aDirection: Each question must be 200-250 word count. References must be cited and included. No plagiarism

Read: Group personality composition and performance in military services by Halfhill, Nielson, Sundstrom & Weilbaecher (2005) Summarize the study in one paragraph. Then categorize it according to each of the following dimensions:

• Experimental, quasi-experimental, or non-experimental

• Descriptive, predictive, or explanatory

• Retrospective, cross-sectional, or longitudinal

Why did you categorize the article as you did? Do articles in your field of interest commonly fall into this category? Why or why not?

Q2) What are the primary factors that make it more challenging to conduct experimental studies in the field of education or leadership? Why are these significant? How do these factors affect other research design for the dissertation study? ATTACHMENT PREVIEW Download attachmentGroup Personality Composition andPerformance in Military Service TeamsTerry HalfhillDivision of Business and EconomicsPennsylvania State UniversityTjai M. NielsenSchool of BusinessGeorge Washington UniversityEric SundstromDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of TennesseeAdam WeilbaecherImpact AssociatesMaryville, TennesseeA field study of intact military teams tested hypotheses about group personality com-position on conscientiousness and agreeableness. Members of 47 intact military ser-vice teams completed questionnaires assessing individual personality traits, and theirsupervisorsratedteamperformance.Groupaverageagreeablenessandconscientious-ness correlated positively with group performance ratings, as did the group minimumscoreforbothtraits.Varianceforgroupagreeablenesscorrelatednegativelywithgroupperformance. Groups with high scores on both conscientiousness and agreeablenessreceivedhigherperformanceratingsthanallothergroupcompositions,pointingtothepossibility of synergy of complementary, collective personality traits in work teams.Results carry implications for theory, application, and future research.As work teams become more widespread in today’s organizations (Lawler,Mohrman, & Ledford, 1998), industrial–organizational psychologists seek toMILITARY PSYCHOLOGY, 2005,17(1), 41–54Copyright © 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Requests for reprints should be sent to Terry Halfhill, Division of Business and Economics, Penn-sylvania State University, 3550 Seventh Street, Upper Burrell, PA 15068. E-mail: trh12@psu.edu

View the Answeridentify the factors in their success (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Nielsen, Sundstrom,& Halfhill, in press). Empirical research on work team effectiveness, which en-compasses both performance and viability (Sundstrom, 1999), has identified keypredictors, including group personality composition (Sundstrom, McIntyre,Halfhill, & Richards, 2000). To date, however, evidence concerning predictors ofeffectiveness has generally involved just one or two types of teams, leaving openthe question of whether certain predictors apply in other types of teams and,eventually, whether some predictors apply across all types of teams.In this study we examine group personality composition variables as predictorsof effectiveness in military service teams. Military service teams, like other typesof work teams, consist of interdependent collections of individuals who share re-sponsibility for specific outcomes for their organizations (Sundstrom, DeMeuse,& Futrell, 1990) and, like many other kinds of military teams, may incorporatespecialized, complementary roles for individual members (LePine, Hollenbeck,Ilgen, & Hedlund, 1997). Group personality composition refers to the mix ofgroup members’ individual traits, as reflected in group-level indexes such as aver-age, minimum, maximum, or variance on such traits as individual agreeableness orconscientiousness (Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998).RESEARCH ON PERSONALITY COMPOSITIONAND WORK GROUP EFFECTIVENESSEarly research found no consistent link between group personality compositionand group performance (Heslin, 1964; Mann, 1959). Evidence of a connection re-mained sparse through the 1980s (Driskell, Hogan, & Salas, 1988; Moreland &Levine, 1992), when relevant empirical research benefited from four advances.First, the Big Five model (Costa & McCrae, 1988; Digman, 1990; McCrae &Costa, 1988) brought consistency to the conceptualization and measurement ofpersonality. Second, research on the Big Five traits linked personality with individ-ual performance (Hough, 1992). Third, researchers clarified the requirements forgroup-level analysis and adopted conventions for aggregating individual data intogroup indexes (Moritz & Watson, 1998), relying onrwg(James, Demaree, & Wolf,1984) and/or ICC (e.g., Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993). Fourth, researchersdistinguished group-level indexes of members’personality mix, reflecting the col-lectivelevelof a trait, such as the group average or minimum, and the collectivedi-versityon a trait, such as the group variance or range (e.g., Barrick et al., 1998).Research on work team effectiveness and personality composition in the1990s found promising links involving several of the Big Five personality traits,especially the two on which this research focuses: conscientiousness and agree-ableness.42HALFHILL, NIELSEN, SUNDSTROM, WEILBAECHER

Show 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"