ComTal-Team Member

COMPETENCY AND TALENT PROFILE OF EMPLOYEE /Team Member – ComTal-Team Member

Michał Wiechetek, Wiesław Talik

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission under the Lifelong Learning Programme. LEONARDO DA VINCI - TRANSFER OF INNOVATION Competence and talent assessment in SMEs – comTAL Project no 2012-1-PL1-LEO05-27445

Page

This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

1

“Competence and talent assessment in SMEs – ComTal” project coordinated by Polska Fundacja Ośrodków Wspomagania Rozwoju Gospodarczego “OIC Poland” (Polish Foundation of the Opportunities Industrialization Centers “OIC Poland”) as part of Leonardo da Vinci Programme.

Table of contents 1. Theoretical competence profile of team member competence and talent ......................... 3 2. Procedure of constructing ComTal-Team Member profile ................................................... 6 2.1. Creation of the initial set of statements ......................................................................... 6 2.2. Structure of sample participating in validation ............................................................... 7 2.3. Creating scales of ComTal-Team Member tool related to the profile of competence and talent of team members.......................................................................................... 8 3. Team member competence and talent profile and description of ComTal-Team Member tool ....................................................................................................................................... 10 4. Psychometric properties of ComTal-Team Member tool related to the profile of competence and talent of team members.......................................................................... 12 4.1. Descriptive statistics for scales...................................................................................... 12 4.2. Reliability ....................................................................................................................... 13 4.3. Validity ........................................................................................................................... 14 4.4. Normalization ................................................................................................................ 22

Page

2

Literature .................................................................................................................................. 24


1. Theoretical competence profile of team member competence and talent Project teams are temporary entities that execute specialized time-constrained tasks and then disband (e.g., new product development). Action and performing teams are composed of interdependent experts who engage in complex time-constrained performance events (Kozlowski, Bell, 2003). Work teams and groups are composed of two or more individuals who:  exist to perform organizationally relevant tasks,  share one or more common goals,  interact socially,  exhibit task interdependencies (i.e., work flow, goals, outcomes),  maintain and manage boundaries (Kozlowski, Bell, 2003), and  are embedded in an organizational context that sets boundaries, constrains the team, and influences exchanges with other units in the broader entity (Alderfer, 1977; Hollenbeck et al., 1995; Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh, Salas, Cannon- Bowers, 1996; Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, Smith, 1999).

Figure 1. The notion of talent by Ulrich & Smallwood (2012)

Page

3

Competence refers to the knowledge, skills, and values required for today’s and tomorrow’s jobs. Without commitment, competence is discounted. Highly competent employees who are not committed are smart but don’t work very hard. But employees may be competent (able to do work) and committed (willing to do work), but unless they are making a real contribution (finding meaning and purpose in their work). Contribution occurs when employees feel that their personal needs are being met through their active participation in their organization. This three terms are multiplicative, not additive. Talented employees must have skills, wills, and purpose (Ulrich, Smallwood, 2012, p. 60).



Page

I. Competence is interpreted as a more or less specialized system of abilities, proficiencies or skills, which enables a person, team or organization to act and react when completing concrete and familiar as well as novel working tasks (Weinert, 2001):  Flexibility - ability to adapt and work effectively in various and changing situations and activities in a team. The ability to anticipate and respond to changing circumstances, individuals or groups (Dainty, Mei-I, Moore, 2005a, 2005b; MusiołUrbańczyk, 2010; Muzio, Fisher, Thomas, Peters, 2007).  Team working - ability to co-operate with others, directed at accomplishing the team objectives. It involves honest and open attitude connected with respect for all human values. (Muzio, Fisher, Thomas, Peters, 2007; Dainty, Mei-I, Moore, 2005b).  Leadership – is generally described as a sense of responsibility and sense of mission in a long-term perspective, assertiveness and being oriented at achieving the objectives of a team. Leaders are able to focus on development of the team, they change the system in a creative way and inspire others to undertake actions (Dinsmore, Cabanis-Brewin, 2006; Dainty, Mei-I, Moore, 2005; Skulmoski, Hartman, 2010).  Lifelong learning means the skill to acquire new qualifications constantly, self-development, the use of one’s own experience, skills to draw conclusions from mistakes (Armstrong, 2007; Millward, Asumeng, McDowall, 2010; Morden, 1997).

4

Theoretical profile of team member competences and talent

 Communication – comprises written and verbal communication, but also listening skills and proper application of all available communication tools. Moreover, it involves understanding of communication differences, identifying factors which may become a barrier for a team’s success. Communicating is essential for clear passing assignments and providing instructions for the team (Dinsmore, CabanisBrewin, 2006; Dainty, Mei-I, Moore, 2005; Skulmoski, Hartman, 2010).  Analytical thinking – refers to the need to develop understanding of a situation or problem by breaking it down into component parts, or by tracing the cause and implications of a situation in a systematic manner (Dainty, Mei-I, Moore, 2005a, 2005b).

Page

II. Commitment willing to do work without any compulsion, high level of attachment to the organization. Refers to an employee’s emotional attachment to the organization on the basis of his or her feelings of identification with and Commitment in the organization, sense of obligation and duty to stay in the organization (Meyer, Allen, 1997):  Motivation - degree to which person invest attention and effort in pursuits, energy a person expend in relation to work, individual’s degree of willingness to exert and maintain an effort towards organizational goals, knowledge of motivational techniques, (Brophy, 1998, Franco et al., 2002, Mitchel, Daniels, 2003).  Proactive - taking proactive actions to avoid problems and to enhance work results (Dainty, Mei-I, Moore, 2005a, 2005b).  Persistence - maintaining the effort and constant concentration on the aim despite difficulties and discouragement (Morden, 1997). This ability is associated with the achievement of goals - the desire for success and focusing on the objectives of the team (Muzio, Fisher, Thomas, Peters, 2007).  Self-confidence – the self-knowledge and the skill of relying on one’s own abilities, experience, knowledge and strengths; belief in one’s own abilities in the face of obstacles and new challenges.  Responsibility – anticipation and facing up consequences of behaviours, possessing personal values such as: loyalty, commitment and sincerity (Reio, Sutton, 2006; Langworthy, Turner, 2003).  Achievement (goal, results) orientation – refers to the employee's concern for working towards a standard of excellence (Dainty, Mei-I, Moore, 2005a, 2005b).

5

 Conceptual thinking – developing an understanding of a situation or problem through the identification of patterns or connections between situations that are not obviously related (Dainty, Mei-I, Moore, 2005a, 2005b).  Creativity – ability to generate ideas, problem solutions, or insights that are novel and appropriate (Runco, 2004).  Problem-solving - ability to identify key components of the problem, to collect and analyze data in order to find a solution or solutions (Muzio, Fisher, Thomas, Peters, 2007; Birkhead, Sutherland, Maxwell, 2000; Kowske, Anthony, 2007; Brill, Bishop, Walker, 2006).  Coping with stress – stress resilience in facing failure or negative life events, ability to cope with stress of social, and organizational character, knowledge of relaxation techniques (Maki, Moore, Grunberg, Greenberg, 2005; Richmond, Skitmore, 2006; Schroder, Ollis, 2012).


III. Contribution - feeling of personal needs realization in the organization, sense of mission, fulfilment and self-realization:  Satisfaction with job - the emotional feeling of an employee towards job, affective reaction to a job that results from the comparison of perceived outcomes with those that are desired. It is a psychological attachment of an employee with his job (Kardam, Rangnekar, 2012).  Meaningfulness of work - refers to the degree one's job conveys a sense of value, worthiness and purpose, amount of significance one perceive in the work (Ejere, 2010, Rosso et al., 2010).  Loyalty - the willingness to make an investment or personal sacrifice to strengthen a relationship, an attitude that resides in the mind of the individual and is an individual-level construction of perceived reciprocal obligations, protecting and supporting the team, taking care of team’s interest (Reichheld, 2001, Hart, Thompson, 2007, Musioł-Urbańczyk, 2010).  Passion - loving one’s job, experiencing personal meaning from the job (Marques, 2007, Boyatzis et al., 2002).

2. Procedure of constructing ComTal-Team Member profile This section provides a detailed description of the procedure for developing test items to assess the ComTal-Team Member profile. It includes data about generating statements and constructing the response scale. In addition, procedure for preliminary selection of test items and characteristics of the validation were described. Last item in this section is a description of factor analysis results which allowed to select the most accurate statements to measure the talent profile according to three components: Competence, Commitment and Contribution.


Page

The first stage of works over construction of the team member competence and talent profile involved development of a set of 359 statements, divided into three categories: Competences (199 statements), Commitment (102 statements), Contribution (58 statements). Items (statements) were developed in English by Polish experts. All statements were formulated straightforwardly, they contained no polysemantic or specialist terms. Six-item response scale was chosen where particular categories shall have the following meanings: 1 – Strongly disagree 2 - Disagree 3 – Slightly disagree 4 – Slightly agree 5 – Agree 6 – Strongly agree Before the start of validation, statements were assessed in terms of their comprehensiveness for potential users of the method – eight team members with good

6

2.1. Creation of the initial set of statements

command of English (two from every country: Belgium, Poland and Great Britain; and one from: the Czech Republic and Cyprus). These individuals determined to what extent each statement is clear and comprehensible to them (from 1 – totally unclear to 7 – totally clear). Based on answers given, arithmetic mean for each statement was calculated - 15 statements with the mean below 5.88 were eliminated (9 statements from the Competences category, 5 statements from Commitment and 1 from Contribution category). Another step in selecting statements for validation tests was the evaluation to what extent each of them accurately diagnoses and describes a given competence or talent. Eleven experts (psychologists, psychometrists, competence coaches) – two from Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic and United Kingdom and three experts from Poland, evaluated each statement by referring them to definitions of specific competences, aspects of talent, to what extent they are significant for measurement of a given aspect. Arbitrators could assign the following grades: 1—when statement is not necessary; 2 – when statement is useful but not essential; 3 – when statement is essential/necessary for assessing particular dimension. Based on these grades, Lawshe’s (CVR) content validity ratio (Lawshe, 1975) was calculated for each statement. In further development works on the tool, highest-accuracy statements were selected, whose CVR value was equal to or higher than 0.4. Ultimately, 246 statements were chosen, assigned to 20 aspects and divided into 3 components: Competences (134 statements), Commitment (66 statements), Contribution (46 statements).The statements were translated into national languages using collaborative and iterative translation. Then, in each country, team members evaluated comprehensiveness of statements in their native languages. While preparing the final version of the tool, translators considered their suggestions. As a result, the initial version of the tool was developed, related to the profile of competence and talent of a team member. Five language versions were prepared: English, Dutch, Polish, Czech and Greek (Cyprian).


Page

Using the initial version of the tool ComTal-Team Member, based on the profile of competence and talent of a team member, 318 individuals (females: 58%) from five European countries were questioned. The countries were represented as follows: Belgium – 71 (22.3%); United Kingdom – 64 (20.1%), Czech Republic – 62 (19.5%), Cyprus – 61 (19.2%) and Poland 60 (18.9%). An initial step in statistic analyses was evaluating reliability of responses given to particular test items (statements) by questioned members of the team. Referring to assumptions of Thurstone and Chave (1929), answers of individuals who in more than 95% of items have chosen the same mark were removed. Thus, 20 cases were eliminated, of which: nine came from Poland, six came from Cyprus, two from Belgium and two from the United Kingdom, and one from the Czech Republic. Next, Mahalanobis distance (1930) was calculated for each questioned individual; the distance determines probability of a given case belonging to a given group. This measure allows to determine whether a given observation (team member examination may be classified as an outlier, considerably departing from results of other subjects. For 246 variables, at p < 0.05, Mahalanobis distance exceeding 283.59 would indicate an outlier.

7

2.2. Structure of sample participating in validation

Mahalanobis distances in the studied group of team members ranged from 117.91 to 280.46. Thus, all studied individuals were regarded as typical, no outliers have been found. Further analyses were conducted on a sample of 298 individuals (females: 57.7%) acting as team members: 69 (23.2%) individuals from Belgium, 52 (17.4%) individuals from Cyprus, 61 (20.5%) from the Czech Republic, 54 (18.1%) from Poland and 62 (20.8%) from the United Kingdom. Specific characteristics of the studied group are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Characteristics of the studied group of team members

Sex

female male

Age (years) – average Work experience (years) – average Team work experience (years) – average Education High School Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree PhD Position in a team

Team manager Non-managerial employee

Country CY CZ

EU

BE

PL

UK

N = 173 (58.1%) N = 125 (41.9%) 36,61

N = 36 (52.2%) N = 33 (47.8%) 37.15

N = 18 (34.6%) N = 34 (65.4%) 31.81

N = 42 (68.9%) N = 19 (31.1%) 36.97

N = 35 (64.8%) N = 19 (35.2%) 35.65

N = 42 (67.7%) N = 20 (32.3%) 40.52

14,45

15.17

8.40

13.49

13.04

20.90

12,09

14.12

7.46

8.46

11.65

17.68

N = 107 (36.4%) N = 89 (30.3%) N = 95 (32.3%) N=3 (1.0%) N = 50 (17.1%) N = 242 (82.9%)

N = 25 (36.8%) N = 31 (45.6%) N = 12 (17.6%) N=0 (0%) N = 11 (16.2%) N = 57 (83.8%)

N = 10 (19.2%) N = 21 (40.4%) N = 21 (40.4%) N=0 (0%) N=7 (13.5%) N = 45 (86.5%)

N = 11 (19.0%) N = 11 (19.0%) N = 34 (58.6%) N=2 (3.4%) N = 11 (18.3%) N = 49 (81.7%)

N = 29 (53.7%) N=4 (7.4%) N = 21 (38.9%) N=0 (0%) N=6 (11.1%) N = 48 (88.9%)

N = 32 (51.6%) N = 22 (35.5%) N=7 (11.3%) N=1 (1.6%) N = 15 (25.9%) N = 43 (74.1%)

N – population

2.3. Creating scales of ComTal-Team Member tool related to the profile


Page

The first step to proper statistical analyses was evaluation of the relationship between the manner of providing answers to specific statements included in ComTal-Team Member and the social desirability variable (inclination to falsify answers). his purpose, the global result obtained from three items measuring social desirability [taken from The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne, Marlowe, 1960)] was correlated with answers to specific statements of the created tool. Arbitrarily, based on the profile of competence and talent of a team member, it was established that the threshold suggesting rejection of a given item will be rho > |0.2|. By applying this criterion to the initial body of 246 statements, two statements were eliminated, one from the Leadership scale and one from the Proactive scale. Other items were used for exploratory factor analysis using principle components method, allowing to find the hidden structure in a developed

8

of competence and talent of team members

9 Page

data set (Stanisz, 2007). Factor analyses were conducted separately for three profile components, that is for Competence, Commitment and Contribution. Due to low populations, the procedure was conducted without division into representatives of specific countries. In all three categories, the procedure was identical. First, communalities were calculated after their selection for specific items and low-value statements were eliminated. Next, exploratory factor analysis was conducted using principal components method, using Oblimin rotation with modifying delta value and forcing theoretically assumed number of factors. Due to a very high number of items included in particular dimensions, factor analyses were performed twice. First, on the expanded number of items and next on the strongest statements only (mostly in all dimensions, there were 6 items), chosen due to the volume of factor-based loads. Below, there are final results of factor analyses for specific components of ComTal-Team Member tool, based on the profile of team member competence and talent profile. According to initial assumptions, Competence component was supposed to include 10 dimensions. As a result of the factor analysis (KMO=0.92; Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: p < 0.001; Oblimin rotation; delta = -0.4;), a nine-dimension solution was obtained. The aspect of Conceptual thinking was impossible to reproduce. Statements forming this dimension in the matrix of the factor analysis, were arranged in the same aspect as Creativity and Leadership. However, factor loadings were significantly lower. Due to this fact, it was decided to reduce this aspect. In addition, the Lifelong learning aspect was divided into two sub-aspects. After thorough substance-based analysis, it was decided to select an aspect containing higher factor loadings. Ultimately, a solution made of 9 aspects were left out that accounts for 65.12% of the variance related to Competence. Loadings for items constituting individual aspects range from 0.52 to 0.84. Each aspect is measured by means of 6 items. Obligue rotation factor analysis (KMO = 0.94; Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: p < 0.001; Oblimin rotation; delta = - 0.1) was conducted on items measuring Commitment. In theory, it was assumed that this component should be made of 6 aspects. All of them were reproducible. Six-factor solution allows to account for 67.64% of the variance related to this component. Results of this statistical procedure have shown that Persistence includes two items previously located in Motivation. They are however consistent with the definition and psychological significance of this aspect. Similar situation occurred with regard to the Motivation aspect, to which one item originally assigned to Persistence was assigned as a result of the factor analysis. In this case, also the psychological significance of created aspect is acceptable. Factor loadings making up specific aspects of Commitment are satisfactory and they range from 0.40 to 0.90. Majority of aspects are composed of 6 statements. Motivation is the exception, measured by 5 statements. Obligue rotation factor analysis (KMO = 0.93; Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: p < 0.001; Oblimin rotation; delta = - 0.4) was also conducted for a talent category, namely Contribution. Initially, existence of four aspects was assumed. It proved however that one aspect, that is Satisfaction with job disintegrated. Therefore, the final factor analysis was conducted, assuming existence of three aspects accounting for 71.20% of the variance in the Contribution category. Factor loading values range from 0.64 to 0.90. Each aspect selected in this manner was measured using 6 statements. Individual factor analyses confirm theoretical validity of ComTal-Team Member tool.


3. Team member competence and talent profile and description of ComTal-Team Member tool Final version of the ComTal-Team Member tool making references to team member competence and talent profile is composed of 107 statements prepared in five language versions (English, Czech, Dutch, Greek, Polish). The tool is an electronic questionnaire. Each questioned individual is expected to evaluate each statement on six-grade scale, from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 6 (Strongly agree). The method automatically calculates the results as raw score, transforms it to the standardized scale and generates a detailed report for a questioned individual. The tool allows to measure three general components describing the team member competence and talent profile: Competence, Commitment and Contribution.


Page

Competences category (ability to work) is measured by nine aspects:  Flexibility - ability to adapt and work effectively in various and changing situations and activities in a team. The ability to anticipate and respond to changing circumstances, individuals or groups (Dainty, Mei-I, Moore, 2005a, 2005b; MusiołUrbańczyk, 2010; Muzio, Fisher, Thomas, Peters, 2007).  Team working - ability to co-operate with others, directed at accomplishing the project objectives. It involves honest and open attitude connected with respect for all human values. (Muzio, Fisher, Thomas, Peters, 2007; Dainty, Mei-I, Moore, 2005b).  Leadership – is generally described as a sense of responsibility and sense of mission in a long-term perspective, assertiveness and being oriented at achieving the objectives of a team. Leaders are able to focus on development of the team, they

10

Final profile of team member competences and talent



 



Commitment category (willingness to work) is described by six dimensions:  Motivation - degree to which person invest attention and effort in pursuits, energy a person expend in relation to work, individual’s degree of willingness to exert and maintain an effort towards organizational goals, knowledge of motivational techniques, (Brophy, 1998, Franco et al., 2002, Mitchel, Daniels, 2003).  Proactive - taking proactive actions to avoid problems and to enhance work results (Dainty, Mei-I, Moore, 2005a, 2005b).  Persistence - maintaining the effort and constant concentration on the aim despite difficulties and discouragement (Morden, 1997). This ability is associated with the achievement of goals - the desire for success and focusing on the objectives of the team (Muzio, Fisher, Thomas, Peters, 2007).  Self-confidence – the self-knowledge and the skill of relying on one’s own abilities, experience, knowledge and strengths; belief in one’s own abilities in the face of obstacles and new challenges.  Responsibility – anticipation and facing up consequences of behaviors, possessing personal values such as: loyalty, commitment and sincerity (Reio, Sutton, 2006; Langworthy, Turner, 2003).  Achievement (goal, results) orientation – refers to the employee's concern for working towards a standard of excellence (Dainty, Mei-I, Moore, 2005a, 2005b).


11



Page



change the system in a creative way and inspire others to undertake actions (Dinsmore, Cabanis-Brewin, 2006; Dainty, Mei-I, Moore, 2005; Skulmoski, Hartman, 2010). Lifelong learning means the skill to acquire new qualifications constantly, selfdevelopment, the use of one’s own experience, skills to draw conclusions from mistakes (Armstrong, 2007; Millward, Asumeng, McDowall, 2010; Morden, 1997). Communication – comprises written and verbal communication, but also listening skills and proper application of all available communication tools. Moreover, it involves understanding of communication differences, identifying factors which may become a barrier for a team’s success. Communicating is essential for clear passing assignments and providing instructions for the team (Dinsmore, Cabanis-Brewin, 2006; Dainty, Mei-I, Moore, 2005; Skulmoski, Hartman, 2010). Analytical thinking – refers to the need to develop understanding of a situation or problem by breaking it down into component parts, or by tracing the cause and implications of a situation in a systematic manner (Dainty, Mei-I, Moore, 2005a, 2005b). Creativity – ability to generate ideas, problem solutions, or insights that are novel and appropriate (Runco, 2004). Problem-solving - ability to identify key components of the problem, to collect and analyze data in order to find a solution or solutions (Muzio, Fisher, Thomas, Peters, 2007; Birkhead, Sutherland, Maxwell, 2000; Kowske, Anthony, 2007; Brill, Bishop, Walker, 2006). Coping with stress – stress resilience in facing failure or negative life events, ability to cope with stress of social, and organizational character, knowledge of relaxation techniques (Maki, Moore, Grunberg, Greenberg, 2005; Richmond, Skitmore, 2006; Schroder, Ollis, 2012).

Contribution (finding meaning and purpose of one’s job), on the other hand, is recognised using three aspects:  Meaningfulness of work - refers to the degree one's job conveys a sense of value, worthiness and purpose, amount of significance one perceive in the work (Ejere, 2010, Rosso et al., 2010).  Loyalty - the willingness to make an investment or personal sacrifice to strengthen a relationship, an attitude that resides in the mind of the individual and is an individual-level construction of perceived reciprocal obligations, protecting and supporting the team, taking care of team’s interest (Reichheld, 2001, Hart, Thompson, 2007, Musioł-Urbańczyk, 2010).  Passion - loving one’s job, experiencing personal meaning from the job (Marques, 2007, Boyatzis et al., 2002).

4. Psychometric properties of ComTal-Team Member tool related to the profile of competence and talent of team members This section contains detailed information about psychometric properties of ComTalTeam Member tool. It presents descriptive statistics for selected dimensions and reliability coefficients, data regarding tool validity and a strategy for developing sten scores and standards for the investigated groups.

4.1. Descriptive statistics for scales

Page

12

For each aspect of ComTal-Team Member tool, the number of scores (according to the six-item scale) assigned by questioned individuals to statements making up a given aspect of competence and talent were totalled. Next, descriptive statistics for specific dimensions were calculated (table 2). Two measures are significant for evaluation of the method: skewness and kurtosis. Skewness, as a measure of asymmetrical distribution, shows that scales leaning most to the right are: Self-confidence, Responsibility as well as Passion and Loyalty. Dimensions listed above are over-represented by individuals recording high scores. This however is typical for all kinds of self-descriptive methods. Kurtosis, on the other hand, as a relative measure of concentration and flattening of the distribution, confirms that in case of Responsibility, Self-confidence and Loyalty, we may speak about leptokurtic distributions, that is the highest concentration of values around the mean.


Table 2. Descriptive statistics for scales of ComTal-Team Member (total for all countries) Scales: Team working Problem-solving Coping with stress Leadership Lifelong learning Creativity Flexibility Communication Analytical thinking Persistence Self-confidence Responsibility Achievement orientation Proactive Motivation Meaningfulness of work Passion Loyalty

Mean 30.51 28.59 26.94 27.27 29.43 25.75 29.67 28.60 27.77 29.31 28.41 31.33

Standard Min. Max. Median Skewness Kurtosis deviation 3.36 16 36 30 -0.45 0.65 3.43 15 36 29 -0.64 1.22 4.44 8 36 28 -0.80 1.24 4.15 12 36 28 -0.51 0.55 3.52 14 36 30 -0.57 0.83 4.83 11 36 26 -0.34 0.16 3.28 19 36 30 -0.20 -0.04 3.37 18 36 29 -0.30 0.21 3.76 15 36 28 -0.39 0.73 3.78 13 36 30 -0.63 1.29 4.34 6 36 29 -1.10 3.73 3.47 6 36 31 -1.50 8.66

29.18

3.58

12

36

30

-0.79

2.16

28.39 24.27

3.68 3.07

18 12

36 36

29 25

-0.32 -0.41

-0.17 0.75

29.13

4.33

10

36

30

-0.94

2.22

25.99 29.35

5.53 3.53

6 11

36 36

27 30

-1.17 -1.08

2.22 3.82

4.2. Reliability

Page

13

In the final version of ComTal-Team Member tool, reliability coefficients for specific scales/dimesnions were calculated (table 3). Cronbach’s alpha, an internal consistency coefficient, was applied. The higher the value of this coefficient, the more consistent in terms of statements the studied aspect is (cf. Hornowska, 2010).


Table 3. Reliability coefficients for scales in ComTal - Team Member method No. of Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient items Competences

EU

BE

CY

CZ

PL

UK

Team working

6

0.86

0.82

0.90

0.79

0.92

0.86

Problem-solving

6

0.89

0.83

0.91

0.88

0.90

0.90

Coping with stress

6

0.89

0.86

0.83

0.83

0.94

0.92

Leadership

6

0.89

0.92

0.88

0.86

0.89

0.88

Lifelong learning

6

0.84

0.79

0.77

0.76

0.93

0.82

Creativity

6

0.94

0.95

0.90

0.95

0.92

0.95

Persistence

6

0.86

0.79

0.85

0.82

0.90

0.91

Communication

6

0.81

0.79

0.82

0.78

0.87

0.77

Analytical thinking Commitment

6

0.89

0.88

0.92

0.88

0.87

0.89

Persistence

6

0.89

0.87

0.92

0.87

0.92

0.86

Self-confidence

6

0.93

0.91

0.94

0.91

0.95

0.93

Responsibility

6

0.91

0.87

0.91

0.80

0.95

0.93

Achievement orientation

6

0.86

0.83

0.90

0.81

0.93

0.75

Proactive

6

0.88

0.84

0.85

0.88

0.93

0.85

Motivation

5

0.82

0.76

0.81

0.80

0.90

0.80

Meaningfulness of work

6

0.94

0.94

0.89

0.91

0.96

0.93

Passion

6

0.94

0.91

0.95

0.82

0.97

0.92

Loyalty

6

0.86

0.80

0.87

0.80

0.92

0.81

Contribution

Obtained reliability coefficients are relatively high, and therefore they are psychologically acceptable. In the majority of cases, they exceed 0.8. In case of analyses conducted for all countries altogether, the lowest value of alpha coefficient was observed for Communication scale (alpha = 0.81) and the highest amounting to 0.94 for Creativity, Meaningfulness of work and Passion. Analyses conducted for individual countries have shown, that the lowest alpha value was recorded for Achievement orientation in the group of individuals coming from the United Kingdom (alpha = 0.75). The highest reliability coefficient, on the other hand, was recorded for Passion (component of Contribution) calculated for the Polish group and it amounted to alpha = 0.97. Precise coefficients for all studied individuals and for representatives of specific countries are presented in table 6.


Page

Validity analysis consists in checking whether the constructed test, the measuring scale fulfils its original intended purpose (Mańkowska, 2010). Conducted exploratory factor analysis described above, confirms theoretical validity of the newly-constructed ComTalTeam Member tool for diagnosing competences and talent of a project team member.

14

4.3. Validity

Moreover, during the analyses, results obtained from the tool recognising competences and profile of team member talent were correlated with selected external criteria. To that end, the following variables were selected: a) length of professional experience, experience in team working (years), number of received prizes; b) self-description by a team member the level of Competences, Commitment and Contribution (averaged result of estimated scales), level of satisfaction with life (general result Satisfaction with Life Scale [SWLS] - Diener, Emmons, Larsen and Griffin, 1985) and the level of meaningfulness of work (general result The Work and Meaning Inventory [WAMI]; Steger, Dik, Duffy, 2012) and c) assessment, by the immediate superior, of the level of held competences and talent (rated scales). Correlations between scales based on the team member competence and talent profile and years worked, years of experience in team working and the number of received prizes, are presented in table 4. Table 4. Correlations of scales of ComTal-Team Member tool with years of professional experience, years of experience in team working and the number of received prizes. Years of professional experience (Pearson’s r)

Years of team working experience (Pearson’s r)

Number of received prizes (Pearson’s r)

Team working

r = 0.03

r = 0.05

r = 0.06

Problem-solving

r = 0.02

r = 0.08

r = 0.08

Coping with stress

r = -0.06

r = -0.01

r = 0.04

Leadership

r = 0.07

r = 0.11

r = 0.14*

Lifelong learning

r = -0.10

r = -0.04

r = 0.10

Creativity

r = -0.03

r = 0.05

r = 0.11

Flexibility Communication

r =0.23**

r = 0.16**

r = 0.06

r =0.19**

r = 0.18**

r = 0.05

r = 0.01

r = 0.10

r = 0.06

Persistence

r = 0.12*

r = 0.10

r = -0.01

Self-confidence

r = 0.11

r = 0.13*

r = 0.12*

Responsibility

r =0.14*

r = 0.07

r = -0.01


r = 0.11

r = 0.12*

r = 0.03

Proactive

r = 0.00

r = 0.03

r = 0.14*

Motivation

r = 0.07

r = 0.05

r = 0.00


r = 0.12*

r = 0.15*

r = 0.06

Passion

r = 0.03

r = 0.06

r = 0.14*

Loyalty

r = 0.08

r = 0.02

r =0.13*

Competences

Analytical thinking Commitment


Page

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01

15

Contribution

Only a few significant and positive correlations were discovered. The more years worked, the higher Flexibility, Persistence and Responsibility, and the more effective Communication and increased Meaningfulness of work. In case of years of team working experience, a relationship is being revealed in the field of Flexibility, Communication, Selfconfidence, Achievement orientation and Meaningfulness of work. The number of received prizes on the other hand, coincides with leadership skills, the level of Self-confidence, Proactive, Passion and Loyalty. The number of obtained correlations and their size is not particularly impressive, however it might be said that discovered correlations to some extent confirm validity of ComTal-Team Member tool.

Page

16

Table 5 presents correlations between results obtained in particular scales of ComTalTeam Member tool and results of employee self-description in accordance with rated scales. Every questioned individual evaluated the level of their competences and extent of talent (included in the theoretical profile) using items from 1 to 5, where 1 meant poor level and 5 meant excellent.


Table 5. Correlation of scales of ComTal-Team Member tool with results of employee self-description according to rated scales (rho-Spearman’s correlation)

Leadership

Lifelong learning

Creativity

Flexibility

Communication

Analytical thinking

Persistence

Self-confidence

Responsibility


Proactive

Motivation


Passion

Loyalty

0.26 0.56 0.22 0.40 0.34 0.48 0.38 0.32 0.46 0.45 0.49 0.35 0.38 0.49 0.37 0.25 0.24 0.31

0.25 0.26 0.42 0.21 0.34 0.33 0.24 0.33 0.17 0.27 0.38 0.19 0.37 0.30 0.36 0.20 0.34 0.27

0.28 0.40 0.14 0.49 0.30 0.41 0.40 0.36 0.36 0.41 0.40 0.24 0.40 0.45 0.38 0.23 0.36 0.33

0.18 0.43 0.31 0.31 0.39 0.38 0.39 0.26 0.41 0.39 0.37 0.24 0.28 0.42 0.31 0.15 0.15 0.18

0.27 0.31 0.22 0.33 0.40 0.58 0.23 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.36 0.18 0.35 0.48 0.32 0.25 0.33 0.28

0.32 0.49 0.21 0.39 0.32 0.35 0.56 0.36 0.33 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.34 0.43 0.31 0.35 0.27 0.38

0.25 0.50 0.23 0.40 0.17 0.33 0.35 0.42 0.32 0.34 0.41 0.35 0.23 0.35 0.25 0.31 0.08^ 0.21

0.25 0.47 0.29 0.38 0.41 0.43 0.33 0.35 0.54 0.40 0.38 0.34 0.46 0.48 0.47 0.23 0.28 0.36

0.36 0.45 0.22 0.38 0.29 0.35 0.31 0.31 0.33 0.57 0.40 0.32 0.47 0.42 0.44 0.35 0.33 0.37

0.18 0.39 0.28 0.30 0.19 0.44 0.31 0.33 0.23 0.25 0.64 0.25 0.23 0.34 0.26 0.20 0.17 0.21

0.35 0.43 0.13 0.33 0.31 0.27 0.38 0.32 0.32 0.49 0.37 0.42 0.40 0.41 0.43 0.30 0.21 0.37

0.34 0.47 0.30 0.41 0.36 0.37 0.31 0.34 0.46 0.53 0.36 0.33 0.53 0.44 0.49 0.35 0.29 0.39

0.27 0.52 0.25 0.40 0.33 0.41 0.36 0.29 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.35 0.34 0.45 0.39 0.31 0.27 0.30

0.42 0.51 0.39 0.35 0.39 0.41 0.31 0.36 0.37 0.48 0.37 0.28 0.43 0.43 0.48 0.35 0.38 0.40

0.37 0.38 0.33 0.31 0.35 0.38 0.26 0.35 0.32 0.42 0.37 0.31 0.52 0.38 0.43 0.46 0.42 0.46

0.34 0.32 0.32 0.27 0.45 0.37 0.26 0.27 0.26 0.38 0.38 0.23 0.45 0.41 0.40 0.35 0.50 0.45

0.40 0.42 0.20 0.34 0.33 0.35 0.40 0.37 0.31 0.48 0.41 0.43 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.55 0.37 0.46

Correlations lacking indices are statistically significant at p < 0.01; ^statistically insignificant correlation


17

Coping with stress

0.54 0.49 0.19 0.45 0.27 0.32 0.53 0.40 0.40 0.48 0.29 0.40 0.37 0.48 0.43 0.32 0.21 0.39

Page

Problem-solving

ComTal Team-Member results

Aspects: Team working Problem-solving Coping with stress Leadership Lifelong learning Creativity Flexibility Communication Analytical thinking Persistence Self-confidence Responsibility Achievement orientation Proactive Motivation Meaningfulness of work Passion Loyalty

Team working

Team member self-description according to rated scales

Practically all correlation coefficients are statistically significant at p < 0.01. The only exception is an insignificant relation between Passion measured using ComTal-Team Member tool and Communication recognized in the self-description according to rated scales. It should be emphasized however, that a strong correlation was formed between corresponding categories measured by means of the constructed tool and rated selfdescription scales. This correlation confirms validity of the prepared tool. Table 6 presents correlations between ComTal-Team Member tool with standardized and measures of satisfaction with life (Satisfaction with Life Scale) and meaningfulness of work (WAMI - The Work and Meaning Inventory) well-established in psychological diagnosis. Table 6. Correlation between scales of ComTal-Team Member tool with the global result of Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) and the result of The Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI) SWLS (Pearson’s r)

WAMI (Pearson’s r)

Team working

r = 0,33**

r = 0,38**

Problem-solving

r = 0.36**

r = 0.32**

Coping with stress

r = 0.42**

r = 0.21**

Leadership

r = 0.19**

r = 0.28**

Lifelong learning

r = 0.24**

r = 0.34**

Creativity

r = 0.14*

r = 0.22**

Flexibility

r = 0.27**

r = 0.21**

Communication

r = 0.23**

r = 0.33**

Analytical thinking

r = 0.20**

r = 0.24**

Persistence

r = 0.29**

r = 0.35**

Self-confidence

r = 0.47**

r = 0.32**

Responsibility

r = 0.35**

r = 0.29**


r = 0.35**

r = 0.44**

Proactive

r = 0.21**

r = 0.30**

Motivation

r = 0.32**

r = 0.30**


r = 0.39**

r = 0.69**

Passion

r = 0.35**

r = 0.69**

Loyalty

r = 0.39**

r = 0.52**


Page

All obtained correlations are positive and statistically significant. The observed distribution of results points to validity of ComTal Team-Member tool recognising the team member competence and talent profile. Table 7 presents correlations between results obtained by means of ComTal TeamMember and from assessment of an employee – team member by his/her immediate superior. Every questioned individual was assessed by his/her superior in terms of the level of their competences and aspects of talent (included in the theoretical profile) using items from 1 to 5, where 1 meant poor level and 5 meant excellent level.

18

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01

Table 7. Correlation of scales of ComTal-Team Member tool with assessments of superiors according to rated scales (rho-Spearman’s correlation)

Loyalty

0.11

0.18**

0.08

0.06

-0.13*

-0.01

-0.02 -0.04 -0.08

-0.01

-0.12*

0.04

0.14*

0.00

0.11

0.09

0.06

0.04

0.17**

0.09

-0.02

0.07

0.01

0.03

0.10

0.11

0.12*

0.03

0.09

-0.09

-0.03

0.07

0.02

0.09

-0.02

0.00

-0.02

0.02

0.08

0.16**

0.02

0.02

0.15*

0.10

0.12

0.05

0.17**

0.11

0.15* 0.12* 0.23** 0.18**

0.01 -0.03 0.07

-0.01

0.08

0.10

0.11

0.03

0.11

0.09

0.10

0.06

0.18**

0.08

0.10

0.01

0.09

-0.09

0.13*

0.06

0.03

-0.03

0.16** .16**

0.11

0.08

0.16**

0.10

-0.04

0.06

0.02 -0.02 0.00

-0.07

0.03

0.15*

0.07

0.06

0.17**

.12*

.16**

0.11

0.26**

0.12

0.04

0.08

0.13* 0.08

0.08

0.09

0.06

0.12*

0.05

0.30**

-0.05

-0.01

0.01

0.01

0.03

0.09

0.04

0.07 0.14*

0.05

0.14* 0.03

0.04

0.07

0.06

0.13*

0.10

0.08

0.09

0.15*

0.12*

0.12

0.09

0.17**

0.08

Achievement orientation -0.03 0.00

-0.04

0.10

0.03 -0.05 0.02

-0.07

0.04

0.04

0.06

-0.01

0.12

0.10

0.09

0.04

0.17**

0.07

-0.03

0.04

0.09

Problem-solving

0.04

0.08

0.01

0.11

0.04 -0.01 0.09

-0.03

0.13* 0.13* 0.18**

Coping with stress

-0.01 -0.11

0.01

-0.08 -0.02 -0.05 -0.10

-0.06

-0.04

-0.03

Leadership

-0.02

0.03

0.04

0.11

0.03 -0.08 0.09

-0.03

0.11

Lifelong learning

0.05

-0.01 -0.15*

0.04

0.02

0.04

0.00

-0.02

Creativity

-0.01

0.00

-0.04

0.06

0.05

0.03

0.06

Flexibility

0.05 0.14*

0.04

0.07

0.11

0.00

0.07

Communication

0.04

0.07

-0.03

0.05

Analytical thinking

-0.05

0.01

-0.03

Persistence

-0.01

0.07

Self-confidence

0.06

Responsibility

ComTal Team-Member results

0.01

0.08

Proactive

0.02

0.05

-0.10

0.08

0.07

0.11

-0.04

0.08

0.11

0.10

0.03

0.09

0.13* 0.14*

0.10

0.21**

0.06

Motivation

-0.04

0.09

-0.08

0.06

0.10 -0.01 -0.01

-0.05

0.03

0.12*

0.12*

0.08

0.10

0.14* 0.15*

0.08

0.20**

0.03


0.03

-0.07 -0.12* -0.08 -0.06 -0.12 0.02 -0.18** -0.08

0.00

-0.02

-0.11

0.09

0.05

0.05

0.13* 0.22**

0.07

Passion

0.05

-0.06 -0.12* -0.05 -0.06 -0.08 0.10

-0.09

-0.05

0.03

0.02

-0.05

0.10

0.09

0.10

0.03

0.15*

0.03

Loyalty

0.04

0.03

-0.04

-0.01

0.09

0.04

0.05

0.12

0.13* 0.12*

0.06

0.18**

0.11

-0.01

0.03

0.04

Flexibility

0.04 -0.06 -0.01

Creativity

0.06

Lifelong learning

-0.03

0.05 -0.02 0.05

* correlation significant at p < 0.05; ** correlation significant at p < 0.01 This project has been funded with support from the European Commission under the Lifelong Learning Programme. LEONARDO DA VINCI - TRANSFER OF INNOVATION Competence and talent assessment in SMEs – comTAL Project no 2012-1-PL1-LEO05-27445

19

Passion

0.11

0.05

Page


0.14*

0.05

Motivation


0.02

Team working

Aspects:

Proactive

Responsibility

0.03

Persistence

0.21**

Analytical thinking

0.06

Communication

0.13* 0.13*

Leadership

0.06

Radzenie sobie ze stresem

0.03

Problem-solving

0.08

Team working

Self-confidence

Superior’s assessment

Page

20

By simplified analysis of the validity of the method based on this indicator, it may be concluded that the categories Commitment (4 out of 6 expected significant correlations) and Contribution (2 out of 3 expected significant correlations) are valid (they measure what has been their intended purpose) in 66%. Competences (1 out of 9 expected significant correlations) category on the other hand, is valid in just 11%. It should be emphasized, that correlations between managers’ assessments and results obtained by team members in particular scales of ComTal-Team Member are low. This may stem from a number of reasons: 1) too strict grades given by managers from some countries (e.g. United Kingdom), or 2) lack of assessment diversification. In many cases, managers were giving to their subordinates very approximate grades in all scales, which could affect the lack of statistically significant correlations. The last step in conducted statistical analyses was to calculate intercorrelations between particular aspects of ComTal-Team Member tool (table 8). This analysis has confirmed that there is a statistically significant correlation between all aspects describing the team member competence and talent profile. Coefficient values range from 0.13 to 0.72. Such distribution of results shows that specific categories (Competences, Commitment and Contribution) and scales of ComTal Team-Member tool are internally consistent. In addition, it might be stated with considerable certainty that results obtained by means of this tool may be presented using a general indicator that may be referred to as team member talent. Therefore, the obtained results constitute the empirical confirmation of the concept of talent put forward by Ulrich and Smallwood (2012), according to which, talent is a resultant of Competences, Commitment and Contribution.


0.41

Coping with stress

0.27

0.37

Leadership

0.50

0.51

0.23

Lifelong learning

0.49

0.39

0.32

0.40

Creativity

0.33

0.47

0.28

0.53

0.34

Flexibility

0.53

0.51

0.28

0.56

0.42

0.35

Communication

0.45

0.49

0.35

0.45

0.42

0.39

0.49

Analytical thinking

0.37

0.60

0.23

0.57

0.47

0.53

0.47

0.47

Persistence

0.49

0.59

0.27

0.50

0.51

0.30

0.49

0.45

0.50

Self-confidence

0.32

0.56

0.48

0.45

0.31

0.39

0.38

0.42

0.32

0.42

Responsibility

0.47

0.54

0.25

0.32

0.30

0.13

0.46

0.40

0.32

0.50

0.49


0.47

0.51

0.30

0.53

0.44

0.35

0.35

0.39

0.51

0.64

0.50

0.56

Proactive

0.49

0.53

0.25

0.64

0.57

0.64

0.50

0.52

0.60

0.62

0.43

0.34

0.56

Motivation

0.51

0.49

0.34

0.45

0.56

0.36

0.45

0.46

0.55

0.72

0.42

0.45

0.61

0.64


0.43

0.33

0.29

0.32

0.35

0.23

0.25

0.30

0.26

0.42

0.35

0.38

0.52

0.33

0.32

Passion

0.33

0.22

0.26

0.30

0.45

0.27

0.17

0.30

0.28

0.35

0.27

0.14

0.46

0.40

0.36

0.62

0.53

0.41

0.23

0.42

0.45

0.29

0.36

0.40

0.34

0.52

0.38

0.41

0.56

0.51

0.48

0.57

Loyalty

0.57

Page

All correlations, except for Passion x Responsibility and Responsibility x Creativity are statistically significant at p < 0.01

21

Problem-solving

Passion


Motivation

Proactive


Responsibility

Self-confidence

Persistence

Analytical thinking

Communication

Flexibility

Creativity

Lifelong learning

Leadership

Coping with stress

Problem-solving

Team working

Table 8. Intercorrelations between scales of ComTal-Team Member tool (Pearson’s r)


4.4. Normalization

Page

22

Development of norms provides grounds for interpretation of individual scores of study participants (Hornowska, 2010). While establishing norms for aspects of ComTal-Team Member tool related to team member competence and talent profile, it was decided to use sten scores. They enable presentation of scores ranging from 1 to 10 and their classification according to three categories: low (1-4), average (5-6) and high scores (7-10). General European norms and norms with division into five countries participating in the project were developed for ComTal-Team Member tool. Detailed characteristics of the sample for normalization purposes are presented in Table 1. Total raw scores obtained for each aspect are automatically converted by computer software to sten scores. Beside assessing the competence level, ComTal-Team Member tool also allows to determine competence gaps. This is done by referring individual scores (of team members participating in the study) to the standard. Value of this parameter was calculated based on studies on team members selected according to two criteria: 1) assessment of their competence level by an immediate supervisor, and 2) employee self-assessment. In case of both criteria, assessment was conducted using estimate scales. Supervisor’s or employee’s task was to determine the level of 20 different skills/competences, in a scale from 1 to 5. Then, based on the obtained scores, the global career success indicator was calculated for each individual employee, in the form of the median. It was assumed, that successful team members are those whose global career success indicator scores are above the median (Mesuccess for Europe=3.71; Mesuccess for Belgium=3.65; Mesuccess for Cyprus=3.87; Mesuccess for Czech Republic=3.68; Mesuccess for Poland=3.75; Mesuccess for UK=3.46). Detailed characteristics of team members classified in the successful group are presented in Table 9.


Table 9. Characteristics of successful team members (high competence level) Country Sex

female male

Age (years) – average Work experience (years) – average Team work experience (years) – average Education High School

EU

BE

CY

CZ

PL

UK

N = 72 (52,9%) N = 64 (47,1%) 37,51

N = 18 (58,1%) N = 13 (41,9%) 40,38

N=7 (26,9%) N = 19 (73,1%) 33,16

N = 18 (72,0%) N=7 (28,0%) 35,20

N = 18 (66,7%) N=9 (33,3%) 37,22

N = 16 (51,6%) N = 15 (48,4%) 40,81

14,58

17,56

9,27

12,52

13,59

20,55

12,33

15,94

7,81

9,24

11,82

16,13

N = 41 N = 15 N=7 N=6 N=1 N = 16 (30,4%) (48,4%) (26,9%) (25,0%) (3,7%) (51,6%) Bachelor’s N = 37 N = 10 N=4 N=3 N = 11 N = 10 (27,4%) (32,3%) (15,4%) (12,5%) (40,7%) (32,3%) degree N = 55 N=6 N = 15 N = 13 N = 15 N=5 Master’s degree (40,7%) (19,3%) (57,7%) (54,2%) (55,6%) (16,1%) N=2 N=0 N=0 N=2 N=0 N=0 PhD (1,5%) (0%) (0%) (8,3%) (0%) (0%) N = 33 N=6 N=7 N=7 N=4 N=9 Position in a Team manager (24,8%) (19,4%) (26,9%) (28,0%) (14,8%) (32,1%) team Non-managerial N = 100 N = 25 N = 19 N = 18 N = 23 N = 19 (75,2%) (80,6%) (73,1%) (72,0%) (85,2%) (67,9%) employee Legend: N – population. The table presents obtained values, excluding ‘no data’ instances. Populations in specific countries do not make the total population for Europe - this results from the fact that success medians were calculated for total data, and subsequently once again for specific countries.

Page

23

In the selected group, standard value, that is the median for specific aspects of ComTal-Team Member tool, was calculated. Standard value was estimated jointly for all study participants, by calculating a general European standard, and separately for each of the five countries participating in the project. While estimating the standard value, the median (Me) was used as the middle value of the distribution. This statistical value allows to determine an average score for the entire population/group. Reference of an individual score obtained by a study participant to the median, allows to determine whether the score in a specific aspect/scale is among 50% of the lower half (value lower than Me) or the higher half (value higher than Me) results in a given group. For instance, if in the aspect of Coping with stress, study participant obtained a score of 30, this would mean that the score (in accordance with the general European standard of 28) is in the half of scores higher than average. If, on the other hand, the participant obtained a score of 20, this would show that his/her competences are lower than average. Standard values expressed as the median was converted into sten scores.



Page

Alderfer, C. P. (1977). Group and intergroup relations. In J. R. Hackman & J. L. Suttle (Eds.), Improving the quality of work life (227–296). Palisades, CA: Goodyear. Armstrong, M. (2007). A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice. London: Kogan Page. Birkhead, M., Sutherland, M., Maxwell, T. (2000). Core competencies required of project managers. South African Journal of Business Management, 31(3), 99-105. Boyatzis, R., McKee, A. and Goleman, D. (2002). ‘Reawakening your passion for work. Harvard Business Review, 80, 86–94. Brill, J., Bishop, M., Walker, A. (2006). The Competencies and Characteristics Required of an Effective Project Manager: A Web-Based Delphi Study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54, 115-140. Brophy, J. (1998) Motivating students to learn. Boston: McGraw Hill. Crowne D.P., Marlowe D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. J. Consult. Psychol., 24: 349–354. Dainty, A., Mei-I C., Moore, D. (2005a). Competency-Based Model for Predicting Construction Project Managers’ Performance. Journal of Management in Engineering, 21(1), 2-9. Dainty, A., Mei-I C., Moore, D. (2005b). A Comparison of the Behavioral Competencies of Client-Focused and Production-Focused Project Managers in the Construction Sector. Project Management Journal, 36(2), 39-48. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75. Dinsmore, P., Cabanis-Brewin, J. (2006). The AMA Handbook of Project Management. New York: Amacom. Ejere, E. I. (2010). Absence from Work: A Study of Teacher Absenteeism in Selected Public Primary Schools in Uyo, Nigeria. International Journal of Business & Management, 5 (9), 115-123. Franco, L.M., Bennett, S, and Kanfer R. (2002). “Health sector reform and public sector health worker motivation: a conceptual framework”, Social Science and Medicine Vol. 54, 12551266. Hart, D. W. and Thompson, J. A. (2007). Untangling Employee Loyalty: A Psychological Contract Perspective, Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(2): 297-323. Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Sego, D. J., Hedlund, J., Major, D. A., & Phillips, J. (1995). Multilevel theory of team decision making: Decision performance in teams incorporating distributed expertise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 292–316. Hornowska, E. (2010). Testy psychologiczne. Teoria i praktyka. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar. Kardam, B., L., Rangnekar, S. (2012). Job satisfaction: investigating the role of experience & education. Journal of Arts, Science & Commerce. 4 (1), 16-22. Kowske, B.J., Anthony, K. (2007). Towards defining leadership competence around the world: what mid-level managers need to know in twelve countries. Human Resource Development International, 10, 21-41. Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., McHugh, P. P., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). A dynamic theory of leadership and team effectiveness: Developmental and task contingent leader roles. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 14, 253–305). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

24

Literature


25 Page

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., & Smith, E. M. (1999). Developing adaptive teams: Atheory of compilation and performance across levels and time. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, personnel actions, and development (240–292). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kozlowski, S., Bell, B. (2003). Work Groups and Teams in Organizations In: W. Borman, D. Ilgen, R. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology (vol. 12, 225-252). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Langworthy, A., Turner, T. (2003). Learning for the workplace and beyond: the challenge of university-community engagement. Paper presented at the ASET HERDSA. Conference, Christchurch, New Zealand. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 563–575. Maki, N., Moore, S., Grunberg, L., Greenberg, E. (2005). The Responses of Male and Female Managers to Workplace Stress and Downsizing. North American Journal of Psychology, 7, 295-312. Mańkowska, M. (2010). Wprowadzenie do psychometrii. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL. Marques, J. F. (2007). ‘Leadership: emotional intelligence, passion, and . . . what else?’. Journal of Management Development, 26, 644–51. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Millward, L., Asumeng, M., McDowall, A. (2010). "Catch me if you can?": A psychological analysis of managers' feedback seeking. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25, 384-407. Mitchel, T., R., Daniels, S. (2003). Motivation In: W. Borman, D. Ilgen, R. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology (vol. 12, 225-252). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. Morden, T. (1997). Leadership as a competence. Management Decision, 35, 519-526. Musioł-Urbańczyk, A. (2010). Kompetencje kierownika projektu i możliwości ich kształtowania. Gliwice: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej. Muzio E., Fisher D., Thomas E., Peters V. (2007). Soft Skills Quantification (SSQ) For Project Manager Competencies. Project Management Journal, 38(2), 30-38. Reichheld, F. (2001). The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force Behind Growth, Profits and Lasting Value. Harvard Business Press. Reio, T., Sutton, F. (2006). Employer assessment of work-related competencies and workplace adaptation. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 17, 3, 305-324. Richmond, A., Skitmore, M. (2006). Stress and coping: a study of project managers in a large ICT organization. Project Management Journal, 37, 5-16. Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91– 127. Runco, M. A. ( 2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657– 687. Stanisz, A. (2007). Przystępny kurs statystyki z zastosowaniem STATISTICA PL na przykładach z medycyny. Tom 3. Analizy wielowymiarowe. Kraków: Statsoft Polska. Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring Meaningful Work: The Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment.0, 1-16. Thurstone, L. L, Chave, L (1929). The measurement of attitude: A psychophysical method and some experiments with a Scale for Measuring Attitude toward the church. Chicago: University of Chicago. Ulrich, D., Smallwood, N. (2012). What is talent? Leader to Leader, 63, 55-61.

The partnership of the project:

Page

© Copyright “Copyrights for this paper are held by the project partners. If you wish to use anything from this paper you have to obtain the permission of the partners.”

26

Polish Foundation of the Opportunities Industrialization Center „OIC Poland” (project coordinator) RPIC-ViP s.r.o. (Czech Republic) G. G. EUROSUCCESS CONSULTING LTD (Cyprus) University of Exeter (United Kingdom) GWE Business West Limited (United Kingdom) Syntra West (Belgium)
