The Knowledge, Skill, and Ability Requirements for Teamwork Stevens and Campion (1994)

The Knowledge, Skill, and AbilityRequirements for Teamwork

Stevens and Campion (1994)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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• N=70 e N=72

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

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.

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

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

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.

Teamwork KSA Test

• Incremental Validity– H4: The Teamwork Test should have incremental

criterion-related validity beyond the employment aptitude tests.

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

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

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).

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).

Study One

• ResultsH3a: 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 < .10 (t = 1.62, df= 67, one-tailed), thus providing marginal support for Hypothesis 3a.

Study One

• ResultsH3b: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Test

Anita C. McClough and Steven G. Rogelberg

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 (N=227)

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.

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.

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).

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.

Results

• Team members (n=170)

– 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.

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).

The Knowledge, Skill, and Ability Requirements for Teamwork Stevens and Campion (1994)

Documents

Transcript of The Knowledge, Skill, and Ability Requirements for Teamwork Stevens and Campion (1994)