Suchergebnisse

An experiment compared interaction process and task performance of groups composed of members with high or low preference for procedural order, assigned to an individual or group process accountability condition. Procedural order preference did not affect the use of procedures nor did procedures affect task performance. Competing hypotheses on the effects of process accountability were tested: One set of hypotheses was based on higher motivation among high order preference groups because accountability amplifies their natural work predispositions; the other set was based on higher motivation among low order preference groups because accountability induces cognitive dissonance in them. Results supported the amplifying hypotheses. High order preference groups exchanged more information, perceived their discussions as more orderly, and produced more feasible task solutions. Compared with group process accountability, individual accountability led to less information exchange in both high and low order preference groups, but low order preference groups under individual accountability produced the least feasible task solutions of all groups. Implications for the match between individual work habit preferences and task context demands are discussed.

This review illuminated the need for interdisciplinary integration of research on personality and groups. Network analysis of references cited in 13 previous reviews showed that this literature is fragmented; the disciplinary base has narrowed over time; is dominated by psychology, organization studies, and small group studies; and is poorly integrated with other relevant disciplines. Research from an additional seven disciplines is reviewed. Insights from the review help to identify new research directions, based on reconsidering assumptions about the temporal nature and direction of personality causality and the locus of group interaction. Implications for research practices are discussed.