Development of a Conditional Reasoning Measure of Team Orientation

O’Shea, Patrick Gavan; Driskell, James E.; Goodwin, Gerald F.; Zbylut, Michelle L.; Weiss, Stéphanie

doi:10.21236/ada427947

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 122 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, it is important to note that Stevens and Campion (1999) found their measure of teamwork KSAs to be highly correlated with g, suggesting that more intelligent respondents may fake their responses. In fact, O'Shea, Driskell, Goodwin, Zbylut, and Weiss (2004) developed a conditional reasoning measure of team orientation to address issues of social desirability and faking. In sum, questions of social desirability bias and fakeability are empirical questions that should be addressed in subsequent research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective Orientation and Team Performance: Development of an Individual Differences Measure

2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collective Orientation and Team Performance: Development of an Individual Differences Measure

2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Teams whose members possess a shared commitment to the KSAs presented in Table 1 have been shown to out perform teams whose members do not possess these attributes (Smith‐Jentsch et al 1996; Leonard and Tarrant 2001; Salas et al 2001; O'Shea et al 2003). One important fact to note about these KSAs is that they are all individual as opposed to team‐level competencies.…”

Section: Teams Teamwork and Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mutual trust (Bandow 2001;Webber 2002) The shared belief that team members will perform their roles and protect the interests of their teammates Information sharing Willingness to admit mistakes and accept feedback Salas et al 2001;O'Shea et al 2003). One important fact to note about these KSAs is that they are all individual as opposed to team-level competencies.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Effective Teamsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teamwork as an Essential Component of High‐Reliability Organizations

Baker

Day

Salas

2006

Health Services Research

686

487

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizations are increasingly becoming dynamic and unstable. This evolution has given rise to greater reliance on teams and increased complexity in terms of team composition, skills required, and degree of risk involved. Highreliability organizations (HROs) are those that exist in such hazardous environments where the consequences of errors are high, but the occurrence of error is extremely low. In this article, we argue that teamwork is an essential component of achieving high reliability particularly in health care organizations. We describe the fundamental characteristics of teams, review strategies in team training, demonstrate the criticality of teamwork in HROs and finally, identify specific challenges the health care community must address to improve teamwork and enhance reliability.Key Words. High-reliability organization, teams, teamwork, health care, patient safety, training A healthy 38-year-old woman was admitted to a major medical center to deliver her first child. Although she was a low-risk patient with only mildly elevated blood pressure, her admission ended tragically when she underwent an emergency cesarean after a failed forceps delivery. Once inside the abdominal cavity, the uterus was found to have ruptured, and the placenta was in the abdomen. She delivered a stillborn fetus. After an unsuccessful attempt to repair her uterus, she received a full hysterectomy, underwent blood transfusions, and endured endless complications resulting in a 3-week hospital stay, including 18 days in intensive care. What went wrong? According to root cause analyses, lack of teamwork played a significant role. Specifically, communication was poor; there was a lack of mutual performance cross-monitoring, inadequate conflict resolution, poor situational awareness, and work overload. A major response to the tragedy was the initiation of team training at the medical center (Sachs 2005).

show abstract

“…This instrument was developed based on the notion that cooperativeness is a multifaceted construct that consists of agreeableness, teamwork, and compassion (e.g., Chatman and Barsade, 1995;Cloninger et al, 1994;Yilmaz and Hunt, 2001). Initially, our instrument had 25 items, drawn from existing questionnaire items in the literature (Goldberg, 2006;O'Shea et al, 2004;Yilmaz and Hunt, 2001). After we pre-tested the instrument with 48 undergraduate business students, seven items were dropped due to their low intercorrelation with others, and several items were reworded to improve their clarity.…”

Section: Measurements and Statistical Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The interaction effect of relational norms and agent cooperativeness on opportunism in buyer–supplier relationships

Tangpong

Hung

2009

J of Ops Management

204

220

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we examined the effect of relational norms and agent cooperativeness on opportunism in buyer–supplier relationships. Drawing from the theoretical grounding of transaction cost economics, personality trait theory, and contingency theory, we proposed three distinct perspectives on opportunism mitigation in buyer–supplier relationships: (1) organizationalist, (2) individualist, and (3) interactionist, where relational norms, agent cooperativeness, and the interaction between them, respectively, serve as the key predictors in these three perspectives. The results of replicated experiments indicated that relational norms and agent cooperativeness interact with each other in mitigating opportunism and that the interactionist perspective yielded the highest explained variance in opportunism. This suggests that the interactionist perspective, a multi‐level theoretical lens encompassing the dynamic interplay between organization‐level and individual‐level factors, was a more complete model in explaining opportunism than either the organizationalist or individualist perspectives. The consensus which emerged from post‐experimental interviews of purchasing professionals is that agent personalities play an important role in buyer–supplier relationships. Some purchasing professionals had observed that uncooperative agents or personnel turnover in the boundary‐spanning functions can substantially undermine even established relational exchanges. These qualitative findings are in line with our theoretical arguments and experimental outcomes.

show abstract

Development of a Conditional Reasoning Measure of Team Orientation

Cited by 7 publications

References 122 publications

Collective Orientation and Team Performance: Development of an Individual Differences Measure

Collective Orientation and Team Performance: Development of an Individual Differences Measure

Teamwork as an Essential Component of High‐Reliability Organizations

The interaction effect of relational norms and agent cooperativeness on opportunism in buyer–supplier relationships

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About