Identifying the structure of within‐team variance in ratings of team constructs

• Published in: Personnel psychology Vol. 77; no. 3; pp. 1129 - 1157
• Main Authors: Schmidt, Joseph A., Dunlop, Patrick D., O'Neill, Thomas A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Durham Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.09.2024
• Subjects: Individual Differences; judgment; Literature Reviews; perceiver effects; rating tendencies; Teams
• DOI: 10.1111/peps.12609
• ISSN: 0031-5826

Researchers frequently assume some degree of consensus among team members' perceptions when aggregating individual survey responses to the team level. Literature reviews have routinely found, however, substantial within‐team variance in referent‐shift consensus measures of team constructs and that team member agreement is often lower than desired. To enhance our understanding of the structure of within‐team variance, using a sample of 20,183 individuals in 4,313 teams, we explored the proportion of variance attributable to different sources (response acquiescence, positivity bias, and rater variance specific to each construct) for five team constructs. We also examined the extent to which within‐team variance changed over time with a subsample of 3,720 individuals in 731 teams. The results indicated that constructs thought to be more observable, including role clarity and monitoring goal progress, appeared to be less prone to idiosyncratic perceiver effects and that the processes were widely experienced by all team members. Conversely, relationship conflict showed higher levels of within‐team variance and team consensus actually decreased over time. These findings indicate that perceptions of relationship conflict are influenced by the individual differences of team members and that conflict may be restricted to dyads or subgroups within teams. Overall, the findings indicate that stable perceiver effects and processes that are limited to a small proportion of team members may have a stronger influence on ratings of some team constructs than previously thought. We conclude with suggestions for theory development, team construct measurement, and advice to understand processes that lead to consensus in perceptions of team constructs.