567684

research-article2015
SGRXXX10.1177/1046496414567684Small Group ResearchKong et al.

Article
Small Group Research
1­–19
Team Performance as © The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
a Joint Function of Team sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1046496414567684
Member Satisfaction and sgr.sagepub.com

Agreeableness

Dejun Tony Kong1, Lee J. Konczak2,

and William P. Bottom2

Abstract
Recent research on team personality has paid growing attention to team
agreeableness; yet the literature is replete with mixed findings regarding the
relationship between team agreeableness and team performance. Following
the emerging trend of examining the moderating role of team personality
traits in team dynamics, we propose a novel view of team agreeableness as
a moderator for the relationship between team member satisfaction and
team performance. With 230 senior-level professionals in 42 self-managed
teams, we found that when team agreeableness was low, team member
satisfaction was positively related to team performance, whereas when
team agreeableness was high, team member satisfaction was not significantly
related to team performance. Theoretical and practical implications of the
findings are discussed.

Keywords
agreeableness, personality, team performance, team member satisfaction

1University of Richmond, VA, USA

2Washington University in St. Louis, MO, USA

Corresponding Author:
Dejun Tony Kong, Jepson School of Leadership Studies and Robins School of Business,
University of Richmond, Jepson Hall, 28 Westhampton Way, Richmond, VA 23173, USA.
Email: tkong@richmond.edu

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on January 28, 2015

2 Small Group Research 

As the use of work teams has become more prevalent in organizations,

research on how to increase team effectiveness via personality composition
has grown rapidly (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005; LePine,
Buckman, Crawford, & Methot, 2011; Moynihan & Peterson, 2001). Many
models of team effectiveness call out individual characteristics as a key
determinant (see Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, 2011; Harrison & Klein, 2007;
Mathieu, Tannenbaum, Donsbach, & Alliger, 2014; Moynihan & Peterson,
2001 for reviews). Various researchers have suggested that personality traits
are important predictors of teamwork and should be considered in team
design (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; LePine et al., 2011; Stewart, 2006).
“The focus of the majority of research on personality in teams has been on
its direct effects on team outcomes” (Bradley, Klotz, Postlethwaite, & Brown,
2013, p. 386); yet empirical evidence for such effects is rather mixed. For
example, team agreeableness has largely been found to have a positive (e.g.,
Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Neuman & Wright, 1999) or null
(e.g., Ellis et al., 2003; O’Neill & Allen, 2011) relationship with team perfor-
mance, although some research studies also reported a slightly negative rela-
tionship (see Bell, 2007). Such mixed findings may be attributed to the distal
relationship between personality and team performance or may reflect the
presence of moderators for the relationship between team agreeableness and
team performance. However, they may also suggest that team agreeableness
serves as a moderator for the effect of psychological processes on team per-
formance (Bradley, Klotz, et al., 2013). A better understanding of the moder-
ating role of team agreeableness in team dynamics can advance team research.
In the present study, we take a novel view of team agreeableness as a mod-
erator, examining how team agreeableness attenuates the relationship
between team member satisfaction and team performance. Team member sat-
isfaction is an affect-based emergent state (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro,
2001) specifically related to “affective feelings that team members hold
toward each other and the team” (Ilgen et al., 2005, p. 526). Although team
member satisfaction may facilitate team performance, it could induce teams
to fall victim to groupthink (e.g., creating team members’ excessive opti-
mism, making team members discount warnings, and precluding team mem-
bers from reconsidering their assumptions) and ultimately impair team
decision making (Janis, 1982). We argue that, given the trust-related aspects
of agreeableness, lower levels of agreeableness may help teams evince
heightened skepticism and critical evaluation of the information they pos-
sess, reduce the probability of groupthink, and increase information search
for problem solving. Agreeableness, by definition, reflects how individuals
view human nature (e.g., trustworthiness versus untrustworthiness) and inter-
personal relationships (e.g., trust versus skepticism; Costa & McCrae, 1992).

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on January 28, 2015

Kong et al. 3

Team Member Satisfaction as an Affect-Based

Emergent State
In team research, one important distinction is made between behavior-based
processes and affect-based emergent states (Marks et al., 2001). Behavior-
based processes represent interactions among team members, whereas affect-
based emergent states require more time to develop and serve as affective
inputs for subsequent processes and outcomes (Bradley, Bauer, Banford, &
Postlethwaite, 2013). Common processes include communication, coopera-
tion, and conflict, whereas common emergent states include cohesion and
team affective tone (Bradley, Bauer, et al., 2013). The empirical lack of dis-
tinction between processes and emergent states largely stems from the scarce
data collected at multiple time points (Bradley, Bauer, et al., 2013).
Team member satisfaction is a prototypical form of emergent state.
Although team member satisfaction can be targeted at specific aspects of
group interactions such as communication (Hecht, 1978), we conceptualize it
as a holistic, affective state (Marston & Hecht, 1988). Our conceptualization
of team member satisfaction as an affect-based emergent state follows prior
conflict management research (e.g., Curhan, Neale, Ross, & Rosencranz-
Engelmann, 2008; Gelfand, Major, Raver, Nishii, & O’Brien, 2006). Team
member satisfaction does not exist initially but emerges over time, reflecting
the converged perception of relationships and interactions among team mem-
bers (Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, & Trochim, 2008). Unlike some prior
research (e.g., Rockmann & Northcraft, 2010; Tekleab, Quigley, & Tesluk,
2009), we deem team member satisfaction as a determinant of team perfor-
mance rather than an outcome simultaneous with performance (Moynihan &
Peterson, 2001). Although some studies operationalized team member satis-
faction as an individual-level construct (e.g., Shaw et al., 2011), team mem-
bers’ responses often converge, making it a team-level construct (e.g., Tekleab
et al., 2009). In the present research, we conceptualize it as a team-level
construct.

Moderating the Satisfaction–Performance

Relationship
Team member satisfaction, a holistic evaluation individuals make about their
interactions with teammates, can have significant performance effects. Team
member satisfaction can enable team members to work effectively or collab-
oratively and thus facilitate team performance, whereas team member dis-
satisfaction can disrupt intra-team collaboration inhibiting team performance
(Gladstein, 1984; Nerkar, McGrath, & MacMillan, 1996). Specifically, when

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on January 28, 2015

4 Small Group Research 

team members are dissatisfied with their intra-team relationships and interac-
tions, they are likely to have destructive conflict with teammates, thus inhib-
iting information flow and team functioning (Bradley, Klotz, et al., 2013; De
Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Nerkar et al., 1996; Tekleab
et al., 2009). In contrast, team member satisfaction may facilitate ongoing
team performance. As a positive emergent state, it can buffer team members
from destructive conflict and even undo the negative consequences of con-
flict (Fredrickson, 2001), thereby reducing team dysfunctions. Simply put,
team member satisfaction can inhibit destructive intra-team conflict and its
escalation.1
However, team member satisfaction may not guarantee effective team per-
formance. Effective team performance (e.g., the effectiveness of team deci-
sion making) may require constructive forms of disagreement and information
search. When constructive conflict and information search are necessary, lack
of skeptical inquiry can preclude teams from achieving optimal performance
(Gelfand et al., 2006; Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996). Teams with
high member satisfaction will be highly susceptible to groupthink and likely
to make flawed decisions, which ultimately undermine team performance
(Aldag & Fuller, 1993; Terborg, Castore, & DeNinno, 1976). When team
members engage in constructive conflict and information search, they are
likely to share critical information with one another, reduce information
asymmetry and uncertainty, and acquire more information for problem solv-
ing. So team member satisfaction does not necessarily enhance team perfor-
mance, and their positive relationship is likely to be modest.

Team Agreeableness as a Moderator

Problem solving requires team members’ satisfaction with their relation-
ships and interactions, yet in conjunction with team members’ accurate
understanding of the broader group context (Weingart & Jehn, 2009).
Developing and maintaining such an accurate understanding requires a
degree of skepticism, critical thinking, and information search (Sinaceur,
2010). We hypothesize that team agreeableness serves as a critical modera-
tor for the relationship between team member satisfaction and team perfor-
mance. Agreeableness is related to individuals’ tendency to trust others and
engage in altruistic behaviors. A high level of agreeableness reflects the
degree to which an individual will be trusting, friendly, and altruistic. A
lower level reflects the degree to which an individual is skeptical, egocen-
tric, and assertive (Bono, Boles, Judge, & Lauver, 2002; Costa & McCrae,
1992). From an evolutionary psychology perspective, Nettle (2006) noted
that the benefits of agreeableness include attention to others’ mental states,

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on January 28, 2015

Kong et al. 5

harmonious interpersonal relationships, and successful coalition formation,

and its costs include susceptibility to social cheating and failure to maximize
selfish advantage.
Team member satisfaction can make teams susceptible to groupthink (e.g.,
excessive optimism, discounting of warnings, failure to reconsider assump-
tions), directing group actions toward safeguarding positive relations rather
than enhancing performance. A low level of team agreeableness, associated
with ongoing skepticism and motivated information search (Sinaceur, 2010),
may curb this group tendency. Heightened team member satisfaction pro-
vides low-agreeableness teams with stronger buffers from destructive con-
flict within the teams. Consequently, problem solving, which is a joint
function of positive relationships and good knowledge/information (Weingart
& Jehn, 2009), is likely to occur; members can utilize their emergent state of
satisfaction in conjunction with their accurate knowledge to make well-
informed decisions that facilitate team performance. In sum, when team
agreeableness is low, team member satisfaction is likely to be positively
related to team performance.
High-agreeableness team members are likely to trust one another without
questioning or challenging one another, and thus are unlikely to reduce their
susceptibility to groupthink (e.g., excessive optimism, discounting of warn-
ings, failure to reconsider assumption). Satisfied team members are moti-
vated to maintain harmonious interpersonal relationships (Jensen-Campbell
& Graziano, 2001), and as team member satisfaction increases, they have
even stronger motivation to inhibit behaviors that promote disagreement and
information search. This pattern will impair the quality of team decisions and
ultimately erode team performance.

Hypothesis 1: Team agreeableness moderates the relationship between

team member satisfaction and team performance, such that when team
agreeableness is low, team member satisfaction is positively related to
team performance, but when team agreeableness is high, team member
satisfaction is negatively related to team performance.

Method
Participants
A total of 230 senior-level professionals enrolled in a U.S.-based executive
MBA (EMBA) program participated in the study as part of their coursework.
The average age of the participants was 38.44 years (SD = 8.11). Sixty-one of
them were women. They had an average of 15 or more years of work experience

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on January 28, 2015

6 Small Group Research 

on entering the program, most of which was in senior-level positions. Most of

them had more than 5 years of teamwork experience. They were assigned into
self-managed teams of four to seven members (M = 5.48).

Procedure
Data for this study were collected routinely as part of EMBA coursework.
The EMBA program takes 20 months to complete. Data from teams from six
classes spanning a 6-year period (2008 to 2013) were collected and analyzed.
From the start of the program, students worked within their teams to com-
plete all major assignments, providing each other with peer mentoring and
support. They completed an online personality assessment early in the pro-
gram; approximately 5 months later, they reported their team member satis-
faction. Several months later, they worked as a team to complete a
computer-based business simulation as part of their coursework, which
occurred at approximately the midpoint of the program. By then, participants
had completed numerous assignments individually and in teams, including
complex case analysis, problem sets, and formal presentations in subjects
ranging from accounting to corporate strategy.

Measures
Team performance.  We assessed team performance using a computer-based
change management simulation, in which teams played the roles of change
consultants who were hired by the target company’s president and sought to
help improve business results. Due to changes in the market including a
decrease in government defense contracts and the emergence of several com-
petitors, the target company in this simulation was losing market share rap-
idly with accompanying decreases in revenue and profits. To address these
issues, the firm’s president decided that the assistance of an external consult-
ing team to help facilitate a turnaround and guide change efforts would be
beneficial. The simulation involved the planning and application of a change
management process model derived from Kotter (1996). Each team was
given half a day for planning their change approach and then another half a
day for actual implementation of their plan.
We chose this simulation as it provided a good platform for a variety of
team-related behaviors that have been identified as important to team perfor-
mance. These included communication, coordination, conflict resolution,
and decision making (Tannenbaum, Beard, & Salas, 1992). The simulation
also portrayed a realistic business simulation in a computer-based medium
that we had previously found to be highly engaging with executive

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on January 28, 2015

Kong et al. 7

participants. The simulation included an objective scoring system that

assigned a score to each change tactic based on its implementation relative to
the underlying change model, which assumed particular tactics at each stage
of the change initiative. Points assigned were based on an internal scoring
algorithm that assigned a score for each tactic implemented based on the fol-
lowing criteria: (a) timing of the tactic relative to the stage of the model, and
(b) sequencing of the tactic within the particular stage of the model
(ExperienceChange, 2013). More specifically, the change model delineated
seven discrete stages with specified tactics within each and assumed a linear
progression. As an example, Stage 3 of the model concerned developing
vision and strategy. The scoring algorithm assumed that in terms of timing,
the change tactics in this stage should precede those in Stage 4, motivate, and
Stage 5, communication of the vision, and so on. Within a particular stage of
the model, the scoring algorithm assumed a preferred sequencing of change
tactics (e.g., the tactic of stakeholder mapping should precede the tactic of
appoint core change team within Stage 2 of the model, which is concerned
with identifying change agents to manage the change process). Based on
these criteria, an overall effectiveness score expressed in a percentage was
calculated by the computer program for each team at the end of the simula-
tion, representing team performance.

Team member satisfaction.  Participants responded to three items that assessed

team member satisfaction on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree): “All things considered, I am satisfied with my team experi-
ence,” “I like being a part of this team,” and “Overall, I am satisfied with my
team.” We adapted these items from previous studies such as those of Dineen,
Noe, Shaw, Duffy, and Wiethoff (2007), and Peeters, Rutte, van Tuijl, and
Reymen (2006). The items were similar to those used by Tekleab et al. (2009).
The individual responses were aggregated to the team level as the mean score
(α = .95). The mean rwg(j) was .85 and the median rwg(j) was .92 (cf. James,
1982). The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) also supported our data
aggregation (cf. Bliese, 2000): ICC(1) = .29, ICC(2) = .69, F(41, 173) = 3.20,
p < .001.

Team agreeableness. Participants completed the Interpersonal Sensitivity

subscale of the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI; Hogan & Hogan, 2007) to
assess their agreeableness. Sample questions included, “I can get along with
just about anybody,” “It upsets me to hurt other people’s feeling,” and “I am
often irritated by faults in others” (reverse scored). The HPI is one of the most
widely used and well-validated personality assessment instruments currently
available (Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004). The HPI consists

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on January 28, 2015

8 Small Group Research 

of 206 true–false items, which comprise seven primary scales or dimensions

that have acceptable reliability in terms of internal consistency and test–retest
reliability (Hogan & Hogan, 2007). The Interpersonal Sensitivity subscale of
the HPI shows good convergence with other measures of agreeableness (e.g.,
NEO Personality Inventory; Hogan & Hogan, 2007) and also predicts a range
of managerial competencies including sponsoring change, communicating
business concepts, persuading others, teaming with others, and overall job
performance (Hogan & Hogan, 2007).
In aggregating individual scores of agreeableness to the team level, we
took a task-oriented approach (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Neuman & Wright,
1999). The team task in the current study entails collective decision making
in a changing environment, which requires intra-team coordination, open
communication, conflict resolution, and problem solving. No participant was
assigned to the leadership position beforehand. The task was neither a proto-
typically conjunctive nor a disjunctive one in which one team member would
have a disproportionally large influence on team performance; instead, par-
ticipants had to make joint decisions with the other team members. Therefore,
we chose the mean score approach to aggregating data to the team level (i.e.,
simple averaging). After data aggregation, a larger score indicated a higher
level of team agreeableness. As a robustness check, we also included team
agreeableness aggregated using the minimum score approach, because mean-
scored team agreeableness was strongly correlated with minimum-scored
team agreeableness both in our sample (r = .66) and in that of Barrick et al.
(1998; r = .71).2 In addition, Barrick et al. (1998) noted that disagreeable
members are likely to disrupt within-team interactions and destroy interper-
sonal relationships, and thus may have significant influences on team
performance.

Control variables.  We also assessed participants’ other broad personality traits

using the HPI and aggregated their individual scores using the mean score
approach. We included the size, the average age, and the gender distribution
(the percentage of women) of a team as control variables.

Results
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and correlations among the study
variables. Table 2 presents the regression results of the hypothesized interactive
effect. We tested the model of interest (Model 1) and checked its robustness by
including minimum-scored team agreeableness and the interaction of team
member satisfaction and mean-scored team agreeableness (Model 2). In
addition, we performed regression analysis without the control variables of

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on January 28, 2015

Kong et al. 9

Table 1.  Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (N = 42).

Team variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Performance 53.40% 13.33%  

2. Member satisfaction 4.08 0.59 .23  
3. Agreeableness 17.67 1.79 .29 .28  
(interpersonal
sensitivity; M)
4. Extraversion 23.60 1.36 .08 .15 .54  
(ambition; M)
5. Extraversion 14.78 2.40 −.00 .14 .42 .46  
(sociability; M)
6. Conscientiousness 18.49 2.15 .21 .03 .32 .06 −.30  
(prudence; M)
7. E motional stability 24.17 3.49 .35 .19 .66 .47 −.05 .64  
(interpersonal
sensitivity; M)
8. Openness 16.59 2.31 −.06 .21 .19 .29 .47 −.30 −.01  
(inquisitiveness; M)
9. O penness (learning 9.09 1.43 .02 .18 .03 .37 .06 .07 .12 .51  
approach; M)
10. Agreeableness 13.83 3.12 .12 .46 .66 .39 .19 .32 .52 .22 .30  
(interpersonal
sensitivity;
minimum)
11. Size 5.48 0.74 .32 .02 .46 .30 .00 .13 .48 −.23 −.30 .10  
12. Age average 38.28 3.98 −.05 −.05 −.01 .02 −.36 .48 .24 −.18 .21 .05 −.01  
13. G ender distribution .27 .16 .17 −.04 .01 .14 −.23 .14 .17 .27 .37 .07 −.10 .14
(percentage of
women)

Note. The labels in the parentheses are from the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI). Correlations of .31 or
above are significant at the level of .05; correlations of .40 or above are significant at the level of .01; and
correlations of .49 or above are significant at the level of .001 (two-tailed tests).

extraversion, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness (Model 3).

Prior to the regression analysis, we centered team member satisfaction and
team personality traits (Aiken & West, 1991). With the size, the average age,
and the gender distribution of a team, as well as the other six mean-scored team
personality traits (extraversion–ambition, extraversion–sociability, conscien-
tiousness, emotional stability, openness–inquisitiveness, and openness–learn-
ing approach) controlled for, the interaction of team member satisfaction and
mean-scored team agreeableness was negatively related to team performance
(Model 1), β = −.51, p < .01. See Figure 1 for the interactive effect. Standardized
residual plots gave no evidence of any considerable violation of assumptions
for the ordinary least squares regression analysis.
A simple slope test (Aiken & West, 1991; Hayes, 2013) with the control
variables suggested that at a low level of mean-scored team agreeableness

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on January 28, 2015

10 Small Group Research 

Table 2.  Team Agreeableness (Mean Score) as a Moderator for the Relationship
Between Team Member Satisfaction and Team Performance (N = 42).

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Team variable β β β
Size .25 .16 .21
Age average −.07 −.08 −.05
Gender distribution .32 .27 .17
Extraversion–ambition (M) −.42 −.41  
Extraversion–sociability (M) .50 .40  
Conscientiousness (M) −.10 −.11  
Emotional stability (M) .51 .52  
Openness–inquisitiveness (M) −.31 −.28  
Openness–learning approach (M) .07 .13  
Agreeableness (M) −.21 .11 .31
Member satisfaction .01 .08 .12
Member satisfaction × Agreeableness (mean) −.51** −.94* −.98*
Agreeableness (minimum) −.29 −.24
Member satisfaction × Agreeableness .49 .67
(minimum)
R2 .44 .51 .39

*p < .05. **p < .01 (two-tailed).

(−1 SD), team member satisfaction was positively related to team perfor-
mance as predicted (b = 8.77, standard error [SE] = 3.72, t = 2.35, p < .05).
Contrary to our prediction, at a high level of mean-scored team agreeableness
(+1 SD), team member satisfaction was not significantly related to team per-
formance (b = −8.22, SE = 5.57, t = −1.48, p = .15). Therefore, our hypothesis
was partially supported. The relationship proved robust to alternative specifi-
cations of the team composition function. When minimum-scored team
agreeableness (β = −.29, p = .20) and its interaction with team member satis-
faction (β = .49, p = .23) were simultaneously included in the equation, the
interactive effect of team member satisfaction and mean-scored team agree-
ableness remained significant (β = −.94, p < .05).3

Discussion
Because of mixed evidence on the relationship between team agreeableness
and team performance, we examined the novel perspective of team agreeable-
ness as a moderator for the relationship between team member satisfaction

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on January 28, 2015

Kong et al. 11

Figure 1.  Team agreeableness (mean score) as a moderator for the relationship
between team member satisfaction and team performance.

and team performance. We argue that high agreeableness is inherently related

to trust and relationship maintenance whereas low agreeableness is inherently
related to skepticism and critical views. A low level of agreeableness enables
more satisfied team members to reduce their susceptibility to groupthink,
searching for more information and engaging more in problem solving,
whereas a high level of agreeableness impairs these functions that facilitate
team performance. By investigating 42 self-managed teams of 230 senior-
level professionals who worked and learned together over a period of 20
months, we found empirical support for our hypothesis. Specifically, team
member satisfaction was not significantly related to team performance when
team agreeableness was high but was positively related to team performance
when team agreeableness was low. These findings yield both theoretical and
practical implications.

Theoretical Implications
Team personality as a moderator.  As Bradley, Klotz, et al. (2013) noted, the
majority of team personality research has focused on the main effects of team
personality on team performance; yet, the findings are rather inconsistent.
Team agreeableness has been given particular attention recently in team
research (e.g., Bradley, Bauer, et al., 2013). Yet, like other broad personality
traits, the findings regarding the relationship between team agreeableness and

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on January 28, 2015

12 Small Group Research 

team performance are rather mixed, pointing out the possible new direction
of treating team agreeableness as a moderator for the relationship between
psychological processes and team performance. Thus, we proposed and
tested the novel view of team agreeableness as a moderator for the relation-
ship between team member satisfaction (emergent state) and team perfor-
mance, which we believe will encourage more research on the moderator role
of team personality traits in the future.
We treated team member satisfaction as a determinant of team performance
and measured team member satisfaction months before team performance.
This sequencing facilitated examining team agreeableness as a moderator. The
current study is different from previous ones that treated team member satis-
faction and team performance as simultaneous outcomes, finding a positive
correlation between them (e.g., Rockmann & Northcraft, 2010; Tekleab et al.,
2009). Although the two factors also had a positive correlation in the current
study, it was not significant. One possible reason for the non-significant asso-
ciation was the sample size. The correlation may have been smaller than those
in previous studies (e.g., Rockmann & Northcraft, 2010) also because of the
temporal lag between measurements. However, team member satisfaction and
team performance may not be significantly related, particularly when team
performance is evaluated using objective measures indicative of team effec-
tiveness as mentioned earlier (see Note 1).

Insight from mean- versus minimum-scored team agreeableness.  Bradley, Klotz,

et al. (2013) noted that “minimum or maximum scores may provide even
more insight into the contingent effects of personality composition in teams”
(p. 390). Based on the task-oriented approach, we focused on the mean-score
approach in aggregating personality scores, but we also used the minimum
score approach for a robustness check. Mean-scored team agreeableness was
a significant moderator in this sample whereas minimum-scored team agree-
ableness was not. Minimum-scored team agreeableness was not a significant
predictor of team performance either, despite past evidence suggesting that it
is (Bell, 2007). In other words, the most disagreeable team member had no
disproportionally large influence on team performance in the current study.
However, minimum-scored team agreeableness was significantly correlated
with team member satisfaction whereas mean-scored team agreeableness was
not, suggesting that the most disagreeable team member had a disproportion-
ally large influence on team member satisfaction (affect-based emergent
state). These findings are consistent with Barrick et al.’s (1998) argument: “A
very disagreeable person may make team membership overly costly in terms
of social rewards (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) and thereby destroy interpersonal
relationships within the team” (p. 381).

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on January 28, 2015

Kong et al. 13

Directions for Future Research

First, we urge researchers to adopt a trait-emergent state/process interactive
approach and further examine the moderating effect of team personality on
the relationship between psychological states/processes and team perfor-
mance (e.g., Beersma et al., 2003; Bradley, Klotz, et al., 2013). Such investi-
gations are likely to help gain insights into team dynamics and reconcile the
inconsistency of previous findings.
The main limitation that exists in many studies on team personality is the
lack of a strong theoretical framework that provides logic for empirical test-
ing. Gardner, Gino, and Staats’s (2012) resource-based view on team dynam-
ics may be a promising framework. Gardner et al. (2012) proposed three
types of resources—relational, experiential, and structural resources. Team
member satisfaction can be conceptualized as a form of team relational
resource. For example, Gelfand et al. (2006) conceptualized negotiators’ rela-
tionship satisfaction as relational capital. Gardner et al. (2012) found that
task uncertainty strengthened the effect of team relational resources on
knowledge integration capability, which in turn facilitated team performance.
A comparison of Gardner et al.’s (2012) and the current study’s results reveals
that team agreeableness may reduce perceived task uncertainty. This is very
likely to occur, given that trust reduces perceived task uncertainty (Colquitt,
LePine, Piccolo, Zapata, & Rich, 2012) and agreeableness is characterized by
trust (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Thus, future research can investigate how
team personality traits influence team members’ perception of the nature of
their team task.
Second, future research should continue examining team member satisfac-
tion as an affect-based emergent state and a determinant of team performance.
The widely adopted framework for studying team dynamics is the input–
process–output model (cf. Ilgen et al., 2005), in which the process component
is largely represented by behavior-based processes (e.g., communication). A
shift of research focus, from behavior-based processes to affect-based emer-
gent states, may proffer new insights into how teams operate to transform
their resources into satisfactory/optimal outputs.
Third, as Bradley, Klotz, et al. (2013) have noted, different types of tasks
or teams may change the effects of team personality traits on team perfor-
mance. In the present research, the team task requires within-team coordina-
tion, collaboration, and problem solving. Therefore, team agreeableness,
which is related to trust versus skepticism, should be a critical factor. Future
research can investigate the moderator role of team agreeableness in other
types of team tasks (e.g., routine production tasks) to replicate our findings or
identify the boundary conditions of our findings.

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on January 28, 2015

14 Small Group Research 

Practical Implications
Given that the participants of the present research were senior-level profes-
sionals enrolled in an EMBA program, our findings may also offer some
insights into managerial practice and top management team (TMT) design.
Numerous studies have shown that TMTs often fail to engage in real team-
work and suffer from conflict and lack of commitment (Edmondson, Roberto,
& Watkins, 2003). Team design is the very first step that leads to the success
of TMTs. It requires deliberate considerations of team members’ personality,
task design, and leadership (Stewart, 2006). Yet, research that focuses on the
relationship between team personality and TMT performance is strikingly
scarce, except for Colbert, Barrick, and Bradley’s (2014) recent work. Colbert
et al. (2014), however, found that TMT agreeableness (mean-scored) was not
significantly related to TMT transformational leadership, collective organiza-
tional commitment, or organizational performance. TMT agreeableness
(mean-scored), thus, may not play a determinant role in TMT team dynamics
but instead a moderator role as we have proposed in the current research. Our
findings provide somewhat counterintuitive advice on TMT practice:
Disagreeable team members are not burdens of TMTs and should not be
excluded; instead, TMTs should keep disagreeable team members while
focusing on increasing team member satisfaction. Only when both conditions
are met can team performance be enhanced.

Conclusion
The present research has revealed the moderating effect of team agreeable-
ness on the relationship between team member satisfaction and team perfor-
mance. Only when team agreeableness was low was team member satisfaction
positively related to team performance. Our findings highlight the promise of
an interactive approach by which team personality traits operate as modera-
tors for the relationship between psychological processes/states and team
performance. We urge researchers to continue this line of inquiry (also see
Bradley, Bauer, et al., 2013).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on January 28, 2015

Kong et al. 15

Notes
1. The positive relationship between team member satisfaction and team perfor-
mance may be modest, when team performance is evaluated using objective
measures and indicating team effectiveness. For example, team cohesion, as
another emergent state, is positively related to team performance (Beal, Cohen,
Burke, & McLendon, 2003; Evans & Dion, 1991; Gully, Devine, & Whitney,
1995), but this relationship is attenuated when performance is evaluated using
more objective outcome measures (as opposed to subjective measures of behav-
iors) or indicating effectiveness (as opposed to efficiency; Beal, Cohen, Burke,
& McLendon, 2003).
2. We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their suggestion to conduct
this robustness check.
3. As an additional robustness check suggested by the anonymous reviewers, we
performed separate regression analysis controlling for the standard deviation
of team agreeableness (and its interaction with team member satisfaction) and
found that (a) the standard deviation of team agreeableness (or its interaction
with team member satisfaction) was a non-significant predictor of team per-
formance, and (b) the interaction of mean-scored team agreeableness and team
member satisfaction remained a significant predictor of team performance.

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Aldag, R. J., & Fuller, S. R. (1993). Beyond fiasco: A reappraisal of the groupthink
phenomenon and a new model of group decision processes. Psychological
Bulletin, 113, 533-552. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.533
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance
at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go
next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9-30. doi:10.1111/
1468-2389.00160
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, 377-391. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.377
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and per-
formance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88, 989-1004. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989
Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Moon, H., Conlon, D. E., &
Ilgen, D. R. (2003). Cooperation, competition, and team performance: Toward
a contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 572-590.
doi:10.2307/30040650
Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2008). The criti-
cal role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict
type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 170-188. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.170

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on January 28, 2015

16 Small Group Research 

Bell, S. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance:

A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595-615. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.92.3.595
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability:
Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski
(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations,
extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bono, J. E., Boles, T. L., Judge, T. A., & Lauver, K. J. (2002). The role of per-
sonality in task and relationship conflict. Journal of Personality, 70, 311-344.
doi:10.1111/1467-6494.05007
Bradley, B. H., Bauer, J. E., Banford, C. G., & Postlethwaite, B. E. (2013). Team
players and collective performance: How agreeableness affects team performance
over time. Small Group Research, 44, 680-711. doi:10.1177/1046496413507609
Bradley, B. H., Klotz, A. C., Postlethwaite, B. E., & Brown, K. G. (2013). Ready to
rumble: How team personality composition and task conflict interact to improve
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 385-392. doi:10.1037/
a0029845
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Bowers, C. (2011). Team development and functioning.
In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology
(Vol. 1, pp. 597-650). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Colbert, A. E., Barrick, M. R., & Bradley, B. H. (2014). Personality and leadership
composition in top management teams: Implications for organizational effective-
ness. Personnel Psychology, 67, 351-387. doi:10.1111/peps.12036
Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004).
Interactive effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on work-
place deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 599-609. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.89.4.599
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Zapata, C. P., & Rich, B. L. (2012).
Explaining the justice–performance relationship: Trust as exchange deep-
ener or trust as uncertainty reducer? Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1-15.
doi:10.1037/a0025208
Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Curhan, J. R., Neale, M. A., Ross, L., & Rosencranz-Engelmann, J. (2008). Relational
accommodation in negotiation: Effects of egalitarianism and gender on economic
efficiency and relational capital. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 107, 192-205. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.02.009
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team
performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 741-749. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
Dineen, B. R., Noe, R. A., Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., & Wiethoff, C. (2007). Level
and dispersion of satisfaction in teams: Using foci and social context to explain
and the satisfaction–absenteeism relationship. Academy of Management Journal,
50, 623-643. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.25525987

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on January 28, 2015

Kong et al. 17

Edmondson, A. C., Roberto, M. A., & Watkins, M. D. (2003). A dynamic model

of top management team effectiveness: Managing unstructured task streams.
Leadership Quarterly, 14, 297-325. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00021-3
Ellis, A. P. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Porter, C. O. L. H., West, B. J., & Moon,
H. (2003). Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 821-835. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.821
Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analy-
sis. Small Group Research, 22, 175-186. doi:10.1177/1046496491222002
ExperienceChange. (2013). Globaltech player’s guide. Menlo Park, CA:
ExperiencePoint.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology:
The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56,
218-226. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
Gardner, H. K., Gino, F., & Staats, B. S. (2012). Dynamically integrating knowledge
in teams: Transforming resources into performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 55, 998-1022. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0604
Gelfand, M. J., Major, V. S., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L. H., & O’Brien, K. (2006).
Negotiating relationally: The dynamics of the relational self in negotiations.
Academy of Management Review, 31, 427-451. doi:10.2307/20159210
Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517. doi:10.2307/2392936
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interper-
sonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 820-835. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.820
Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and
performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group
Research, 26, 497-520. doi:10.1177/1046496495264003
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs
as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management
Review, 32, 1199-1228. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.26586096
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hecht, M. L. (1978). Toward a conceptualization of communication satisfaction.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 64, 47-62. doi:10.1080/00335637809383411
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2007). Hogan Personality Inventory Manual (3rd ed.). Tulsa,
OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organiza-
tions: From input–process–output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of
Psychology, 56, 517-543. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 65, 219-229. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67.2.219
Janis, I. L. (1982). Victims of groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal
study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 44, 238-251. doi:10.2307/3069453

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on January 28, 2015

18 Small Group Research 

Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a modera-

tor of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69, 323-362. doi:10.1111/
1467-6494.00148
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and
research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K.
J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods
in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3-90). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
LePine, J. A., Buckman, B. R., Crawford, E. R., & Methot, J. R. (2011). A review
of research on personality in teams: Accounting for pathways spanning levels
of theory and analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 311-330.
doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.004
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework
and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.
doi:10.5465/amr.2001.4845785
Marston, P. J., & Hecht, M. L. (1988). Group satisfaction. In R. S. Cathcart & L. A.
Samovar (Eds.), Small group communication: A reader (pp. 236-246). Dubuque,
IA: Brown.
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2014).
A review and integration of team composition models moving toward a
dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40, 130-160.
doi:10.1177/0149206313503014
Moynihan, L. M., & Peterson, R. S. (2001). A contingent configuration approach
to understanding the role of personality in organizational groups. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 23, 327-378. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23008-1
Nerkar, A. A., McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. C. (1996). Three facets of satisfaction
and their influence on the performance of innovation teams. Journal of Business
Venturing, 11, 167-188. doi:10.1016/0883-9026(96)00002-X
Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals.
American Psychologist, 61, 622-631. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.6.622
Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. (1999). Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cog-
nitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 376-389. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.84.3.376
O’Neill, T. A., & Allen, N. J. (2011). Personality and the prediction of team perfor-
mance. European Journal of Personality, 25, 31-42. doi:10.1002/per.769
Peeters, M. A. G., Rutte, C. G., van Tuijl, H. F. J. M., & Reymen, I. M. M. J. (2006).
The Big Five personality traits and individual satisfaction with the team. Small
Group Research, 37, 187-211. doi:10.1177/1046496405285458
Rockmann, K. W., & Northcraft, G. B. (2010). Expecting the worst? The dynamic
role of competitive expectations in team member satisfaction and team perfor-
mance. Small Group Research, 41, 308-329. doi:10.1177/1046496410363744
Shaw, J. D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shih, H.-A., & Susanto, E. (2011).
A contingency model of conflict and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96, 391-400. doi:10.1037/a0021340

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on January 28, 2015

Kong et al. 19

Sinaceur, M. (2010). Suspending judgment to create value: Suspicion and trust in nego-
tiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 543-550. doi:10.1016/j.
jesp.2009.11.002
Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team
design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32, 29-54.
doi:10.1177/0149206305277792
Tannenbaum, S., Beard, R., & Salas, E. (1992). Team building and its influence on
team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments.
In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory and research in industrial/organizational psy-
chology (pp. 117-153). Oxford, UK: North-Holland.
Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A longitudinal study of
team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group &
Organization Management, 34, 170-205. doi:10.1177/1059601108331218
Terborg, J. R., Castore, C., & DeNinno, J. A. (1976). A longitudinal field investiga-
tion of the impact of group composition on group performance and cohesion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 782-790. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.34.5.782
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York,
NY: John Wiley.
Weingart, L., & Jehn, K. A. (2009). Manage intra-tram conflict through collaboration.
In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organizational behavior (2nd
ed., pp. 327-346). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Author Biographies
Dejun Tony Kong (PhD, Washington University in St. Louis) is an assistant profes-
sor of leadership studies and management in the University of Richmond, Virginia,
the United States. His research examines the role of trust in negotiation, leadership,
team, and cross-cultural contexts and the psychology of leader–member relationships,
negotiation relationships, and peer relationships.
Lee J. Konczak (PhD, University of Missouri–St. Louis) is the academic director of
the Executive MBA Program and senior lecturer of organizational behavior and lead-
ership development at the Olin Business School at Washington University in St.
Louis, the United States. His research interests include leadership assessment and
development and employee selection.
William P. Bottom (PhD, University of Illinois–Urbana Champaign) is the Joyce and
Howard Wood Distinguished Professor of organizational behavior at the Olin
Business School at Washington University in St. Louis, the United States. His research
has focused on the perception of risk and its effects on decision making and
negotiation.

Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at VITERBO UNIV on January 28, 2015