Harrie F. J. M. van Tuijl
Eindhoven University of Technology
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Harrie F. J. M. van Tuijl.
European Journal of Personality | 2006
Miranda A. G. Peeters; Harrie F. J. M. van Tuijl; Cg Christel Rutte; Isabelle Reymen
Using a meta‐analytical procedure, the relationship between team composition in terms of the Big‐Five personality traits (trait elevation and variability) and team performance were researched. The number of teams upon which analyses were performed ranged from 106 to 527. For the total sample, significant effects were found for elevation in agreeableness (ρ = 0.24) and conscientiousness (ρ = 0.20), and for variability in agreeableness (ρ = −0.12) and conscientiousness (ρ = −0.24). Moderation by type of team was tested for professional teams versus student teams. Moderation results for agreeableness and conscientiousness were in line with the total sample results. However, student and professional teams differed in effects for emotional stability and openness to experience. Based on these results, suggestions for future team composition research are presented. Copyright
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology | 2002
Harm van Vijfeijken; Ad Kleingeld; Harrie F. J. M. van Tuijl; Ja Jen Algera; Henk Thierry
A prescriptive model on how to design effective combinations of goal setting and contingent rewards for group performance management is presented. The model incorporates the constructs task complexity, task interdependence, goal interdependence, and reward interdependence and specifies optimal fit relationships between these constructs. Four propositions address the levels of goal interdependence that should be created given certain levels of task complexity and task interdependence. Based on the assumption that reward systems should reinforce goal attainment through a level of reward interdependence that is similar to the level of interdependence created by the goals, four additional propositions are formulated. These are confronted with the results of experimental studies on the effects of reward interdependence on group performance. We argue that the research on effective combinations of goal setting and contingent rewards for the performance management of groups will benefit from studies in which: (1) both task interdependence and task complexity are taken into account, and (2) goal interdependence and rewards interdependence are manipulated separately.
Small Group Research | 2008
Miranda A. G. Peeters; Cg Christel Rutte; Harrie F. J. M. van Tuijl; Isabelle Reymen
Twenty-six multidisciplinary student design teams (n = 128) each built a robot that had to perform a specific task in a design contest. For these teams, an input—process—output framework of team member personality (input), generic and specific design behaviors (process), and contest result and supervisor and team member ratings of the design (output) was researched using correlations. Agreeableness and conscientiousness were positively related to generic design behaviors in both the concept and elaboration phase of the design process. Generic design behaviors were positively related to contest result and team member ratings of the designs technical realization. The conclusions hold implications for design research (multiple process and outcome measures are needed) and practice (attention for personality differences in teams and particular design behaviors in specific design phases foster design outcomes).
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology | 1997
Harrie F. J. M. van Tuijl; Ad Kleingeld; Klaus Schmidt; Uwe Kleinbeck; Robert D. Pritchard; Ja Jen Algera
A large number of practical experiences that have come from various Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System ProMES projects are organized around what seem to be three essential questions that have to be answered when one aims at productivity improvement. The first question regards the essence of organizational effectiveness and how a group can effectively contribute to that. In other words, the What of productivity improvement. The second question refers to the group s motives to contribute to organizational effectiveness. In other words, the Why of productivity improvement, from the perspective of the employees. The last question deals with the task strategies a group should follow in order to actually improve. In other words, the How of productivity improvement. Along with the description of practical examples some indications for future research are given.
Small Group Research | 2006
Miranda A. G. Peeters; Cg Christel Rutte; Harrie F. J. M. van Tuijl; Isabelle Reymen
Journal of Organizational Behavior | 2004
Ad Kleingeld; Harrie F. J. M. van Tuijl; Ja Jen Algera
Social Science & Medicine | 2009
Eric van der Geer; Harrie F. J. M. van Tuijl; Cg Christel Rutte
Design Studies | 2007
Miranda A. G. Peeters; Harrie F. J. M. van Tuijl; Isabelle Reymen; Cg Christel Rutte
Archive | 2006
Miranda A. G. Peeters; Harrie F. J. M. van Tuijl; Cg Christel Rutte; Isabelle Reymen
Archive | 2005
Ja Jen Algera; Ad Kleingeld; Harrie F. J. M. van Tuijl