Identifying with the Work Team: Implications for Task and Contextual Performance Michael D. Johnson Frederick 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 Team Identification only Team identification Task and contextual performance Assessment, selection, recruitment Teams formed Training, development, performance Disbandment

10 Results  HLM of identification scales, time, and individual differences † p <.10* p <.05** p <.01

11 Results

12 Results  Between-subjects regression of performance on identification scales * p <.05 ** p <.01

13 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)