Designing in Teams

Abstract

Twenty-six multidisciplinary student design teams ( n = 128) each built a robot that had to perform a specific task in a design contest. For these teams, an input—process—output framework of team member personality (input), generic and specific design behaviors (process), and contest result and supervisor and team member ratings of the design (output) was researched using correlations. Agreeableness and conscientiousness were positively related to generic design behaviors in both the concept and elaboration phase of the design process. Generic design behaviors were positively related to contest result and team member ratings of the design's technical realization. The conclusions hold implications for design research (multiple process and outcome measures are needed) and practice (attention for personality differences in teams and particular design behaviors in specific design phases foster design outcomes).

Reviewing Work Team Design Characteristics Across Industries: Combining Meta-Analysis and Comprehensive Synthesis

“…Examinations of team personality thus continue to provide important understanding of team composition. Although the variance approach was not supported by the results of the current meta-analysis, it seems warranted to continue to examine overall level and variability within personality traits across members as important determinants of team success (Gonzalez-Mulé, DeGeest, McCormick, Seong, & Brown, 2014;Peeters, Rutte, van Tuijl, & Reymen, 2008). Given that a single team member can seemingly impact an entire team, future research should continue along these trends while also continuing investigations into differences in the minimum and maximum of personality traits across members (e.g., Halfhill, Nielsen, & Sundstrom, 2008)-defined as the highest or lowest scoring individual team memberand how these differences impact social and team-based outcomes.…”

Team Players and Collective Performance

“…It is also thought that teams composed of more agreeable people should exhibit more effective social functioning within the group (Neuman et al, 1999). Peeters, Rutte, van Tuijl, and Reymen (2008) found that design processes (i.e., creation, planning, and cooperation) mediated the impact of agreeableness and conscientiousness on team performance for robotics design teams, but such findings are quite limited. Yet, despite these deficiencies in the research, agreeableness has also been linked to several other team dynamics.…”

The Big Five and Collaborative Problem Solving: A Narrative Systematic Review

“…In contrast, all studies where mean Conscientiousness was positively related to team performance were performed with long-term (multi-week) assignments or existing teams, whose tasks regularly required some written reports. Peeters et al, 2008). Third, findings of statistically significant correlations between Emotional Stability and Agreeableness, on the one hand, and different indices of team performance, on the other hand, seem to be more of an exception than a rule.…”

“…The largest number of studies observing personality traits at the group-level were examining their effects on team performance. A general conclusion that can be drawn from these studies is that a high concentration of conscientious individuals is indeed an asset in CPS (e.g., Luksyte et al, 2022;Mohammed & Angell, 2004;O'Neill & Allen, 2011;Peeters et al, 2008;Schippers et al, 2003). Not surprisingly, the benefits of having a highly conscientious team are particularly palpable in long-term CPS and when the task is such that it requires orderliness, perseverance, and thoroughness on the part of all team members (as in complex written reports or design solutions).…”