Team & Teambuilding Article Reviews


A good article review will include the following:

A page (minimum) review of the main ideas the article discusses and
A page (minimum) personal reflection on the article consisting of your personal opinions, thoughts, and/or experiences related to the topic

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Team & Teambuilding Article Reviews
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Your complete assignment will be 1 page per article, 2 pages total. Each article is worth 1.5 points.

European Journal of Personality, Eur. J. Pers. 25: 3142 (2011)
Published online 4 April 2010 ( DOI: 10.1002/per.769

Personality and the Prediction of Team Performance


Department of Psychology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada

Abstract: Although much is known about personality and individuals job performance, only a few studies have
considered the effects of team-level personality on team performance. Existing research examining the effects of
personality on team performance has found that, of the Big Five factors of personality, Conscientiousness is often the most
important predictor. Accordingly, we investigated the criterion validity of lower-level Conscientiousness traits to
determine whether any one trait is particularly predictive of team performance. In addition to Conscientiousness, we
examined the criterion validity of the other Big Five personality factors. We found that Conscientiousness and its facets
predicted team performance. Agreeableness, Extraversion and Neuroticism were not predictive of team performance,
whereas Openness had a modest negative relation with team performance. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key words: team performance; team composition; personality; Big Five; narrow traits; personality facets


The composition of a work team is defined by the individual
characteristics of its members. One implicit rationale
underlying the research on team composition is that
individual characteristics of team members (i.e. their
personalities, demographic characteristics, attitudes and so
on) serve as inputs that indirectly influence team perform-

ance through group processes (e.g. collaboration) and
emergent states (e.g. team cohesion). In other words, the
characteristics of team members affect the way in which a
team operates and its subsequent performance.

Personality, as a class of team composition variables, is
the focus of the present study. Over the past several years,
research on personality has received considerable attention
in the teams literature (e.g. Bell, 2007; Humphrey,
Hollenbeck, Meyer, & Ilgen, 2007; Peeters, van Tuijl, Rutte,
& Reymen, 2006). Interest in this topic continues for at least
two reasons. First, there is an intuitive appeal to the argument
that personality will influence team-related variables.
Conceptually, personality should be related to (a) team
knowledge, skills and abilities, (b) processes and emergent
states and (c) general dimensions of teamwork (e.g.
collaboration, supportive behaviour, team trust). Most of
these variables appear to be natural outgrowths of personality
and, therefore, one would expect personality to be a valid
predictor in many cases (see Halfhill, Sundstrom, Lahner,
Calderone, & Nielsen, 2005; Kichuk & Wiesner, 1998).

A second reason that personality continues to be
investigated in team settings is that it is a consistent and
important predictor of individuals job performance (e.g.
Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett, Jackson, Rothstein, & Reddon,

*Correspondence to: Thomas A. ONeill, Department of Psychology, Social
Science Centre, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A
5C2, Canada. E-mail: [emailprotected]

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1999). Extending these findings to the team level is needed as
organizations are increasingly turning to teamwork in an
effort to stay competitive in the global marketplace (Allen &
West, 2005; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Thus, research on
personality and team performance is an ongoing priority.

In this study, we collected personality data from members
of project design teams, operationalized those data at the
group level (e.g. using the group mean on each trait), and
correlated the resulting team-level personality scores with
team performance. Our purpose in this research was
threefold. First, we examined the extent to which any
content-relevant personality facets of Conscientiousness
could demonstrate superior prediction of team performance
relative to a broad Conscientiousness composite. An
investigation of this type is needed given that Conscien-
tiousness has been shown to be one of the most consistent Big
Five predictors of job performance and team performance,
but the criterion validity of its facets have rarely been
examined at the team level (but see LePine, 2003). Second,
we investigated whether any personality factors besides
Conscientiousness could be valid predictors of team
performance in the present context. Specifically, we assessed
the criterion validity of the other Big Five factors:
Agreeableneness, Extraversion, Neuroticism and Openness.
Third, when considered as a team-level construct, personality
has historically been operationalized in several ways. In this
study we provide new evidence regarding the criterion
validity of the four most common team-level personality


Typically, the operationalization of personality variables at
the team level is accomplished by aggregating individual-
level personality scores using one of four group-level

Received 29 July 2009
Revised 16 February 2010, Accepted 16 February 2010


32 T. A. ONeill and N. J. Allen

indices: Mean, variance, minimum and maximum scores
(see Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Halfhill
et al., 2005; Williams & Allen, 2008). The particular
operationalization is usually chosen through a consideration
of the personality variable, the nature of the task, and how the
two are expected to interact (e.g. Allen & West, 2005; Hecht
& Allen, 1999; LePine, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, & Hedlund,

The mean approach involves computing the arithmetic
average of each team members score on the personality
variable. This approach is appropriate when the trait is
theorized to work additivelythat is, when it is suspected
that the more (or less) team members possess the trait, the
better the team will perform. The variance approach indexes
the dispersion, or heterogeneity, of the trait across team
members. This operationalization is used when the
researcher believes a greater (or lesser) amount of variation
in the trait will be related to the criterion. Finally, sometimes
it is appropriate to consider only the team member with the
highest, or lowest, score on a trait (referred to as the
maximum or minimum approach, respectively), and refer to
that value as the team-level score. As an analogy, on an
assembly line, the number of units produced will often depend
on the slowest working team member, and, accordingly, the
minimum score on a trait such as Achievement could be most
predictive of team performance. Conversely, on a creativity
task, the team member with the highest score on a trait such as
Innovation could be most responsible for the level of team
performance achieved (because a novel idea has only to
come from one team member). Theorizing about the most
appropriate operationalization for team personality is critical
as these may substantially affect the magnitude of person-
alitys criterion validity (Moynihan & Peterson, 2004;
Williams & Allen, 2008).

In the most recent and comprehensive meta-analysis
examining relations between team-level personality and
performance, Bell (2007) found that, overall, team-level
personality does predict team performance. The findings for
lab studies were generally weak, likely because team
performance measurement in those studies tended to be
too coarse to detect small variations in behaviour related to
expressions of personality. Field studies in Bells meta-

analysis, however, demonstrated the strongest and most
consistent findings for Conscientiousness. Teams with high
means, high team member maximum and minimum scores
and low variance had the greatest performance levels
(Emotional Stability was coded in the socially desirable
direction). Other Big Five factors were predictive of team
performance, but not with the same magnitude and
consistency across operationalizations.

Given that Conscientiousness was the most consist-
ently predictive trait of team performance in Bells (2007)
meta-analysis, it is reasonable to consider that facets of
Conscientiousness might even be more predictive (see
Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, & Cortina, 2006). For example,
the factor of Conscientiousness encompasses several
more specific facets of personality, such as Industrious-
ness, Order, Self-Control, Responsibility, Traditionalism
and Virtue (see Roberts, Chernyshenko, Stark, & Gold-

berg, 2005). Arguably, some of these lower-level
personality variables belonging to the same higher-level
personality factor may correlate differently, in magnitude
or direction, from the others in the prediction of a
criterion (see Ashton, 1998; Ashton, Jackson, Paunonen,
Helmes, & Rothstein, 1995; Hough, 1992; LePine, 2003;
Paunonen, 1998, 2003). Reflecting on Bells meta-

analytic findings, as well as the literature demonstrating
the validity of narrow traits, we suggest that, in order to
maximize the predictive power of Conscientiousness as it
relates to team performance, criterion-relevant facets
ought to be considered.

The fact that personality variables other than Conscien-
tiousness (e.g. Agreeableness) were predictive of team
performance in Bells meta-analysis suggests that they, too,
may be relevant in the present study. As we will argue later,
our criterion, project team performance, could be associated
with certain team-level operationalizations of Agreeable-
ness, Extraversion, Neuroticism and Openness. Finally, the
method of operationalizing team personality (e.g. mean,
minimum) that will be most predictive of team performance
must also be considered in maximizing criterion validity. In
the section that follows we develop our predictions regarding
the operationalization that is, in the context of our study,
most theoretically appropriate for each personality factor and
facet included in this study.


Our sample consisted of concept design teams, composed of
engineering students, who worked interdependently for 6.5
months. The teams were engaged in an intensive, complex
engineering design task. The team members had shared
outcomes of significant value, and coordinated most work
dynamically and reciprocally (rather than through pooled or
sequential processes). These were classic project teams as
they were created for a specific purpose and time frame, after
which they would disband (see Chiocchio & Essiembre,
2009). Knowledge of these contextual details was important
in generating predictions, outlined below.

The Big Five

In the present research we assessed the Big Five factors of
personality. In order to optimize their prediction of team
performance, we judged it most appropriate to operationalize
the Big Five factors, at the team-level, as follows:
Conscientiousness (mean), Agreeableness (mean), Neuroti-
cism (mean), Extraversion (variance) and Openness (maxi-

mum). Important theoretical rationales underlie the choice of
team personality operationalizations. Beginning with Con-
scientiousness, we contend that this factor captures a class of
attributes that manifest themselves as valuable resources,
such as achievement-striving, organization, planning and
task focus. The team may draw upon resources of this type to
accomplish its work (see LePine et al., 1997; Stewart, 2003).
An additive team-level conceptualization, using the mean
approach, is most appropriate in the present research because

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 25: 3142 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/per

Personality and team performance 33

the more team members are conscientious, the better the
team should perform (see also Barrick et al., 1998).
Similarly, Agreeableness represents a factor of personality
that can be expected to foster effective team interactions
because members are trusting, altruistic and cooperative.
Such teams could perform well because of their smooth
conflict resolution, and inclination towards open communi-

cation and information seeking (Peeters et al., 2006). We also
see Agreeableness as accumulating additively, as the more
members are characterized as agreeable, the more they
should have positive interactions, and in turn, create a higher
performing team. Regarding the personality factor Neuroti-
cism, most previous studies have found important relations
with team performance for the mean only (see Bell, 2007).
As Neuman, Wagner and Christiansen (1999) pointed out,
teams that are higher on Neuroticism will have difficulty
coordinating one anothers tasks and may experience
disruption from tempermental and/or impulsive team
members (see also Driskell, Hogan, & Salas, 1987). Thus,
we predicted that the mean operationalization of Neuroti-
cism would be most predictive of team performance relative
to other operationalizations.

Turning to Extraversion, we expected that the variance
operationalization would be the strongest predictor of team
performance for that trait. A team comprising all extraverts
could be expected to have high conflict as its members will
all be assertive and leadership oriented, and therefore, power
struggles are likely to emerge (see Barry & Stewart, 1997).
Conversely, a team composed of all introverts would likely
not perform well because members may not converse enough
to generate a compelling design idea and stay coordinated
during project work. A mix of introverts and extraverts (i.e.
heterogeneity) may characterize effective teams because
there will likely be fewer leadership battles, but enough
communication to keep the team coordinated and on track
towards effective task completion (see Mohammad &
Angell, 2003). Thus, we operationalized Extraversion using
the variance approach.

Finally, Openness was operationalized as the maximum
score. Given that the engineering projects in the present
study required that teams generate novel solutions to design
problems of their choosing, generating a creative solution or
approach to the project was critical. However, only one team
member is likely needed to generate an idea that other group
members can subsequently develop (see Valente, 1995).
Original and innovative ideas might be expected to come

from the member highest on Openness, which calls for the
maximum operationalization.

Conscientiousness facets

Recall that one purpose of this research was to investigate
whether any lower level personality facets, within the
Conscientiousness domain, would be especially predictive of
team performance. Regarding the selection of these narrow,
facet-level traits, we chose a subset that we expected, on an
a priori basis, to predict team performance on the project
teams tasks. To select the traits, we considered three sources
of content-relevant information that have been shown to lead
to effective a priori selection of criterion-relevant person-
ality traits (for a review, see ONeill, Goffin, & Tett, 2009).
We began with a large pool comprising 35 narrow
personality traits found in two highly regarded and
established personality instruments: the Personality
Research Form (PRF; Jackson, 1989) and the Jackson
Personality Inventory-Revised (JPI-R; Jackson, 1994). A
sample of subject matter experts, comprising eight indus-
trial-organizational psychology faculty and graduate stu-
dents, rated the extent to which each trait would be most
likely to predict team performance (i.e. trait relevance for
predicting team performance; see also Goffin et al., 2009;
Paunonen & Ashton, 2001). These traits were a mix of
Conscientiousness-related and unrelated traits, but only
those with content overlapping with Conscientiousness were
considered in this research for reasons explained earlier.
Second, we examined the literature, including literature
reviews, theoretical articles, and empirical studies (e.g.
English, Griffith, & Steelman, 2004). Third, the character-
istics of the project teams tasks, and surrounding context,
were taken into account, and traits were aligned to this
context by theorizing about how they might relate to team
performance. Overall, this approach was consistent with
commonly used methods of identifying potentially job-
related personality traits (see Goffin et al., 2009; Raymark,
Schmit, & Guion, 1997; Tett & Guterman, 2000).

The result of the process outlined above was the selection
of four facets of Conscientiousness, to each of which we
assigned a specific trait operationalization for comparison
with the Big Five at the team level: Organization
(maximum), Cognitive Structure (maximum), Achievement
(mean) and Endurance (mean; see Table 1 for trait
definitions). These traits were identified by Ashton, Jackson,

Table 1. Narrow trait definitions

Personality variable Description

Organization Concerned with keeping personal effects and surroundings neat and organized; dislikes clutter, confusion, lack of
organization; interested in developing methods for keeping materials methodically organized.

Cognitive structure Does not like ambiguity or uncertainty in information; wants all questions answered completely; desires to make
decisions based upon definite knowledge, rather than upon guesses or probabilities.

Achievement Aspires to accomplish difficult tasks; maintains high standards and is willing to work towards distant goals; responds
positively to competition; willing to put forth effort to attain excellence.

Endurance Willing to work long hours; doesnt give up quickly on a problem; persevering, even in face of great difficulty;
patient and unrelenting in work habits.

Note: Definitions modified from Jackson (1989, 1994).

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 25: 3142 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/per

34 T. A. ONeill and N. J. Allen

Helmes, and Paunonen (1998) as scales that chiefly define
the Conscientiousness factor. Important theoretical ration-
ales for each trait and team-level operationalization
accompanied these decisions, which are described next.

Organization was expected to be important for team
performance as individuals high on this trait should use their
time wisely and avoid procrastination. However, we
predicted that only one team member needed to be high
on Organization in order to manage the team and keep the
work structured and on schedule; thus, we operationalized
Organization using the maximum score within the team. We
also predicted that Cognitive Structure would be important
because individuals high on this trait want to carefully plan
out and research all aspects of a task before getting started.
Again, we expected that only one team member needed to
engage in this systematic planning and forethought to ensure
that the team effectively structured its work and adapted it as
needed over time. Accordingly, we selected the maximum
operationalization for Cognitive Structure.

Those who are high on Achievement tend to set difficult
goals by choosing challenging tasks that they find engaging
(Gellatly, 1996). We surmised that these attributes are
valuable qualities for any team members to possess, and that
the more team members are Achievement-oriented, the more
likely the team is to perform at a superior level. This additive
rationale supports the mean operationalization. We also
predicted that Endurance would be a valuable trait for all
team members to have. The more Endurance team members
have, the higher their teams performance because members
will be more likely to devote long hours at various milestones
of the project lifecycle (e.g. prototype design, prototype
construction). Thus, the mean approach was used for
operationalizing Endurance.


Participants, procedure, and description of teamwork

Team personality and performance data were collected from
129 student engineering design teams comprised of three,
four or five team members each. The mean age of the 564
respondents was 18.6 (SD 2.2), and 81% were male. Data
were collected at two points: First, on the day that the project
teams were assembled, personality and demographic data
were collected; second, approximately 6.5 months later,
when the teams completed their work, team performance
data were collected.

Teams participating in this study carried out a complex
design project. Specifically, the project required teams to
develop a functional prototype that either (a) demonstrated
and explained a physical law in an innovative way that would
have pedagogical value in a secondary school setting, or (b)
represented an innovative concept that could help protect the
environment. In addition to building a physical prototype
demonstrating their design concepts, the project required
teams to produce a detailed report of their work and to deliver
a public science fair presentation of the prototype.

Outcome interdependence was high given that instructor
ratings of team performance constituted 20% of students
final course grades.

It should be noted that team members spent a great deal of
time interacting with one another over the course of the 6.5
months. In addition to completing the large design project,
teams worked on small course-related projects and tasks
almost every week for the duration of the 6.5 months. They
met for at least 2 hours per week in mandatory laboratory
sessions where they completed required tasks and assign-
ments together. Most of these teams also met extensively
outside of class time, especially during the 3 months prior to
completing the large design project that was our focal
interest in the present research.


Personality: Narrow traits
The following narrow trait scales from the PRF (Jackson,
1989) and JPI-R (Jackson, 1994) were administered:
Achievement (PRF), Endurance (PRF), Organization (JPI-
R) and Cognitive structure (PRF). Original scales included
20 items (JPI-R) or 16 items (PRF), but, because of time
constraints, we could administer scales that were only eight
items long. To select items, we retained an equal number of
positively- and negatively-keyed items. We also retained
items that were context-relevant, such as those that refer to
work styles and behaviour at work. Ratings were provided on
a typical five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Personality: Broad traits
Participants completed a version of Goldbergs (1999)
International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) measure of the Big
Five personality factors, as described in Johnson (2001; see
also Hastings and ONeill, 2009). The measure includes 24
items for each of the Big Five and uses the usual five-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very
accurate). The content measured is intended to reflect the
same content as is found in the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae,
1992), and, supportively, high convergent correlations have
been reported (see Goldberg, 1999; Johnson, 2001).

Team performance
Team performance consisted of a composite of ratings on
several key dimensions associated with the design project.
These included Problem Definition, Design Methodology,
Engineering Validation (i.e. appropriate application of
engineering design principles), Design Documentation,
and Technical Writing. Team performance ratings were
provided by experienced course administrators. Because
administrators did not rate the same teams, interrater
reliability could not be assessed. Thus, we adopted
procedures typically used in similar situations (e.g. Wage-

man & Gordon, 2005). Specifically, to control for the
possibility that raters used different performance distri-
butions (i.e. mean and variance of distributions), we
standardized the composite performance scores within rater.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 25: 3142 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/per

Personality and team performance 35


Cronbachs as were calculated on the full sample of
individual participants. Reliabilities for the narrow traits
ranged from .65 to .74, whereas for the Big Five they fell
between .81 and .88. Intercorrelations of team-level
personality operationalizations are displayed in Table 2.
That table shows that, whereas within-trait operationaliza-
tions tend to be correlated and are somewhat interdependent,
these correlations are not sufficiently large to suggest
completely overlapping constructs (see also Barrick et al.,
1998). Table 3 presents the mean and variance for each team-

level personality operationalization, as well as the zero-order
correlations among team-level personality and team per-
formance. Table 3 also identifies the trait operationalizations

Table 2. Team-level personality correlation matrix

that were expected to show the strongest team personality-
performance relations for each trait (see underlined values)
and the strongest observed correlations (see boldfaced

Criterion validity of conscientiousness and selected
conscientiousness facets

The criterion validity of the Conscientiousness scale was
generally supported across operationalizations (see Table 3).
The mean was the strongest predictor of team performance,
r .27, followed by the maximum, r .21, and the
minimum, r .19. In contrast to findings in Bells (2007)
meta-analysis, the variance was not predictive of team
performance in this study.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Mean
2. Variance .06
3. Minimum .76 .57
4. Maximum .71 .56 .30
Cognitive Structure
5. Mean .44 .03 .27 .27
6. Variance .11 .19 .20 .04 .08
7. Minimum .34 .14 .32 .14 .67 .73
8. Maximum .25 .11 .07 .26 .68 .56 .11
9. Mean .44 .12 .35 .24 .30 .05 .14 .24
10. Variance .14 .26 .28 .06 .03 .12 .05 .18 .13
11. Minimum .43 .21 .44 .18 .24 .02 .16 .12 .80 .61
12. Maximum .27 .10 .08 .28 .26 .12 .07 .33 .72 .51 .34
13. Mean .33 .10 .06 .27 .32 .11 .12 .31 .42 .11 .27 .40
14. Variance .15 .24 .27 .04 .01 .08 .07 .08 .01 .47 .25 .29 .08
15. Minimum .36 .07 .32 .20 .27 .03 .17 .19 .37 .27 .46 .14 .69
16. Maximum .13 .25 .08 .24 .21 .11 .05 .27 .31 .39 .04 .51 .75
IPIP Conscientiousness
17. Mean .66 .00 .47 .49 .50 .03 .31 .34 .49 .10 .47 .37 .43
18. Variance .00 .25 .13 .17 .06 .20 .13 .13 .04 .21 .15 .08 .01
19. Minimum .48 .14 .44 .28 .35 .16 .31 .12 .40 .26 .50 .22 .29
20. Maximum .50 .18 .26 .53 .32 .06 .16 .33 .36 .04 .30 .39 .36
IPIP Extraversion
21. Mean .05 .08 .07 .03 .22 .06 .21 .12 .14 .07 .18 .07 .23
22. Variance .00 .13 .12 .06 .06 .05 .07 .01 .01 .08 .02 .12 .04
23. Minimum .04 .04 .04 .04 .18 .08 .19 .10 .12 .03 .11 .16 .15
24. Maximum .11 .15 .20 .02 .14 .03 .15 .08 .15 .14 .18 .02 .11
IPIP Agreeableness
25. Mean .16 .05 .15 .09 .11 .09 .12 .05 .25 .17 .27 .09 .18
26. Variance .06 .00 .05 .05 .01 .01 .03 .04 .01 .19 .09 .12 .03
27. Minimum .08 .05 .09 .02 .06 .09 .09 .03 .17 .24 .23 .04 .08
28. Maximum .14 .07 .13 .07 .08 .11 .12 .06 .19 .03 .12 .17 .14
IPIP Neuroticism
29. Mean .05 .07 .02 .14 .07 .09 .15 .03 .05 .07 .06 .06 .22
30. Variance .10 .05 .16 .08 .07 .07 .14 .08 .02 .15 .11 .05 .07
31. Minimum .06 .12 .15 .07 .11 .07 .19 .03 .04 .20 .15 .14 .14
32. Maximum .08 .01 .13 .11 .01 .02 .02 .05 .01 .07 .07 .00 .16
IPIP Openness
33. Mean .11 .07 .04 .14 .09 .03 .04 .08 .02 .02 .03 .06 .14
34. Variance .09 .21 .20 .06 .01 .10 .06 .13 .03 .17 .08 .13 .07
35. Minimum .01 .21 .14 .16 .05 .07 .00 .16 .03 .11 .09 .05 .05
36. Maximum .14 .08 .17 .06 .08 .02 .08 .00 .02 .13 .06 .13 .10

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 25: 3142 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/per

36 T. A. ONeill and N. J. Allen

Table 2. (Continued)

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1. Mean
2. Variance
3. Minimum
4. Maximum
Cognitive Structure
5. Mean
6. Variance
7. Minimum
8. Maximum
9. Mean
10. Variance
11. Minimum
12. Maximum
13. Mean
14. Variance
15. Minimum .59
16. Maximum .67 .16
IPIP Conscientiousness
17. Mean .05 .38 .28
18. Variance .24 .15 .15 .05
19. Minimum .24 .43 .09 .73 .61
20. Maximum .07 .25 .33 .74 .52 .31
IPIP Extraversion
21. Mean .01 .10 .13 .06 .14 .16 .03
22. Variance .08 .04 .07 .05 .00 .07 .05 .02
23. Minimum .04 .09 .02 .05 .10 .13 .01 .67 .68
24. Maximum .11 .03 .15 .03 .10 .11 .04 .71 .57
IPIP Agreeableness
25. Mean .09 .20 .05 .35 .03 .27 .28 .19 .04
26. Variance .20 .13 .13 .05 .19 .10 .14 .00 .05
27. Minimum .17 .19 .06 .20 .10 .21 .10 .13 .05
28. Maximum .14 .01 .16 .30 .13 .10 .32 .17 .01
IPIP Neuroticism
29. Mean .06 .10 .18 .25 .02 .17 .24 .50 .08
30. Variance .19 .16 .07 .20 .13 .26 .11 .12 .15
31. Minimum .21 .06 .24 .09 .07 .00 .16 .31 .09
32. Maximum .09 .17 .04 .28 .12 .32 .19 .36 .10
IPIP Openness
33. Mean .02 .09 .05 .04 .10 .04 .07 .29 .17
34. Variance .12 .01 .11 .14 .10 .14 .00 .12 .03
35. Minimum .12 .11 .05 .14 .18 .14 .09 .10 .18
36. Maximum .07 .02 .10 .07 .07 .07 .10 .25 .11

Turning to the narrow traits of Conscientiousness that
were identified a priori, all four were significantly related to
team performance using the predicted operationalization:
maximum Organization, r .30, maximum Cognitive
Structure, r .20, mean Achievement, r .27 and mean
Endurance, r .19. Further inspection of Table 3 reveals
that the mean on facets of Conscientiousness were
significantly and positively related to team performance
for each facet, thereby supporting an additive trend for all
Conscientiousness-related traits. In addition, the maximum
was significantly related to team performance for all facets of
Conscientiousness other than for Achievement, although
minimum scores on Achievement were significantly related
to team performance.

In order to investigate the criterion validity of Conscien-
tiousness versus its facets, we created a unit-weighted

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

composite of Conscientiousness by summing our Conscien-
tiousness facet scores within each operationalization (e.g.
mean). This allowed us to make a direct comparison of
predictive validities between broad and narrow Conscien-
tiousness variables. Comparing criterion validities across
scales (i.e. the JPI/PRF facets versus the IPIP Conscien-
tiousness scale) could be confounded due to varying content
domains of the measures.

Some observations regarding the validities of the
Conscientiousness composite versus its facets are warranted
(see Table 3). First, there is some evidence that the broad
Conscientiousness composite is a stronger predictor of team
performance than are any of its narrow trait constituents. The
mean operationalization of the Conscientiousness composite
was its most predictive operationalization, r .31, which
exceeded the prediction of all facet-level mean operation-

Eur. J. Pers. 25: 3142 (2011)
DOI: 10.1002/per

Table 2. (Continued)

Personality and team performance 37

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

1. Mean
2. Variance
3. Minimum
4. Maximum
Cognitive Structure
5. Mean
6. Variance
7. Minimum
8. Maximum
9. Mean
10. Variance
11. Minimum
12. Maximum
13. Mean
14. Variance
15. Minimum
16. Maximum
IPIP Conscientiousness
17. Mean
18. Variance
19. Minimum
20. Maximum
IPIP Extraversion
21. Mean
22. Variance
23. Minimum
24. Maximum .16
IPIP Agreeableness
25. Mean .03 .08
26. Variance .07 .06 .22
27. Minimum .01 .01 .77 .74
28. Maximum .06 .13 .69 .46 .23
IPIP Neuroticism
29. Mean .36 .32 .31 .03 .20 .26
30. Variance .23 .01 .15 .26 .26 .04 .21
31. Minimum .08 .30 .19 .12 .03 .28 .70 .45
32. Maximum .33 .20 .30 .22 .33 .12 .73 .77 .18
IPIP Openness
33. Mean .03 .29 .25 .00 .14 .21 .19 .09 .26 .09
34. Variance .09 .10 .01 .13 .06 .11 .09 .09 .21 .02 .13



Please reply to this post with your idea in
150 words! Be nice! You can say I agree with you! blah blah blah etc.

Holy Trinity

The debacle over whether something was considered art during the time it was created can be summed up in one question: What is the pieces purpose? In order to decide if a piece would be considered art by an audience in Florence during the Renaissance era, one needs to consider why the piece was made. Although in our eyes, the religious paintings and sculptures made during the time period would be deemed a work of art, in the eyes of a Florentine person they may be considered devotional pieces. Many of the works created during that time period served a purpose other than to be displayed as artwork.
Take for example the work of Massacio, in his painting The
Holy Trinity created in 1428
. The painting is a depiction of the crucifixion of Christ within the Santa Maria Novella church in Florence. Massacio painted the fresco including God standing behind Christ, the Virgin Mary and Saint John, and a man and a woman praying at the feet of Christ. The man and the woman are donors, or portraits of those who commissioned Massacio to paint this piece.

Today, this is a piece which we would call art. However, in the eyes of a Renaissance audience it would not be considered such. One of the most notable reasons being that the
Holy Trinity was created to be a devotional piece, which audiences would go and pray to. The fresco depicts holy Christian figures, and showcases pure displays of devotion by the two donors.

This commission would allow them to proclaim their status as affluent people. The
Holy Trinity would have granted Massacio to invoke his place as a successful artist. Additionally, in Renaissance Florence, people with money faced pressure by society to contribute their wealth towards the community. Religion was a very communal topic. Thus, the patrons commissioning Massacio to paint the
Holy Trinity would have been their contribution to the society of Florence.

This is evident within Massacios painting itself as he employs a fictive element. Many of the devotional figures he painted are a result of his mystical vision. The only subjects within the
Holy Trinity that would have been present were the couple in prayer. To the Florentine audience, the mystical vision would have been easily recognized for catholicism was a very present theme in their lives. These fictive elements were included with the intention of being understood by the Florentine people.

When asking what the purpose of the
Holy Trinity is, we know that it was created as a devotional piece for the Catholic people in Florence during the Renaissance era. Massacio created the painting employing fictive components that could easily be distinguished to the eye of the public. To our eyes, we see the
Holy Trinity and deem it as a work of art, however to the people of Renaissance Florence, it served to respond to the religious devotion of the popolo.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Related Post

Open chat
💬 Need help?
Hello 👋
Can we help you?