Identifying with the Work Team: Implications for Task and Contextual Performance Michael D. Johnson Frederick P. Morgeson Remus Ilies Michigan State University.

Identifying with the Work Team:Implications for Task and Contextual Performance

Michael D. JohnsonFrederick P. Morgeson

Remus Ilies

Michigan State University

2

Social Identities in Organizations

Multiple targets of identification (Johnson et al., 2006)– Teams are most proximal– Identities are apt to be subunit-specific

(Ashforth & Mael, 1989) Changes in identification over time Relationship of identification and

performance Individual difference antecedents (Johnson

& Morgeson, 2005)

3

Individual Differences & Identification

Extraversion– Related to group process (Barrick, 1998; Barry &

Stewart, 1997)– Preference for being in groups (Costa & McCrae,

1992)

H1: Extraversion is positively related to team identification

4

Individual Differences & Identification

Agreeableness– Altruistic, unselfish, sympathetic, eager to

help others (Costa & McCrae, 1992)– “...the fundamental trait associated with the

intention to strive for communion with others” (Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002)

H2: Agreeableness is positively related to team identification

5

Team Identification and Performance

Contextual performance– Identification leads to “intragroup cohesion,

cooperation, and altruism” (Ashforth & Mael, 1989)

– Empirical association between OID and OCB (Bartel, 2001; Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Christ et al., 2003)

H5: Team identification is associated with higher contextual performance both between- and within-persons

6

Team Identification and Performance

Task performance– Causes people to act in ways that are

consistent with and support the organization (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991)

– Social loafing is reduced when people identify with the group (Hogg et al., 2004)

H6: Team identification is associated with higher task performance both between- and within-persons

7

Method

Participants– 266 undergraduates in 4-5 member teams

with MBA team leader

– Weeks 1-4: Assessment, selection and recruitment

– Week 5: Team member selection– Weeks 6-14: Training, development, and

performance– Week 15: Disbandment

8

Method

Measures– Team members

» Personality: NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992)» Cognitive ability: Wonderlic Personnel Test

(Wonderlic, 1992)» Team identification: Cognitive and affective

identification (Johnson & Morgeson, 2005)

– Team leaders» Task performance (Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993)» Contextual performance (Van Scotter & Motowidlo,

1996)

9

Method

Individual Differences

TeamIdentification

only

Team identification

Task andcontextual

performance

Assessment, selection,

recruitmentTeams formed

Training, development, performance

Disbandment

10

Cognitive identification Affective identification Fixed effect Coefficient SE Coefficient SE For intercept1, β0

Intercept 2, γ00 3.42** .05 4.31** .03 Extraversion, γ01 .33** .11 .15* .06 Neuroticism, γ02 .17† .10 -.03 .06 Agreeableness, γ03 - .01 .11 .16* .06 Cognitive ability, γ04 .00 .01 .00 .01

For time slope, β1 Intercept 2, γ10 .18** .02 .07** .01 Extraversion, γ11 .04 .03 -.01 .03 Neuroticism, γ12 .02 .03 -.04 .03 Agreeableness, γ13 - .03 .04 -.05† .03 Cognitive ability, γ14 .00 .00 .00 .00

Results

HLM of identification scales, time, and individual differences

† p < .10 * p < .05 ** p < .01

11

Results

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Cognitive identification

Affective identification

12

Results

Between-subjects regression of performance on identification scales

* p < .05** p < .01

Task performance Contextual performance β β Cognitive identification .01 .05 Affective identification .19* .24** F 5.18* 10.41** R2 .04 .08

13

Task performance

Contextual performance

Fixed effect Coefficient SE Coefficient SE For intercept1, β0

Intercept 2, γ00 4.10** .04 4.09** .03 Extraversion, γ01 .25** .08 .24** .07 Cognitive ability, γ04 .02* .01 .00 .01

For time slope, β1 Intercept 2, γ10 .01 .02 .05** .02 Agreeableness, γ13 - .11* .05 .03 .03

For cognitive identification slope, β2

Intercept 2, γ20 .14** .04 .06* .03 For affective identification slope, β3

Intercept 2, γ30 - .09 .06 .00 .04

Results

Within-subjects HLM of performance, identification scales, time, and individual differences

† p < .10 * p < .05 ** p < .01

14

Discussion

Theoretical implications– People vary in their

propensity to identify with work teams

– Team identification increases over time

– Identification with the team is important for both task and contextual performance

15

Discussion

Practical implications– Selecting for work

teams (Morgeson, Reider, & Campion, 2005)

– Fostering team identification

Future research– Leader effects– Person-situation

interactions– Multiple targets over

time– “Finishing” processes

(Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005)