team members. Specifically, this negotiation process occurs between each individual’s personal competencies and the needs of the team, which will define the way in which each team member adjusts to their team role (Belbin, 1993).

The research by Belbin also identified various types of team roles, which include completer finishers, implementers, team workers, specialists, monitor evaluators, co-ordinators, resource investigators, plants, and shapers (Belbin, 1993). These team role concepts are more flexible to contextual changes within workgroup settings rather than on personality traits, which tend to be more stable (Aritzeta et al., 2005).

Completer finisher roles. Completer finishers tend to be anxious, conscientious, introverted people who have strong inclinations towards self-control and self-discipline. These individuals also tend to be very submissive and worrisome. They will make very painstaking, conscientious searches for errors and omissions in their work. Often they are known for worrying unduly and being reluctant to relegate. However, completer finishers are valued for their ability to always finish work teams on time (Belbin, 1993).

Implementer roles. Implementers tend to be individuals characterized by people who are sincere, stable, and systematic. Their work efforts are always executed in a conservative, controlled, disciplined, efficient, methodical manner. However, this manner is likely to be very inflexible and slow to respond to new possibilities for completing tasks. People with implementer group roles are valued within their group for their disciplined, reliable, conservative, and efficient methods that are extremely useful for turning ideas into practical actions (Belbin, 1993).

Team worker roles. Group members displaying extroverted personality traits typically assume team worker roles. These types of people are very likable, loyal, stable, and supportive. Additionally, they are submissive, unassertive and uncompetitive members of the group. Despite sometimes falling victim to indecision during stressful situations, they are valued for their co-operative, mild, perceptive, and diplomatic behavior. Individuals with this role are always excellent listeners who display great skills for averting friction between other group members and keeping the general attitudes toward the group calm (Belbin, 1993).

Specialist roles. Specialist team roles are usually designated for people who are experts in one facet of the workgroup tasks. These members are usually serious and defensive about their efforts within the group and highly efficient in carrying their portion of group work out. Their single-minded focusing ability allows them to be fully dedicated towards their work, and their group members value them for their rare supply of knowledge and skills relevant to the goals of the workgroup. However, these group members are not typically interested in the other members of the group and may not consider their other work goals. Additionally, their contributions to the workgroup are usually limited to a narrow front, and they tend to spend too much time dwelling on technicalities (Belbin, 1993).

Monitor evaluator roles. The role of monitor evaluator is attractive to individuals who are serious, dependable, and fair-minded. These people are also introverts who display a low work drive and are not very ambitious. Additionally, this group role is dominated by individuals who rate high in the openness to experience personality trait, which allows them to be very perceptive of and open to change. While these individuals sometimes lack the drive and ability to inspire others in the group, they are valued for their abilities to be strategic and discerning. They are able to see all available options and accurately make judgments about what course of action is best suited for maximum levels of workgroup performance (Belbin, 1993).

Resource investigator roles. Group members with high levels of extroversion are also well suited for resource investigator roles. These individuals tend to be diplomatic, dominant, and enthusiastic about the workgroup. They also very inquisitive, optimistic, and persuasive members who stay positive, relaxed, and emotionally stable. At times, these individuals in these roles can be overly optimistic in the beginning stages of carrying out group work tasks, which can result in the loss of their initial enthusiasm and interest in accomplishing these tasks. However, members assuming this workgroup role are valued for their communicative abilities. They excel at exploring new opportunities and developing new contacts (Belbin, 1993).

Planter roles. Individuals who gravitate towards planter roles are usually introverts. They are dominant, imaginative, and radical minded in their ideas. Additionally, they also tend to be original, trustful of other group members, and uninhibited. While their creative and unorthodox methods are often very useful for solving difficult problems, they tend to be too preoccupied to be able to communicate effectively with the group (Belblin, 1993).

Shaper roles. Group members who are characterized by being abrasive, anxious, arrogant, dominant, and competitive tend to assume shaper roles within groups. These extroverted individuals display behavior that is often edgy, emotional, impatient, and impulsive. Additionally, they are very outgoing and possess high levels of self-confidence. These traits cause them to thrive in challenging situations in which they are put under a lot of pressure, and will make them very beneficial members of the workgroup. These members are valued for their high-performance motivation drives and also for their ability to overcome any unforeseen obstacles. However, these individuals are sometimes prone to provoking conflict between other members of the group and have the tendency to offend people’s feelings (Belbin, 1993).

Leadership roles. As defined by Hong, Catano, & Liao (2011), effective identity motivation to lead represents an individual’s motivation to assume leadership roles as a result of self-inclination and preference, preference and perception of conformity to social norms, and a lack of calculativeness. These traits are thought to reflect the natural tendency of individuals to become leaders. The study by Hong et al. found that how an individual used and managed their emotions had a connection to their motivation to lead. They found that individuals with a real ability to use their emotions to facilitate thought processes while simultaneously motivating themselves were encouraged to be more active within a group and take on greater leadership abilities (Catano et al., 2011).

Emotional stability is an important quality for coordinating the behaviors of others and possessing the ability to tolerate the temperamental and impulsive behaviors of others (Forrester & Tashchian, 2010). The more an individual displayed characteristics of confidence and goal orientation towards problem-solving, the more likely they were to assume leadership of their group. Similarly, these individuals are also likely to feel favorable emotions about taking on leadership responsibilities instead of stress and anxiety. There is some evidence that an individual’s ability to understand and make correct appraisals for their emotions as well as the emotions of others while regulating their emotional responses corresponds to higher levels of general intelligence and neuroticism. Thus, they have a natural internal ability to assimilate the emotions desirable for positive thought processes and higher achievement (Hong et al., 2011). The combination of the emergent leader’s cognitive ability with a conscientious personality was found to boost the performance of the work team. Therefore, in order to lead effectively and have a positive influence on their group, leaders should display traits of achievement, tenacity, initiative, and competence for completing tasks while also carefully regulating their emotions (Kickul & Neuman, 2000).

The tendency for individuals to take leadership roles also corresponds to high levels of extraversion in personality. Extraverted participants in the study by Forrester and Tashchian (2010) enjoyed participating in groups and tended to learn more from working in a group setting than on their own because the act of explaining information to other group members also served to increase their understanding the material. These individuals also reported a strong sense of satisfaction towards their leadership roles and felt relaxed when they were in charge. They felt comfortable within the group and could easily communicate their ideas to other group members. Additionally, they were not afraid to ask for help when they needed assistance (Forrester & Tashchian, 2010). Extroverted individuals are also more confident in their interpersonal skills and their abilities to lead. They display high levels of confidence, which were necessary for effectively delegating and managing other members of the group to ensure the group was cohesively working towards a common goal (Hong et al., 2011).

Leaders become further distinguished from followers when the levels of the openness to experience personality trait is high in combination with high levels of cognitive ability and extraversion (Kickul & Neuman, 2000). In comparison to people who are low in openness, people with high openness are much more likely to start their own businesses (Baer & Oldham, 2006). Openness to experience is a characteristic of individuals who are curious, broad-minded, creative, and imaginative. This trait is one of the main predictors for the emergence of leadership behavior. Effective leaders should achieve balance between their analytical reasoning abilities, insights, and spontaneity. Individuals who emerge as leaders tended to display more initiation of ideas, expressed more opinions, and asked more questions than did individuals who did not emerge as leaders (Kickul & Neuman, 2000).

Other factors that affect leadership emergence are the consequences of the group’s performance quality. When there are few consequences, an individual’s motivation to lead others increases and becomes important. In a project team setting in which the overall performance of the team has significant consequences and in which the group members interact with each other in a long-term social setting, an individual’s sense of social responsibility can become even more important for determining their behaviors regardless of the motivation of the other team members (Hong et al., 2011).

Additionally, individuals who rate highly in conscientiousness are much more likely to start their own businesses in comparison to those who display lower levels of conscientiousness. The companies started by highly conscientious individuals also tend to survive longer (Judge & Illies, 2002). Agreeable people also tend to be effective leaders because of their natural ability to create fair working environments when they are in leadership positions. Furthermore, agreeable leaders excel in effective handling of relationship conflicts between members of their workgroups. (Barrick & Mount, 1991).

Individuals who score highly in their ability to self-monitor are usually rated as better performers and will tend to emerge as leaders. These individuals are effective in influencing other people and are able to accomplish workgroup tasks by effectively managing their impressions (Snyder, 1974). Similarly, people who have proactive personalities have the tendency to take action instead of waiting for others to tell them what to do. These people make good leaders because they are skilled at initiating meaningful change and removing any obstacles that they encounter along the way (Major et al., 2006).

Some personality traits correlate with ineffective leaders. For instance, when neurotic individuals reach positions in their work environment where they have managerial jobs, they tend to create an unfair climate at work (Judge & Illies, 2002). Additionally, sometimes self-monitoring personalities can have trouble after assuming leadership roles. This results from their lower accuracy in making evaluations of their employees' work performance. While they are managing their impressions, self-monitors may intentionally avoid providing accurate feedback to their subordinates in order to avoid confrontations. This results in a hindered ability for carrying out controlling functions in the workplace, which are necessary for the accomplishment of work goals (Synder, 1974).

Effective leaders should also make sure they are considerate to other workgroup personalities. For instance, employees characterized by traits of low self-esteem should be managed delicately since they are likely to interpret any negative feedback as a negative judgment of their worth as an employee. Therefore, leaders should be tactful when they deliver negative feedback aimed at improving performance (Judge & Illies, 2002). They should also make sure they provide sufficient amounts of positive feedback when the need to discuss performance incidents rises. Additionally, leaders should be aware of their abilities to increase self-efficacy beliefs. By providing lots of verbal encouragement, mangers can empower their employees and increase their beliefs that they can succeed. Managers can also make sure that they provide their employees with many opportunities in which they are able to test their skills in order to show them what they are capable of achieving (Phillips & Gully, 1997)

Social Loafing. However, sometimes workgroup members are low in conscientiousness personality traits, which push them towards social loafing behaviors. Faught, Heglin, and Hickingbottom, (2012) define social loading as a situation in which one group member benefits from the efforts of others. This behavior functions as a backward reward system that discourages good behavior and encourages bad behavior and occurs when other group members are able to make sufficient contributions to the group without the contributions of the loafer (Faught et al., 2012).

Social loafers will evaluate the level at which they need to contribute to the group based on the personality characteristics of the other group members. Social loafing is most likely to occur in groups where the loafer perceives the other members as intelligent, conscientious, and able to be guilt-tripped. This means that the loafer knows that the other members are capable of doing a good job, and also that they will do a good job due to their need to be perfectionists. To maximize their benefits, social loafers need to find a group whose members will be fully able to achieve the group goals without the efforts of the loafer and who will also share the rewards of their efforts (Faught et al., 2012).

According to Stark, Shaw, and Duffy (2007), social loafers prefer group work because they lack the motivation and hardworking tendencies that would be required for completing tasks independently. This preference for group work also relates to positive team member behaviors, which understand the necessity of engaging in supportive group processes to accomplish their work goals. In these cases, there is a positive evaluation for group work, which can then result in higher loafing behaviors because individuals perceive that their efforts are dispensable. Additionally, sometimes social loafers perceive success as a function of modeling and appearance and may engage is low levels of loafing behavior in order to maintain a favorable social image and protect their ego. Social loafing behaviors are also heightened when the tasks of the workgroup do not stimulate interest in accomplishing them through cooperative efforts with other group members. In these particular instances, the loafer is not concerned with negative social comparisons from their peers (Stark et al., 2007).

The strength of an individual’s desire to win, maintain superiority or favorable comparisons in social contexts is driven by their ego and self-protection concerns. Individuals are not driven to perform at maximum levels or meet absolute standards of excellence. Instead, they are driven by a desire to beat others and maintain advantageous social comparisons. This high level of competitiveness correlates to lower levels of social loafing behaviors because it is impossible for individuals to view themselves as a winner if others view them as free riders (Stark et al., 2007).

Group Roles and Conflict Management

The definition of a conflict, according to Aritzeta, Ayestaran, and Swailes (2005), is a situation in which opposing interests, motivation, or current aspirations occur between individuals. Small problems can escalate into conflicts when ways to integrate these differences are not found, causing team members to engage in personal accusations that accentuate power and recognition differences as well as stifling mutual support (Aritzeta et al., 2005). Furthermore, Bono, Boles, Judge, and Lauver (2002) reported that the attributions individuals make about any conflicts are a function of their own personality and the personality of their partner that interacts in combination with factors of the situation. The actor effect refers to the degree to which individuals' reports of conflict are affected by their own bias towards the personality variable of interest. Similarly, the partner effect refers to the extent to which the personality of one partner during a conflict affects the experience of conflict for the other. The extroverted personality trait plays a vital role in the attributions that individuals make about the conflicts they experience. Differences in extraversion between workgroup partners have positive associations with an increased number of conflicts, specifically in conflicts that are related to the task of the workgroup. While extroverts do not necessarily experience more conflicts than introverts, the partners of extroverts tend to attribute any conflicts that arise to their extroverted partner or their relationship with this partner (Bono et al., 2002).

Conflicts can be classified as either task conflicts or relationship conflicts. Task conflicts occur over things such as money, possessions, plans, time, or the method for how a task should be accomplished. Individuals who have high levels of neuroticism and openness to experience, as well as low levels of conscientiousness, are more likely to experience conflicts based on specific issues or tasks. Relationship conflicts primarily concern personality conflicts between group members with inharmonious personality traits. Group members who display low levels of agreeableness and high levels of openness to experience are more likely to attribute their conflicts to relationship issues. Additionally, the partners of highly conscientious individuals also tend to report more relationship conflicts (Bono et al., 2002). Interestingly, the study by Aritzeta et al. observed that task conflicts can have positive effects on creativity and team functioning as the team considers all available options for resolving the conflict. In contrast, relationship conflicts, which relate to individual differences between group members, were always very dysfunctional to workgroups and led to poor decision making (Aritzeta et al. 2005).

Research reports that different team roles are differentially related to conflict managing styles. Ensuring a diverse representation of team roles will help for balancing cooperative and competitive approaches. This is known as the team role balance hypothesis. If a team has a natural representation of all team roles, then a balanced representation of different conflict managing styles will be present to avoid the destructive escalation of problems. Behavior that is both friendly and firm can be effective for achieving creative results within workgroups. However, cooperation behavior alone can be considered a weak position and the use of exclusive competition tends to be harmful to relationships between members of the workgroup. These conflicts escalate until they reach a point where it stagnates (Aritzeta et al., 2005).

According to a study by Rahim and Magner ( 1995), there are many different ways to manage conflicts that occur in workgroups. Avoiding style occurs when behavior is withdrawn by hiding disagreements and sidestepping confrontations with other members of the group involved in conflict. This style often relates to the low concern individuals have for themselves and the low concern they have for others. It is sometimes used when there is a lack of awareness for interdependency and may also be used to hide a lack of interest. Additionally, avoiding style is used in cases where an individual does not believe the opposing party deserves any of their concern and may conceal high levels of aggressiveness (Rahim & Magner, 1995).

In comparison, the obliging style reflects a low concern for the self and a high concern for the other party in the conflict. This style seeks to satisfy the needs of others and makes concessions during the course of the conflict. The dominating style of handling interpersonal conflict involves a high concern for the self and a low concern for others. This style reflects win-lose behaviors that include efforts to reach solutions that always favor the self over others (Rahim & Magner, 1995).

The integrating style refers to a high concern for the self as ask as a high concern for others. This style reflects a collaboration between group members in conflict where the participating members exchange information, examine differences, understand the problem, and show openness to each other. Finally, compromising involves a moderate concern for the self and others. This form of conflict resolution takes a middle ground in solving conflicts where both parties contribute something in order to obtain something they want in return (Rahim & Magner, 1995).

Thus, personality is composed of five main personality traits, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience. All of these traits except neuroticism can be beneficial in high levels for influencing one’s behavior in a workgroup and predicting how well group members will work together to achieve high performance standards. While group members can possess high levels of multiple advantageous personality traits, the groups that will form the most productive work teams will be groups whose members all exhibit similar personality traits. Groups that are more homogeneous in personality will experience fewer conflicts and share more equal roles in accomplishing work tasks than groups with heterogeneous personalities. Individuals who bear high levels of all personality traits except neuroticism tend to naturally assume leadership and make fair effective leaders. In comparison, individuals who are low in personality traits like conscientiousness will lack the proper motivation to be a fully participating member of the group and tend to resort to social loafing behaviors. Depending on the personality of the group leader and the personality traits of the other members of the group, certain management precautions need to be taken in order to ensure that the leader is increasing the productivity of the group instead of instigating inner group conflicts and negative attitudes toward the work team. Finally, groups that are both homogeneous and are led by fair and effective leaders will have the highest performance rates.

Study Proposal

Research Questions

The research by Judge et al. (2002) suggests many personality attributes in their correlations with leadership emergence. However, there is a lack of substantial research for providing an overall conceptual framework that explains the common and unique character personality traits of different leadership criteria and how these different criteria relate to each other. Thus, future research should seek to answer the question of whether the natural traits that predict leadership emergence differ drastically from those that predict leadership effectiveness. Additionally, current research provides evidence that both group cohesion and effective leadership are important for maximizing the performance levels of the group. However, these studies tend to either focus primarily on the composition of group personality traits and their relation to levels of conflict experiences or aim to identify which personality traits are best for leadership roles. Yet, groups still have the potential to contain members who are effective as leaders while still experiencing significant amounts of conflict between the other group members. Alternatively, groups can experience high levels of cohesion between members without having an individual assuming the role of a leader. Therefore, it is unknown if group cohesion is more important than effective management strategies such as organizational coaching for achieving the highest level of workgroup performance.

Furthermore, how will group interactions adapt to circumstances where all members are high in social loafing behaviors? Are there certain traits that would influence how much loafers will contribute to the workgroup when no members volunteer to take responsibility for completing the bulk of the work? Additionally, are there specific circumstances that will increase a loafer's desire for high performance achievements?

Design

Research investigating these questions could be done if group tasks were broken into different types of tasks and given to groups that are either homogeneous or heterogeneous in their personality compositions. Tasks classified as cumulative would refer to tasks in which each member shares some of their knowledge and skills with the other members of the group. These tasks focus on how an individual’s contributions can be beneficial for the entire group and how well the group works together. Additionally, these tasks would be divided further into two different scenarios for both homogeneous or heterogeneous groups. In the first scenario, the group would be led by an individual encompassing all of the desirable traits and behaviors currently associated with effective leaders. In the second scenario, groups would be led by leaders who exhibit traits and behaviors associated with ineffective styles of leadership. Leaders would be assigned to each group and provided with a script to guide their interactions with the group.

The other task type would be interdependent tasks, in which each member of a group is assigned a specific part of the task that they will complete independently. An example of this task type can be found in assembly lines, where each person has a specific job they complete before passing the task on to someone else. Interdependent tasks would be productive ways of examining how various personality types react when social loafing is not an available option for task completion and judge how much the weakest member of a group can affect the group’s overall performance. Furthermore, interdependent tasks would be further broken down into two types of scenarios. In the first scenario, workgroups would be informed that their efforts in their individual parts of the task would represent equal parts of the group’s overall score, meaning that one member’s low performance would have the potential to bring down the entire groups score. In the second scenario, workgroups would be informed that they would be scored on their individual efforts for completing their portion of the task. This means that low achieving individuals would only have the ability to negatively impact their own scores. Data would be analyzed by conducting a factorial logistic regression.

Hypotheses. Based on prior research, it was hypothesized that variability in a group's extraversion score would be positively correlated to group performance in interdependent tasks but not in cumulative tasks. This is based on evidence that cumulative tasks seem more reliant on other personality traits, such as conscientiousness, neuroticism, and agreeableness (Halfhill et al., 2005).

Additionally, conscientiousness will positively correlated to higher group performance for both cumulative and interdependent tasks since these individuals are very self- motivated and tend to be hard workers (Forrester & Tashchian, 2010).

Groups with homogeneous personality compositions will perform better than groups with heterogeneous personality compositions as proved by previous research, but groups that are both homogeneous in personality traits and are led by an effective group leader will perform the best. Comparatively, groups that are homogeneous in personality traits but led by a poorly effective leader will perform equally to groups that are heterogeneous in personality traits but led by a highly effective leader. In addition, groups that are heterogeneous in personality composition and led poorly effective leaders will perform the worst in comparison to the other groups (Kickul & Neuman, 2000).

For the interdependent task condition, it is hypothesized that group members will make more equal contributions when they believe that their efforts affect their other group members when the individual presents traits as high anxiety and are concerned with maintaining their social image (Stark et al., 2007). When group members receive individual scores for their efforts, they will make slightly smaller contributions than the other members of their group in order to achieve their standards of performance achievement.

Procedure

The population of interest for this study would be undergraduate students from a large university in the United States. Students would be recruited through the university’s subject pool. Participants completed the revised NEO Five-Factor Inventory, which includes 60 different items, 12 for each personality trait (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Participants were then randomly assigned to a workgroup. Each workgroup consisted of five members.

Participants taking place in the cumulative task would be given the tower building task (Goldberg & Maccoby, 1965), which has been a successful model used in group experiments that model interdependence. This task will allow the weakest group member to significantly affect the group’s performance on the task even if all other group members are performing at their best. For example, if one member decides to add just one more block to the tower, the entire structure could collapse. Additionally, in the first scenario, the group leader will act in a way that promotes group cohesion and in the second scenario; the group leader will act in ways that stimulate conflict or hostile work environments.

Participants in the interdependent task condition were each given identical versions of a 100-piece jigsaw puzzle. When the task began, participants were given five minutes to complete as many pieces of the jigsaw puzzle as possible. In order to count, puzzle pieces had to be connected to at least two other puzzle pieces.

For each group in the first scenario, each connected piece earned a member one point. Each member’s points were then added together and divided by 500, the total possible number of points if all puzzle pieces had been connected. Therefore, if one member put 50 pieces together and another member only put 7 together, their low score would drive down the score of the person who put 50 pieces together. In the second scenario, each member was also given one point for each connected puzzle piece. However, this number was then divided by 100, which was the total number of puzzle pieces they could have connected.

References

Aritzeta, A., Ayestaran, S., & Swailes, S. (2005). Team Role Preference And Conflict Management Styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 16(2), 157-182.

Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). The Curvilinear Relation Between Experienced Creative Time Pressure And Creativity: Moderating Effects Of Openness To Experience And Support For Creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 963-970.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five Personality Dimensions And Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26.

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(3), 377-391.

Bauer, T. N., Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Wayne, S. J. (2006). A Longitudinal Study Of The Moderating Role Of Extraversion: Leader-Member Exchange, Performance, And Turnover During New Executive Development.. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 298-310.

Belbin, R. M. (1993). Team roles at work. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

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(3), 311-344.

Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

Cantwell, R. H., & Andrews, B. (2002). Cognitive And Psychological Factors Underlying Secondary School Students' Feelings Towards Group Work. Educational Psychology, 22(1), 75-91.

Costa, P., & Mccrae, R. (1992). Reply To Eysenck. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(8), 861-865.

Faught, K., Heflin, J., & Hickingbottam, F. (2012). "Social Loafer Bait" Theory And Initial Evidence On TheTypes Of People Social Loafers Target. Journal of Business Administration, 8. Retrieved November 18, 2013, from http://www.atu.edu/jbao/Social_Loafer_Bait.pdf

Forrester, W., & Tashchian, A. (2010). The Effects on Attitudes Toward Academic Group Work. American Journal of Business Education, 3(3), 39-46.

Goldberg, M. H., & Maccoby, E. E. (1965). Children's Acquisition Of Skill In Performing A Group Task Under Two Conditions Group Formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(6), 898-902.

Halfhill, T., Sundstrom, E., Lahner, J., Calderone, W., & Nielsen, T. M. (2005). Group Personality Composition And Group Effectiveness: An Integrative Review Of Empirical Research. Small Group Research, 36(1), 83-105.

Halfhill, T., Nielsen, T. M., Sundstrom, E., & Weilbaecher, A. (2005). Group Personality Composition And Performance In Military Service Teams. Military Psychology, 17(1), 41-54.

Hong, Y., Catano, V., & Liao, H. (2011). Leader Emergence: The Role of Emotional Intelligence and Motivation to Lead. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 32(4), 320-343.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship Of Core Self-evaluations Traits--self-esteem, Generalized Self-efficacy, Locus Of Control, And Emotional Stability--with Job Satisfaction And Job Performance: A Meta-analysis.. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80-92.

Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship Of Personality To Performance Motivation: A Meta-analytic Review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 797-807.

Kickul, J., & Neuman, G. (2000). Emergent Leadership Behaviors: The Function of Personality and Cognitive Ability in Determining Teamwork Performance and KSAS. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(1), 27-57.

Konovsky, M., & Organ, D. (1996). Dispositional and Contexual Determinants of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 253-266.

Kumar, K., Bakhshi, A., & Rani, E. (2009). Linking the "Big Five" Personality Domains to Organizational Citizenship Behavior. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 1(2), 73-81.

Major, D. A., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking Proactive Personality And The Big Five To Motivation To Learn And Development Activity.. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 927-935.

Morgan, B. B., Glickman, A. S., Woodward, E. A., Blaiwes, A. S., & Salas, E., (1986).

Measurement of team behaviors in a Navy environment (Tech. Report No. NTSC TR-86-014). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center.

Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role Of Goal Orientation, Ability, Need For Achievement, And Locus Of Control In The Self-efficacy And Goal--setting Process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 792-802.

Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (1995). Confirmatory Factor Analysis Of The Styles Of Handling Interpersonal Conflict: First-order Factor Model And Its Invariance Across Groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 122-132.

Rasmussen, T., & Jeppesen, H. J. (2006). Teamwork And Associated Psychological Factors: A Review. Work & Stress, 20(2), 105-128.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring Of Expressive Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526-537.

Stark, E. M., Shaw, J. D., & Duffy, M. K. (2007). Preference For Group Work, Winning Orientation, And Social Loafing Behavior In Groups. Group & Organization Management, 32(6), 699-723.

Steiner, I. D., & Vannoy, J. S. (1966). Personality Correlates Of Two Types Of Conformity Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(3), 307-315.