Technical‐administrative task performance, leadership task performance, and contextual performance: considering the influence of team‐ and task‐related composition variables

By Susan Mohammed, John E. Mathieu, A. Bartlett. 2002

115 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management of Technology and Innovation, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c4c7adf8384078a810e36be4ecb96cfa3e21cd8b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

The use of personality measures in personnel selection: What does current research support? (2006, background): “…et al., 1999), ratings of transformational leadership (Lim & Ployhart, 2004), oral communications (Mohammed & Angell, 2003), leadership emergence (Taggar et al., 1999), task role behavior (Stewart et al., 2005), task focus (Bond & Ng, 2004), and leadership task performance (Mohammed et al., 2002).”
Personality and team performance: a meta‐analysis (2006, background): “Mohammed et al. (2002) included team experience in their study and found a negative effect of team experience on contextual performance and a considerable–though non-significant– positive effect on leadership performance.”
Consequences of unit-level organizational citizenship behaviors: A review and recommendations for future research (2014, methodology): “Examples of the explicit application of the DCM from our review include (but are not limited) to studies reported by Dunlop and Lee (2004), Menges, Walter, Vogel, and Bruch (2011), and Mohammed, Mathieu, and Bartlett (2002).”
SELECTING INDIVIDUALS IN TEAM SETTINGS: THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL SKILLS, PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS, AND TEAMWORK KNOWLEDGE (2005, background): “Others have recently extended this support to teams and jobs involving interpersonal interaction (e.g., Hough, 1992; Mohammed et al., 2002; Mount et al., 1998; Neuman & Wright, 1999; Witt, 2002; Witt et al., 2002).”
The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria (2006, methodology): “For example, Mohammed, Mathieu, and Bartlett (2002) reported that “estimates were computed using James, Demaree, and Wolf’s (1984) within-group agree- ment index (rwg) for a multiple item scale. . . . Values of 0.70 or higher are considered to be indicators of good agreement among raters (e.g.,…”
The Big Five Personality Traits and Individual Satisfaction With the Team (2006, background): “It is interesting to note that the differences in effects for specific traits generally coincide with a distinction between the so-called task-related traits (those that aid in completing the team task) and the team-related personality traits (traits that facilitate smooth team functioning) (Halfhil”