Running Head: SAILING CREWS AND MEASURES OF TEAM PROCESS

Sailing Crews and

Measures of Team Process

Thomas R. Gordon

Michael T. Brannick

University of South Florida

Poster presented at the 14^th Annual Conference of the Society for

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA, April 30, 1999.

Abstract

We compared measures of team process and outcome in sailing crews. Communication, assertiveness, and team viability measures were compared with order of finish in regattas. Multitrait-multimethod analysis showed that skippers and crewmembers converged on the team process measures and successfully discriminated between communication and assertiveness. Communication, assertiveness, and viability scores predicted order of finish across crews.

Sailing Crews and Measures of Team Process

Assertiveness, leadership, situational awareness, communication, decision-making, and adaptability are important factors in team work in military air crews (Prince & Salas,1993). Sundstrom, DeMeuse, & Futrell (1990) posited that, if we are to understand team work, it is essential to consider internal processes and the context in which team work takes place. They stressed that actual performance and team viability, defined as the affective and interpersonal response of a team member to the team, are important aspects of team effectiveness. Dickenson & McIntyre (1997) proposed that the major components of team processes include communication, team orientation, team leadership, monitoring, feedback, backup behavior, and coordination.

Sports teams have been used as metaphors for team work in other types of organizations and have been useful in understanding team dynamics. Komaki, DeSelles, and Bowman (1989) examined communication and process on sailboat racing teams, finding that skipper monitoring of the crew and race conditions was related to standing in a regatta. They also found that group performance (order of finish) was better on teams where the skipper provided feedback, i.e., told the crew both what they did correctly and what they did incorrectly.

A number of recent articles in the teamwork literature address measurement of team processes (e.g., Brannick, Prince, Prince, & Salas, 1995; Dickenson & McIntyre, 1997; Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1997). Brannick et al. (1995), in a study of military pilots, examined construct validity of selected measures of teamwork. They measured assertiveness, decision making/mission analysis, leadership, adaptability/flexibility, situational awareness, and communication, concluding that many of these dimensions are applicable to a wide range of teams other than aviation crews. In our study, team processes were examined on sailing teams. We selected communication, including monitoring and feedback, assertiveness, and team viability as being particularly relevant to sailing.

Communication, assertiveness, and team viability

Effective teams have effective communication systems (Larson & LaFasto, 1989, p. 56). Results from a study reported by Snyder & Morris (1984) showed that the communication skills of supervisors were related to effective organizational performance. Research also suggests a positive relationship between the amount of upward communication in an organization and feelings of satisfaction by lower-level workers (Koehler, Anatol, & Applbaum, 1981). Workers who receive substantial information about the organization and performance feedback in this manner tend to be more satisfied than those who do not (O’Reilly, 1980). At a minimum, communication appears to include the obvious intra-team, lateral exchange of information, as well as monitoring of crew and race conditions and feedback from the leader (Komaki et al., 1989).

Assertiveness has been associated with the roles required of leaders and managers. Miner (1965), in his theory of managerial role motivation, included among his prescriptions for success as a leader the assertiveness demanded by the traditional masculine role. Individuals who score high on psychological tests of assertiveness tend to emerge as successful leaders (Bass, 1990, p. 90). Other studies have related successful leadership to extraversion, initiative, persistence, and ambition, attributes closely associated with assertiveness (Bass, 1990, p. 67-68). More recently, assertiveness has been addressed in the context of team member assertiveness and effective team decision making (Oser, McCallum, Salas, & Morgan, 1989; Prince & Salas, 1993). Smith-Jentsch, Salas, & Baker (1996) suggest that team performance-related assertiveness can be trained as well as used in the selection of people for team positions. There are few other studies that attempt to link team assertiveness with specific team outcomes. A review of the assertiveness literature (e.g., Herzberger, Chan, & Katz, 1984; Rathus, 1973; Smith, Marion-Landais, & Blume, 1993) suggests team assertiveness should include as a minimum willingness to make suggestions, willingness to object, willingness to ask for assistance, and hiding mistakes or displaying ignorance.

Team viability is defined by Sundstrom et al. (1990) as the affective and interpersonal response of a team member to the team. Dickenson & McIntyre (1997) referred to this as team orientation, the sum of team members’ attitudes toward each other. Larson & LaFasto (1989, p. 73) called this aspect of teamwork “unified commitment.” Individuals high in affective commitment are generally better performers and produce better outcomes (Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, & Jackson, 1989). Highly cohesive groups are generally rated successful in achieving shared goals (Greene, 1989; Littlepage, Cowart, & Kerr, 1989). These findings suggest cohesiveness is important to team performance. Cartwright (1968, p. 91) defines cohesion as “the degree to which members of the group desire to remain in their group.” Cohesion is the foundation for what we refer to as “team viability.” Cohesiveness does not always result in high productivity; cohesiveness and productivity are positively related where group norms encourage high productivity (Schachter, Ellertson, Mc Bride, & Gregory, 1951). Team viability can be measured by assessing how well team members get along with each other, how much they enjoy being on the team, how they feel when performing with the team, and -- given a choice -- whether they would choose that team over another team. In effect, team viability is a measure of affective commitment to the team (Meyer et al., 1989).

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: Assertive crews and skippers will have more success, as measured by team viability and order of finish, than those who are less assertive;

Hypothesis 2: Crews demonstrating better intra-crew communication and team viability will be more successful, as measured by order of finish, than those crews with poorer communication skills and team viability;

Hypothesis 3: Crews with skippers perceived as better at monitoring crew performance and race conditions, and providing feedback, will be more successful, in terms of team viability and order of finish, than those with skippers perceived as having poorer monitoring and feedback skills.

Method

Participants

Fifty-two skippers (all males, mean age = 42.5 years) and 200 crewmembers (176 males and 24 females, mean age = 34.7) volunteered to participate. Demographic data concerning the participants are presented in Table 1. Each skipper represented one boat. The number of crewmembers for each boat ranged from three to nine.

Materials and Procedure

Surveys were developed for completion by skippers and their crews. Survey items were designed to measure assertiveness, communication, including monitoring and feedback, and crew viability. The assertiveness dimension was defined as the willingness to make suggestions, object to decisions, and the willingness to admit mistakes, ask questions, or ask for assistance (Brannick et al., 1995). Communication was conceptualized as pertaining to reinforcing messages from the skipper and to the skipper’s acceptance and response to feedback from the crew. Monitoring and feedback reflects the attention of the skipper to the crew and race conditions (Komaki et al., 1989). Team viability reflects affective and interpersonal responses of crew members to the team (Sundstrom, et al., 1990).

We consulted with subject matter experts (SMEs) and examined other measures. With regard to assertiveness scales, Herzberger et al. (1984); Rathus (1973); and Smith et al. (1993) were reviewed. A pool of items targeting the dimensions of interest was developed; twenty-nine items were selected for administration based on judgments of appropriateness and ease of understanding by participants. Two versions of the final 29-item survey were produced, one for crew members and the second reworded to be completed by skippers. Both versions use a six point Likert-type scale. Surveys for crew members and skippers are in Appendices A and B, respectively.

Surveys were distributed before and collected during the course of regattas. Respondents were requested to complete their surveys without collaboration. Independent variables included (a) assertiveness and (b) communication between skipper and crew, and among crew members, feedback, and skipper monitoring of the crew and race conditions. Dependent variables included (a) crew viability and (b) order of finish provided by regatta officials. A positive relationship was predicted between the independent variables and team viability and a negative relationship between the independent variables and order of finish.

Results

The strategy adopted for this study involved assessing the reliabilities of each scale using coefficient alpha and factor analyzing each scale (SAS PROC FACTOR; principal axis with squared multiple correlations for prior communality estimates). Factor analysis was used to identify the existence of subscales and to select items for inclusion in further analysis. Separate analyses were conducted for the crew and skipper surveys, followed by cross-referencing to determine consistency of responses.

Response Rate

Data were collected during two regattas. The overall response rate was 86% (52 boat surveys returned out of 60 distributed).

The Scales

The communication and assertiveness items were subjected to factor analysis, using all 252 survey responses; this procedure produced two clear, interpretable factors. Items and corresponding factor loadings are shown in Table 2. In interpreting the rotated factor pattern, an item was said to load on a given factor if the factor loading was .40 or greater for that factor and less than .40 for the other. Applying these criteria, items 2, 4, 6, 18, and 25 were eliminated. The inter-factor correlation was .50. Factor 1 contains items that relate to intra-crew communication, monitoring by the skipper (both of the crew and the race), and feedback. Factor 2 contains items relating to assertiveness. These scales are referred to as the communications and assertiveness scales; coefficient alpha reliability estimates (Cronbach, 1951) were .90 and .79, respectively (N=252). Follow-on factor analysis of the communication scale produced subscales as shown:

1. Intra-crew Communication (Items 12, 13, 15, and 20).

2. Monitoring the Crew and Race Conditions (Items 16, 17, 21, 23, and 24).

3. Feedback (Items 14, 19, and 22).

Coefficient alpha for the intra-crew communication scale was .81, N=252. Feedback and monitoring the crew and race conditions were grouped into a subscale called “monitoring and feedback,” which was used to test hypothesis 3. Coefficient alpha for this subscale was .86 (N=252).

The viability scale consists of items 26, 27, 28, and 29, and was specifically designed to capture affective reactions of all crew members (including skippers) to service on their boat. Coefficient alpha reliability estimate for this scale was .93 (N=252).

Aggregation

This study aggregated individually collected data into team level data; thus the sailing team (crew) is the unit of analysis. For each crew, an item variance was calculated for each survey item, followed by calculation of the mean of item variances for each crew across items. This procedure allowed for computing r_wg(J) for each crew (see Kozlowski & Hattrup, 1992). From James, Demaree, & Wolf (1984, p. 88), the following formula was used:

r_WG(J) =

where r_WG(J)is the within-group interrater reliability for judges’ (crew members’) mean scores based on J essentially parallel items, is the mean of the observed variances on the J items, and is the expected variance under random responding (that is, under the assumption of no interrater agreement). The r_WG(J) is essentially an estimate of the agreement (“reliability”) of the crew mean responses over all items in a scale.

The calculations produced an interrater reliability (IRR) index for each scale (James et al., 1984). High IRR values indicate that individuals within the crew agree, while low IRR values suggest an absence of agreement within the crew (Kozlowski, et al., 1992; Mathieu, Martineau, & Tannenbaum, 1993). The IRR procedure was applied twice, once to determine whether it was appropriate to aggregate crew scores and next to determine if the skipper scores could be included with the scores of their crew members.

Calculating r_WG(J) for each of the 52 crews without the skippers resulted in two boats that had values of .70 and .88, respectively, for the assertiveness scale; the other 50 boats had values of .90 or higher. Values obtained for the communications scale ranged from .90 to .95. Team viability showed r_WG(J) values in excess of .95 for all boats. With the skipper included, r_WG(J) values for all scales exceeded .90 except for one boat, which had a value of .87 on the assertiveness scale. We concluded it was appropriate to aggregate the survey responses at the boat level for both skippers and their crews. The tests of hypotheses were conducted using aggregated data, i.e., mean boat scores obtained by taking the arithmetic mean of all crew scores, including skipper scores.

Hypothesis Testing.

Table 3 shows correlations among the variables of interest in hypothesis testing.

Hypothesis 1: Assertive crews and skippers will have more success, as measured by team viability and order of finish, than those who are less assertive. The hypothesis was supported.

Comparison of Skipper and Crew Responses

While employment of the r_WG(J) procedure affirmed the efficacy of combining skipper and crew member responses into overall boat scores, it is also of psychological interest to examine the similarities and differences between skippers and crew members with respect to their views on the dimensions of interest. Relationships were analyzed in the context of a multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) matrix (Campbell & Fiske, 1959), in which the traits are communications, assertiveness, and viability, and the methods are separate responses from the crew members and skippers. The MTMM matrix is presented in Table 4; for the most part, it appears to meet the Campbell and Fiske validity criteria. In essence, across methods (crew and skipper scores), traits (communications, assertiveness, and viability) converge; they correlate highly with themselves and more highly than they do with other constructs.

Discussion

Results reaffirm the efficacy of developing scales to measure team processes; scales were developed to measure intra-team communication, assertiveness, monitoring and feedback, and team viability. The latter variable is particularly interesting, since it can be used as both a criterion (dependent) variable and a predictor (independent) variable.

Assertiveness, Communication, and Team Viability

Crew assertiveness was significantly related to order of finish and team viability. This suggests that in this type of athletic competition, a more assertive crew will perform more effectively than a less assertive crew. It is also instructive to note that crews who have been together longer tend to be more assertive, suggesting that one of the factors that keeps teams together (in addition to team viability) may be the recognition that they are assertive and that this impacts on their success. Team viability and intra-crew communication, monitoring, and feedback are also related to team assertiveness; equally interesting, however, is that there is no relationship between the amount of sailing experience possessed by team members and team assertiveness. Moreover, there is no relationship between overall sailing experience and order of finish in regattas. This finding suggests that team assertiveness may develop with experience on a particular team, but develops independently of overall sailing experience.

From a theoretical perspective, this study provides additional evidence that assertiveness need not be confined to the leadership role suggested by some (Miner, 1965; Bass, 1990). Assertiveness can be a team characteristic (Oser et al., 1993; Prince & Salas, 1993; Smith-Jentsch, 1997). Komaki et al. (1989) showed the importance of leadership to successful sailing teams; the present study shows that the followers (the crew) can contribute to at least one traditional dimension of the leadership function -- assertiveness. This contribution is especially important because it comes in addition to the individual expertise and knowledge brought by each crew member to the crew as a whole.

It was also demonstrated that those crews with better intra-crew communication performed significantly better than those scoring lower on this scale. This is an important finding because it expresses clearly the link between how well a team communicates and how well it performs on a meaningful criterion. Again, in a sport that clearly requires highly developed, differentiated team work, it is reasonable to expect that team members who are there because they want to be -- and who communicate well with each other -- will tend to perform better than teams with lower scores on these dimensions. Not surprisingly, better team communication is associated with years of experience with the team. As with assertiveness, there was no significant relationship between communication and overall sailing experience, nor was there a significant relationship between communication and the number of years the skipper had served as a skipper. Team experience is an important variable with respect to explaining both team assertiveness and team communication.

Skipper monitoring and feedback, as an element of team communication, was significantly related to team viability and team success. To the extent that these skills can be learned, skippers have an opportunity to develop expertise in an area directly related to team success. The importance of communication, monitoring and feedback is not new. Mintzberg (1973) stressed the informational role of the leader as monitor. Locke, Latham, Saari, & Shaw (1981) emphasized the role of supervisory feedback in improving job performance and motivating subordinates. Our findings add to the body of knowledge on the subject and complement those of Komaki et al. (1989) with sailboats. Essentially the same results were obtained using two very different methods, adding to the robustness of the findings.

Team viability (Sundstrom, et al., 1990) or affective commitment (Meyer et al.,1989) held up well as both a predictor of team success and a criterion predicted by communication and assertiveness. Our findings suggest that Schachter and his colleagues (1951) were right: Cohesiveness (team viability) and high levels of performance are positively related to the extent that team norms encourage high levels of performance.

Agreement Between Sources

Correlations between skipper and crew scores on assertiveness, communication, and viability were .65, .76, and .91 respectively (p<.01). The most parsimonious explanation for the high level of agreement between skippers and crew members may lie in the nature of sailing teams. Conversations with skippers and crew members in our sample, who were generally not professional sailors, revealed that they sail because they enjoy it, and they sail well because they prefer winning to losing. When skippers obtain a competent, successful crew, they make efforts to keep that crew intact. Crews stay together, at least in part, because they enjoy the experience of being together. Successful crews communicate well and their skippers demonstrate good monitoring and feedback skills. At some level, both crew members and skippers of successful boats recognize the advantages and rewards of being together. Based on crew and skipper relationships and the nature of the tasks, it seems reasonable to conclude that skippers and their crew members share similar views about their own crew’s standing on dimensions that make a sailing team successful.

Study Limitations

The major limitations of this study are the same as those found in any study in which self-report measures are employed. Future research should focus on adding to the methodological diversity employed in both this and other studies investigating similar issues. For example, observational techniques used by Komaki et al. (1989) could be combined with the self-report approach used here and analyzed using procedures based on the MTMM matrix. We should investigate some of the other components of team work suggested by Dickenson & McIntyre (1997). However, it is important to note that we obtained independent measures of order of finish and had good agreement between skippers and crew members.

Conclusions

The independent variables developed in this study are significantly related to at least one measure of team performance, in this case order of finish of sailboats in regattas. Our findings might be useful in selecting crew members not only for their technical abilities, but also for their potential to become viable team members. With further work on the scales, as well as with the creation of additional scales, we envision extending the methodology to other types of teams. Teams that deal with realistic tasks, time pressures, clear outcomes, feedback, and the like, such as tank crews, sports teams (e.g., basketball, soccer), aircrews, auto racing teams (especially pit crews), and firefighting crews are likely candidates.

Finally, results of this study provide important evidence of the relationships among team communication, assertiveness, viability, and outcomes. These findings appear to offer both theoretical and practical applications in the area of team processes and team work.

References

Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Brannick, M. T., Prince, A., Prince, C., and Salas, E. (1995). The measurement of team process. Human Factors, 37(3), 641-651.

Campbell, D.T., & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105.

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1997). A framework for developing team

performance measures in training. In Brannick, M.T., Salas, E., & Prince, C. (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed., pp. 91-109). New York: Harper

& Row.

Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.

Dickenson, T. L., & McIntyre, R. M. (1997). A conceptual framework for teamwork

measurement. In Brannick, M.T., Salas, E., & Prince, C. (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Greene, C.N. (1989). Cohesion and productivity in work groups. Small Group Behavior, 20,

70-86.

Herzberger, S. D., Chan, E., & Katz, J. (1984). The development of an assertiveness self-report

inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 317-323.

James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 (1), 85-98.

Koehler, J.W., Anatol, K.W.E., & Applbaum, R.L. (1981). Organizational communication: Behavioral perspectives (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston.

Komaki, J. L., Desselles, M. L., & Bowman, E. D. (1989). Definitely not a breeze: Extending an operant model of effective supervision to teams. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 74, 522-529.

Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Hattrup, K. (1992). A disagreement about within-group

agreement: Disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(2), 161-167.

Larson, C. E. & LaFasto, F. M. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right/what can go wrong.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Littlepage, G.E., Cowart, L., & Kerr, B. (1989). Relationships between group environment

scales and group performance and cohesion. Small Group Behavior, 20, 50-61.

Locke, E.A., Latham, G., Saari, L.M., & Shaw, K.N. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969-1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152.

Mathieu, J.E., Martineau, J.W., & Tannenbaum, S.I. (1993). Individual and situational influences on the development of self-efficacy: Implications for training effectiveness.

Personnel Psychology, 46,125-147.

Meyer, J.P., Paunonen, S.V., Gellatly, I.R., Goffin, R.D., & Jackson, D.N. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: It’s the nature of the commitment that

counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 152-156.

Miner, J.B. (1965). Studies in management education. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row.

O’Reilly, C.A. (1980). Individuals and information overload in organizations: Is more necessarily better? Academy of Management Journal, 23, 684-696.

Oser, R.L., McCallum, G.A., Salas, E., & Morgan, B.B., Jr. (1989). Toward a definition of teamwork: An analysis of critical team behavior. (NTSC Technical Report No. 89-

004). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center.

Prince, C., & Salas, E. (1993). Training and research for teamwork in the military aircrew. In E. L. Wiener, B. J. Kanki, & R. L. Helmrich (eds.). Cockpit Resource

Management. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Rathus, S. A. (1973). A 30-item schedule for assessing assertive behavior. Behavior Therapy, 4, 398-406.

Schachter, S., Ellertson, N., McBryde, D., & Gregory, D. (1951). An experimental study of cohesiveness and productivity. Human Relations, 4, 229-238.

Smith, K. A., Marion-Landais, C. A., & Blume, B. J. (1993). Development of a scale to predict

assertiveness in team situations. Poster presented at the Eighth Annual Conference of the

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA.

Smith-Jentsch, K.A., Salas, E., & Baker, D.P. (1996). Training team performance-related assertiveness. Personnel Psychology, 49, 909-936.

Snyder, R.A., & Morris, J.H. (1984). Organizational communication and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 461-465.

Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120-123.

Appendix A

CREW MEMBER SURVEY QUESTIONS

Listed below are the questions to which crew members responded, based on the following scale: 1-Never, 2-Seldom, 3-Sometimes, 4-Often, 5-Usually, 6-Always. (R) indicates reverse scored.

The following statements are about the CREW:

1.	Even if we disagree with the skipper, we still make suggestions.
2.	If the skipper gives an order we think is wrong, we do it anyway.
3.	We make suggestions on tactics (e.g. start position, trim) to the skipper.
4.	If the crew sees something that might need attention, we tell the skipper. ..................................
5.	If crew members don’t like their crew position they will ask for a change.
6.	Crew members avoid arguing with other crew members over tactics.
7.	The crew objects to orders if they feel the orders are wrong.
8.	If crew members don't know how to do something, they ask.
9.	Crew members ask the skipper or other crew members if they are unsure of their task.
10.	If a crew member makes an error they try not to let on. (R)
11.	Crew members avoid asking questions for fear of sounding stupid. (R)
statements are about the SKIPPER:	The following statements are about the SKIPPER:
12.	The skipper lets us know when we have done something right.
13.	The skipper yells at the crew. (R)
14.	The skipper provides enough direction to the crew.
15.	When we give information to the skipper, he/she acts on it.
16.	The skipper effectively monitors race conditions.
17.	The skipper pays attention to what the crew is doing.
18.	The skipper lets us know when we have done something wrong.
19.	If the skipper yells, he/she has a good reason.
20.	The skipper takes suggestions from the crew.
21.	The skipper monitors the actions of crew members.
22.	The skipper yells at the crew for no good reason. (R)
23.	The skipper asks the crew if they are ready before executing maneuvers.
24.	The skipper doesn’t really listen to the crew. (R)
25.	The skipper focuses more on race conditions than on the actions of the crew.
	The following statements are about YOUR PERSONAL FEELINGS as a crew member.
26.	Crew members on this team get along well with each other.
27.	I enjoy being on this crew.
28.	I feel good when I am sailing with this crew.
29.	Given the choice of this or a different crew, I prefer this crew.

Appendix B

SKIPPER SURVEY QUESTIONS

Listed below are the questions to which skippers responded, based on the following scale: 1-Never, 2-Seldom, 3-Sometimes, 4-Often, 5-Usually, 6-Always. (R) indicates reverse scored.

The following statements are about the CREW:

1.	Even if a crew member disagrees with me, they will still make suggestions.
2.	If a crew member thinks one of my orders is wrong, they do it anyway.
3.	Crew members make suggestions on tactics (e.g. start position, trim) to me.
4.	If a crew member sees something that might need attention, they tell me.
5.	If crew members don’t like the crew position I assign they will ask for a change.
6.	Crew members avoid arguing with other crew members over tactics.
7.	The crew members object to my orders if they feel the orders are wrong.
8.	If crew members don't know how to do something, they ask.
9.	Crew members will ask me or other crew members if they are unsure of their task.
10.	If crew members make an error they try not to let on. (R)
11.	Crew members avoid asking questions for fear of sounding stupid. (R)
statements are about the SKIPPER:	The following statements are about YOUR ACTIONS:
12.	I let crew members know when they have done something right.
13.	I yell at the crew. (R)
14.	I provide enough direction to the crew.
15.	When the crew gives me information, I act on it.
16.	I effectively monitor race conditions.
17.	I pay attention to what the crew is doing.
18.	I let the crew know when they have done something wrong.
19.	If I yell at the crew, I have a good reason.
20.	I take suggestions from the crew.
21.	I monitor the actions of crew members.
22.	I yell at the crew for no good reason. (R)
23.	I ask the crew if they are ready before executing maneuvers.
24.	I don’t really listen to the crew. (R)
25.	I focus more on race conditions than on the actions of the crew.
	The following statements concern YOUR PERSONAL FEELINGS about the crew:
26.	Crew members on this team get along well with each other.
27.	I enjoy being on this crew.
28.	I feel good when I am sailing with this crew.
29.	Given the choice of this or a different crew, I prefer this crew.

Tables

Table 1. Characteristics of Sailing Survey Participants

Variables Mean SD Range n

Skippers 52

Age (in years) 42.5 13.5 21-68

Years as skipper 6.7 6.8 0-36

Years with crew 4.0 3.4 0-15

Sailing experience 19.3 9.6 5-45

Crew Members 200

Age (in years) 34.7 10.8 17-75

Years with crew 2.3 2.3 0-13

Sailing experience 13.0 8.0 1-45

Table 2. Rotated Factor Pattern (Standardized Regression Coefficients)

Item – Brief Description Factor 1 Factor 2

1- Even if they disagree, crew suggests 0.18455 0.50639

3- Crew makes suggestions on tactics 0.06457 0.49680

5- If crew dislikes positions, they ask for change -0.03220 0.50635

7- Crew objects if orders appear wrong -0.06696 0.56366

8- If crew doesn’t know how, they ask 0.26618 0.53560

9- Crew asks if unsure of task 0.28954 0.54345

10-Crew attempts to hide errors -0.02517 0.67745

11-Crew avoids appearing ignorant 0.03724 0.60563

12-Skipper compliments crew 0.58480 0.20139

13-Skipper yells at crew 0.63007 0.16293

14-Skipper provides enough direction 0.68478 0.00574

15-Skipper acts on crew info 0.44026 0.28766

16-Skipper monitors race conditions 0.80646 -0.13042

17-Skipper attends to crew actions 0.62666 0.05724

19-Skipper has good reason to yell 0.80186 -0.29942

20-Skipper takes crew suggestions 0.58701 0.13218

21-Skipper monitors crew actions 0.55351 0.06723

22-Skipper yells at crew w/o reason 0.84580 -0.10206

23-Skipper asks crew if they are ready 0.41198 0.16227

24-Skipper doesn’t listen to crew 0.68108 -0.01409

Tables (Con’t)

Table 3. Correlation Matrix for Assertiveness, Intra-crew Communication, Monitoring and Feedback, Team Viability, and Order of Finish

Mn SD 1 2 3 4 5

1 Assertiveness 37.02 3.46 1.00

2 Intra-crew Communication 18.75 2.22 .78 1.00

3 Monitoring and Feedback 35.77 3.00 .59 .75 1.00

4 Team Viability 20.38 2.95 .55 .74 .83 1.00

5 Order of Finish .04 1.02 -.49 -.65 -.71 -.80 1.00

n=52 all correlations significant at p<.01

Table 4. MTMM Matrix Comparing Skipper and Crew Member Scores on Communications, Assertiveness, and Viability

1 2 3 4 5 6

Communications 1 1.00

Skipper Assertiveness 2 .63 1.00

Viability 3 .65 .39 1.00

Communications 4 .76 .50 .81 1.00

Crew Assertiveness 5 .57 .65 .54 .70 1.00

Viability 6 .66 .38 .91 .86 .57 1.00

all correlations significant at p<.01

Means and standard deviations:

Mn SD

Communications 63.62 3.96

Skipper Assertiveness 36.52 5.04

Viability 21.15 2.64

Communications 18.75 2.22

Crew Assertiveness 37.12 3.50

Viability 20.15 3.10