Takımlarda Kişilik: Bibliyometrik Analiz

Öz

Günümüzün rekabetçi ve hızlı değişen iş dünyasında, ekip çalışması çevik ve yenilikçi bir doğaya sahip olmak için kritik rol oynayabilmektedir. Ancak bu sonuçlara ulaşabilmek uygun takım konfigürasyonunun sağlanmasını gerektirir. Bu noktada özellikle takım üyelerinin kişiliklerinin takım dizayn edilirken dikkate alınması gerekir. Bu çalışma da bibliyometrik analiz yöntemiyle iş ve yönetim alanındaki "takımlarda kişilik" alanında yapılan bilimsel araştırmaları incelemektedir. Bu kapsamda Web of Science (WoS) veri tabanından bulunan 204 çalışmaya yönelik iş birliği ağları, atıf etkisi, odak konular gibi Araştırma alanının genel manzarasını ve gelişme trendini görmeyi sağlayan veriler ve görseller elde edilmiştir. Analizler tarihsel kısıtlamaya tabi tutulmamış ve WoS veri tabanı kapsamında 1982 – 2025 yılları arasındaki takımlarda kişilik boyutunu ele alan tüm bilimsel araştırma odaklı çalışmalar incelenmiştir. Analiz sonuçları, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri'nin bu alanda nitelik ve nicelik açısından öncü olduğunu ve Çin ve Hollanda’da kurumlarının bu konuya ciddi eğilim gösterdiği bulgulanmıştır. Ayrıca bulgular, zaman içerisinde araştırmaların odaklandığı konu ve temalarda önemli değişikler olduğunu göstermiştir- takım öğrenimi, psikolojik güvenlik ve görev otomasyonunun erken keşiflerinden yaratıcılığı, yeniliği ve genel takım performansını desteklemede kişiliğin rolünü vurgulayan araştırmalara ve ardından bireysel kişilik özelliklerinin takım dinamikleri üzerindeki rolüne. Çalışmanın bulguları, iş ve yönetim araştırmalarında takımlardaki kişiliğin artan önemini vurgulamakta ve gelecekteki araştırma yönleri için öneriler sunmaktadır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Kişilik, Takımlar, Bibliyometrik Analiz JEL Sınıflandırması: D23

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kişilik
• Takımlar
• Bibliyometrik Analiz

Personality in Teams: A Bibliometric Analysis

Öz

In today's competitive and fast-changing business world, teamwork can play a critical role in achieving agility and innovation. However, the right team configuration is required to achieve these results. In particular, the personalities of team members should be considered when designing the team. This study examines scientific research on "personality in teams" in the field of business and management through bibliometric analysis. In this context, data and visualizations were obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) database for 204 studies, such as collaboration networks, citation impact, focus topics, etc., which allow to see the general landscape and development trend of the research area. The analyses were not subject to historical restrictions, and all scientific research-oriented studies that addressed the dimension of personality in teams between 1982 and 2025 within the WoS database were analyzed. The results of the analysis showed that the United States of America is a pioneer in this field in terms of quality and quantity, and that institutions in China and the Netherlands have shown serious interest in this topic. The results also showed that there have been significant shifts in research focus and topics over time - from early explorations of team learning, psychological safety, and task automation to research emphasizing the role of personality in supporting creativity, innovation, and overall team performance, to the role of individual personality traits on team dynamics. The results of the study highlighted the growing importance of personality in teams in business and management research and provided suggestions for future research directions. Key Words: Personality, Teams, Bibliometric Analysis JEL Classification: D23

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Personlity
• Teams
• Bibliometric Analysis

Kaynakça

1. Abdullah, K. H. (2021). Mapping of marine safety publications using VOSviewer. ASM Science Journal, 16, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.32802/asmscj.2021.774
2. Açıkgöz, B. (2024). Kitle fonlaması çalışmalarının görsel haritalama tekniği ile bibliyometrik analizi. Uluslararası Ekonomi, İşletme ve Politika Dergisi, 8(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.29216/ueip.1399793
3. Allen, N. J., & Hecht, T. D. (2004). The “romance of teams”: Toward an understanding of its psychological underpinnings and implications. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(4), 439–461. https://doi.org/10.1348/0963179042596469
4. Alsharif, A. H., Salleh, N., & Baharun, R. (2017). Bibliometric analysis. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 98(15), 2948–2962.
5. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3(3), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.321
6. Arnold, J., & Silvester, J. (2005). Work psychology: Understanding human behaviour in the workplace. Pearson Education Limited.
7. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of applied psychology, 83(3), 377-391.
8. Bechtoldt, M. N., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2007). Team personality diversity, group creativity, and innovativeness in organizational teams. The Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Series. SUSDIV Paper 1. https://www.researchgate.net/...

9. Clegg, S., Kornberger, M., & Pitsis, T. (2009). Managing & organizations: An introduction to theory and practice. Sage.
10. Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol. 2. Personality measurement and testing (pp. 179–198). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200479.n9
11. Costa, A. C. (2024). Work teams. In M. Bal (Ed.), Encyclopedia of organizational psychology. Edward Elgar.
12. Costa, P., Handke, L., König, M., & Thieme, O. (2024). Team perceived virtuality: Empirical exploration of its two dimensions. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 28(2), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000123
13. Curral, L. A., Forrester, R. H., Dawson, J. F., & West, M. A. (2001). It’s what you do and the way that you do it: Team task, team size, and innovation-related group processes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320143000627
14. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.71
15. Dirik, D., Eryılmaz, İ., & Erhan, T. (2023). Post-truth kavramı üzerine yapılan çalışmaların VOSviewer ile bibliyometrik analizi. Sosyal Mucit Academic Review, 4(2), 164–188. https://doi.org/10.54733/smar.1271369
16. Driskell, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & O'Shea, P. G. (2006). What makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(4), 249–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.10.4.249
17. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
18. Dumaine, B. (1994). The trouble with teams. Fortune, 130(5), 86–92. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1994/09/05/79697/index.htm
19. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
20. Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290–309. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5
21. Funder, D. C. (2001). Accuracy in personality judgment: Research and theory concerning an obvious question. In R. Hogan (Ed.), Personality psychology in the workplace (pp. 121–140). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10434-005
22. Georganta, E., & Ulfert, A. S. (2024). Would you trust an AI team member? Team trust in human–AI teams. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 97(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12456
23. George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2005). Organizational behavior. Addison-Wesley.
24. Goodwin, G. F., Burke, C. S., Wildman, J. L., & Salas, E. (2008). Team effectiveness in complex organizations: An overview. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations (pp. 37–50). Routledge.
25. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.2307/256901
26. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Prentice-Hall.
27. Halfhill, T., Sundstrom, E., Lahner, J., Calderone, W., & Nielsen, T. M. (2005). Group personality composition and group effectiveness: An integrative review of empirical research. Small Group Research, 36(1), 83–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496404268538
28. Handke, L., Aldana, A., Costa, P. L., & O’Neill, T. A. (2024). Hybrid teamwork: What we know and where we can go from here. Small Group Research, 55(5), 805–835. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964241234567
29. Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29(6), 801–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00080-1
30. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The Core Self-Evaluations Scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 303-331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00152.x
31. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1992). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Harvard Business Press.
32. Keck, S. L. (1997). Top management team structure: Differential effects by environmental context. Organization Science, 8(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.8.2.143
33. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333–375). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei1214
34. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2014). The dark triad, the big five, and the HEXACO model. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 2-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.048
35. LePine, J. A., Buckman, B. R., Crawford, E. R., & Methot, J. R. (2011). A review of research on personality in teams: Accounting for pathways spanning levels of theory and analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 311–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.004
36. Mohammed, S., & Ashton l, L. C. (2003). Personality heterogeneity in teams: Which differences make a difference for team performance? Small Group Research, 34(6), 651–677. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403257228
37. Mutlu, M. D. (2017). The role of personality composition on team creativity and innovation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
38. Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. (1999). Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 376–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.376
39. Newell, S., Robertson, M., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2009). Managing knowledge work and innovation (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
40. Özçetin, N., & Mutlu, T. (2024). Muhasebe denetimi ve dijital dönüşüm: Bibliyometrik bir inceleme. Denetişim, 31, 198–209. https://doi.org/10.58348/denetisim.1539700
41. Peeters, M. A. G. (2006). The Big Five personality traits and individual satisfaction with the team. Small Group Research, 37(2), 187–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405285458
42. Peeters, M. A. G., Van Tuijl, H. F. J. M., Rutte, C. G., & Reymen, I. M. M. J. (2006). Personality and team performance: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 20(5), 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.588
43. Petrides, K. V. (2016). Emotional intelligence as a personality trait. In New directions in organizational psychology and behavioral medicine (pp. 157-164). Routledge.
44. Phillips, K. W., & Loyd, D. L. (2006). When surface and deep-level diversity collide: The effects on dissenting group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.12.001
45. Sapsed, J. (2002). Teamwork in knowledge work: Organising for complexity. In “Third European Conference on Organisational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities (OKLC)”. (pp. 1–15). Athens, Greece.
46. Seyhan, M., Durmuş, G., Uğurlu, Ö. Y., & Bayar, Y. (2024). İşletme tarihi üzerine bibliyometrik bir çalışma: 1991'den 2023'e Web of Science'daki yayınların incelenmesi. Hitit Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17(2), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.17218/hititsbd.1438419
47. Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069349
48. Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008
49. Van Nunen, K., Li, J., Reniers, G., & Ponnet, K. (2018). Bibliometric analysis of safety culture research. Safety Science, 108, 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.04.024
50. West, M. A. (2000). Reflexivity, revolution and innovation in work teams. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Product development teams (pp. 1–29). JAI Press.
51. West, M. A. (2002). Ideas are ten a penny: It’s team implementation not idea generation that counts. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51(3), 411–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00101
52. West, M. A., Brodbeck, F. C., & Richter, A. W. (2004). Does the 'romance of teams' exist? The effectiveness of teams in experimental and field settings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(4), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.1348/0963179042596450
53. West, M. A. (2012). Effective teamwork: Practical lessons from organizational research. Wiley-Blackwell.
54. Zhang, R., Li, A., & Gong, Y. (2021). Too much of a good thing: Examining the curvilinear relationship between team‐level proactive personality and team performance. Personnel psychology, 74(2), 295-321. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12413
55. Zheng, T., Wang, J., Wang, Q., Nie, C., Shi, Z., Wang, X., & Gao, Z. (2016). A bibliometric analysis of micro/nano-bubble related research: Current trends, present application, and future prospects. Scientometrics, 109(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2004-4
56. Zupic,I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational research methods, 18(3), 429-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281145626