The Knowledge, Skill, and Ability Requirements for Teamwork

1
The Knowledge, Skill, and AbilityRequirements
for Teamwork

• Stevens and Campion (1994)

2
knowledge, skill, and ability (KSA)

• The focus is on
• (1) KSAs rather than personality traits
• the history of success has been much greater with
  ability-based selection strategies.
• KSAs emphasizes attributes which management can
  influence.
• (2) team rather than technical KSAs and
• social and interpersonal requirements.
• (3) the individual rather than team level of
  analysis
• it often synthesizes the literature and infers
  the individual-level KSAs from the group- and
  organizational-level theories and findings.

3
Focus on the individual in the team.

• the framework included only those attributes
  which are at the individual team member level of
  analysis, as opposed to the group or
  organizational levels.
• That is, the focus was on how to hire individuals
  for teams and not, for example, on how best to
  configure some optimal combination of members for
  a team.

4
(No Transcript)
5
Interpersonal KSAs

• According to Dyer (1984) we have very little
  systematic knowledge about which interpersonal
  skills are most desirable.
• A goal of this study is to specify this domain of
  interpersonal team member capabilities in a way
  that will allow for pragmatic and meaningful
  operationalizations.

6
Interpersonal KSAs

• Conflict Resolution KSAs
• R1. The KSA to recognize and encourage desirable,
  but discourage undesirable, team conflict.
• conflict can have negative or positive effects,
  depending upon its nature and amount, and how it
  is addressed
• Conflict is unproductive when disagreements reach
  an impasse and incapacitate a team,
• but constructive conflict allows teams to
  identify problems, develop solutions
• The objective should be to manage conflict to
  achieve optimal team performance.

7
Interpersonal KSAs

• Conflict Resolution KSAs
• R2. The KSA to recognize the type and source of
  conflict confronting the team and to implement an
  appropriate conflict resolution strategy.
• Conflict can take many forms or emanate from many
  sources, including
• simple misunderstandings or miscommunications,
• structural or situational constraints,
• incompatible performance goals or rewards,
• requirements for joint decision making,
• differences in values, orientations, and
  objectives,
• or even such seemingly innocuous elements as
  physical design of a work area.

8
(No Transcript)
9
Interpersonal KSAs

• Collaborative Problem Solving KSAs
• R4. The KSA to identify situations requiring
  participative group problem solving and to
  utilize the proper degree and type of
  participation.
• Participation by all team members in every
  decision may not always be wise.
• The degree of participation should vary as a
  function of the characteristics of the decision,
  importance of team acceptance, simplicity of the
  decision, availability of information, and
  capability of the members

10
Interpersonal KSAs

• Collaborative Problem Solving KSAs
• R5. The KSA to recognize the obstacles to
  collaborative group problem solving and to
  implement appropriate corrective actions.
• problems of groupthink and conformity.
• Many techniques have been developed for avoiding
  obstacles to group problem solving.
• They usually involve restricting interactions so
  as to limit negative team influences while
  maximizing positive ones.

11
KSA Test

• were used to develop a paper-and-pencil test of
  teamwork situations.
• Standard test construction techniques
• 35 multiple-choice items on hypothetical teamwork
  situations.
• Two validation studies
• N70 e N72

12
(No Transcript)
13
Situational questions

• Were used for three reasons
• high validity in other selection instruments,
  especially structured interviews
• when written in terms of job situations, such
  questions can have high face validity.
• And third, there is some evidence from the
  research on tacit intelligence that such
  questions may allow for the measurement of
  attributes independent of general mental ability

14
Teamwork KSA Test

• Convergent Validity
• H1 The Teamwork Test should correlate positively
  with traditional employment aptitude tests.
• May have a large mental ability component because
  it is a knowledge test and uses a
  paper-and-pencil format.

15
Teamwork KSA Test

• Criterion-Related Validity
• H2 The Teamwork Test should correlate positively
  with measures of individual team member
  performance.
• Consistent with the individual level focus

16
Teamwork KSA Test

• Criterion-Related Validity
• H3a The correlation between the teamwork
  performance ratings and the Teamwork Test should
  be greater than the correlation between the
  teamwork performance ratings and the employment
  aptitude tests.
• - the aptitude tests should be more highly
  correlated with taskwork performance

17
Teamwork KSA Test

• Criterion-Related Validity
• H3b The correlation between the taskwork
  performance ratings and the employment aptitude
  tests should be greater than the correlation
  between the taskwork performance ratings and the
  Teamwork Test.

18
Teamwork KSA Test

• Incremental Validity
• H4 The Teamwork Test should have incremental
  criterion-related validity beyond the employment
  aptitude tests.

19
Study One

• pulp mill company
• All subjects (n 70) were current employees
  applying for the new jobs.
• Employment Aptitude Tests 9
• Three measured verbal ability
• Three measured quantitative ability
• Two measured perceptual ability
• The final test measured mechanical ability

20
Study One

• An overall aptitude test composite score was
  calculated by converting the nine individual test
  scores to z-scores and then averaging.
• Five items were created for the study
• three reflected teamwork performance
  (self-management, team contribution, and
  communication)
• two reflected taskwork performance (technical
  knowledge and learning orientation).
• An overall performance measure was also obtained
  by combining all items

21
Study One

• Five supervisors provided ratings on all
  employees, with each supervisor rating 30
  employees on average.
• To enhance reliability, ratings were provided by
  multiple independent supervisors.
• Items were defined by a brief explanation and
  coupled with a 5-point scale
• ranging from 5--"well above average" (top 20 of
  employees) to 1--"well below average" (bottom 20
  of employees).

22
Study One

• Results
• H1 The Teamwork Test should correlate positively
  with traditional employment aptitude tests.
• H1 Supported
• H2 The Teamwork Test should correlate positively
  with measures of individual team member
  performance.
• Teamwork Test correlates with ratings of teamwork
  performance (r .44), taskwork performance (r
  .56), and overall performance (r .52).

23
Study One

• Results
• H3a The correlation between the teamwork
  performance ratings and the Teamwork Test should
  be greater than the correlation between the
  teamwork performance ratings and the employment
  aptitude tests.
• As predicted, the correlation between teamwork
  performance and the Teamwork Test is larger than
  the correlation between teamwork performance and
  the employment aptitude tests (r .44 versus
  .33), but this difference is only significant atp
  lt .10 (t 1.62, df 67, one-tailed), thus
  providing marginal support for Hypothesis 3a.

24
Study One

• Results
• H3b The correlation between the taskwork
  performance ratings and the employment aptitude
  tests should be greater than the correlation
  between the taskwork performance ratings and the
  Teamwork Test.
• the correlation between taskwork performance and
  the aptitude test composite is not significantly
  larger than the correlation between taskwork
  performance and the Teamwork Test (r .60 versus
  .54 t 0.67, df 67, ns), thus not supporting
  Hypothesis 3b.

25
Study One

• Results
• H4 The Teamwork Test should have incremental
  criterion-related validity beyond the employment
  aptitude tests.
• There is a significant increase in explained
  variance by the Teamwork Test beyond the aptitude
  test composite for both teamwork laerformance
  (incremental R .08) and overall job performance
  (incremental R2 .06), but not for taskwork
  performance (incremental R 2 .01). Thus,
  Hypothesis 4 is largely supported.

26
Study Two

• two northeastern cardboard box plants
• Unlike Study 1, participation was voluntary and
  not linked to any work-related outcomes
• n 72 subjects
• Employment Aptitude Tests
• only two of the nine employment aptitude tests
  from Study 1 were used vocabulary and math
  problem solving.

27
Study Two

• The measure was a slightly expanded version of
  the ratings used in Study 1.
• The supervisor teamwork rating included five
  items (resolving conflicts, collaborative
  behaviors, interpersonal communication, goal
  setting and performance management, and
  coordinating and planning).
• The supervisor taskwork rating included three
  items (technical knowledge depth, technical
  knowledge breadth, and learning orientation).
• A supervisor overall rating was also obtained by
  combining all items.

28
Study Two

• Peer nominations were used rather than peer
  ratings
• It asked the nominator to identify the top
  one-third preferred peers in each of three
  categories
• (1) "For promoting good working relationships"
  (2) "For helping take charge and staying
  focused" and (3) "For technical expertise and
  know-how."
• These categories were chosen to reflect the
  interpersonal, self-management, and task
  performance dimensions, respectively
• A peer overall nomination was obtained by
  averaging all three categories.

29
Study Two

• Results
• H1 supported
• H2 partially supported
• Teamwork Test does not show criterion-related
  validity for peer nominations of taskwork
  performance nor for any of the self ratings

30
Study Two

• Results
• H3a not supported
• the correlations between teamwork performance
  and the Teamwork Test are not significantly
  greater than the correlations between teamwork
  performance and the employment aptitude tests.
• H3b partially supported
• The correlation between taskwork performance and
  the aptitude test composite is significantly
  greater than the correlation between taskwork
  performance and the Teamwork Test for both the
  supervisory ratings and for the self-ratings

31
Study Two

• Results
• H4 not supported
• Teamwork Test did not show significant
  incremental validity beyond the aptitude test
  composite for any of the criterion measures (for
  the teamwork criterion, supervisory ratingand for
  the peer nomination).
• Conversely, the aptitude test composite did show
  incremental validity beyond the Teamwork Test for
  the taskwork criterion measure for both the
  supervisory Ratings and self ratings

32
Selection in Teams An Exploration of
theTeamwork Knowledge, Skills, and Ability Test

• Anita C. McClough and Steven G. Rogelberg

33
Teamwork KSA Test

• The teamwork KSA test was designed to predict
  individual behavior within teams.
• we examined this test's relationship with both
  the behavior of the assigned leader in a team and
  the behavior of the other team members,
  respectively.
• 57 ad hoc student teams (N227)

34
Teamwork KSA Test

• The teamwork KSA test was designed to predict
  individual behavior within teams.
• we examined this test's relationship with both
  the behavior of the assigned leader in a team and
  the behavior of the other team members,
  respectively.
• 57 ad hoc student teams (N227)

35
Hyphotesis

• Hypothesis 1 The teamwork KSA test will
  correlate positively with a measure of observable
  teamwork behaviors as rated by independent raters
  such that high scores on the teamwork KSA test
  are related to greater individual effectiveness
  within a team.
• In the original study individual behavior within
  teams was assessed via global supervisor and peer
  ratings of teamwork in general.

36
Hyphotesis

• Hypothesis 1 The teamwork KSA test will
  correlate positively with a measure of observable
  teamwork behaviors as rated by independent raters
  such that high scores on the teamwork KSA test
  are related to greater individual effectiveness
  within a team.
• In the original study individual behavior within
  teams was assessed via global supervisor and peer
  ratings of teamwork in general.

37
Teamwork Self-Efficacy

• Potential moderators of the relationship between
  teamwork knowledge and teamwork behavior.
• Self-efficacy is na individual's belief that he
  or she will successfully perform the behaviors
  required for a specific task
• When an individual is confident in his or her
  ability to work in teams (high self-efficacy for
  teamwork), then he or she may be more willing to
  assert teamwork knowledge, skills and abilities.

38
Teamwork Self-Efficacy

• Potential moderators of the relationship between
  teamwork knowledge and teamwork behavior.
• Self-efficacy is na individual's belief that he
  or she will successfully perform the behaviors
  required for a specific task
• When an individual is confident in his or her
  ability to work in teams (high self-efficacy for
  teamwork), then he or she may be more willing to
  assert teamwork knowledge, skills and abilities.

39
Measures

• Teamwork Self-Efficacy
• A revised version of the Personal Efficacy
  Beliefs Scale (PEBS)
• Individual teamwork performance-independent
  evaluation.
• Individual Performance in Teams Scale (IPIT)
• Individual teamwork performance-peer ratings.
• five dimensions (e.g., participation in the
  group, interpersonal skills).

40
Procedure

• Participants individually completed the teamwork
  KSA instrument, the self-efficacy for teamwork
  scale, and a demographic questionnaire during a
  regular class meeting time.
• leaders were chosen randomly
• A video camera recorded the participants working
• Raters watched videotapes of each team and then
  rated each team member.

41
Results

• Team members (n170)
• H1 and H2 were supported
• H3 was not supported
• suggesting that self-efficacy for teamwork does
  not moderate the relationship between teamwork
  KSA scores and IPIT.

42
Results

• Team members (n170)
• H1 and H2 were supported
• H3 was not supported
• suggesting that self-efficacy for teamwork does
  not moderate the relationship between teamwork
  KSA scores and IPIT.

43
Conclusions

• First, the teamwork KSA test was able to predict
  individual team member behavior
• Second, it appears as if the teamwork KSA test's
  effectiveness in predicting team member behavior
  is not dependent upon members teamwork
  self-efficacy.
• Third, the validity of the teamwork KSA test was
  found to generalize beyond the type of team it
  was designed for, self-directed work teams (i.e.,
  ad hoc temporary student teams).
• Finally, in addition to peer ratings, the
  validity of the teamwork KSA test was established
  using a new direct and objective' index of
  member behavior (the IPIT).