Team Development and Functioning

597
CH A P T E R 1 9
TEAM DEVELOPMENT
AND FUNCTIONING
Janis A. Cannon-Bowers and Clint Bowers
Teams are a fundamental part of almost all human
endeavors. As such, interest in teams and team func-
tioning in the workplace became a topic of serious
investigation as early as the 1920s. Since then, schol-
arly work in the area of teams and teamwork has
grown dramatically. Indeed, the modern pressures of
a global economy have increased the need for organi-
zations to optimize the use of teams, and introduced
new challenges such as so-called virtual teams.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a syn-
thesis of past work into team functioning and
development, highlighting important historical
milestones and drawing conclusions where appro-
priate. It is organized around several key topics:
the history of team research in organizations, mod-
els and taxonomies of teams and team tasks, defin-
ing team requirements, team selection, team
processes and emergent states, measuring team
performance, team training, and other emerging
issues in teams. We conclude with recommenda-
tions for future team researchers.
TEAMS AND TEAMWORK: HISTORY,
DEFINITIONS, AND MODELS
Teams of people working together for a
common purpose have been a center-
piece of human social organization ever
since our ancient ancestors rst banded
together to hunt game, raise families, and
defend their communities. Human his-
tory is largely a story of people working
together in groups to explore, achieve and
conquer (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006, p. 77).
As this quote aptly states, teams are a fundamental
part of almost all human endeavors. In light of this, it
is perhaps somewhat surprising to realize that the
study and use of teams in the workplace is a relatively
new development (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Despite
this rather slow start, the eld of teams and team per-
formance has literally exploded in recent years, and
there is now a voluminous literature on the subject.
This has presented a rather daunting task in preparing
this chapter because we are really able to only scratch
the surface in reviewing this important area. As such,
we have focused on important historical foundations
as well as the more recent developments and have
attempted to synthesize past work and distill impor-
tant conclusions where possible.
The remainder of this chapter is structured as
follows: First, we provide a brief history of work
team and work group research and follow with a
discussion of important denitional issues. Next we
present several examples of models of teamwork
that have guided empirical work and also several
major taxonomies of teams and team tasks. After
this, we turn our attention to establishing team
requirements, discussing issues including team task
analysis and team competencies. This leads to a
review of research into team selection, including
personality and individual differences, team compo-
sition, heterogeneity and diversity, and team size.
The next major section covers team processes,
summarizing theoretical and empirical work regard-
ing the processes that make teams effective (or in-
effective). Following this, we present a review of
team performance measurement and team-training
strategies. Finally, we address some other, more
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 597
emerging issues associated with teams: virtual teams,
teams and technology, and multicultural teams.
A Brief History of Team Research
In their comprehensive review, Sundstrom, McIntyre,
Halfhill, and Richards (2000) traced the history of
team research to the seminal Hawthorne studies in
the 1920s. According to these authors, among the
results of this unprecedented work was the recogni-
tion that work groups were an important topic of
study within organizations. In particular, the notion
that work groups developed informal work structures
and norms that had a direct impact on performance
was born (Sundstrom et al., 2000).
Over the next few decades, the interest in work
groups grew rather sporadically, with a few notable
exceptions (see Sundstrom et al., 2000, for a more
detailed review). For example, work in the 1950s on
sociotechnical systems (Rice, 1953; Trist & Bamforth,
1951) emphasized the use of autonomous work
groups. The participative management movement
beginning in the 1960s (Likert, 1961; McGregor,
1960) advocated expanded use of work groups, and
in the 1970s, several well-publicized case studies
highlighted the use of team-based organizations
(e.g., General Motors Tarrytown plant, Volvo, Saab;
see Sundstrom et al., 2000, for more detail).
By the mid 1980s, the use of quality circles had
taken hold as an offshoot of the total quality man-
agement movement (Cannon-Bowers, Oser, &
Flanagan, 1992). These groups were not part of
direct work structures; rather, they were groups of
employees who came together to discuss quality
improvement across the company. At the same time,
the use of teams as a basis for work organization
also grew in the form of production groups and
project teams (Sundstrom et al., 2000), a trend con-
sistent with popular organizational change move-
ments of the time (e.g., Kanter, 1983; Peters, 1988).
In the late 1980s and into the 1990s, the emphasis
on teams and team performance grew exponentially,
with impetus from at least two sectors: commercial
aviation and the military (see Salas, Bowers, &
Cannon-Bowers, 1995). With respect to aviation, the
late 1980s witnessed development of several cockpit
resource management (CRM), sometimes referred to
more recently as crew resource management (also
CRM), programs (Wiener, Kanki, & Helmreich,
1993). In response to a number of well-publicized
aviation incidents and accidents that were attributed
at least in part to faulty teamwork, the commercial
aviation industry began to institute CRM programs
aimed at improving teamwork in the cockpit (Weiner
et al., 1993). Among the important implications of
this work was the recognition that softer skills such
as teamwork attitudes, interpersonal skills, communi-
cation, and assertiveness could all have an important
impact on team performance (Helmreich, Wilhelm,
Gregorich, & Chidester, 1990).
Another event in the summer of 1988this one
involving a U.S. Navy warship (the USS Vincennes)
also focused attention and resources onto team per-
formance (see Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1998, for
more detail). The ship mistakenly shot down an
Iranian airbus, believing that it was a hostile air-
craft. After considerable investigation, it was deter-
mined that the incident could not be attributed to
any system or hardware failure, prompting the
establishment of the Tactical Decision Making
Under Stress (TADMUS) project by the U.S. Navy
(Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1998). TADMUS was a
multimillion dollar, multidisciplinary program of
research that spanned almost 10 years. It had two
overarching purposes: to improve the design of com-
puter interfaces and to improve training strategies in
high performance teams. According to Kozlowski
and Ilgen (2006), TADMUS was successful in gener-
ating many effective team training approaches and is
a good example of how theory and research can
translate into organizational applications.
By the year 2000, the study of teams and their
application in organizations had come of age. Rather
than question the value of team-based organizations,
researchers in this decade have turned their atten-
tion to how best to select, train, and develop effec-
tive teams (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Emphasis has
shifted to more specialized topics, such as the cogni-
tive underpinnings of teamwork, virtual (i.e., physi-
cally dispersed) teams, and multicultural teams. The
2000s have also seen a large number of meta-analyses
of different aspects of teamwork and team perfor-
mance (described later), which is not surprising
because the body of empirical work has now grown
to the point where such analyses are possible. Before
Cannon-Bowers and Bowers
598
11819-19_Ch19-rev4.qxd 4/6/10 12:02 PM Page 598
we can begin a meaningful discussion of this work
into teams and teamwork, it is important to address
some important denitional issues.
Definitions and Defining Characteristics
The astute reader will note that we have been using
the terms team and group interchangeably to this
point, a practice that has led to some debate in the
literature. According to Sundstrom et al. (2000),
although some researchers distinguish between these
terms, the distinction has been neither consistent or
widely recognized (p. 44). We tend to share this
view, because it is the dening characteristics and
features of the construct that are important, not
strictly the label. Hence, our discussion focuses on
the denitions of work teams and groups that have
been offered in the literature, which range from fairly
simple and straightforward, to more complex.
Among the more straightforward denitions,
Sundstrom, DeMeuse, and Futrell (1990) dened
work teams as small groups of interdependent indi-
viduals who share responsibility for outcomes for
their organizations (p. 120). In a similar vein,
Salas, Dickinson, Converse, and Tannenbaum
(1992) dened a team as a
distinguishable set of two or more people
who interact dynamically, interdepen-
dently, and adaptively toward a common
and valued goal/objective/mission, who
have each been assigned specic roles or
functions to perform, and who have a
limited life-span membership. (p. 4)
In an even more comprehensive treatment,
Kozlowski and Ilgen (2006) synthesized past work
to arrive at the following denition of teams:
(a) Two or more individuals who
(b) socially interact (face to face, or
increasingly, virtually); (c) possess one
or more common goals; (d) are brought
together to perform organizationally
relevant tasks; (e) exhibit interdepen-
dencies with respect to workow, goals,
and outcomes; (f) have different roles
and responsibilities; and (g) are together
embedded in an encompassing organi-
zational system, with boundaries and
linkages to the broader system context
and task environment. (p. 79)
Parsing these denitions yields several important
features that we believe represent the essence of
teamwork: interdependence of action; shared
responsibility; and common, meaningful goals. It
also highlights the fact that team members often
have specialized roles and that teams exist in a
broader organizational context (which presumably
effects their performance). Other authors have also
added to the list of essential features the fact that
teams have members who see themselves as, and are
recognized by others as, a group (e.g., Stevens &
Campion, 1994) and that teams display adaptive
strategies that allow them to respond to change
(Paris, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000).
Types of teams. The rather broad, overarching
denition presented earlier is useful in establishing
the boundaries of theorizing and research on teams.
However, to better appreciate the nature of teams
and team performance, a more detailed description
is needed. This need has given rise to several typolo-
gies of teams and their work in recognition of the
fact that the nature of the work being completed by
the team has an important impact on their function-
ing. It has also served to organize thinking about
teams by highlighting commonalities among the
kinds of teams employed by organizations.
With respect to taxonomies of teams (as opposed
to team tasks, which are reviewed subsequently),
Sundstrom et al. (1990) offered one popular frame-
work. This view categorized teams into: advice/
involvement, production/service, project/development,
and action/negotiation. Each of these was dened in
terms of its work-team differentiation (i.e., the degree
of specialization, independence, or autonomy of the
team with respect to other organizational units) and
external integration (i.e., the extent of integration
into the larger organizational system and degree of
coordination and synchronization needed). Also
included in the taxonomy were work cycles (which
can be brief, recurring, enduring) and typical outputs
generated by the team.
In subsequent updates of this work, Sundstrom
and colleagues (Sundstrom, 1999; Sundstrom et al.,
Team Development and Functioning
599
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 599
2000) added that these various types of teams vary on
four main characteristics: level of authority within
the organization, time horizon (i.e., time until the
team disbands), degree of specialization, and degree
of interdependence within and external to the team.
Their most recent work also offered a revised set of
team types to include production groups, service
groups, management teams, project groups, action
and performing groups, and advisory groups (see
Sundstrom, 1999, for more detail).
In other work, Klimoski and Jones (1995) pre-
sented a taxonomy of decision-making teams that
included command-and-control teams, production
teams, customer service teams, professional (techni-
cal) decision-making teams, and executive teams. In
contrast to Sundstrom (1999), this categorization
was based more on an analysis of the various types
of teams that exist in different organizational sec-
tors. Klimoski and Joness purpose in making a dis-
tinction among these types of teams was that the
unique requirements inherent in each would drive
decisions about team member selection and
staffing. (We have more to say about team selec-
tion in a later section.)
Although there is no single, universally accepted
taxonomy of teams, the point here is that nding
meaningful bases on which to classify teams can be
useful in setting boundaries for both research and
application. Rather than trying to generalize to all
types of teams (which is almost akin to generalizing
to all kind of work), a taxonomic approach can bet-
ter couch the pertinent questions about a teams per-
formance and help to establish generalizability of
results. Hence, we recommend that researchers
adopt and make explicit the way they view the type
of teams with which they are dealing.
Types of team task demands. Another approach
to organizing team research and practice is to focus
on the nature of the teams task or work. According
to McGrath (1984), analyzing any team perfor-
mance situation should begin with an understand-
ing of the nature of the group task to be performed.
Only then can the organization and design of the
team and its work be optimized. In one inuential
formulation of this sort, Steiner (1972) proposed
that there were several types of team tasks:
additive tasks require summing of each team
members effort or output, where each member
has an equal part to play;
disjunctive tasks require that only one team mem-
ber performs well to achieve success, for example
when the teams output is dependent on the most
knowledgeable member;
conjunctive tasks require that every team member
perform at a minimally acceptable level, as when
the output of one member is dependent on the
output of another; and
discretionary tasks allow team members to com-
bine their individual inputs in any of the ways
described earlier or another strategy devised by
the group.
The implications of this type of scheme for func-
tions such as proper selection and stafng of team
members, development of training programs, and
design of teamwork environments (e.g., communi-
cation networks), as well as studies of team effec-
tiveness, are vast. For example, when selecting team
members for a disjunctive task it would make sense
to place emphasis on ensuring that at least one team
member had sufcient expertise, whereas conjunc-
tive tasks would require a closer look at how the
team is composed across members. We revisit this
issue in more detail in later sections.
In addition to Steiner (1972), McGrath (1984)
offered an often-cited taxonomy of team tasks or
processes. These included generative tasks (i.e.,
members must generate ideas or alternatives such
as in brainstorming), executing tasks (i.e., members
perform psychomotor or physical activities accord-
ing to a prespecied plan or model), negotiating
tasks (i.e., members must reach agreements by
resolving conict or reconciling different view-
points), and choosing or decision-making tasks
(i.e., members must construct or select a solution).
Once again, the value of this type of framework
stems from its ability to help generate hypotheses
about how various team and environmental features
affect team performance and determine the general-
izability of results regarding team functioning.
In a slightly different vein, several groups of schol-
ars have theorized about the nature of interdependence
in a teams task (Saavedra, Earley, & Van Dyne, 1993;
600
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 600
Thompson, 1967; Van de Ven, Delbecq, & Koenig,
1976). According to this line of thinking, team tasks
can be organized into the following four categories on
the basis of the type of interdependence required:
Pooled interdependenceindependent workow
where each group member contributes separately
to the groups output without interacting directly
with other members. In such situations, group
members typically hold similar roles and com-
plete the entire task. Group output is the sum of
the individual group members contributions.
Sequential interdependenceone-way workow
where the input from one group member is nec-
essary to the functioning of another. Typically,
group members have specialized roles and per-
form different parts of the task, and performance
is a function of the correct actions being com-
pletely in the correct sequence. An example here
would be a traditional assembly line.
Reciprocal interdependencetwo-way workow
where two team members interact such that the
output of one becomes the input to the other and
vice versa. In this case, the roles of members are
typically specialized, but the order of individual
actions can vary. Group performance requires
coordination among members because there is
exibility in the sequence of steps. Command-
and-control teams are examples of this type of
interdependence because they must coordinate
actions among individual experts in support of
overall task performance.
Team interdependencesimultaneous, multi-
directional workow where group members
must act collaboratively to complete the task.
This category was added by Van de Ven et al.
(1976) to the original Thompson (1967) scheme.
Groups in this category have the discretion to
jointly decide how the task will be completed
and have the power to modify allocation of
resources to reach their goals. Self-managed
work teams typify this category.
Saavedra et al. (1993) expanded these original
notions about types of task interdependence by
making the point that to optimize performance,
other performance-shaping functions within the
team needed to be congruent with the nature of
interdependence. These researchers dened complex
interdependence as comprising task, goal, and feedback
interdependence, and they hypothesized that the
congruence among these factors would affect perfor-
mance. This hypothesis was supported in a laboratory
study; specically, congruent complex interdepen-
dence was associated with higher levels of group per-
formance (measured as quantity and quality of group
output on a management task; r = .22 for quantity,
r = 25. for quality; Saavedra et al., 1993).
Finally, based on a good deal of prior work,
Fleishman and Zaccaro (1992) developed a taxon-
omy of team functions. This formulation identies
classes of functions performed within a task and is
based on the notion that team performance is the
result of four antecedents: the external conditions
imposed on the team, team member resources, task
demands and characteristics, and team characteris-
tics. It consists of seven categories of functions:
orientation functionsexchanging information
about member resources and constraints; team
tasks and goals; task priorities;
resource distribution functionsdistributing the
task or workload across members; matching
member resources to task requirements;
timing functionsinuencing how activities are
paced overall and at the individual level;
response coordination functionssynchronizing and
timing of tasks and output; response sequencing;
motivational functionsmanaging individual and
team-level goals; developing team norms; estab-
lishing performancereward contingencies; resolv-
ing conict; balancing team versus individual
orientation;
systems monitoring functionmonitoring of the
task to enable adjustments and error correction;
general and individual activity monitoring; and
procedure maintenancemonitoring of general
and individual activities and procedures; adjust-
ing nonstandard activities.
Models of Teamwork
and Team Effectiveness
Flowing directly from the denition of work teams
and taxonomies of teams and tasks is consideration
of teamworkwhat it is and how it is affected by
601
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 601
factors both within and outside the team. Related to
this is the question of team effectivenesssimply
put, the identication of factors that facilitate or
inhibit a teams performance. In this regard, a number
of models or frameworks of teamwork have been
offered; several of these are reviewed next.
Perhaps the most inuential of team frameworks
was offered by McGrath (1964), in which team per-
formance is viewed as involving inputs, processes,
and outputs. This line of thinking led to specication
of a series of so-called inputprocessoutput (IPO)
models. According to this framework, inputs include
a variety of individual and team factors, resources,
and organizational/environmental variables. Process
refers to activities engaged in by the team to accom-
plish task demands, essentially the transformation of
inputs into outputs. Outputs include resulting team
performance as well as other outcomes such as team
satisfaction, cohesion, and turnover.
One popular version of the IPO model genre
was proposed by Hackman (1987). This model
(which has been updated and revised over the years
but still endures as a viable representation of group
effectiveness) emphasizes organizational context, as
well as team members efforts, skills, and performance
strategies (see Figure 19.1). It also emphasizes that
group effectiveness includes the notion that members
needs are satised and that their capability to work
together in the future is maintained or strengthened.
This is dened as team viability (i.e., the willingness
of team members to remain a part of the team) and is
an important group output.
In another, more recent, IPO model proposed by
Salas and colleagues (Salas et al., 1992; Tannenbaum,
Beard, & Salas, 1992), the host of variables considered
as important to team effectiveness was expanded sig-
nicantly. Called the team effectiveness model (TEM),
it contains four classes of input factors: task char-
acteristics (e.g., workload, stress), work characteristics
(e.g., role assignment, communication structure),
individual characteristics (e.g., individual proficien-
cies, attitudes, competencies), and team characteristics
602
FIGURE 19.1. Hackmans model of team effectiveness. From Handbook of Organizational
Behavior (p. 331) by J. Lorsch (Ed.), 1987, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Copyright
1987 by Prentice-Hall. Adapted with permission.
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 602
(e.g., cohesiveness, familiarity, role clarity). Processes
include such things as coordination, communica-
tion, decision making, and backup behavior. Finally,
outcomes include team performance and attitudes.
A feedback loop ensures that outcomes affect sub-
sequent input and performance.
Recently, the use of IPO models as a guide for
empirical work has been criticized because these
models are not reective of the dynamic nature of
team performance and tend to be descriptive rather
than causal in nature (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).
Further, Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, and Jundt
(2005) maintained that the IPO perspective falls
short on three grounds: (a) many of the mediational
processes cited by researchers as responsible for
transforming inputs into outputs are not processes
but emergent cognitive or affective states, for exam-
ple, collective efcacy, cohesion, and situation
awareness (see Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001),
(b) IPO models are limited because they imply a
single cycle, linear path from inputs through out-
comes, and (c) recent work indicates that there are
interactions between and among inputs, processes,
and emergent states, suggesting that a main-effect
progression from one to the next may not hold.
In response to these deciencies, Ilgen et al.
(2005) proposed an alternative conceptualization
that involves inputmediatoroutputinput (IMOI).
The main differences between this modied version
and the original formulation is that the term media-
tor is used as opposed to process to imply that
there is a broader range of mediational inuences
that transform inputs into outcomes (e.g., emergent
states). The addition of input at the end implies that
there is an explicit cyclical feedback loop. Finally,
the elimination of hyphens between letters is meant
to imply that the causal linkages may not be linear,
but can be nonlinear or conditional (see Ilgen et al.,
2005, for more detail).
In other formulations, several team scholars have
presented models that attempt to describe a team
over time, focusing on developmental stages. These
models differ from IPO models in that they seek to
explain what happens to a team across its life cycle
rather than at any single point in time. Kozlowski,
Gully, Nason, and Smith (1999) provided a summary
and review of several of these types of models.
According to these authors, there is a high level of
agreement with respect to developmental stages and
emphasis on interpersonal processes and outcomes
(see Kozlowski et al., 1999, for more detail). For
example, the classic norming, storming, forming,
performing framework presented by Tuckman
(1965) is consistent with several others that propose
separate stages of development (e.g., Caple, 1978;
Francis & Young, 1974).
In a slightly different formulation, Gersick (1988)
proposed a two-stage punctuated equilibrium model.
This model holds that in the rst stage, an immedi-
ate pattern of activity persists to the halfway point of
the teams performance followed by a signicantly
altered pattern of group activity that focuses atten-
tion on task completion. Combining this view with
that of Tuckmans (1965), Morgan and colleagues
(Morgan, Glickman, Woodward, Blaiwes, & Salas,
1986; Morgan, Salas, & Glickman, 1993) presented
the team evolution and maturation (TEAM) model. It
posits nine stages of development: one performing
stage that represents forces external to the team that
cause the team to be formed, seven central or core
stages (i.e., forming, storming, norming, performing-
I, reforming, performing-II, conforming), and a nal
stage where, having completed its task, the team
disbands (i.e., deforming). Gersicks notion of
a change in activity at the halfway point is repre-
sented in this model after the rst performance
stage (i.e., performing-I) when the team re-forms to
complete the task.
Also represented in the TEAM model is the
notion that two separate tracks of activity develop
as the team progresses through its developmental
cycle. The first of these involves activities that
have to do with the specific tasks being performed
(hence, the label taskwork), whereas the second is
concerned with those activities necessary to
ensure effective functioning of the team (labeled
teamwork). This second category includes such
activities as developing social interaction patterns,
coordination strategies, and relationships among
members that are crucial to the success of the
team. Recognition of this track highlighted the fact
that teams require a unique, separate set of skills
that are not pertinent in individual settings and
led to a more direct focus on teamwork skills than
603
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 603
had been apparent previously (e.g., see Cannon-
Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Volpe, 1995).
Kozlowski et al. (1999) also presented a view of
teams from a developmental standpoint. Focusing on
more complex tasks and structured environments,
these authors sought to describe the development of
teams who can adapt to changing task demands. This
model proposes four phases of team development
that vary with respect to the focus (i.e., individual vs.
team), content, processes, and outcomes (i.e., cogni-
tive, affective, behavioral) that change over time.
They conceptualize team compilation as a develop-
mental process that involves the building of knowl-
edge, skills, and performance capabilities over time
and levels. It incorporates notions such as socializa-
tion; team orientation; skill acquisition; task mastery;
role knowledge, negotiation, identication, and rou-
tinization; self-regulation; continuous improvement;
and team adaptability.
Summary
The taxonomies, frameworks, and models of team
performance described here are but a sampling of
the many representations that exist in the literature.
Perhaps the best conclusion that can be drawn from
these various (and sometimes competing) concep-
tualizations is that there is no one best way to view
teams or team performance. Teams are, in fact,
complex and dynamic systems that affect, and are
affected by, a host of individual, task, situational,
environmental, and organizational factors that exist
both internal and external to the team. What is
probably most lacking are causal models that relate
specic sets of features to predicted team outcomes
and the conditions under which they hold. Although
somewhat tedious to develop, such predictive
frameworks should be useful guides for both
researchers and practitioners.
DEFINING TEAMWORK REQUIREMENTS
The issue of dening teamwork requirements is
fundamental to the development of effective teams
because it precludes selection, training, and other
personnel decisions. According to Stevens and
Campion (1994), establishing teamwork competen-
cies, or knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs), is
essential to a variety of human resource manage-
ment (HRM) functions. Exhibit 19.1 summarizes
the implications of teamwork knowledge, skills,
and abilities (KSAs) for HRM systems based on the
original presented by Stevens and Campion.
As shown in this exhibit, teamwork competen-
cies are fundamental to a number of crucial func-
tions within an organization. The sections that
follow rst focus on methods to establish teamwork
competencies (i.e., team task analysis) and a related
discussion regarding how task demands effect team
requirements and performance. Next, we move to a
review of what has been found regarding which
competencies are required for effective teamwork.
Other issues raised in Table 16.1 (e.g., selection,
stafng, training) will be addressed in more detail in
subsequent sections.
Team Task Analysis
As is the case with all personnel systems, it is cru-
cial to establish the job and task requirements that
confront a team. (See also Vol. 2, chap. 1, this
handbook.) Typically, job/task analysis (JTA)
methods focus on individual skills; however, in
recent years, several researchers have called for a
more direct emphasis on the teamwork demands of
the task (Bowers, Baker, & Salas, 1994). This line of
thinking is consistent with the model of teamwork
offered by Morgan et al. (1993) described earlier.
Unfortunately, there has not been much attention
paid to team task analysis methods; indeed, what
has been written focuses on techniques to augment
more traditional JTA methods. The following sec-
tions summarize current work in this area.
Several approaches to team task analysis have
been proposed (e.g., McNeese & Rentsch, 2001;
Swezey, Owens, Bergondy, & Salas, 1998). Burke
(2004) summarized the essential elements of these
approaches and others. She proposed seven steps that
should be included in a thorough team task analysis.
The first step is to conduct a requirements analysis.
The goal of this step is to clearly describe the spe-
cific job that is to be trained. This step is important
because simply relying on existing job titles or histor-
ical descriptions may not yield an accurate descrip-
tion of the job, especially if the organization has
recently changed to a team-based operation.
604
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 604
The requirements analysis phase is also the one in
which the analyst chooses the knowledge-gathering
approaches that will be used in the task analysis. A
variety of approaches are available, such as observa-
tion, interviews, surveys, and so forth. For the most
part, the particular choice of methods depends on the
nature of the task and the resources available to the
analyst. For example, surveys are relatively cheap and
easy to administer but may not capture the complexity
of a highly complex job (see Goldstein, 1993, for more
detail regarding the relative merits of data-gathering
approaches). In the team area, it is probably the case
that interviews and possibly observation are needed to
fully understand the teams task and procedures.
605
Exhibit 19.1
The Implications of Teamwork Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities
for the Design of Human Resources Systems
Selection
Selection procedures for jobs in team environments should assess teamwork KSAs.
Selection procedures should be tailored to the types of teams within the organization.
Employment tests assessing teamwork KSAs may be valid predictors of teamwork-related job performance.
Teamwork KSAs may be measurable by selection procedures such as written tests, interviews, assessment centers, and biodata.
Recruiting for teams should emphasize the importance of teamwork KSA requirements.
Team stafng decisions should also consider differences in employee preferences for working in groups.
Training
Organizations with team environments should train teamwork KSAs as part of their development programs.
There are a broad variety of potentially useful approaches to the training of teamwork KSAs.
Managers of teams should also be trained in teamwork KSAs and in how to develop these KSAs in employees.
Different training strategies may be more or less appropriate for various teamwork KSAs.
Performance Appraisal
To motivate teamwork in organizations with team environments, performance appraisals should be modied to assess and
reward the behavioral and performance indicators of teamwork.
An organization-specic job analysis may be needed to identify the behavioral or performance indicators of teamwork across
various jobs.
The specic requirements (i.e., KSAs) associated with the team task should be expressed in terms of measurable aspects of
performance.
Based on teamwork KSAs, valid and reliable measures of teamwork should be developed so that they can be used in perfor-
mance appraisals.
Goals to improve team-level KSAs should be incorporated into the appraisal process.
Career Development
Promotion criteria may need to be modied to consider the opportunities to develop teamwork contributions.
Career planning systems may need to consider the opportunities to develop teamwork KSAs that jobs offer.
Teamwork KSAs may be needed for proper socialization and, in turn, be enhanced by socialization.
Mastery of teamwork KSAs should be considered in advancement decisions.

Compensation
Compensation systems in organizations with team environments should include compensable factors reecting teamwork KSAs.
Pay for skills programs in team environments should consider team-level KSAs.
Job and Task Analysis
Job and task analysis procedures should explicitly include team-level KSAs.
Job and task analysis procedures should include measures of teamwork KSAs.
The conditions and standards associated with teamwork across organizational tasks should be built into job and task analysis.
Note. From The Knowledge, Skill, and Ability Requirements for Teamwork: Implications for Human Resource
Management, by M. Stevens and M. Campion, 1994, Journal of Management, 20, p. 505. Copyright 1994 by Sage.
Adapted with permission.
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 605
Step 2 of the team task analysis is to identify the
specic tasks that compose the targeted job using
methods selected in Step 1. This process is done in a
manner that is nearly identical to that used in the
analysis of individual-level jobs. As noted earlier,
this can be done in a number of ways, including
directly interviewing job incumbents (in the case of
team task analysis this can be done individually or
with the entire team present), using previously gen-
erated task lists as a basis for discussion, sending out
surveys to elicit task statements, observing perfor-
mance directly (including video taping), and con-
ducting workshops that involve a number of job
incumbents. (The interested reader should consult
Goldstein, 1993, for more detail.) The result of this
phase is a list of specic tasks, including how they
are done.
The third step described by Burke (2004) is the
identication of a teamwork taxonomy. This is a
listing of teamwork behaviors that are frequently
required in team performance situations. As noted
previously, several such taxonomies are available
(e.g., Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995; Fleishman &
Zaccaro, 1992; Smith-Jentsch, Zeisig, Acton, &
McPherson, 1998). The analyst should choose the
taxonomy that best captures the teamwork needs of
the targeted job. This taxonomy is used as the foun-
dation for identifying the teamwork requirements of
the job.
The fourth step in Burkes (2004) team task-
analysis approach is to conduct a coordination analy-
sis. This step is designed to augment traditional job
analysis techniques by focusing specically on team-
work behaviors that are apt to be overlooked because
they are not the focus of traditional (i.e., individual)
JTA methods. One survey-based approach to accom-
plish coordination analysis has been described by
Bowers, Morgan, Salas, and Prince, (1993). These
researchers used a task list based on aviation tasks
and the Cannon-Bowers et al. (1995) taxonomy to
create a survey of coordination demands in military
aviation. Arthur, Edwards, Bell, Villado, and Bennett
(2005) recently described an expanded version of
this approach that was effective in identifying team-
work requirements for a simulated combat task.
The fth step in the team task-analysis procedure
is to select the relevant tasks for training. The product
of the preceding steps is typically a large list of tasks
associated with the targeted job. This list is usually
so long that it would be impractical to attempt to
specically train each task. Consequently, there is a
need to select the most important tasks to be trained.
In individual task analysis, this selection is done with
the assistance of various task importance indices
(e.g., Levine & Dickey, 1990; Sanchez & Levine,
1989). Bowers et al. (1994) evaluated the utility of
several of these in predicting the overall importance
of team tasks and found that a combination of only
two variables, criticality and importance, were signif-
icant predictors.
The sixth step described by Burke (2004) is the
translation of tasks into KSAs or competencies that
will become the actual targets for selection, stafng,
training, and development. The translation process,
described by Goldstein and Ford (2002), is accom-
plished by the analyst but may also involve team per-
formance experts. Because many job analysts are not
well versed in team performance, calling in such
experts is prudent. In addition, many common team-
work behaviors have been translated into KSAs by
Cannon-Bowers and her colleagues (1995) and can
be used to guide the translation process; this work
will be covered further in a subsequent section.
The nal step in team task analysis is to link the
KSAs back to the team tasks. The goal of this step is
to validate the outcome of the team task analysis
before beginning selection or training development.
This step is typically accomplished through a survey
in which subject matter experts evaluate each KSA in
terms of importance. Those for which there is high
agreement are retained for further use. Others are
either eliminated or revised so that they are useful.
Team Competencies
As noted, the output of a successful team task analysis
is a set of required competencies, or KSAs, for effective
teamwork. Because much of the work in this area has
been done in support of training system design, some
researchers have substituted attitudes for abilities as
the A in KSAs because abilities are typically consid-
ered xed attributes and, therefore, cannot be affected
much by training interventions. For clarity, we will
use the acronym KSA traditionally here (i.e., A =
abilities) and spell the phrase out when A = attitudes.
606
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 606
Recently, Mohammed, Cannon-Bowers, and Foo
(2010) synthesized a great deal of literature regarding
team competencies; the portion of this work pertain-
ing to knowledge, skills and attitudes is displayed
in Table 19.1. This summary can be considered a
useful source for understanding what is required in
effective teams and we attempted to sharpen this
understanding further by indicating the percentage of
variance accounted for in efforts to validate the con-
structs importance. Specically, we computed effect
sizes where data were available to do so.
As is evident from this table, there have been many
different labels and denitions of teamwork knowl-
edge, skills, and attitudes. In a similar review several
years ago, Cannon-Bowers et al. (1995) argued that
team researchers often used different labels to refer to
similar constructs or used similar-sounding labels for
different constructs. They concluded that this concep-
tual confusion has made it difcult to generalize and
consolidate ndings in the team performance area.
Efforts such as those represented by Mohammed et al.
(2010) are helping to address this problem.
Other authors have been more specic in dis-
cussing team competencies. According to Cannon-
Bowers et al. (1995), team competencies apply in
different ways depending on the task demands and
the situation. These researchers offered a frame-
work for thinking about team competencies that
conceptualizes them as being either specic or
generic with respect to a particular team or task sit-
uation. Essentially, team competencies can be either
task-specic or task-generic on the one hand and
either team-specic or team-generic on the other.
Task-specic competencies are those that are
applicable in a specic task or type of task. That is,
the specic manner in which the team knowledge,
skill, or attitude is expressed varies as a function of
the task at hand. Hence, team members must under-
stand how the teamwork competency is applied in
context. An example of a task requiring task-specic
competencies would be in aviation, where cockpit
crews must complete a highly complex set of inter-
dependent tasks to be successful. In such cases, the
specic application of constructs such as communi-
cation or task sequencing constitutes the nature of
the requirement. In contrast, task-generic competen-
cies can be used effectively across a variety of tasks.
For example, possessing effective team planning
skills can be useful in different tasks and can there-
fore be transported from one task to another, so
the requirement in this case is more general.
Further, team competencies can also be specic
or generic with respect to the team members. This
distinction concerns whether the competency
requires knowledge of a specic teammate or is
applicable to any set of team members. In more
complex tasks where team members have some dis-
cretion regarding how they perform the task, it is
important for them to predict how teammates will
behave. This is especially true when the task does not
allow team members to discuss strategies and must
rely on what they know about one another to help
predict how teammates will react. For example, many
anecdotal accounts of professional sports teams relate
that teams seem to perform better when the team
members have had a chance to practice together
(perhaps explaining why dream teams composed of
the best players in the world often do not win). Such
teams require team-specic competencies according to
the Cannon-Bowers et al. (1995) framework.
In contrast, team-generic competencies are those
that contribute to team effectiveness regardless of
which team members are present. For example, inter-
personal skills can be developed and applied across a
variety of teams, regardless of membership. Team-
generic competencies are important because many
teams within organizations are ad hoc, meaning that
team members must interact effectively with team-
mates they do not know well. Hence, task forces,
committees, and other similar structures depend on
well-developed team-generic competencies.
Taking these two factors together results in a
matrix shown in Table 19.2. Specically, teams (and
associated competency requirements) can be broken
into four categories: team-contingent, task-
contingent, context-driven, and transportable. Each
of the four categories in Table 19.2 describes a differ-
ent type of competency required for teamwork;
Cannon-Bowers et al. (1995) classied a series of
teamwork KSAs into these categories. The signi-
cance of this scheme is that it can provide useful
guidance to team selection and training design
efforts based on the nature of the competencies
required. For example, if a competency is team-
607
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 607
608
TABLE 19.1
Team Competencies
Related and Validation and
Attribute Denition subsidiary constructs measurement issues Effect sizes
Knowledge
Knowledge of
teamwork
skills
Knowledge of
team roles
Skills
Adaptability
Interpersonal
factors
Team manage-
ment and
leadership
factors
Understanding of the nec-
essary underpinnings
and behavioral require-
ments of effective team
performance
Knowledge of team roles
and their situational
contingencies
Ability of team members
to adjust their strategies
in response to task
demands, by reallocat-
ing team resources
to optimize the quality
of team member
interactions through
resolution of dissent,
motivational reinforce-
ment, and cooperative
behaviors
Ability of team members to
direct and coordinate
activities; assign tasks;
organize workow
among members; plan,
organize, and establish
a positive climate
Understanding teamwork,
familiarity with team-
work, knowledge of
teamwork KSAs
Intrapositional knowledge,
knowledge of teammates
Compensatory behavior,
backing-up behavior,
ability to effect dynamic
reallocation of function,
ability to effect mutual
adjustment, ability to
balance workload
Morale building behavior;
conict resolution behav-
ior; ability to negotiate;
cooperativeness; ability
to consult with others;
interpersonal trust; social
perceptiveness; persua-
siveness; desire to help
others; social skills
Task motivation, goal set-
ting abilities, planning
and task coordination,
ability to establish roles
and expectations, ability
to instruct others, plan-
ning abilities, organizing
abilities
Assessed through
Teamwork KSA test.
Validation data show
that this variable pre-
dicts effective teamwork
(Hirschfeld et al., 2006;
McClough & Rogelberg,
2003; Stevens &
Campion, 1999).
Assessed through Team
Role Test. Validation data
show that this test pre-
dicts role performance
(Mumford et al., 2008).
Best assessed in a work
sample or other simula-
tion. Most likely a func-
tion of past experience
(so not easily trained).
Some data to suggest
that adaptability
improves teamwork
(Salas et al., 2007).
May be assessed through a
combination of paper
and pencil and behavioral
measures. Some valida-
tion data suggests that
interpersonal skills pre-
dict teamwork (e.g., see
Morgeson et al., 2005).
Best assessed in a work
sample or other simula-
tion, although paper and
pencil instruments may
add value. Not easily
trained because proba-
bly develops with expe-
rience. Some validation
indicates that individual
leadership skills are
associated with team-
work effectiveness (e.g.,
Ahearn et al., 2004;
Burke, Stagl, Klein,
Goodwin, Salas, &
Halpin, 2006).
.25 (Hirschfeld et al.,
2006) to .56
(Stevens &
Campion, 1999)
.39 (Mumford et al.,
2008)
Insufcient data to
compute.
.17 (Morgeson et al.,
2005)
.18 (Ahearn et al.,
2004); r = .33 for
team effectiveness
and r = .20 for pro-
ductivity (Burke
et al., 2006)
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 608
Assertiveness
Mutual perfor-
mance moni-
toring factors
Communication
factors
Cross-boundary
factors
Attitudes
Preference for
teamwork
609
TABLE 19.1 (Continued)
Team Competencies
Capacity of team members
to communicate effec-
tively by sharing ideas
clearly and directly in
interpersonal situations
to accurately monitor
and assess the work of
others; ability to give,
seek, and receive task-
clarifying feedback in a
constructive manner
and to offer advice
Ability to clearly and
accurately articulate
and exchange informa-
tion among team mem-
bers, using accepted
terminology; ability to
acknowledge receipt of
information; ability to
clarify message when
needed
External, task-related
actions directed to other
teams or the larger
organizational context
Inclination and desire to be
part of a team, willing-
ness to engage with
other people in pursuit of
task success, apprecia-
tion for the importance of
teamwork in accomplish-
ing challenging tasks
Task-related assertive-
ness, a component of
extraversion
Acceptance of suggestions
and criticism; ability to
give suggestions and
criticism; ability to pro-
vide intrateam feedback;
ability to monitor and
give feedback; cross
checking ability; error
correction ability; team
maintenance ability
Active listening ability,
ability to exchange
information, ability to
engage in closed-loop
communication, ability
to share information,
ability to engage in open
exchange and to consul
with others
Organizational awareness,
organizational resource-
fulness, ability to build
relationships with other
teams
Team or collective orienta-
tion, importance of
teamwork; appreciation
for teamwork; desire to
work in a team; collec-
tiveness; preference for
teamwork
Can be assessed with
paper and pencil tests,
but behavioral measures
are better. Some valida-
tion data exists (Pearsall
& Ellis, 2006; Smith-
Jentsch et al., 1996).
Best assessed through a
and pencil and behavioral
measures. Has been
linked to team perfor-
mance (e.g., Marks &
Panzer, 2004).
Best assessed through a
and pencil and behav-
ioral measures. Closed-
loop communication
has been shown to pre-
dict teamwork (e.g.,
see Bowers et al, 1998;
Mesmer-Magnus &
DeChurch, 2009).
Paper and pencil measure
developed by Druskat &
Kayes (1999).
Has been assessed with
paper and pencil mea-
sures. Some evidence to
suggest that a collective
orientation leads to bet-
ter teamwork (Driskell &
Salas, 1992) and that
those who enjoy work-
ing in a team engage in
less social loang (Stark
et al., 2007) and have
better team perfor-
mance (Helmreich &
Foushee, 1993).
.30 (Pearsall & Ellis,
2006)
.42 (Marks & Panzer,
2004)
.11 to .45 (Mesmer-
Magnus &
DeChurch, 2009)
Insufcient data to
compute.
.14 (Driskell & Salas,
1992: Stark et. al.,
2007)
(continued)
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 609
610
Self-efcacy for
teamwork
Note. KSA = knowledge, skills, and abilities. From Handbook of Employee Selection (pp. 806808), by J. L. Farr and
N. T. Tippins (Eds.), 2010, New York: Routledge. Copyright 2010 by Routledge. Adapted with permission.
TABLE 19.1 (Continued)
Team Competencies
Degree to which individu-
als believe that they have
the requisite knowledge,
skills, and other attrib-
utes to be successful
team members
Teamwork self-efcacy Has been measured with
paper and pencil mea-
sure (e.g., McClough &
Rogelberg, 2003). Some
data supports the link to
effective teamwork (e.g.,
Tasa, Seijts, & Taggar,
2007).
.25 (Tasa et al., 2007)
TABLE 19.2
Types of Team Competencies
Relation to task
Relation to team Specic Generic
Specic
Generic
Context-driven competencies:
Description: Specic to both the task and team; when a
task is complex and requires team members to
respond quickly to changing demands, team mem-
bers must hold competencies that are tailored to
both the specic team members involved and task at
hand. These represent the most extreme form of
teams for which intimate knowledge of both the task
and team are required.
Examples: Sports teams, combat teams.
Implications: Best developed through practice in realis-
tic task environments with actual team members;
not good candidates for selection because they are
highly dependent on the particular team members.
Task-contingent competencies:
Description: Specic to the task but not to the team. In
many organizations, team membership cannot
remain intact; instead, team members must perform
the same task with different teammates.
Examples: Cockpit crews, surgical teams.
Implications: Best trained in the realistic task environ-
ment with actual or ad hoc teammates. May be use-
ful in selecting new members.
Team-contingent competencies:
Description: Specic to the team but not to the task,
these are teams whose members work together
across a variety of tasks.
Examples: Functional teams who stay together across
projects; management teams; self-managed work
teams.
Implications: Best trained with actual team members
across a variety of tasks; not good candidates for
selection since they are highly dependent on the
particular team members.
Transportable competencies:
Description: Generic to both the task and team. In situa-
tions where task interdependence is relatively low and
team members have time to negotiate mutually bene-
cial performance strategies, transportable compe-
tencies may be sufcient. In addition, it is often the
case in organizations that teams are called on to work
on a variety of tasks with a variety of teammates.
Examples: Task forces, advisory groups, temporary
project teams.
Implications: Can be trained across a variety of tasks and
team members. May be useful in selection. Can be
considered a precursor to more specic team training.
11819-19_Ch19-rev4.qxd 4/6/10 12:02 PM Page 610
specic, this implies that practice must occur with
the actual teammates because performance depends,
at least in part, on team members knowledge of one
another. It also implies that team-specic competen-
cies are not good candidates for selection criteria
because they depend on the particular characteristics
of the team. However, it might be possible to select
for task-specic competencies because potential
employees may have experience in a similar task
environment (e.g., surgical nurses who have prior
experience in surgical teams). In addition, task-
specic competencies are going to be best trained in
a setting that resembles the actual task environment,
for example, by using simulation. Cannon-Bowers
et al. (1995) provided a number of propositions
along these lines. We will continue the discussion of
team training in subsequent sections.
In other work, Campion and his colleagues
(McClough & Rogelberg, 2003; Stevens &
Campion, 1994; Stevens & Campion, 1999) summa-
rized various literatures and conceptualized team-
work KSAs as falling into several categories. These
include: interpersonal KSAs, which can be broken
down further into conict resolution KSAs, collabora-
tive problem solving KSAs, and communication KSAs;
and self-management KSAs, including goal setting and
performance management KSAs, and planning and
task coordination KSAs (see Exhibit 19.2). These
611
Exhibit 19.2
Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSAs) Requirements for Teamwork
Interpersonal KSAs
Conict Resolution KSAs
1. The KSA to recognize and encourage desirable, but discourage undesirable, team conict.
2. The KSA to recognize the type and source of conict confronting the team and to implement an appropriate conict resolu-
tion strategy.
3. The KSA to use an integrative (i.e., winwin) negotiation strategy rather than the traditional distributive (i.e., winlose) strategy.
Collaborative Problem-Solving KSAs
1. The KSA to identify situations requiring participative group problem solving and to use the proper degree and type of
participation.
2. The KSA to recognize the obstacles to collaborative group problem solving and implement appropriate corrective actions.
Communication KSAs
1. The KSA to understand communication networks, and to use decentralized networks to enhance communication
where possible.
2. The KSA to communicate openly and supportively, that is, to send messages which are: (a) behavior- or event-oriented,
(b) congruent, (c) validating, (d) conjunctive, and (e) owned.
3. The KSA to listen nonevaluatively and to appropriately use active listening techniques.
4. The KSA to maximize consonance between nonverbal and verbal messages and to recognize and interpret the nonverbal
messages of others.
5. The KSA to engage in ritual greetings and small talk, and a recognition of their importance.
Self-Management KSAs
Goal Setting and Performance Management KSAs
1. The KSA to help establish specic, challenging, and accepted team goals.
2. The KSA to monitor, evaluate, and provide feedback on both overall team performance and individual team member performance.
Planning and Task Coordination KSAs
1. The KSA to coordinate and synchronize activities, information, and task interdependencies between team members.
2. The KSA to help establish task and role expectations of individual team members and to ensure proper balancing of work-
load in the team.
Note. From The Knowledge, Skill, and Ability Requirements for Teamwork: Implications for Human Resource
Management, by M. Stevens and M. Campion, 1994, Journal of Management, 20, p. 514. Copyright 1994 by Sage.
Adapted with permission.
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 611
researchers developed a situational judgment test to
measure the degree to which individuals possess
each of the KSAs. As such, they are best thought of
as knowledge competencies because even the skills
and abilities are measured cognitively rather than
more behaviorally. For this reason, the Campion and
Stevens competencies are represented in Exhibit 19.2
as knowledge of teamwork skills. Subsequent vali-
dation efforts have demonstrated the efcacy of this
test in predicting teamwork performance (Campion
& Stevens, 1999; McClough & Rogelberg, 2003).
ISSUES IN SELECTING TEAM MEMBERS
As noted in Table 19.1, Stevens and Campion (1994)
argued that understanding teamwork competencies
is an essential step in developing selection systems
for teams. In fact, the issue of team selection involves
a number of important questions. These include the
following:
What makes a good team member?
Which factors should be considered when select-
ing team members?
What is the best composition of team member
knowledge and skill?
How does diversity play into effective teamwork?
The first two of these issueswhat makes a good
team member and what team-related factors should
be considered in selecting team memberswere
addressed, at least in part, in the sections on compe-
tencies. That is, the requirements for effective team-
work discussed in those sections form the basis for
specifying which competencies should be sought in
the applicant pool. However, recent work suggests
that in addition to individual KSAs, other issues may
affect selection in teams. These include personality
variables and individual differences as well as team
composition. We cover these issues in the following
sections.
Personality and Individual Differences
Interest in determining the contribution of personal-
ity factors to work performance began a more than a
decade ago with seminal work into the structure of
personality (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Costa &
McCrae, 1992; Hough, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1996),
with some success. That work led to the establish-
ment of the so-called Big Five, which refers to the
set of personality factors that appear to predict job
performance. These include: conscientiousness,
extraversion, neuroticism (emotional stability),
agreeableness, and openness to experience.
Recently, several researchers have attempted to
generalize these ndings to the team level. Table 19.3,
an expansion of the work of Mohammed et al. (2010),
summarizes the ndings related to personality vari-
ables and team performance, including effect sizes
where available. Indeed, several researchers have
made the argument that personality factors will affect
teamwork (e.g., Barry & Stewart, 1997; Driskell &
Mullen, 2006; Kichuk & Weisner, 1997; Mohammed,
Mathieu, & Bartlett, 2002), a contention that has
been supported in recent meta-analytic reviews (Bell,
2007; Morgeson, Reider, & Campion, 2005; Peeters,
Van Tuijl, Rutte, & Reymen, 2006; Prewett, Gray,
Stilson, Rossi, & Brannick, 2009).
Moreover, at least one meta-analysis found that
measures of personality (i.e., conscientiousness, extra-
version, agreeableness, emotional stability) added
incrementally to the prediction of contextual perfor-
mance when used in conjunction with team knowl-
edge (vis--vis Stevens & Campion, 1994; as assessed
by a situational judgment test) and social skills (i.e.,
assessed in a structured interview), prompting the
authors to conclude that these constructs are
uniquely important for performance in teamwork set-
tings (Morgeson et al., 2005, p. 602). Clearly, includ-
ing selected personality measures into a selection
system for team-based work seems justied.
Team Composition
Thus far, we have presented the discussion of predict-
ing performance using individual attributes (i.e., both
KSAs and personality variables) as if it were simply an
application of individual-level selection methods to
the team level. However, the situation is far more
complicated in a team setting because it is not only the
individual attributes that lead to effective or ineffective
performance but also the unique manner in which
these attributes are congured across team members
(Levine & Moreland, 1990). Hence, the composition of
the team is considered an important contributor to
team effectiveness, and past researchers have debated
612
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 612
the best way to represent such team-level constructs
(e.g., see Mohammed et al., 2010). It should be noted
that this discussion is highly dependent on the way
team effectiveness is dened and measured; we
address this issue in a subsequent section.
The crux of the debate over how to best compose
a team is related to whether the team-level construct
is represented as the mean of individual scores or
more representative of the distribution of scores
(e.g., standard deviation). Conceptually, these are
important distinctions. On the one hand, using the
mean score suggests that more of the trait (collec-
tively) is better (or worse) for team performance. On
the other hand, using a measure of distribution sug-
gests that the combination of a trait across members is
important. It is also logical to consider the minimum
613
TABLE 19.3
Personality Variables Associated With Effective Teamwork
Attribute Denition subsidiary constructs measurement issues Effect sizes (r)
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Emotional stability
Openness to
experience
Note. From Handbook of Employee Selection (pp. 806808), by J. L. Farr and N. T. Tippins (Eds.), 2010, New York:
Routledge. Copyright 2010 by Routledge. Reprinted with permission.
Extent to which a per-
son is self-disciplined
and organized
Extent to which an indi-
vidual is social, out-
going, and talkative
Extent to which an indi-
vidual is gentle and
cooperative
Extent to which an
individual is calm
and poised
Degree to which an
individual is willing
to experience new
things
Need for achievement;
ambition; responsibil-
ity; dependability
Enthusiasm, optimism,
assertiveness, domi-
nance, gregariousness
Likeability, interpersonal
facilitation, trust wor-
thiness, tolerance,
courteousness
Neuroticism (negative
relationship), adjusta-
bility, lack of nervous
tendencies, lack of
anxiousness, security
Has been assessed with paper
and pencil measures.
Positively related to contextual
performance in team settings
(Morgeson et al., 2005) and
team performance in eld set-
tings (Bell, 2006; Peeters et al.,
2006).
Positively related to contextual
performance in team settings
(Morgeson et al., 2005); rela-
tionship small to moderate.
Small, positive relationship to
contextual performance in
team settings (Morgeson et al.,
2005) and team performance
in eld settings (Bell, 2006;
Peeters et al., 2006)
Positively (but only marginally)
related to contextual perfor-
mance in team settings
(Morgeson et al., 2005). Small,
positive relationship in eld
studies (Bell, 2006).
Positively related to team perfor-
mance in eld settings (Bell,
2006); not supported in all
studies.
.04 to .30
(Bell, 2007),
.25 (Morgeson
et al., 2005)
.04 (Peeters et al.,
2006) to .15
(Bell, 2007);
.18 (Morgeson
et al., 2005)
2006) to .31
(Bell, 2007);
.12 (Morgeson
et al., 2005)
2006) to .21
(Bell, 2006);
.15 (Morgeson
et al., 2005)
.03 (Peeters
et al., 2006)
to .20 Bell
(2006)
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 613
or maximum scores on a trait (collectively across
members). The latter suggests a compensatory
model; in other words, as long as the trait is well
represented in one member, it does not need to be
present in others. Even more complex is the notion
of a threshold model, where presence of the trait is
benecial to a point, but not in excess. This might
be the case for extraversion, where having one or
two extraverted members may be effective but hav-
ing all team members high on extraversion may
actually disrupt overall team performance.
According to several authors, (Bell, 2007;
Mohammed et al., 2010) the task typology offered by
Steiner (1972), which was described earlier, is per-
haps the most popular basis to determine which
aggregation method is best. For additive tasks, using
the mean (or simply summing trait levels) is appro-
priate because team output is the sum of each indi-
vidual team members contributions. Using the mean
or sum is also best for compensatory tasks because
higher performing members can compensate for the
low output of poorer performing members. When
considering conjunctive tasks, the minimum score is
considered appropriate because performance depends
on the weakest member; whereas for disjunctive
tasks, the maximum score is best because it reects
the highest performer on the team.
Strict reliance on a task-based model such as
Steiners (1972) has been criticized on conceptual
and empirical grounds (Day, Arthur, Miyashiro,
Edwards, & Hanson, 2004; Hollenbeck, DeRue, &
Guzzo, 2004). Other approaches to this issue advo-
cate deeper consideration of the trait itself. For
example, Kozlowski and Klein (2000) suggested
that researchers should consider how the variable
might manifest itself at the team level as a guide to
aggregation method. To complicate matters, besides
mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum,
even more complex manifestations may also be nec-
essary. Hence, congural models, which specify
more complex interactions among variables, may be
appropriate. For example, one disagreeable member
could disrupt team performance disproportionally
or, as Barry and Stewart (1997) found, a curvilinear
relationship between extraversion and team perfor-
mance may hold such that extremes of low or high
are detrimental to team performance.
Several recent meta-analyses have attempted to
address this issue, but with limited success. First, Bell
(2007) found that the method of operationalizing the
composition variables moderated the relationship
between the variables and team performance. Further,
Bell found little support for the Steiner typology.
Instead, she concluded that no single operationaliza-
tion was best for all composition variables; rather, the
best operationalization was dependent on the specic
team composition variable of interest (Bell, p. 607).
In a second meta-analysis, Peeters et al. (2006)
used theoretical arguments (and associated ndings)
to generate hypotheses for extraversion, agreeable-
ness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability
based on their prediction regarding whether the ele-
vation of the trait (i.e., mean or sum) or variability of
the trait would have a greater impact on team perfor-
mance. They found, as expected, that higher eleva-
tions in agreeableness and conscientiousness (but
not variability) were related to team performance;
but extraversion, openness, and emotional stability
(i.e., elevation or variability) were not.
Finally, Prewett et al. (2009) included the type of
criterion (i.e., team behavior vs. team outcomes) and
type of workow patterns (i.e., pooled, reciprocal,
intensive) in their meta-analysis to test for moderat-
ing effects. Among the conclusions drawn by these
authors is that team personality variables seem to
be more closely related to team behaviors (i.e.,
processes) than to more distal outcomes. Second,
they found that the pattern of workow does moder-
ate the personality-performance relationship in the
team, specically, that situations requiring intensive
(i.e., interdependent) workow were more closely
related to personality. Their conclusions regarding
the superiority of task versus trait-based methods of
aggregation were equivocal. They offer some insights
as to why this may have been the case, including the
correlation among measures, the reliability of mea-
sures and the role of the team members (i.e., some
roles may require higher or lower degrees of a trait).
One variable that seems to be important regard-
less of how it is aggregated is cognitive ability (Bell,
2007; Devine & Phillips, 2001; Stewart, 2006). The
relationship seems to hold across task types and
has the strongest, most consistent positive relation-
ship with team performance (Stewart, p. 45).
614
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 614
Related to this, Stewart also concluded that member
expertise has a small, positive relationship with team
performance.
A nal consideration with respect to individual
differences and team performance has to do with
combined (i.e., interactive) effects. In a eld study of
intact military teams, Halfhill, Nielsen, Sundstrom,
and Weilbaecher (2005) hypothesized that agreeable-
ness and conscientiousness would be associated with
higher group performance. These authors found that
mean and minimum agreeableness and mean and
minimum conscientiousness were associated with
better performance and that variability in agreeable-
ness (but not conscientiousness) correlated with bet-
ter performance. Perhaps more interesting, they also
found that the interaction of agreeableness and con-
scientiousness was signicantly related to perfor-
mance, such that those groups highest on both traits
outperformed all others. Halfhill et al. concluded that
there might be a possible synergy among complemen-
tary personality traits on team performance.
Diversity and Heterogeneity
Somewhat in parallel to investigating the issue of how
to aggregate personality characteristics in composing
teams, a great deal of attention has been paid to the
impact of heterogeneity (i.e., trait variability) of team
members on team performance. (See also chap. 20,
this volume.) Indeed, a popular topic in modern orga-
nizational settings is diversity, which typically refers
to differences in social-category variables such as eth-
nicity, gender and age. Traditionally, both sides of the
heterogeneity and team performance argument have
been made. On the one hand, heterogeneity has been
hypothesized to facilitate team performance by pro-
moting creativity and knowledge sharing across
diverse perspectives. On the other hand, heterogeneity
has also been assumed to be detrimental to team per-
formance by disrupting communication and cohesion,
and increasing conict (Mohammed et al., 2010).
In summarizing the literature regarding demo-
graphic diversity, Hollenbeck et al. (2004) concluded
that the preponderance of ndings do not support the
contention that heterogeneity (or diversity) has a reli-
able impact on team performance. This conclusion
is bolstered by results of several recent meta-analyses
including Bell (2007); Bowers, Pharmer, and Salas
(2000); Horowitz and Horowitz (2007); Stewart
(2006); and Webber and Donahue (2001). This is not
to say that heterogeneity is not important; indeed, it
may be more reective of the fact that other variables,
such as task type, time, attitudes, and the type of
diversity being considered may affect its relationship
to team performance.
For example, Harrison, Price, Gavin, and Florey
(2002) found that over time, the impact of demo-
graphic diversity was diminished. Similarly, a recent
meta-analysis by Bell, Villado, Lukasik, Briggs, and
Belau (2007) showed that race and gender diversity
effects were lowered over time (i.e., the longer the
team was together). Bowers et al. (2000) concluded
that the impact of heterogeneity varied as a function
of task type. This meta-analysis demonstrated that
composing teams of similar individuals might
improve performance in low-difculty tasks but
decrease performance on high-difculty tasks.
Other researchers have shown that the specic
type of diversity being considered (i.e., demographic
vs. functional or task-related) has differential effects
on team task performance (Pelled, Eisenhardt, &
Xin, 1999). Specically, functional diversity (i.e.,
functional background, tenure) was more likely to
be associated with task conict, whereas demo-
graphic (i.e., age, race, gender) diversity was more
likely to lead to emotional conict. Moreover, task
conict was found to enhance performance whereas
emotional conict had the opposite effect. A meta-
analysis conducted by Horowitz and Horowitz
(2007) found similar results; specically, task-related
diversity was positively related to quality and quan-
tity of team performance, whereas demographic
diversity was unrelated to performance.
Recently, Homan, van Knippenberg, Van Kleef,
and De Dreu (2007) investigated how team members
attitudes toward diversity affected team performance.
As expected, these researchers found that informa-
tional diversity had a positive impact on
performance only when team members held pro-
diversity beliefs as opposed to pro-similarity beliefs. In
this case, pro-diversity and pro-similarity beliefs were
manipulated through experimenter induction prior to
performance.
Collectively, the results of this study and others
cited earlier indicate that the manner in which
615
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 615
individual attributes best combine to enhance
team performance is complex and depends on a
number of mediating and intervening factors. In
fact, the recent meta-analysis by Prewett et al. (in
press) confirmed that the pattern of workflow in
the team moderates the relationship between per-
sonality and team outcomes. Clearly, further
research is needed to more fully elucidate these
important relationships.
Team Size
Another feature that has been of some interest to
team researchers interested in maximizing perfor-
mance is team size. Conceptually, it seems reason-
able to hypothesize that too few team members can
result in excessive workload, whereas a team with
too many members may become unwieldy. In either
case, team performance will suffer. Obviously, the
type of task the team must perform will have a direct
impact on how big the team needs to be.
Hence, the question becomes, what is the opti-
mal team size given the nature of the team task
demands? To date, attempts to answer this question
have not been terribly successful (Mohammed et al.,
2010). This is perhaps because the answer is so
task dependent. For example, despite nding that
project teams benefited from more members,
Stewart (2006) concluded that a clear prescription
for optimum team size is thus difcult and appears
to depend on the purpose and responsibilities of the
team (p. 45). Obviously, additional work is needed
to better address the team size issue, particularly in
light of efforts to reduce the size of the workforce in
many organizations.
TEAM PROCESSES
According to the denitions offered earlier, teams
are required to coordinate their actions to accom-
plish their task or mission. This necessitates a vari-
ety of personal interactions among the members of
the team. These interpersonal behaviors have been
referred to broadly as team processes. A variety of
team process variables have been discussed in the
literature and there have also been a number of tax-
onomies proposed to organize them (e.g., Cannon-
Bowers et al., 1995; Marks et al., 2001; Rousseau,
Aub, & Savoie, 2006; Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005).
Of these, perhaps the best validity data are available
for the model posited recently by Marks et al.
For example, a recent manuscript by LePine,
Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, and Saul (2008) evalu-
ated the Marks et al. (2001) model using conrma-
tory factor analysis and subsequent meta-analysis.
The results demonstrated that the three-factor model
proposed by Marks et al. t the data better than com-
peting models. Subsequent meta-analytic techniques
demonstrated that the three factors were positively
related to team performance, with effect sizes averag-
ing .29 for each of the three factors. Give the strength
of this support, we use the Marks et al. model to orga-
nize the review of teamwork processes. This approach
describes three dimensions of teamwork behaviors:
transition processes, action processes, and inter-
personal processes (see Figure 19.2). Each dimen-
sion, and its incumbent process behaviors, is
reviewed briey next.
Transition Behaviors
One cluster of team-process behaviors is called tran-
sition behaviors. According to Marks and her col-
leagues (2001), this dimension includes behaviors
related to when teams focus primarily on evaluation
and/or planning to guide their accomplishment of a
team goal or objective (p. 364). Two team processes
within the cluster have received substantial research
attention: mission analysis and planning.
Mission analysis. Mission analysis is the inter-
pretation and evaluation of the teams mission,
including identication of its main tasks as well as
the operative environmental conditions and team
resources available for mission execution (Marks
et al., 2001, p. 365). This dimension includes self-
appraisal behaviors as well as mission appraisal
behaviors. The self-appraisal behaviors allow the
teams to consider their previous performance, diag-
nose shortcoming, and discuss approaches to reme-
diate them before engaging the new task. This is
akin to the notion of team self-correction (to be
discussed further later; Blickensderfer, Cannon-
Bowers, & Salas, 1997). These behaviors have been
shown to be positively related to team performance.
For example, Smith-Jentsch, Cannon-Bowers,
Tannenbaum, and Salas (2008) reported that a
616
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 616
guided self-correction intervention was related to both
more accurate mental models and better team perfor-
mance in a study using Navy commanders (r = .57).
Mission analysis also involves forward vision-
ing and the development of a shared mental model
of the teams goals. Developing a shared understand-
ing of team goals has been suggested as an impor-
tant determinant of subsequent team performance
(McComb & Green, 1999). However, this effect
requires additional empirical study.
Goal specification and strategy formulation.
Another critical transitive process is goal specica-
tion and strategy formulation. The process behaviors
in this dimension are associated with creating and
articulating goals for the team and the strategy that
will be used to accomplish them. The benefits of
an effective goal specication process have been
reported in many settings. For example, Senecal,
Loughead, and Bloom (2008) reported that a shared
goal-setting intervention was related to improved
team cohesion in a longitudinal study of a sports team.
Similar positive relationships were noted in dis-
tributed project teams (Forester, Thoms, & Pinto,
2007), performance appraisal teams (Resick &
Bloom, 1997), and computerized business simula-
tions (Fandt, Richardson, & Connor, 1990).
Although this effect appears consistent and of
reasonable magnitude (i.e., effect size was .25 in
Forester et al.), the mechanisms that underlie
observed performance improvements may be medi-
ated by such things as improved states, including
cohesion and shared mental models (discussed in a
later section).
Marks and her colleagues (2001) also emphasize
the importance of a variety of strategy formulation
behaviors. These behaviors involve three types of
team planning behaviors: creating plans for an
initial course of action; contingency planning for
likely disruptions; and reactive, on-the-y planning
617
FIGURE 19.2. Summary of team processes in transition and action phases. From A
Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes, by M. A. Marks, J. E.
Mathieu, and S. J. Zaccaro, 2001, Academy of Management Review, 26, p. 361. Copyright 2001
by the Academy of Management. Adapted with permission.
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 617
in reaction to novel stimuli. This dimension also
includes planning the specic roles and activities of
the team members. Several authors have discussed
the importance of initial and contingency planning.
For example, Patrick, James, and Ahmed (2006)
reported that team planning behaviors were an
important predictor of subsequent team situation
awareness. McClennan, Holgate, Omodei, and
Wearing (2006) reported similarly positive results
between planning and effectiveness of reghting
teams. Finally, Stout, Cannon-Bowers, Salas, and
Milanovich (1999) described a well-controlled labo-
ratory study that also provides support for the
notion that initial planning behaviors are related to
improved team process and performance (r = .58).
Less empirical study has been dedicated to the
issue of backup planning. However, a recent study
by DeChurch and Haas (2008) may shed some light
on the importance of this type of planning. These
researchers used a laboratory scavenger hunt task
specically designed to evaluate the types of plan-
ning described by Marks and her colleagues (2001).
Their data provided evidence that the three types of
planning are largely nonoverlapping and each adds
predictive value at varying phases of the teams per-
formance (change in r
2
= .10). In fact, in early
phases of performance, contingency planning was
the best predictor of subsequent team coordination
during task performance (r = .24).
Yet another aspect of strategy formulation is
the creation and communication of roles within
the teams. As noted earlier, several authors (e.g.,
Hackman, 1987; Sundstrom et al., 1990) have
described the importance of team member roles in
teamwork. Despite the frequency with which the
construct of roles is invoked, there is relatively lit-
tle empirical research to guide interventions to
support team role clarity (Mumford, Morgeson,
Van Iddekinge, and Campion, 2008). However, the
available evidence seems to support the hypothesis
that increased role clarity is associated with
improved team processes and performance.
For example, Volpe, Cannon-Bowers, Salas, and
Spector (1996) demonstrated that an intervention
designed to improve team members interpositional
knowledge was associated with better performance
in a simulated combat aviation task. Cannon-Bowers
and her colleagues later replicated these effects, with
a reported effect size of .34 (Cannon-Bowers, Salas,
Blickensderfer, & Bowers, 1998). Kraut, Fussell,
Lerch, and Espinosa (2004) reported similarly positive
results with teams participating in a business simula-
tion. Finally, in validating their new test of team role
knowledge, Mumford et al. (2008) investigated the
relationship between knowledge of team roles and
subsequent team performance (i.e., measured as rated
performance on academic projects). They found that
role knowledge was an effective predictor of team per-
formance over and above well-known predictors such
as member personality and cognitive ability (r = .39).
Further, they demonstrated this relationship in both
laboratory and work settings.
It should be noted that these planning behaviors
are not orthogonal. For example, Ellis Bell, Ployhart,
Hollenbeck, and Ilgen (2005) demonstrated that
planning about team member roles was related to
better initial mission planning. It is probable that
these planning behaviors also interact with several
of the other process behaviors in this section.
However, the nature of these interactions is not well
known. It is likely that discovering the nature of
these interactions will be a topic of future research
as scientists pursue ways to increase team training
effectiveness.
Action Behaviors
The second category of process behaviors discussed
by Marks et al. (2001) are action behaviors or activi-
ties leading to goal accomplishment (p. 366).
Within the dimensions of action behaviors, there
are several smaller clusters of process behaviors.
These smaller clusters are discussed next.
Monitoring behaviors. Marks and her colleagues
(2001) described several types of monitoring behav-
iors. These include monitoring of progress toward
goals, which refers to behaviors that support track-
ing task and progress toward mission accomplish-
ment, interpreting system information in terms of
what needs to be accomplished for goal attainment,
and transmitting progress to team members (Marks
et al., 2001, p. 366). They also described system-
monitoring behaviors. These behaviors facilitate the
following factors:
618
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 618
Tracking team resources and environ-
mental conditions as they relate to
mission accomplishment; and involve
(1) internal systems monitoring, i.e.,
tracking team resources such as person-
nel, equipment, and other information
that is generated or contained with the
team, and (2) environmental monitor-
ing, i.e., tracking environmental condi-
tions relevant to the team. (p. 367)
These types of monitoring behaviors are dis-
cussed frequently in descriptions of best practices in
team performance (e.g., Gaddy & Wachtel, 1992;
Weisband, 2002); however, evaluating the empirical
support for them is difcult because these behaviors
are rarely studied in isolation. Rather, they are typi-
cally studied in the context of emergent states such
as team situational awareness, as opposed to team
performance itself. In that regard, however, the
importance of these monitoring behaviors seems well
supported (e.g., Prince & Salas, 2000; Salas, Prince,
Baker, & Shresta, 1995). For example, in an analysis
of aviation incidents and accidents (reported in the
National Transportation Safety Board accident data-
base), a lack of monitoring behaviors appeared to be
associated with an increased likelihood of accidents
attributed to lapses in situational awareness (Jentsch,
Barnett, Bowers, & Salas, 1999). Marks and Panzer
(2004) found a positive relationship between moni-
toring behaviors and team coordination in a similar
task. Blandford and Wong (2004) also reported that
these behaviors are associated with effective behav-
iors in emergency medical dispatch teams. Reported
effect sizes have been relatively large (e.g., .43;
Marks & Panzer).
Backup behaviors. Marks et al. (2001) also
described a set of team backup behaviors within the
action processes cluster. These are behaviors per-
formed with the intention of assisting team mem-
bers to perform their tasks which may occur by
(1) providing a teammate verbal feedback or coach-
ing, (2) assisting a teammate behaviorally in carry-
ing out actions, or (3) assuming and completing a
task for a teammate (Marks et al., 2001, p. 367).
Backup behaviors are often considered be a critical
behavior in high-performing teams. In fact, Salas,
Sims, and Burke (2005) included it in their Big Five
behaviors that are critical in teamwork.
Ideal backup behavior would occur when team
members observe when their teammates are over-
loaded or experiencing some other factor that
decreases their performance. The members would
then redeploy their own resources to assist the strug-
gling team member. Despite the widely held opin-
ion that this is a critical team characteristic, there is
little empirical data with which to evaluate the claim.
DeChurch and Haas (2008) found that reactive
adjustment planning (and, one would presume, the
execution of those plans) was related to positive team
performance, with relationships ranging between .15
and .44. Porter, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, Ellis, and West
(2003) and Porter (2005) also demonstrated that
backup behaviors seem to be related to a teams abil-
ity to cope with high workload situations.
However, other researchers offer some cautions
about the use of backup behaviors. Specically,
Barnes et al. (2008) pointed out that the execution of
backup behaviors uses cognitive resources that could
be applied to the core task. Further, they expressed
concerns that these behaviors might encourage nega-
tive social behaviors such as social loang or depen-
dence. They conducted a study designed to assess
these potential negative consequences using a com-
puterized simulation. Consistent with their fears,
Barnes et al. found that the frequency of backup
behaviors provided by team members was related to
incidences of them neglecting their own taskwork.
Further, the provision of backup behaviors was
related to subsequent decreases in effort by the mem-
ber receiving the help. As such, Barnes and his col-
leagues suggested that scientists exercise more
caution before recommending the training or
encouragement of these behaviors in all teams.
Coordination behaviors. Within the dimension of
action behaviors, coordination is another group of
behaviors related to the manner in which the team
organizes and shares its resources among members to
accomplish the tasks. A key behavior within this
group is team communication. Communication is a
critical behavior used to exchange information among
members. Moreover, the importance of communica-
tion is particularly salient in more interdependent
619
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 619
teams where there is an increased need to share infor-
mation (Tesluk, Mathieu, Zaccaro, & Marks, 1997).
Researchers have studied the nature of different
kinds of team communication processes in an
attempt to identify elements most closely associated
with effectiveness. For example, Achille, Schulze,
and Schmidt-Nielson (1995) reported that encour-
aging teams to use standardized communication
terms actually led to wordier communications,
opposite from what was intended. Patrashkova-
Volzdoska, McComb, Green, and Compton (2003)
investigated the link between overall communica-
tion and team performance. It is of interest to note
that a curvilinear relationship was found with the
two extremes of communication frequency associ-
ated with poorer performance. Too few communica-
tion episodes may not allow sufcient information
to be passed. Conversely, overabundant communi-
cation may add so much workload to the team that
it detracts from performance (McMillan, Entin, &
Serfaty, 2004).
Other authors have discussed the importance of
specic speech types within the broader team com-
munications events. For example, Svensson and
Andersson (2006) reported that communication
types such as metacommunication and tactics were
observed more often in winning teams. Urban,
Bowers, Monday, and Morgan (1995) reported that
effective teams asked fewer questions and fewer
implied questions than did ineffective teams.
Others have noted that effective teams tend to make
fewer explicit requests for assistance during stressful
or high-workload periods (Kleinman & Serfaty,
1989; Manser, Howard, & Gaba, 2008).
Another approach to investigating communication
behaviors in teams has been to analyze the patterns of
information ow. For example, Bowers and Jentsch
(1998) used a variety of sequential analysis tech-
niques in an attempt to discriminate between good
and poor teams. They found that effective teams were
more likely to use closed-loop communication pat-
terns during the execution of a task, whereas poorer
teams were prone to insert extraneous information
while processing problems. Patrick et al. (2006)
used a process-tracing approach to study supervisory
teams. This analysis indicated that the generation of
hypotheses and the discussion of performance
progress were key discriminating behaviors. Lingard
and colleagues (2004) used pattern analysis to study
the ow of communication events in surgical proce-
dures. One interesting nding is that periods of con-
ict seemed to lead to reduced contributions by
younger members of the team.
Clearly, the need to understand the nature of
effective communication is a key challenge to team
performance researchers. It has been suggested
that the lack of progress in this regard is due to
the difficulty and expense associated with this
kind of research. However, recent advances in
automatic discourse analysis hold great promise
in facilitating this type of research in the future
(see Foltz & Martin, 2008, for a review of these
approaches).
Although not specifically mentioned by Marks
et al., (2001), researchers have also described the
importance of coordination behaviors that are not
communication-based. Several authors have described
the potential importance of nonverbal communication
in teams as an important form of coordination
(Fowlkes, Lane, Salas, Franz, & Oser, 1994; Harris
& Sherblom, 2002; Stevens & Campion, 1994).
However, there has been little empirical work to
establish which nonverbal behaviors under which
conditions are related to team performance. Fowlkes
and her colleagues included nonverbal behaviors in
their Targeted Acceptable Responses to Generated
Events or Tasks (TARGETS) team measurement
approach. Although overall scores on this measure
have been related to team performance, there are no
reported data that allow one to specically evaluate
particular nonverbal behaviors, such as gestures or
facial expressions.
Other scales used in team performance also
combine verbal and nonverbal factors into one
construct, making it impossible to discern their
individual contributions (see Prince, Brannick,
Prince, & Salas, 1997). Cole, Walter, and Bruch
(2008) indicated that nonverbal behaviors, in this
case, expressions of negative emotions, were a
mediating variable in the relationship between
overall negative affective tone and subsequent team
performance. Clearly, this is an area in which more
research is required before meaningful guidance
can be provided to the practice community.
620
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 620
One coordination behavior associated with non-
verbal communication is implicit coordination.
Kleinman and Serfaty (1989) coined the term implicit
coordination to describe a phenomenon that they
observed in a study of team performance. Under low
workload, effective performance occurred when
teams made clear requests for assistance (i.e., explicit
coordination). However, under conditions of high
workload, effective teams adjusted their behavior so
that they began to provide needed resources without
an explicit request. This pattern, described as implicit
coordination, has since been used to describe the
provision of resources of all types in the absence of
an explicit request.
The construct of implicit coordination has been
replicated in a few different settings (Serfaty, Entin, &
Johnston, 1998) and is frequently used to describe
processes executed by effective teams (e.g., Cannon-
Bowers & Salas, 1998; Fiore, Salas, Cuevas, & Bowers,
2003). Recently, Rico, Snchez-Manzanares, Gil, and
Gibson (2008) provided a number of propositions
designed to facilitate the emergence of implicit coordi-
nation behaviors in teams. They also provided a set of
research directions that should be helpful in designing
further investigations of this important process.
Interpersonal Processes
A nal dimension of team process behaviors pre-
sented by Marks et al. (2001) is interpersonal
processes. They point out that these behaviors are
likely to co-occur with behaviors in the other dimen-
sions. In fact, they may mediate the effectiveness of
those behaviors. In any event, they are important in
managing the affect that is likely to occur in team-
based work. The three clusters of behaviors within
this dimension are described later.
Conict management. The ability to manage the
affective responses that are likely to emerge is a criti-
cal team-level skill. Marks and her colleagues (2001)
pointed out that there are behaviors that are likely
instrumental in preventing conict whereas others
might be effective in managing conicts once they
occur. The available literature supports the con-
tention that these process behaviors can be helpful in
promoting effective performance. Preventive behav-
iors, such as creating standard operating procedures
for managing stressful times, seem to be effective in
avoiding negative teamwork behaviors (Smolek,
Hoffman, & Moran, 1999). Similarly, the presence of
effective conict management behaviors has been
associated with effective team performance (Porter
& Lilly, 1996).
As noted, it has been suggested that there may be
a difference between emotional (i.e., interpersonal)
conict and task conict on team functioning, and
several studies show this effect. However, a meta-
analysis by De Dreu and Weinart (2006) did not
bear this out. They found the expected negative
effect of interpersonal conict on team performance
(r = .23) but no evidence that task conict has a
facilitative effect. Alper, Tjosvold, and Law (2000)
suggested that one way to manage task-related con-
ict is to translate it into intrateam competition,
which might become a motivational factor. Their
data suggested that this type of interpretation is
associated with more effective performance.
Motivation and condence building. Marks and
her colleagues (2001) included a cluster of behav-
iors which involved generating and preserving a
sense of collective condence, motivation, and task-
based cohesion with regard to mission accomplish-
ment (p. 368). These behaviors may work by
creating emergent states such as collective efcacy
(described elsewhere in this chapter). However, they
may have their own, separate impact in some cases.
For example, expressions of encouragement might
be a mechanism for helping teams cope with stres-
sors such as fatigue (Harville, Elliott, & Barnes,
2007). These types of behaviors might also be ways
in which self-managed work teams reinforce posi-
tive behaviors (Pearce & Manz, 2005). However, as
noted earlier, because these behaviors are often
grouped within larger assessments of communica-
tion, it is difcult to identify the specic contribu-
tion of these behaviors to performance.
Affect management. The nal cluster of process
behaviors described by Marks et al. (2001) is affect
management behaviors. These are behaviors involved
in regulating member emotions during mission
accomplishment, including (but not limited to)
social cohesion, frustration, and excitement (Marks
et al., 2001, p. 369). This cluster includes a number
621
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 621
of specic teamwork behaviors, such as setting
norms for behavior, calming stressed members, and
increasing morale. Many of the behaviors are sub-
sumed in the increasingly important construct of
emotional intelligence.
Several studies have recently reported positive
relationships between team member emotional intel-
ligence and team processes and performance (Ct
& Miners, 2006; Offermann, Bailey, Vasilopoulos,
Seal, & Sass, 2004). The percentage of variance
accounted for in these studies was relative small,
however, ranging from .10 to .18. Nonetheless, it is
important to determine whether emotional intelli-
gence can be improved through team training or
some other means. Although theorists have sug-
gested that team training should improve emotional
intelligence (Druskatt & Wolff, 2001), there is little
empirical data with which to conrm this hypothe-
sis; it warrants future attention.
OTHER EMERGENT STATES
In addition to the processes described by Marks et al.
(2001), several other issues related to team perfor-
mance are worth discussing: team adaptability, shared
mental models and cohesion. These are not processes
(i.e., behaviors) under the Marks et al. denition, but
cognitive and affective emergent states that have a
direct impact on team performance. Like process
behaviors, they are important to understand because
they form the causal chain that links team, task, and
situational demands to desired team outcomes.
Adaptability
Teams are often used in complex, evolving environ-
ments. As teams attempt to do their work in these
challenging settings, it becomes clear that one compe-
tency that is required is that of being able to deviate
from a plan of action in response to changing events.
This competency is referred to as team adaptability
or team adaptation. This construct was dened by
Cannon-Bowers and her colleagues (1995) as the
process by which a team is able to use information
gathered from the task environment to adjust strate-
gies through the use of compensatory behaviors
and reallocation of intrateam resources (p. 344).
Kozlowski, Toney, Mullins, Weissbein, Brown, and
Bell (2001) added to this denition by emphasizing
the importance of generalizing existing knowledge.
Thus, team adaptability has important cognitive and
behavioral elements. Several other denitions of team
adaptability have been offered, but the concepts of
reallocation of resources and generalization of knowl-
edge seem to capture the essence of this construct
(see Burke, Stagl, Salas, Pierce, & Kendall, 2006, for a
review of these denitions).
Theories of team adaptability. Although a num-
ber of theoretical positions are relevant to the con-
cept of team adaptability, perhaps the most
comprehensive of these was recently offered by
Burke, Stagl, Salas, and colleagues (2006). This
complex theory is illustrated in Figure 19.3.
As illustrated in Figure 19.3, the foundation of
the Burke, Stagl, Salas, et al. (2006) model is a
four-stage adaptive cycle. The first stage in this
cycle is situation assessment, which includes identi-
fying the important cues in the environment and
ascribing the appropriate meaning to them. Once
the situation has been diagnosed, teams enter the
second phase, plan formulation. It is in this phase
that the team decides how best to reallocate its
resources to cope with the new situation. The third
phase, plan execution, refers to the behaviors the
team performs to accomplish the new plan. For the
most part, the activities in this phase are identical
to any other team performance situation. However,
there is an additional need to monitor the new plan
and to react to any shortcomings as necessary.
Finally, Burke and her colleagues describe team
learning as the fourth stage in the adaptive cycle.
This refers to the process of identifying errors and
successes, discussing incorrect assumptions, and
crystallizing knowledge gains for subsequent per-
formance situations.
Furthermore, as illustrated in the model, Burke,
Stagl, et al. (2006) described the inuence of 12 vari-
ables that they hypothesized will inuence team
adaptability. Each of these variables is thought to
inuence one or more of the stages of adaptability
described previously. For example, individual char-
acteristics, such as various knowledge, skills, and
abilities, are thought to exert a particular inuence
on Stage 1 performance.
622
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 622
Most of the 12 variables have been described in
earlier sections and will not be reviewed again here.
However, Burke, Stagl, et al. (2006) included vari-
ables that are not often considered in other theories
of team performance. For example, they highlighted
the importance of psychological safety in different
stages of the adaptation process. Psychological
safety refers to the degree to which team members
feel safe taking risks in the team performance envi-
ronment (Edmondson, 1999). Burke and her col-
leagues suggested that the feeling of safety is a
determinant of the degree to which individual team
members offer suggestions, criticize other members
offerings, and provide their full pool of resources to
the team. This construct is also theorized to play a
role in execution of the agreed-on plan and the
monitoring of its effectiveness.
A second variable included by Burke, Stagl, et al.
in their (2006) theory that warrants discussion is
self-management. They described self-management
as a condition within job design where members of
the team have some freedom in how they allocate
their resources or arrange their tasking. Burke and
her colleagues argued that the perception of self-
management inuences the degree of responsibility
members feel to create a positive outcome, the alter-
natives that team members consider, and the degree
to which they feel empowered to further alter their
actions as necessary.
Preparing teams to be adaptable. Preparing teams
to be adaptable presents a difcult challenge. One
must take into account the large number of cognitive
and behavioral competencies discussed previously
even though, in many ways, some of the proposed
training interventions run contrary to the training
culture that currently exists in many modern organi-
zations. For example, one key suggestion for training
623
FIGURE 19.3. Model of team adaptability. From Understanding Team Adaptation: A Conceptual Analysis and
Model, by C. Burke, K. Stagl, E. Salas, L. Pierce, and D. Kendall, 2006, Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, p. 1190.
Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association.
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 623
team adaptability is that teams must be allowed to
explore a variety of options, fail, learn from their fail-
ures, and so forth (Smith, Ford, & Kozlowski, 1997).
However, most training situations value efciency,
leading to an emphasis on procedural training to a
specied criterion. This type of training does not pro-
vide a context for developing these adaptability skills
(Kozlowski et al., 2001).
In addition to errors, several specic training
approaches might foster team adaptability. Many cur-
rent approaches emphasize the training of individuals
in some of the competencies described earlier. For
example, Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, and Coulson
(1992) suggested that training individuals in cognitive
exibility might be a way to enable downstream team
adaptability. Marks et al. (2001) provided data to sug-
gest that team interaction training could also facilitate
adaptive behavior in teams. Other researchers have
emphasized the importance of identifying the cues
that might necessitate adaptive behaviors (Entin &
Serfaty, 1999; Martin-Milham & Fiore, 2004).
Researchers have also discussed how to use
team-level training to improve the adaptability of
teams. For example, Klein and Pierce (2001) sug-
gested that teams should be instructed in how to
alter their own processes, beliefs, and systems to
react to external cues. Other authors have recom-
mended the use of simulations as a way to create sit-
uations where teams can practice their adaptability
skills and receive feedback (Burke, Stagl, et al.,
2006; Kozlowski & Bell, 2008).
Shared Mental Models
and Shared Knowledge
Another important emergent state in teams has been
called shared mental models, shared knowledge, or
team cognition. Regardless of the label, this construct
refers to a crucial aspect of team functioning and is
worthy of discussion here.
In describing the interaction between humans
and machines or systems, it is clear that people
develop an understanding of how the machine or
system works. This understanding, or mental model,
as it has been called, guides how the individual
interacts with the machine or system. According to
Johnson-Laird (1983), mental models help people
draw conclusions about how things work, deduce
the relationship between units, and predict out-
comes. Since that time, the notion of mental models
has been widely used to describe internal cognitive
representations of complex systems (see Westbrook,
2006, for a review of the development of mental
model theory).
As noted, during the late 1980s, interest in team
performance increased dramatically due in part to
several well-publicized incidents that were attrib-
uted to faulty teamwork (e.g., the USS Vincennes
shooting down of a commercial jet, the close call at
Three Mile Island, and the Air Florida airline crash
in Washington, DC). Given the need to quickly
understand and improve the performance of these
critical teams, researchers extended the construct
of mental models to teams. Most notably, Cannon-
Bowers and her colleagues described a construct
called shared mental models, which refers to knowl-
edge that is common or shared across team mem-
bers. Shared mental models (SMMs) allow team
members to understand not only their work
requirements but also to predict the needs and
actions of their teammates (Cannon-Bowers, Salas,
& Converse, 1993; Rouse, Cannon-Bowers, &
Salas, 1992).
Although the concept of shared mental models is
widely used, denitional clarity is still lacking. For
example, Carley (1997) discussed team mental mod-
els, which emphasize the similarities of knowledge
types among team members. Others have invoked a
metaphor of a shared cognitive structure among
team members, such as a collective mind (Yoo &
Kanawattanachai, 2001) or team mind (Klein &
Thorsden, 1989). Yet others have described a
process of group cognition that differs rather drasti-
cally (Akkerman, Admiraal, Simons, & Niessen,
2006). As pointed out by Cannon-Bowers and Salas
(2001), this conceptual confusion may limit theoret-
ical and empirical progress in this area. Moreover, it
leads to different approaches for measuring shared
mental models; we address this issue in the general
section on team performance measurement next.
Empirical Research Into
Shared Mental Models
As noted, empirical research on SMMs has pro-
gressed rather slowly. The majority of research has
624
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 624
focused on attempting to establish the relationship
between SMMs and team performance (e.g.,
Espevik, Johnsen, Eid, & Thayer, 2006; Marks,
Sabella, Burke, & Zaccarro, 2002; Marks, Zaccaro,
& Mathieu, 2000; Stout et al., 1999). For the most
part, these studies have demonstrated a small to
moderate relationship. The percentage of variance in
team performance accounted for by SMMs in these
studies (rs ranging from .30 to .39) is impressive
when considering the other factors that likely con-
tribute to team performance, such as individual abil-
ity, experience, and so forth.
Several researchers have also pointed out that the
degree of sharedness or similarity in mental models
among members is not the only condition necessary
for effective performance. For example, Rentsch and
colleagues (e.g., see Rentsch & Hall, 1994) argued
that the accuracy of mental models is as important as
their degree of sharedness, because inaccurate mental
models, even if shared among members, will lead to
poor performance. Along these lines, Lim and Klein
(2006) found that accuracy of team mental models
explained a signicant amount of variance in perfor-
mance when added to similarity of models. This
result was recently replicated and extended by Banks
and Millward (2007), who also demonstrated that
shared procedural knowledge was negatively related
to team performance. Only accurate procedural
knowledge was a positive predictor.
Similarly, Smith-Jentsch, Mathieu, and Kraiger
(2005) investigated the relationship between two
types of SMMs and team performance. One type of
mental model, cue-strategy associations, focused on
elements of the task that had related, predictable
actions. The other, positional-goal interdependencies,
focused more on features of the team such as roles
and responsibilities. It is interesting that neither of
the individual mental model measures was a signi-
cant predictor of performance. However, the two did
interact to predict this performance. These results
illustrate the complex interplay between the sub-
types of mental models that are likely to characterize
performance in complex settings.
Team Cohesion
One emergent state that has received a great deal of
attention is team cohesion. This construct has been
dened as a dynamic process that is reected in the
tendency for a group to stick together and remain
united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives
and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs
(Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1998, p. 213).
Several authors have theorized that team cohesion
should predict a substantial portion of the variance
in team performance (e.g., Carron & Brawley, 2000;
Carron, Eys, & Burke, 2007; Siebold, 2006). Indeed,
the belief that team cohesion is an important condi-
tion for performance is so widely held that increas-
ing cohesion is frequently included in team-training
interventions (e.g., Bloom & Stevens, 2002; Healy,
Milbourne, Aaronson, & Errichetti, 2004; Wheeler,
Goldie, & Hicks, 1998).
Unfortunately, the empirical data regarding team
cohesion and performance is much less clear than
one might hope. A meta-analysis by Mullin and
Cooper (1994) reported only a weak relationship
between the two constructs. However, they did note
that the effect was more robust, although not strong,
for smaller teams. Subsequent to this analysis,
researchers have explored other variables that might
mediate the cohesion-performance relationship. For
example, Gully and Devine (1995) found that the
relationship was stronger in more highly inter-
dependent groups. Recently, Beal, Cohen, Burke, and
McLendon (2003) reported a somewhat stronger
relationship when using efciency as the outcome
measure (r = .24). It is interesting that Carron et al.
(2007) reported moderate to large effect sizes when
limiting the analysis to sports teams. Overall, it
appears that the relationship between cohesion and
performance is more complicated than originally
thought, but it remains an important construct for
team performance researchers.
MEASURING TEAM PERFORMANCE
AND FUNCTIONING
At various points in the discussion thus far we have
alluded to the importance of being able to measure
different aspects of teams and their functioning.
Indeed, measurement pervades all aspects of team
performance, from assessment of the degree to which
team members possess requisite KSAs, to measure-
ment of on-going team processes, to evaluation of
625
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 625
the teams task success. In general, the issues asso-
ciated with the measurement of team performance
are similar to those associated with individual
performance (see chap. 20, this volume, for a
detailed discussion); however, there are several
unique challenges associated with measurement
at the team level that are worth addressing. These
are summarized in the following sections, with
associated discussion of the methods that have
been developed to measure these aspects of
performance.
Measuring Team Outcomes
Ultimately, the measurement of effectiveness of a
team must be based on the task being performed. An
informal survey of 42 empirical studies of team per-
formance revealed that the majority constructed
measures of team effectiveness based on the task,
including measures such as quality of output (usu-
ally assessed by raters), quantity of work, number of
problems correctly solved, decision-making accu-
racy, and number of points scored. A smaller number
of studies used supervisor ratings of performance
and still fewer used self-ratings of performance.
Other researchers have also assessed team outcomes
in terms of the teams desire to remain together (or
what Hackman, 1987, called team viability).
A unique issue in assessing team outcomes is
that the performance of the overall team may not
represent equally the contributions of all members.
Conversely, one team member may outperform
teammates, essentially pulling the entire team along.
At some level, this may not matter if the only thing
of interest is overall team outcomes; however, much
of the time, it is informative to understand these
nuances. Hence, even overarching measures should
be sensitive enough to distinguish the contribution
of individual members.
Measuring Team Behavior and Process
As just described, a unique aspect of performance
measurement at the team level is that it transcends
any particular individual on the team to include one
or more team members. Hence, measurement of
team performance must consider the behavior of any
given team member relative to the behavior of his or
her teammates. For example, when a team member
makes an error, the appropriate behavior of a team-
mate is to correct that error, but this is only the case
if the error is made in the rst place. So, as in other
dynamic environments, measurement systems in
teams must account for the moment-to-moment
changes that occur during performance and as a
consequence of interacting with other members
(Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1997).
Along these lines, many team scholars have advo-
cated the development and use of process measures
those that capture the mechanisms the team uses to
accomplish its taskas well as outcome measures
(Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1997; Salas & Cannon-
Bowers, 2000). Process measures are designed to
capture the team behaviors described by Marks
et al. (2001) that were delineated earlier. These
include such things as backup behaviors, monitor-
ing, coordination, conflict resolution, and
communication.
With respect to measurement, virtually all mea-
sures of team process require that the actions and
behaviors of team members be carefully recorded
during performance. Typically, this is accomplished
through human observers or instructors, although
automated systems to aid in measuring ongoing per-
formance are beginning to be available (Deaton et al.,
2007). With respect to human observers, a good deal
of effort has been devoted to developing observational
protocols that aid the assessment process. For exam-
ple, Dwyer, Fowlkes, Oser, Salas, and Lane (1997)
initiated a line of research into a methodology that
highlights what needs to be observed and provides a
checklist for observers to make it easier to capture
performance accurately. Others have advocated simi-
lar approaches using scenario-based training (see
Baker & Salas, 1992; Rosen et al., 2008). It should be
noted that because team performance assessment
relies so heavily on observation, it is also advisable to
ensure that raters are sufciently trained (Baker &
Salas, 1992).
Because communication is considered to be such
a critical aspect of team performance, it is not sur-
prising that a considerable level of effort has been
dedicated to its measurement. Several measurement
approaches have been tried. Because direct observa-
tion of communication is difcult and expensive,
researchers have developed a variety of paper-and-
626
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 626
pencil measures of communication. Some of these
are retrospective appraisals of group processes, such
as that described by Taylor and Bowers (1972). Others
have focused on the groups satisfaction with their
teams communication (e.g., Hecht, 1978). Although
these are presumed to be measures of a unitary
construct, Johnston, Reed, Lawrence, and Onken
(2007) recently reported that there are at least two
apparent, orthogonal factors among the items. Each
of these factors was a successful predictor of perfor-
mance in a business simulation.
Several researchers have attempted to use direct
observation of speech acts to predict team perfor-
mance (Bowers & Jentsch, 1998; Fischer, McDonnell,
& Orasanu, 2007; Svensson & Andersson, 2006;
Urban et al., 1995). However, because researchers
typically use different coding schemes, it is diffi-
cult to draw an overall conclusion about the rela-
tionship between specific speech acts and team
performance.
Finally, some researchers have suggested that the
pattern of communication may be more predictive
of team performance than the frequency of specic
speech acts. For example, Bowers and Jentsch (1998)
reported that a pattern of communication that sug-
gested a closed loop was more predictive of perfor-
mance than the frequency of specic types of speech
(Bowers & Jentsch, 1998). Fischer and her colleagues
(2007) reported that both the frequency of individual
speech acts and speech patterns discriminated
between effective and ineffective teams. It is interest-
ing that Manser, Howard, and Gaba (2008) recently
reported that specific patterns of communication
were predictive at varying phases of a medical teams
performance, with high effect sizes reported for many
of the specic pattern-performance relationships
being observed (r = .80).
Measuring Team Cognition
With respect to team cognition, we have discussed
the growing literature in shared mental models and
associated constructs. Unfortunately, the practice of
measuring shared mental models has presented
some difculty (Mohammed, Klimoski, & Rentsch,
2000). According to Cannon-Bowers and Salas
(2001), some of the problem may stem from a lack
of conceptual clarity in dening exactly what is
meant by shared. For example, the term shared may
actually mean identical, compatible, overlapping,
complementary, or common, each of which has dif-
ferent implications for measurement. Specifically,
if shared is interpreted as identical, then the indic-
tor of a shared mental model would be that it is the
same across members. Conversely, holding par-
tially overlapping knowledge implies that only a
portion of knowledge needs to be common across
members.
In practice, it may well be that any or all of these
denitions of shared are necessary, depending on the
demands of the task. Hence, it is essential to under-
stand and specify the shared knowledge requirements
in a particular team. Once dened, the precise nature
of the requirement for shared knowledge should
drive the strategy for assessing whether it is sufcient
in the team.
With respect to measuring team cognition, Cooke,
Salas, Cannon-Bowers, and Stout (2000) maintained
that there is not a single method to measure team
knowledge because team knowledge is multifaceted
and can therefore be measured in several different
ways. These authors included observation, interviews
and surveys, process tracing, and conceptual methods
as potential techniques. Detailed description of these
methods is beyond our scope here; see Cooke et al.
(2000) for further explanation. Briey, observations,
interviews, and surveys can be used in this context to
infer and/or elicit team knowledge. Process tracing
refers to a family of methods that seek to construct an
ongoing record of performance, for example, a think-
aloud protocol where team members provide a run-
ning commentary of what they are thinking as they
perform the task. Other approaches include audio or
videotaping, keystroke analysis, and the like. Finally,
conceptual methods refer to those that represent the
domain as a series of concepts and the relationships
among them.
In their comprehensive review, Mohammed et al.
(2000) described four such conceptual methods that
seemed to represent the most promising approaches
to direct mental model measurement at that time.
These included Pathfinder associative networks,
multidimensional scaling, interactively elicited
cause mapping, and text-based cause mapping.
Briey, Pathnder is a technique for measuring
627
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 627
individual knowledge structures that uses paired
comparison ratings to create a network structure in
which concepts are represented as nodes and the
relatedness of concepts as links between the nodes
(see Schvaneveldt, 1990). At the team level, the
degree of similarity between the knowledge struc-
tures can be assessed.
Multidimensional scaling (MDS) uses similarity
ratings among concepts to spatially represent
proximity data in n-dimensional space. That is, it
represents the similarity among concepts geomet-
rically and helps to reveal the underlying organiza-
tional scheme associated with a series of concepts.
As with Pathfinder, MDS can be applied at the
team level by assessing the degree of similarity
among the cognitive representations of different
team members (see Mohammed et al., 2000, for
more detail).
The last two methods reviewed by Mohammed
et al. (2001) both fall within the category of concept
mapping. Concept mapping produces graphic repre-
sentations of an individuals cognitive structure. A
particular type of concept map, called cause maps,
specically focuses on eliciting an individuals belief
about the causal relationship among concepts.
Mohammed et al. distinguished two types of cause
maps that have been used to assess shared cognition:
interactively elicited cause mapping, where the con-
cepts are generated interactively with team members
through surveys and questionnaires; and text-based
cause mapping, where concepts are inferred by
assessing ongoing transcripts or records of perfor-
mance. At the team level, the cause maps of individ-
ual team members can be compared to assess
similarity, coverage, and so forth. In a similar vein,
Hall, Stevens, and Torralba (2002) studied the con-
versations among team members to nd discourse
elements that might indicate the creation of these
group models.
Given the centrality of team cognition to virtu-
ally all accepted theories of team performance, more
work on measuring it is clearly warranted. Progress
in clarifying the construct is needed, as well as
efforts to develop and test appropriate measurement
tools. Ultimately, the psychometric properties of
proposed methods must be demonstrated so that
their validity can be established.
TEAM TRAINING
The increased attention focused on teams in recent
years has led to a number of advancements in team-
training theory and practice. Several theoretically
based interventions have been developed and tested
(Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). The sections that
follow rst set the stage by describing the settings
and paradigms typically used in team-training
research. Next, we review an overarching frame-
work in which to organize thinking about the com-
ponents of team training, followed by a brief review
of some of the major interventions that have been
developed in recent years, along with evidence of
their effectiveness. Following this, we summarize a
set of guidelines for team training gleaned from the
literature, and then address some issues associated
with the transfer of team training, in particular how
it might be improved.
Prevailing Paradigms and Settings
for Team-Training Research
There is no doubt that much of the empirical
research into team-training effectiveness has focused
on two environments: military teams and aviation
teams. Historically, this has been driven primarily
by funding, that is, the military and the Federal
Aviation Authority have been much more likely to
fund studies of team-training effectiveness than
other agencies or sponsors. This tendency is due, at
least in part, to the fact that in high performance
environments, the consequences of error are cata-
strophic, and improving team performance is seen
as a mechanism to enhance safety. For the same rea-
son, the past few years have seen an increase in the
number of studies conducted on medical teams,
although to date, funding for such work has not
been as available.
Because the preponderance of team-training
research has been conducted in these relatively few
environments, an important question becomes: How
does this research translate into other types of teams
in industry? The answer, we believe, rests on two
related issues: the similarity of environmental and
task demands between military and aviation teams
and the targeted environment (to which one would
like to generalize) and, in turn, how these task
628
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 628
demands translate into specific competency
requirements in the teams. Obviously, the more
closely the targeted environments resemble the
experimental situation, the more justified one
would be in generalizing.
To take a simple example, one of the characteris-
tics of many of the military and aviation teams that
have been studied is time pressure. As we have
noted, when teams have little time to respond or
make decisions, we believe they must rely on shared
knowledge (or mental models) in lieu of more delib-
erate planning. This phenomenon can be observed
over a variety of teams, especially sports teams,
when, for example, players make a no-look, or blind
pass, essentially predicting the position of team-
mates on the court or eld. Presumably, players in
this situation are relying on the preexisting, shared
knowledge they have of the situation and of their
teammates (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993). Hence, if
the targeted environment is characterized by time
pressure, we would conclude that research investi-
gating how to build shared team knowledge would
apply, regardless of the setting in which it was
tested. This is not to say that we would not like to
see more empirical studies of team training in a
wider variety of organizational settingswe clearly
wouldbut until such studies are conducted, we
believe that careful generalization from the existing
literature is possible.
Another feature of team-training studies that has
actually been raised as a limitation is that many are
conducted in laboratory settings with articial teams
as opposed to real world environments. As with
other laboratory-based research, the argument here
is that ad hoc teams do not exhibit behaviors and
processes found in teams performing in real organi-
zations because of their limited life span and the rel-
ative simplicity of the lab environment. It is
interesting to note that a meta-analysis by Mullen,
Driskell, and Salas (1998) actually concluded that
studying groups in controlled settings does not nec-
essarily lead to less valid or robust ndings. In fact,
their meta-analysis concluded that similar, but
stronger, effects were found in studies conducted
with real teams compared with those conducted in
the laboratory. According to Mullen et al., the impli-
cation of this nding was that more controlled lab
environments did not produce unrealistically strong
or spurious effects. Instead, these authors concluded
the following:
The weight of available evidence
strongly suggests that the increased
experimental control obtained through
the use of articial groups in the labora-
tory does not come at the cost of real-
ism, ecological validity, or the ability to
generalize beyond the laboratory to real
groups in the real world. (p. 228)
The argument put forth by Mullen et al. (1998)
notwithstanding, it probably follows that some
research questions may be more amenable to study in
the lab than others. For example, if a crucial question
involves familiarity with teammates (i.e., how well
they know each other), then trying to study them in a
2-hour lab session is probably not feasible. However,
creating articial groups to study decision making or
communication patterns may be justied if team
members are properly trained on the experimental
task. For example, a number of research groups have
used computer-based aviation or command and con-
trol simulations to study teams in the laboratory
(Ellis et al., 2003; Leedom & Simon, 1995; Proctor,
Panko, & Donovan, 2004; Shebilske, Jordon, Goettl,
& Paulus, 1998). Task simulations such as these can
be constructed carefully so that they represent impor-
tant aspects of the environmental and task demands
(sometimes called cognitive delity).
As we argued earlier, generalizing on the basis of
similarities in task demands and associated team
competency requirements between the laboratory
and real world is justied if done carefully and sys-
tematically. Hence, we conclude this discussion of
research and experimental settings for studying
team training by again calling for more empirical
work that spans a broader array of environments
and tasks. Until such results are available, prudent
generalization of existing literature seems justied.
Framework for Understanding
Team Training
Figure 19.4 displays a framework for conceptualiz-
ing team training (adapted from Salas & Cannon-
Bowers, 1997) that was developed based largely on
629
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 629
work aimed at improving performance in military
combat teams and military and commercial aviation
teams (see Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1998; Salas,
Burke, Bowers, & Wilson, 2001). We have updated
the original slightly to streamline the presentation
and reect more recent thinking and ndings.
Despite its origins, the framework has wide
applicability in describing and organizing the compo-
nents of team training. It species several categories
of features that define a team-training program,
including tools, methods, strategies, objective, and
content. To begin with, Salas and Cannon-Bowers
(2000) offered team task analysis, performance mea-
surement, simulations and exercises, feedback, and
principles as tools that are necessary to team-training
development. We have already discussed the neces-
sity of team task analysis and performance measure-
ment; both are crucial for training. Beyond this,
simulations and exercises are important because they
provide a context in which hands-on practice can
occur (see Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2000, for more
detail), whereas feedback is a primary mechanism by
which learning can occur. Finally, principles and
guidelines for team training are useful to explain how
team training should be implemented (we cover these
in more detail later).
The framework also delineates a variety of meth-
ods that are useful for team training. In many ways,
these are similar to those applied at the individual
level. But when combined with team-training con-
tent, these methods result in a series of specic
team-training strategies. For example, using hands-
on practice (i.e., a method) for increasing knowl-
edge of team roles (i.e., a competency) could be
developed into cross-training (i.e., a strategy).
Obviously, a training program can combine several
tools, methods, competencies, and strategies; and
the model can be used to guide the development
process. We now turn our attention to the specic
team-training interventions that have been proposed
and evaluated in recent years.
Effectiveness of Team Training
At some level it makes no more sense to pose the
question, Is team training effective? than it is to
ask, Is training effective? because the answer to
630
FIGURE 19.4. Team training model. From Training and Retraining: A Handbook for
Businesses, Industry, Government, and Military (p. 314), by S. Tobias & D. Fletcher
(Eds.), 2000, Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan. Copyright 2000 by Gale, a part of
Cengage Learning, Inc. Reproduced by permission. www.cengage.com/permissions
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 630
both depends on a huge number of factors that are
related to the task, team, particular training methods
used, quality of implementation, training and orga-
nizational context, and so forth. For reasons delin-
eated elsewhere (see Cannon-Bowers & Bowers,
2010), general questions such as these are not
meaningful because the number of ways that train-
ing interventions and situations can vary make it
difcult to determine the generalizability of results.
Hence, we have tried to limit our review to team-
training strategies that are tightly defined and the-
oretically justified and for which at least a few
investigations have been conducted. These are sum-
marized in Table 19.4 and are described briey later.
Where possible, we tried to include effect sizes in
reporting ndings in Table 19.4. Where meta-analyses
were available we reported only those effect sizes,
otherwise we attempted to report effect sizes for indi-
vidual studies. These are shown where available.
Cross-training. Cross-training involves training
team members about the roles and responsibilities
of other members. The notion is that giving team
members a chance to experience the task from
anothers point of view can provide important
insight into how the task is accomplished from the
perspective of teammates. Such understanding
should help them to better anticipate the needs of
teammates, and even enable them to empathize so
that they are better able to interpret teammates
behavior.
As is clear from Table 19.4, there have been a
few empirical investigations of cross-training, with
mixed results. Although at least three empirical
investigations have supported the technique
(Cannon-Bowers et al., 1998; Marks, Sabella, Burke,
& Zacarro, 2002; Volpe et al., 1996), one did not
(McCann, Baranski, Thompson, & Pigeau, 2000).
In the Volpe et al. and Cannon-Bowers et al. studies,
which were both conducted in the context of simu-
lated military tasks, team performance was dened
as overall team score, time spent accessing informa-
tion, and accuracy in prosecuting targets. Similarly,
Marks et al. used the number of targets shot and
time teams remained alive in a military simulation
as team outcome measures. McCann et al. used an
almost identical task and team outcome score.
A meta-analysis by Salas, Nichols, and Driskell
(2007) also failed to nd an effect of cross-training
on team performance. However, the meta-analysis
was based on few studies, so results should be inter-
preted with caution until more data are available. To
complicate matters, the studies reported by Marks
et al. (2002) tested three different levels of cross-
training that varied in depth: positional rotation,
positional modeling, and positional clarification.
Results were inconclusive regarding what level of
cross-training is needed to achieve benets, although
some evidence suggested that full positional rotation
might not be necessary. More empirical work is
needed to rene and validate this approach.
Team self-correction training. Guided team self-
correctionin which teams are instructed to
observe teammates behavior and provide and
accept performance-enhancing feedbackis often
mentioned as a promising means to improve shared
knowledge. In fact, there is mounting evidence that
this strategy is effective in improving team perfor-
mance (Blickensderfer, Cannon-Bowers, & Salas,
1998; Smith-Jentsch et al., 2008). The Smith-Jentsch
et al. (2008) study was conducted with active duty
military personnel, and the measure of effectiveness
was a rated assessment of the teams situational aware-
ness. Moreover, the approach is consistent with efforts
to build continuous learning environments in teams
because it emphasizes the role of each team member
in monitoring the performance of teammates and pro-
viding constructive feedback. These mechanisms can
be applied to all episodes of performance and are not
limited only to training exercises.
Scenario-based training. The value of scenario-
based training stems from its ability to place team
members in a realistic context while learning, a
notion that has extensive support in the learning
sciences (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999;
Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, 2007; Cannon-Bowers,
Bowers, & Sanchez, 2008). If properly imple-
mented, scenario-based training can be effective in
allowing trainees to experience the consequences of
their actions, make adjustments based on feedback,
successfully accomplish the task, and build collec-
tive efcacy. In fact, Cannon-Bowers, Bowers and
Sanchez recently provided guidelines for how to
631
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 631
632
T
A
B
L
E

1
9
.
4
T
e
a
m

T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

I
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
r
g
e
t
e
d
E
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
E
f
f
e
c
t
I
n
t
e
r
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
i
e
s
n
d
i
n
g
s
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
s
i
z
e
s

(
r
)
C
r
o
s
s
-
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
-
b
a
s
e
d
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
T
e
a
m

s
e
l
f
-
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
T
e
a
m

l
e
a
d
e
r
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
T
e
a
m

c
o
o
r
d
i
-
n
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

a
d
a
p
t
a
t
i
o
n

t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
G
e
n
e
r
i
c

t
e
a
m
-
w
o
r
k

s
k
i
l
l
s

t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
T
e
a
m

m
e
m
b
e
r
s

a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

t
o

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
t
h
e

t
a
s
k

w
h
i
l
e

t
a
k
i
n
g
t
h
e

r
o
l
e

o
f

o
n
e

o
f

h
i
s
o
r

h
e
r

t
e
a
m
m
a
t
e
s
.
E
x
p
o
s
e

t
r
a
i
n
e
e
s

t
o

r
e
a
l
-
i
s
t
i
c

s
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s

s
o
t
h
a
t

t
h
e
y

c
a
n

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
f
e
e
d
b
a
c
k

t
o

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
.
T
e
a
c
h

t
e
a
m

m
e
m
b
e
r
s
t
o

e
n
g
a
g
e

i
n

m
u
t
u
a
l
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

m
o
n
i
-
t
o
r
i
n
g

a
n
d

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
-
t
i
v
e

t
e
a
m

f
e
e
d
b
a
c
k
.
T
e
a
c
h

t
e
a
m

m
e
m
b
e
r
s
t
o

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

b
e
t
t
e
r

p
r
e
-
a
n
d

p
o
s
t
e
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
b
r
i
e
n
g
s
.
H
e
l
p

t
e
a
m

m
e
m
b
e
r
s

t
o
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e

t
h
e

n
e
e
d
s
o
f

t
e
a
m
m
a
t
e
s

a
n
d
a
c
h
i
e
v
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

t
a
s
k

s
y
n
c
h
r
o
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

i
n

g
e
n
e
r
i
c
t
e
a
m
w
o
r
k

k
n
o
w
l
-
e
d
g
e

a
n
d

s
k
i
l
l
s
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

i
n
t
e
r
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
w
i
l
l

a
l
l
o
w

t
e
a
m

m
e
m
b
e
r
s

t
o

b
e
t
-
t
e
r

p
r
e
d
i
c
t

t
h
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
n
e
e
d
s

o
f

t
e
a
m
m
a
t
e
s
.
E
x
p
e
r
t
i
s
e

i
s

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d

b
y

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

a
r
e
p
e
r
t
o
i
r
e

o
f

t
a
s
k

i
n
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h

m
e
a
n
i
n
g
f
u
l

e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e

t
o
t
h
e

t
a
s
k

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
T
e
a
m

m
e
m
b
e
r
s

a
r
e

i
n

t
h
e

b
e
s
t

p
o
s
i
-
t
i
o
n

t
o

c
a
t
c
h

a
n
d

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

e
a
c
h
o
t
h
e
r
s

e
r
r
o
r
s
.
E
n
r
i
c
h
e
d

b
r
i
e
f
i
n
g
s

b
y

t
h
e

t
e
a
m
l
e
a
d
e
r

w
i
l
l

h
e
l
p

t
h
e

t
e
a
m

c
o
n
-
s
t
r
u
c
t

s
h
a
r
e
d

m
e
a
n
i
n
g

a
n
d

b
e
t
-
t
e
r

u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d

t
h
e

t
a
s
k

a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r

r
o
l
e

i
n

i
t
.
T
e
a
m
s

w
h
o

a
r
e

a
b
l
e

t
o

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

u
s
e
o
f

i
m
p
l
i
c
i
t

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
w
i
l
l

a
d
a
p
t

b
e
t
t
e
r

i
n

h
i
g
h

w
o
r
k
l
o
a
d
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
e
a
m

m
e
m
b
e
r
s

w
h
o

m
u
s
t

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
c
r
o
s
s

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

t
a
s
k
s

a
n
d

w
i
t
h

d
i
f
-
f
e
r
e
n
t

t
e
a
m

m
e
m
b
e
r
s

w
o
u
l
d

b
e
n
e
-
t

f
r
o
m

t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

i
n

g
e
n
e
r
i
c

s
k
i
l
l
s
.
S
h
a
r
e
d

t
a
s
k

k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
,
i
n
t
e
r
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
,

k
n
o
w
l
-
e
d
g
e

o
f

r
o
l
e
s

a
n
d
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

c
o
o
r
d
i
-
n
a
t
i
o
n
,

m
u
t
u
a
l

p
e
r
f
o
r
-
m
a
n
c
e

m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
,
b
a
c
k
u
p

b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
M
u
t
u
a
l

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
,

g
i
v
i
n
g
a
n
d

r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g

f
e
e
d
-
b
a
c
k
T
e
a
m

l
e
a
d
e
r

p
r
e
b
r
i
e
f
-
i
n
g

a
n
d

d
e
b
r
i
e
f
i
n
g
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
s
A
d
a
p
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
-
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

p
l
a
n
-
n
i
n
g

a
n
d

t
a
s
k

c
o
o
r
d
i
-
n
a
t
i
o
n
;

c
o
l
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m

s
o
l
v
i
n
g
M
i
x
e
d

r
e
s
u
l
t
s
;

h
a
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

s
o
m
e
e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
b
u
t

n
o
t

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d

i
n
o
n
e

s
t
u
d
y

a
n
d

i
n

a
m
e
t
a

a
n
a
l
y
t
i
c

s
t
u
d
y
V
e
r
y

l
i
t
t
l
e

d
a
t
a

t
o

s
u
p
-
p
o
r
t

o
r

r
e
f
u
t
e
G
o
o
d

e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
f
o
r

t
h
e

a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h

i
n
e
l
d

a
n
d

i
n

l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
P
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
,

b
u
t

l
i
m
i
t
e
d
,
s
u
p
p
o
r
t

h
a
s

b
e
e
n
f
o
u
n
d

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

t
y
p
e

o
f
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g

i
n

o
n
e

e
l
d
a
n
d

o
n
e

l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
s
t
u
d
y
.
F
e
w

s
t
u
d
i
e
s
;

g
o
o
d
e
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
;
m
e
t
a
-
a
n
a
l
y
t
i
c

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d

i
n

a
t

l
e
a
s
t
o
n
e

s
t
u
d
y
.
C
a
n
n
o
n
-
B
o
w
e
r
s

e
t

a
l
.
(
1
9
9
8
)
;

M
a
r
k
s

e
t

a
l
.
(
2
0
0
2
)
;

M
c
C
a
n
n

e
t

a
l
.
(
2
0
0
0
)
;

S
a
l
a
s

e
t

a
l
.
(
2
0
0
7
)
;

V
o
l
p
e

e
t

a
l
.
(
1
9
9
6
)
A
l
i
n
i
e
r

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
0
6
)
;
C
a
n
n
o
n
-
B
o
w
e
r
s

a
n
d
B
o
w
e
r
s

(
2
0
0
7
)
;
C
a
n
n
o
n
-
B
o
w
e
r
s
,
B
o
w
e
r
s
,

a
n
d

S
a
n
c
h
e
z
(
2
0
0
8
)
;

S
t
e
d
m
a
n

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
0
6
)
B
l
i
c
k
e
n
s
d
e
r
f
e
r
,

C
a
n
n
o
n
-
B
o
w
e
r
s

a
n
d

S
a
l
a
s
(
1
9
9
7
)
;

S
a
l
a
s

e
t

a
l
.
(
2
0
0
7
)
;

S
m
i
t
h
-
J
e
n
t
s
c
h

e
t

a
l
.

(
1
9
9
8
)
;
S
m
i
t
h
-
J
e
n
t
s
c
h

e
t

a
l
.
(
2
0
0
8
)
M
a
r
k
s

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
0
0
)
;
T
a
n
e
n
b
a
u
m

e
t

a
l
.

(
1
9
9
8
)
E
n
t
i
n

a
n
d

S
e
r
f
a
t
y
(
1
9
9
9
)
;

M
a
r
k
s

e
t

a
l
.
(
2
0
0
0
)
;

S
a
l
a
s

e
t

a
l
.
(
2
0
0
7
)
E
l
l
i
s

e
t

a
l
.

(
2
0
0
5
)
.
0
9

(
S
a
l
a
s

e
t

a
l
.
,

2
0
0
7
m
e
t
a

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
)
I
n
s
u
f
c
i
e
n
t

d
a
t
a
t
o

c
o
m
p
u
t
e
.
4
5

(
S
a
l
a
s

e
t

a
l
.
,
2
0
0
7
,

m
e
t
a
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
)
.
3
7

(
M
a
r
k
s

e
t

a
l
.
,
2
0
0
0
)
.
6
1

(
S
a
l
a
s

e
t

a
l
.
,
2
0
0
7
,

m
e
t
a
-
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
)
.
4
1

t
o

.
5
6

(
E
l
l
i
s

e
t

a
l
.
,

2
0
0
5
)
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 632
develop scenarios and implement scenario-based
training to target specic teamwork KSAs. For
example, these authors advocated exposing trainees
to increasingly time-pressured scenarios so that they
can practice implicit coordination strategies (which
is more efcient than explicit verbalizing).
Surprisingly, relatively few empirical studies of
this technique have been reported; the few that have
been conducted have been supportive. For example,
Stedman et al. (2006) found that simulation-based
training was superior to problem-based learning in
medical students. Likewise, Alinier, Hunt, Gordon,
and Harwood (2006) found that knowledge and
condence in nursing students was enhanced
through scenario-based training.
Team-leader training. Obviously, there have
been volumes devoted to leadership and leader-
ship training, and reviewing this work is beyond
the scope of this chapter. However, a subset of this
attention has focused on training team leaders in
specific behaviors that support team performance.
For example, Tannenbaum et al. (1998) tested an
approach to team leader training that prepared lead-
ers by teaching them to conduct effective prebriefs
(i.e., before a hands-on exercise) and debriefs
(i.e., after a hands-on exercise). According to these
authors, prebriefs are essential opportunities for
leaders to guide the team in planning, setting
mutual goals, developing contingency plans, and
clarifying roles and responsibilities. Debriefs also
serve multiple purposes: to provide specific feed-
back on team performance, encourage active team
member participation, emphasize teamwork as
well as taskwork, and accept feedback from team
members.
In a study with active-duty naval ofcers, they
found that the training was successful in improving
the brieng behaviors of team leaders. Moreover, the
teams who had trained leaders outperformed teams
with untrained leaders in realistic task simulations.
This is fairly convincing evidence that leader behav-
ior can be improved and that it makes a difference
when it is improved. A more recent analysis by
Marks et al. (2000) also provided support for the
notion that training leader brieng behaviors would
improve team performance.
Team coordination and adaptation training. The
notion that team members must exercise implicit
coordination strategies (i.e., those that rely on shared
knowledge rather that verbal communication) to be
effective has been raised several times in this chapter.
Training team members to increase their use of
implicit coordination strategies is the subject of team
coordination and adaptation training (Entin &
Serfaty, 1994). Regarding validation of this strategy,
the Salas et al. (2007) meta-analysis mentioned ear-
lier revealed that this intervention had the best results
(i.e., compared with cross-training and team self-
correction) in improving team performance. In a
somewhat different interpretation, Marks, Zaccaro,
and Mathieu (2000) tested team interaction training,
and found that it was effective in improving team per-
formance in a simulated tank war-game (i.e., number
of targets correctly prosecuted).
Generic team-skills training. In an earlier section,
we described the difference between task- and team-
specic competencies (see Table 19.2). Using this
framework, Ellis et al. (2005) reasoned that action
teams would benet from training in generic team
skills because they regularly transition across differ-
ent teams and tasks. In a study of command and
control teams, they found that generic team skills
training was effective in teaching declarative team
knowledge, as well as planning and task coordina-
tion, collaborative problem solving, and communi-
cation. Among other things, these researchers
concluded that generic teamwork training might
serve a crucial foundation for developing more task-
or team-specic competencies.
Guidelines for Team Training
Salas and Cannon-Bowers (2000) assembled a set of
guidelines for team training (see Exhibit 19.3). On
the basis of work conducted primarily under the
TADMUS project (described earlier; see Cannon-
Bower & Salas, 1998, for details), these authors
complied this set of guidelines as a mechanism to
help practitioners better implement team-training
programs. We have updated and modied the origi-
nal set of guidelines for presentation here.
For the most part, the guidelines shown in
Exhibit 19.3 are best applied to teams who must
633
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 633
perform tasks with reciprocal or team interdepen-
dencies (as discussed in the framework described
earlier). In some senses, this represents the most
challenging team-training situation because team
members must be exible and adaptable in their
behavior patterns and must adeptly coordinate and
communicate implicitly. Hence, not all of these
guidelines will be applicable to every team-training
situation (especially less complex ones). However,
they can provide a good starting point for practition-
ers and can be a useful mechanism to foster transi-
tion of scientic results into the workplace.
Transfer of Team Training
Apart from the training content and targeted level,
team training may also differ from individual-level
training in terms of its mechanisms of transfer.
Whereas the general issue of training transfer is
addressed elsewhere in this volume, some have argued
that the team situation adds unique requirements for
transfer that are not present at the individual level
(Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Milham, 2003). The frame-
work in Exhibit 19.4 summarizes some of these (see
Cannon-Bowers et al., 2003, for a detailed discussion).
Exhibit 19.4 organizes the discussion of team-
training transfer into three broad categories: those
activities that occur before training, those activities
that occur during training, and those activities that
occur after training. Before training, there are a host
of team characteristics that can affect learning and
transfer. These include the teams ability and apti-
tude (which are consistent with what is known at
the individual level), history and experience, and
several team attitudes (i.e., collective orientation,
collective efcacy, and attitudes toward teamwork).
According to the authors, these factors should be
634
Exhibit 19.3
Guidelines for Team Training
Design training to foster both individual and team skills; individual skills are a necessary but not sufcient condition of effec-
tive team performance
Develop team members knowledge to a threshold level before beginning team training so that they can focus on acquiring
teamwork skills
Make team members aware of the interrelatedness of individual development and team performance early in training
Develop exercises, cases and/or examples that link critical task cues and cue patterns to appropriate response strategies and
consequences
Provide team members with motivational guidance and seek to remove or ameliorate factors that hinder motivation
Familiarize team members with each others roles and create realistic expectations for task requirements
Build opportunities for success early in training to help develop collective efcacy
Teach team members the importance of effective communication strategies
Teach team members to seek clarication of ambiguous information
Teach team members how to monitor each others performance to identify errors
Instruct team members in constructive strategies for providing feedback to teammates
Help team members to accept constructive feedback from teammates
Provide supplemental instruction for team leaders so that they can better guide team members
Teach team members to maintain high situational awareness in the team by providing updates
Exercise teams in a variety of situations to build their adaptability
Develop exercises/cases/scenarios that contain critical events around which the teams performance can be measured
Allow team members to experience the task from the perspective of teammates
Instruct teams to how to reect on their performance and generate self- and team-corrective strategies
Teach team members how to plan collaboratively to build shared task expectations
Provide opportunities for team members to practice synchronizing and coordinating their input
Help team members to recognize and ameliorate interpersonal and task-related conict
Help team members to respect the views and inputs of teammates

From Training and Retraining: A Handbook for Businesses, Industry, Government, and Military (p. 322), by S. Tobias
& D. Fletcher (Eds.), 2000, Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan. Copyright 2000 by Gale, a part of Cengage
Learning, Inc. Reproduced by permission. www.cengage.com/permissions.
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 634
assessed prior to training so that remedial activities
can occur if they are found to be a problem. For
example, if team members hold negative attitudes
toward teamwork (and hence do not value being
part of a team), it may be possible to improve these
attitudes before the training begins.
Cannon-Bowers et al. (2003) recommended that
during training, advance organizers are available to
explain complex team and task relationships and
prebriefs that help to clarify roles and responsibili-
ties in the team. They also advocated matching the
level of team and task delity to the specic task
demands. For example, if the task allows for high
degrees of behavioral discretion (i.e., where team
members have considerable control over how they
complete their tasks), then it is advisable to train
with actual teammates whenever possible (so that
team members can gain required knowledge of
teammates preferences, strengths, weaknesses, ten-
dencies, etc). In other cases (e.g., where the task is
highly interdependent but proceduralized), task
delity may be more important, suggesting that
team members should be trained in a simulation or
work sample environment.
Cannon-Bowers et al. (2003) also made recom-
mendations for activities that occur after training as
means to improve transfer. In many organizations
that have adopted team-based organizations to
accomplish work, associated human resources (HR)
practices are still based at the individual level. This is
a problem because it can set up conicting messages
for the team members. For example, if team members
are taught in team training sessions that they should
feel responsible to their team and that team perfor-
mance is valued but then are evaluated and rewarded
on an individual basis, it can create conict. Hence,
transfer of team training to the workplace will be hin-
dered until alignment of performance management
practices and systems is achieved.
EMERGING ISSUES
IN TEAM PERFORMANCE
The future of teams in organizations is likely to
continue to grow and will be marked by a set of new
635
Exhibit 19.4
Factors That Affect the Transfer of Team Training
Before Training:
Team ability/aptitudeshould be sufciently high to support learning
Team history & experiencelow expectations should be adjusted before training; gaps in knowledge/experience should be
remediated
Team attitudes: collective efcacy, collective orientation, attitudes towards teamworkattitudes should be assessed prior to
training and adjusted if necessary
During Training:
Advance organizersshould explain complex team and task relationships
Pre-practice briefsshould explain team roles and clarify expectations
Team level metacognitive skillsshould be supported during training
Training environment delity (realism) of the task and/or teamshould be matched to the nature of the task demands
Feedbackintrateam feedback and self-correction should be fostered

After Training:
Climate for teamworkshould be established and maintained
Performance appraisalsshould emphasis teamwork and collective achievement
Reward and performance management systemsshould reect team accomplishment
Team goalsshould be developed at the team level
Leader/team member supportshould support transfer of newly learned skills
Relapse preventionshould involved the entire team

From Improving Learning Transfer in Organizations (pp. 219220), by E. Holton and T. Baldwin (Eds.), 2003, San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Copyright 2003 by Jossey-Bass. Adapted with permission.
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 635
challenges. To begin with, globalization of the mod-
ern workforce, coupled with advances in technol-
ogy, has led to a rise in the use of teams who are
physically dispersed. Referred to as distributed or vir-
tual teams, these work groups exist across functional,
organizational, and even national boundaries. Hence,
the issues that confront such teams are complex; they
involve altered team processes, multicultural issues,
and supporting technologies. The following sections
review some of these emerging issues.
Virtual Teams and Their Processes
Driskell, Radtke, and Salas (2003) dened virtual
teams as those whose members are mediated by
time, distance, or technology (p. 297). Hertzel and
colleagues (Hertzel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005)
added the denitional requirement that these teams
must coordinate their work through electronic
communication media.
It should be pointed out, however, that all virtual
teams are not the same. As pointed out by Driskell
et al. (2003), there are a variety of technologies that
can support virtual teams, ranging from simple
e-mail to real-time video and audio communications.
Each of these technologies is associated with a set of
cues available to team members. Although some of
these technologies provide few of the cues available
to face-to-face teams, others provide almost all of
the cues available in traditional colocated teams.
Similarly, these teams can differ in temporal distri-
bution, roles, and other variables (see Priest, Stagl,
Klein, Salas, & Burke, 2006). Consequently, it has
been suggested that the processes required for effec-
tive performance might be different depending on
the capabilities of the particular technology used to
enable the teams work. In the next section, we focus
on the consequences of distance on the teams
processes and emerging states and cover technology
issues in a subsequent section.
The denition of virtual teams dictates that these
teams must work under conditions that are far differ-
ent from traditional teams. The fact that these teams
must coordinate their actions, without the benet of
face-to face interactions, to be effective has led several
researchers to suggest that these teams must some-
how alter their processes to accommodate for the
lack of cues. Consequently, there has been consider-
able interest by researchers in the people and
processes that are associated with effective virtual
team performance.
In their review, Driskell and colleagues (2003)
proposed four processes that they hypothesized to
be particularly important for virtual teams: cohe-
siveness, status, counternormative behavior, and
communication. First, as described earlier, cohesive-
ness is thought to be an important element in the
performance of traditional teams. Given the reduced
cues available to virtual teams, it has been suggested
that this important team characteristic might be less
likely to occur in virtual teams. In general, this
hypothesis has been supported by the available
empirical literature; specically, the degree of dis-
ruption of cohesiveness is related to the degree to
which the communication medium approximates
face-to-face teams.
For example Bos, Gergle, Olson, and Olson
(2001) reported that teams who communicated only
via text experienced greater difculty in establishing
trust than either video-conferencing or face-to-face
teams. Similarly, the video-conferencing teams
experienced more difculty than did the face-to-face
teams. Doherty-Sneddon et al. (1997) and Straus
(1996) reported similar results. It should be pointed
out, however, that the relationship between cohe-
siveness and virtual team performance is likely more
complex than described here. For example,
Gonzalez, Burke, Santuzzi, and Bradley (2003)
reported that their data better t a model where
cohesiveness mediated the relationship between col-
lective efcacy and performance than did a model
examining the direct effect between cohesiveness
and performance itself.
A second process highlighted by Driskell and his
colleagues (2003) is status. From an interpersonal
standpoint, perceived status is a key factor that
determines the processes that emerge in teams, such
as leadership. Because of the degraded stimulus
array in virtual teams, is has been hypothesized that
these status effects might be altered because it is less
clear who is more experienced, wealthy, older, and
so forth. Several studies supported this contention
(e.g., Sproull & Kiesler, 1986, 1991). However,
other researchers have reported that status and
leadership behaviors are not always disrupted in
636
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 636
these kinds of teams (Saunders, Robey, & Vaverek,
1994). Moreover, there are a number of method-
ological concerns that preclude a thorough under-
standing of status differences in distributed teams;
hence, a dedicated program of research is needed.
The third important process is counternormative
behavior. It has been widely reported that computer-
mediated communications tend to include more
amboyant, inappropriate statements than do per-
sonal communications. This aberrant behavior is
attributed to the reduced inhibition one feels in the
relatively anonymous situation that often character-
izes computer-mediated teamwork (Sproull &
Kiesler, 1991). Such phenomena have led to a con-
cern that teamwork in virtual teams might be dis-
rupted by rude, negative behaviors. Early studies
seemed to support this hypothesis (e.g., Siegal,
Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & McGuire, 1986). However,
Driskell and his colleagues (2003) concluded that
the more recent literature is largely equivocal.
Again, there are a host of potential moderator vari-
ables that must be accounted for, and a great deal of
research will be required to determine the likelihood
and extent of this phenomena.
Finally, Driskell et al. (2003) proposed commu-
nication as the fourth important process variable in
distributed teams. The importance of communica-
tion has been described earlier in this chapter.
However, the limited cue set in virtual teams is
likely to change the nature of effective communica-
tion in these teams. Reviews of this literature have
largely supported this notion (Culnan & Markus,
1987). In large part, these differences are related to
reduced knowledge sharing and feedback (Ashford
& Tsui, 1991; Thompson & Coovert, 2003).
Consequently, researchers have recently extracted a
set of communication guidelines for leaders to help
counteract these negative effects (Rosen, Furst, &
Blackburn, 2007; Walvoord, Redden, Elliott, and
Coovert, 2008).
In another review, Bowers, Smith, Cannon-
Bowers, and Nicholson (2008) delineated possible
differences between collocated and distributed
teams in terms of behavioral, attitudinal, and cogni-
tive aspects. Focusing rst on those behaviors not
covered by Driskell et al. (2003), Bowers and col-
leagues noted that leadership behaviors are also
affected by distance among team members. Leaders
of distributed teams face unique challenges when it
comes to directing the teams work, assessing per-
formance, developing and encouraging members
(including setting a climate for teamwork), and
planning and communicating effective strategies
for task accomplishment. Zhang, Fjermestad, and
Tremaine (2005) hypothesized that different leader-
ship behaviors may be needed in virtual teams.
With respect to team attitudes, Bowers et al.
(2008) noted that trust, collective efcacy, and team
orientation (in addition to cohesion, which was dis-
cussed by Driskell et al., 2003) may all be affected
by distance. Beginning with trust, several authors
have suggested that dispersion is likely to reduce
trust in virtual teams (Ardichvili, Page, & Wentling,
2003; Staples & Webster, 2008) because mistrust
can stem from misattributions due to technological
anomalies or reduced cues. Likewise, collective ef-
cacy (i.e., the teams shared belief in its ability to
accomplish the task) may not develop as it does in
collocated teams. The issue here is that distributed
teams may have difculties experiencing shared suc-
cess or correctly attributing such success to the
teams efforts. Finally, team members in a distrib-
uted team may not see themselves as a team in the
same way that face-to-face teams do. This may
reduce the team members ability to correctly recog-
nize that teamwork is important and a component of
team orientation (Bowers et al., 2008).
Regarding cognitive differences among virtual
and collocated teams, Bowers and colleagues (2008)
argued that memory processes can be affected by
altered information ow, task cues, and communi-
cation mechanisms when teams are distributed. For
example, it is likely that workload will be higher in
virtual teams because commonly shared visual and
auditory cues are not available, whereas retrieval
and prospective memory may be altered because of a
lack of normally robust cue sets (see Fiore, Cuevas,
Schooler, & Salas, 2006, for more detail).
In addition to the processes and emerging states
already discussed, other researchers have recently
described phenomena that might be altered in vir-
tual teams. For example, Fiore and his colleagues
(2003) described a construct of team opacity. This
refers to the awareness that team members have of
637
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 637
one another. These researchers argued that the
nature of distributed teams reduces the clarity of
this awareness so that other teamwork behaviors are
required for these teams to be successful. Other
researchers have described constructs such as inter-
personal perceptions (Fiore, Salas, & Cannon-
Bowers, 2001) and adaptability (Fiore et al., 2006)
as issues worthy of consideration.
Obviously, additional research (particularly
empirical investigations) is needed to better under-
stand the workings of virtual teams so that recom-
mendations for important HR functions can be
generated. This is especially true in light of the fact
that virtual teams are already being used in many
organizations and that trend is growing. Recently,
Rosen et al. (2007) conducted a survey of 440 train-
ing and development specialists regarding their
organizations use and treatment of virtual teams.
Among other things, this survey indicated that little
is being done to train virtual team members or the
leaders who must manage them.
Further, Rosen et al. (2007) conducted a logistic
regression analysis to determine the differences
among organizations whose respondents perceived
their virtual team-training programs to be effective
versus those who perceived it to be ineffective. Results
indicated that in organizations with (perceived) effec-
tive training, virtual teams were considered a strategic
advantage in maintaining competitiveness, communi-
cation technologies for collaboration were viewed as
critical, and high levels of top management support
were present. Rosen and colleagues went on to offer a
prototypical virtual team-training program based on
the synthesis of survey ndings along with anecdotal
accounts and reports of current training practices. It
included things such as training leaders to set expecta-
tions, measure and reward performance, coach and
mentor in a virtual environment, and model effective
distributed team behaviors. For virtual team members,
these authors recommended a face-to-face team-
building session prior to virtual team launch, followed
by modules aimed at training in the use of technology,
communication skills, and team management.
Technology and Teams
There is little doubt that technology has had a
major impact on teams in the modern workplace
(see Bowers, Salas, & Jentsch, 2006). Many of the
issues associated with technology have already been
addressed in discussing virtual teams. However, we
thought that a separate section was warranted so
that a fuller spectrum of issues could be addressed.
According to Hoeft, Jentsch, and Bowers (2006),
technology can affect teams in at least three ways;
technology can (a) be designed to support teamwork,
(b) actually affect the environment in which team
members interact with one another, and (c) permeate
a team to become an integral part of that team; in
essence, technology can become another team mem-
ber. With respect to technologies to support team-
work, Mittleman and Briggs (1999) delineated a list
of technologies (based on work by McGrath &
Hollingsworth, 1994; Nunamaker, Briggs, Mittleman,
Vogel, & Balthazard, 1997) that support internal
team communication, external team communication,
process deliberation, task deliberation, and informa-
tion access. These include such things as presentation
support systems, audio and video conferencing,
application sharing, group support systems, and, of
course, e-mail.
In addition, other authors have suggested ways to
use technology to improve the functioning of virtual
teams. In particular, technology may have value as
a means to enrich the cuing environment so that
shared knowledge and perceptions can be enhanced.
For example, Walvoord et al. (2008) advocated use of
multimodal displays (i.e., those that provide visual,
auditory and tactile information) as a means to enrich
the cue environment in distributed teams. Schatz,
Cannon-Bowers, and Bowers (2006) discussed the
benets of data visualization techniques as a means to
foster shared cognition among team members.
Finally, Bowers et al. (2008) contended that vir-
tual world technologies (in which team members
represent themselves as realistic avatars and interact
in real time with teammates in a virtual workspace)
hold promise as a means to improve virtual team-
work. According to these authors, team members in
such environments can communicate more easily
(especially when auditory channels are available),
better observe and assess each other, share resources,
and possibly improve attitudes (i.e., trust, cohesion).
Moreover, they may also improve cognitive functions
(i.e., working memory, activation) by mimicking the
638
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 638
cue sets of face-to-face teams more closely than with
typical groupware.
In the second category posited by Hoeft et al.
(2006) (changing the team environment through
teamwork), they described a variety of high tech
contexts in which teams must operate, including
command and control, nuclear power, and space.
These environments have a fundamental impact on
the way the team accomplishes its tasks. Finally,
on the subject of computer-generated or synthetic
team members, automation and robotics are matur-
ing to the point where such entities may soon be a
reality (Groom & Nass, 2007). As this work pro-
gresses, it will be imperative that team researchers
investigate the unique consequences of this technol-
ogy on teamwork (see Scielzo, Fiore, Jentsch, &
Finkelstein, 2006, for more details).
Multicultural Issues in Teams
As noted, distance technologies are enabling
groups of employees from widely dispersed geo-
graphical locations to work collaboratively as
teams. As noted, such teams confront obstacles
and challenges that are not present in face-to-face
teams; these challenges are even more acute when
team membership crosses national and cultural
boundaries. In their review of multinational,
multicultural (MNMC) teams, Connaughton and
Shuffler (2007) contended that such teams present
both opportunities and challenges to organiza-
tions. On the one hand, MNMC teams have access
to a wide variety of resources, but on the other
hand, many virtual teams fail to meet their objec-
tives because of challenges in communication and
coordination.
Based on a qualitative review of 25 articles on
MNMC teams (a mix of empirical and theoretical),
Connaughton and Shufer (2007) concluded that
the denition of culture has been inconsistent across
the literature. Indeed, many authors recognize that
drawing national boundaries is not sufcient in
dening culture because it can extend to include
ethnic, racial, gender, and other characteristics.
Connaughton and Shufer also reported a number
of recurring themes (dened as those investigated in
at least three studies) from their review: communi-
cation frequency and mode, conict and its manage-
ment, and temporality (in terms of stages of MNMC
team development and its cultural interpretation).
Adopting a multilayered view of culture, Cseh
(2003) delineated a number of issues associated with
culture that can affect the performance of multi-
cultural teams: individualism versus collectivism and
communitarianism; power distance; achievement
versus ascription in according status; universalism
versus particularism in relationships and rules; neu-
tral versus affective in feelings and relationships; spe-
cic versus diffuse in involvement and relationships;
relation to time; relation to nature; and uncertainty
avoidance and masculinity. According to Cseh, these
factors can also have an impact on team learning at
various stages of development.
In another reviewthis one aimed at team lead-
ers in multicultural teamsBurke, Hess and Salas
(2006) argued that the team leader can help or hin-
der performance in multicultural teams. They pre-
sented a model of multicultural team leadership
that capitalizes on Graen, Hui, and Gus (2004)
notion that leaders can create a third culture,
which is a synthesis of the diverse cultural back-
grounds represented in the group that is acceptable
to group members. This third culture is seen as
benecial to team performance by creating a exi-
ble additional structure (Graen, Hui, & Taylor,
2004). Burke et al. provided a series of propositions
related to team leadership in multicultural teams,
including suggestions for improving performance
through interpersonal skills (e.g., active listening,
empathy, negotiation and conict resolution, com-
munication), team building, and decision making.
On a more practical level, Brett, Behfar, and Kern
(2006) argued that multicultural teams present a
unique set of challenges to managers. Difculties can
be attributed to cultural differences that arise from
difference in directness of communications, language
(i.e., accents and uency), attitudes toward hierarchy
and authority, conicting norms for decision mak-
ing, and adaptation. On the basis of interviews with
managers and members of multicultural teams, Brett
et al. describe four strategies for dealing with multi-
cultural challenges: adaptation (i.e., acknowledging
and working around cultural issues), structural
interventions (i.e., changing the structure of the
team), managerial interventions (i.e., setting early
639
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 639
norms or engaging management), and exit (i.e.,
removing a team member when all else fails). These
suggestions are worthy of empirical evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS
As stated at the onset of this chapter, teams have
been of interest as a mechanism of organization in
the workplace for decades. Over this time, literally
hundreds of studies have been conducted to study
teams and their performance. In this chapter, we
have attempted to represent the major ndings of
this body of work. On the basis of our review, we
are able to draw several conclusions. These include
the following:
1. Several models and taxonomies of teams, team
tasks, and teamwork have been offered. These
devices have value in helping to organize the
host of factors that affect team performance.
2. Teams require unique competencies that must be
identied through team task analysis and are
related to the nature of the task and team.
3. Personality factors in teams do have an influ-
ence on team performance. These influences
are complex, possibly interactive, and non-
linear. Further, personality factors may
interact with task characteristics.
4. Teamwork consists of many complex processes
and emergent states that express themselves in a
variety of ways depending on the nature of the
task.
5. Team training can be thought of as a combina-
tion of tools and methods, which when com-
bined with specic content, create discrete
training strategies. Studies of team training indi-
cate that several training strategies hold promise
as a means to improve performance.
6. Virtual teams present unique challenges by alter-
ing the sets of cues available to team members
that typically underlie coordinated performance.
There is no doubt that virtual teams can be effec-
tive, and new technologies such as virtual worlds
may be useful in this regard.
7. Multicultural teams are growing in popularity
and need further empirical investigation. Clearly,
differences in culture can lead to conict and
other disruptions to team coordination, but these
may be ameliorated through effective leadership,
training, and/or structural interventions.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
As we noted at the onset of this chapter, the schol-
arly study of work teams is a relatively recent phe-
nomenon. And given the complexity of teams and
team performance, it is not surprising that we con-
cluded many of the sections of this review with a
phrase such as more research is needed to fully
understand this relationship. Indeed, if we pose the
question, Which areas of team performance do we
understand so well, that no more investigation is
necessary, none come to mind. But rather than
conclude with the general call for more research
(especially empirical studies), we would like to offer
the following recommendations for how such work
should be approached. These include the following:
1. Make explicit the assumptions you are making
about team performance; ideally select (as
opposed to create) a theoretical model that best
ts your way of thinking.
2. Specify the type of team you are testing, preferably
using one of the prevailing taxonomies offered in
the literature (e.g., Sundstrom et al., 1999).
3. Include extensive description of the type of task
the team is performing, preferably using one of
the taxonomies that currently exist.
4. Describe the processes you are studying (or
assuming) using an accepted model of team
process (we recommend the one developed by
Marks et al., 2002).
5. Delineate (where applicable) the organizational
or situational factors that impinge on the perfor-
mance of the team you are studying.
6. Describe in detail how you are dening and mea-
suring team performance and effectiveness;
report effect sizes where appropriate.
7. If studying team training, describe the competen-
cies you are addressing, preferable using a refer-
ent such as the one described by Mohammed
et al. (2010).
8. If studying team training, describe the interven-
tion (i.e., tools, methods, strategies) in enough
detail that others can understand, replicate, and
generalize the results.
640
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 640
9. When examining virtual teams, describe their
mechanisms of support (especially technology)
in detail.
Obviously, not all of these suggestions will t
every situation. The point we are making is that the
eld of team performance has matured to the stage
where a viable foundation of theoretical work has
been accomplished. At this point, adding to this
foundation may not be as fruitful as using it to guide
future empirical work. Moreover, as we have stated,
it is challenging to get a handle on this area because
it is difcult to make meaningful comparisons
across studies. This is because researchers often do
not include enough information or create their own
terminology so that generalization back to the
extant literature is impossible.
Overall, we are encouraged by the body of work
we have reviewed here as a basis on which to begin
making improvements to the performance of teams
in organizations. We are particularly heartened
at the trend toward integration, meta-analytic
reviews, and empirical investigations. We are con-
fident that the future will hold advances that con-
tinue to inform both the science and practice of
team performance and training.
References
Achille, L., Schulze, K., & Schmidt-Nielsen, A. (1995).
An analysis of communication and use of military
terms in navy team training. Military Psychology, 7,
95107.
Ahearn, K. K., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas,
C., & Ammeter, A. P. (2004). Leader political skill
and team performance. Journal of Management, 30,
309327.
Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., Simons, R., & Niessen, T.
(2006). Considering diversity: Multivoicedness in
international academic collaboration. Culture &
Psychology, 12, 461485.
Alinier, G., Hunt, B., Gordon, R., & Harwood, C. (2006).
Effectiveness of intermediate-delity simulation
training technology in undergraduate nursing educa-
tion. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 54, 359369.
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. (2000). Conict man-
agement, efcacy, and performance in organizational
teams. Personnel Psychology, 53, 625642.
Ardichvili, A., Page, V., & Wentling, T. (2003).
Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual
knowledge-sharing communities of practice. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 7, 6477.
Arthur, W., Edwards, B., Bell, S., Villado, A., & Bennett,
W. (2005). Team task analysis: Identifying tasks and
jobs that are team based. Human Factors, 47, 654669.
Ashford, S., & Tsui, A. (1991). Self-regulation for man-
agerial effectiveness: The role of active feedback
seeking. Academy of Management Journal, 34,
251280.
Baker, D. P., & Salas, E. (1992). Principles for measuring
teamwork skills. Human Factors, 34, 469475.
Banks, A., & Milward, L. (2007). Differentiating knowl-
edge in teams: The effect of shared declarative and
procedural knowledge on team performance. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11, 95106.
Barnes, C., Hollenbeck, J., Wagner, D., DeRue, D.,
Nahrgang, J., & Schwind, K. (2008). Harmful help:
The costs of backing-up behavior in teams. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93, 529539.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five per-
sonality dimensions and job performance: A meta-
analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 126.
Barry, B., & Stewart, G. (1997, January 1). Group
Performance Measure. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82, 6278.
Beal, D., Cohen, R., Burke, M., & McLendon, C. (2003).
Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-
analytic clarication of construct relations. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88, 9891004.
Bell, S. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as pre-
dictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal
Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Briggs, A., &
Belau, L. (2007). Revisiting the team demographic
diversity and performance relationship: A meta-
analysis. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society
for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, New York.
Blandford, A., & Wong, W. (2004). Situation awareness
in emergency medical dispatch. International Journal
of HumanComputer Studies, 61, 421452.
Blickensderfer, E., Cannon-Bowers, J., & Salas, E. (1997).
Theoretical bases for team self-corrections: Fostering
shared mental models. In M. M. Beyerlein & D. A.
Johnson (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies
of work teams (Vol. 4, pp. 249279). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Blickensderfer, E., Cannon-Bowers, J., & Salas, E. (1998).
Cross-training and team performance. In J. A.
Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.), Making decisions
under stress: Implications for individual and team train-
ing (pp. 299311). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Bloom, G., & Stevens, D. (2002). Case study: A team-
building mental skills training program with an
intercollegiate equestrian team. Athletic Insight: The
Online Journal of Sport Psychology, 4. Retrieved
641
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 641
August 1, 2009, from http://www.athleticinsight.
com/Vol4Iss1/EquestrianTeamBuilding.htm
Bos, N., Gergle, D., Olson, J., & Olson, G. (2001). Being
there versus seeing there: Trust via video. CHI 01
extended abstracts on human factors in computing sys-
tems (291292). New York: ACM.
Bowers, C., Baker, D., & Salas, E. (1994). Measuring the
importance of teamwork: The reliability and validity
of job/task analysis indices for team-training design.
Military Psychology, 6, 205214.
Bowers, C., & Jentsch, F. (1998). Analyzing communica-
tion sequences for team training needs assessment.
Human Factors, 40, 672.
Bowers, C., Jentsch, F., Salas, E., & Braun, C. (1998).
Analyzing communication sequences for team train-
ing needs assessment. Human Factors, 40, 672679.
Bowers, C., Morgan, B., Salas, E., & Prince, C. (1993).
Assessment of coordination demand for aircrew
coordination training. Military Psychology, 5,
95112.
Bowers, C., Pharmer, J., & Salas, E. (2000). When mem-
ber homogeneity is needed in work teams: A meta-
analysis. Small Group Research, 31, 305327.
Bowers, C., Salas, E., & Jentsch, F. (2006). Creating high-
tech teams: Practical guidance on work performance
and technology. Washington, DC: American
Bowers, C., Smith, P. A., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., &
Nicholson, D. (2008). Using virtual worlds to assist
distributed teams. In P. Zemliansky (Ed.), The hand-
book of research on virtual workplaces and the new
nature of business practices (pp. 408423). Hershey,
PA: IGI Publishing Group.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999).
How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brett, J., Behfar, K., & Kern, M. (2006). Managing multi-
cultural teams. Harvard Business Review, 84, 8491.
Burke, C. S. (2004). Team task analysis. In N. A.
Stanton, A. Hedge, K. Brookhuis, E. Salas, & H.
Hendrick (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and
ergonomic methods (pp. 365423). Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
Burke, C., Hess, K., & Salas, E. (2006). Building the
adaptive capacity to lead multicultural teams. In C. S.
Burke, L. Pierce, & E. Salas (Eds.), Understanding
adaptability: A prerequisite for effective performance
within complex environments (pp. 175211).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Burke, C., Stagl, K., Klein, C., Salas, E., Halpin, S., &
Goodwin, G. (2006). What type of leadership behav-
iors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The
Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288307.
Burke, C., Stagl, K., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D.
(2006). Understanding team adaptation: A concep-
tual analysis and model. Journal of Applied
Campion, M., & Stevens, M. (1991). Neglected questions
in job design: How people design jobs, taskjob pre-
dictability, and inuence of training. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 6, 169191.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Bowers, C. A. (2007). Synthetic
learning environments. In J. M. Spector, M. D.
Merrill, J. J. G. van Merrinboer, & M. P. Driscoll
(Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communi-
cations and technology (3rd ed., pp. 306315).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Bowers, C. A. (2010). Synthetic
learning environments: On developing a science of
simulation, games, and virtual worlds for training. In
S. Kozlowski & E. Salas (Eds.), Learning, training,
and development in organizations (pp. 229262).
London: Taylor & Francis.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Bowers, C. A., & Sanchez, A.
(2008). Using synthetic learning environments to
train teams. In V. Sessa & M. London (Eds.), Work
group learning: Understanding, improving, and assess-
ing how groups learn in organizations (pp. 315346).
New York: Erlbaum.
Cannon-Bowers, J., Oser, R., & Flanagan, D. (1992). Work
teams in industry: A selected review and proposed
framework. In R. W. Swezey and E. Salas, (Eds.),
Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 355377).
Westport, CT: Ablex.
Cannon-Bowers, J., & Salas, E. (1998). Team perfor-
mance and training in complex environments:
Recent ndings from applied research. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 8387.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1997). A framework
for developing team performance measures in train-
ing. In M. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.),
Team performance assessment and measurement:
Theory, methods and applications (pp. 4562).
Cannon-Bowers, J., & Salas, E. (2001). Reections on
shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
22, 195202.
Cannon-Bowers, J., Salas, E., Blickensderfer, E., &
Bowers, C. (1998). The impact of cross-training and
workload on team functioning: A replication and
extension of initial ndings. Human Factors, 40, 92.
Cannon-Bowers, J., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993).
Shared mental models in expert team decision mak-
ing. In N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group
decision making: Current issues (pp. 221246).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Milham, L. (2003).
The transfer of team training. In E. Holton & T.
642
11819-19_Ch19-rev4.qxd 4/6/10 12:02 PM Page 642
Baldwin (Eds.), Improving learning transfer in organi-
zations (pp. 6374). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., &
Volpe, C. (1995). Dening competencies and estab-
lishing team-training requirements. In R. A. Guzzo
& E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision
making in organizations (pp. 333380). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Caple, R. B. (1978). The sequential stages of group devel-
opment. Small Group Behavior, 9, 470476.
Carley, K. (1997). Extracting team mental models
through textual analysis. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 18, 533558.
Carron, A., & Brawley, L. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual
and measurement issues. Small Group Research,
31(1), 89106.
Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N.
(1998). The measurement of cohesiveness in sport
groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and
exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213226).
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Carron, A., Eys, M., & Burke, S. (2007). Team cohesion:
Nature, correlates, and development. In D. Lavallee
& S. Jowett (Eds.), Social psychology in sport
(pp. 91101). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Cole, M., Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2008). Affective mech-
anisms linking dysfunctional behavior to perfor-
mance in work teams: A moderated mediation study.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 945958.
Connaughton, S., & Shufer, M. (2007). Multinational
and multicultural distributed teams. Small Group
Research, 38, 387412.
Cooke, N. J., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Stout,
R. J. (2000). Measuring team knowledge. Human
Factors, 42, 151173.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways ve fac-
tors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences,
13, 653665.
Ct, S., & Miners, C. (2006). Emotional intelligence,
cognitive intelligence, and job performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 128.
Cseh, M. (2003). Facilitating learning in multicultural
teams. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5,
2640.
Culnan, M., & Markus, M. (1987). Information technolo-
gies. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, &
L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational commu-
nication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 420443).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Day, E. A., Arthur, W., Miyashiro, B., Edwards, B. D., &
Hanson, T. (2004). Criterion-related validity of sta-
tistical operationalizations of group general cognitive
ability as a function of task type: Comparing the
mean, maximum, and minimum. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 34, 15211549.
Deaton, J., Bell, B., Fowlkes, J., Jentsch, F., Bell, M., &
Bowers, C. (2007). Enhancing team training and per-
formance with automated performance assessment
tools. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 17,
317331.
DeChurch, L., & Haas, C. (2008). Examining team plan-
ning through an episodic lens: Effects of deliberate,
contingency, and reactive planning on team effec-
tiveness. Small Group Research, 39, 542568.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus
relationship conict, team performance, and team
member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Devine, D. J., & Philips, J. L. (2001). Do smarter teams
do better: A meta-analysis of cognitive ability and
team performance. Small Group Research, 32, 507.
Doherty-Sneddon, G., Anderson, A., OMalley, C.,
Langton, S., Garrod, S., & Bruce, V. (1997). Face-to-
face and video-mediated communication: A compari-
son of dialogue structure and task performance.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3,
105125.
Driskell, J., & Mullen, B. (2006). Status, expectations, and
behavior: A meta-analytic review and test of the the-
ory. In J. M. Levine & R. L. Moreland (Eds.), Small
groups (pp. 7381). New York: Psychology Press.
Driskell, J., Radtke, P., & Salas, E. (2003). Virtual teams:
Effects of technological mediation on team perfor-
mance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 7, 297323.
Driskell, J., & Salas, E. (1992). Collective behavior and
team performance. Human Factors, 34, 277288.
Druskat, V., & Kayes, D. (1999). The antecedents of team
competence: Toward a ne-grained model of self-
managing team effectiveness. In M. A. Neale & E. A.
Mannix (Series Eds.) and R. Wageman (Vol. Ed.),
Research on managing groups and teams: Groups in
context (Vol. 2, pp. 201231). Stamford, CT: JAI
Press.
Druskat, V., & Wolff, S. (2001). Building the emotional
intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review, 79,
8190.
Dwyer, D. J., Fowlkes, J. E., Oser, R. L., Salas, E., & Lane,
N. E. (1997). In M. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince
(Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement:
Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 137154).
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning
behavior in work teams. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44, 350383.
Ellis, A., Bell, B., Ployhart, R., Hollenbeck, J., & Ilgen, D.
(2005). An evaluation of generic teamwork skills
643
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 643
training with action teams: Effects on cognitive and
skill-based. Personnel Psychology, 58, 641672.
Ellis, A., Hollenbeck, J., Ilgen, D., Porter, C., West, B., &
Moon, H. (2003). Team learning: Collectively con-
necting the dots. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
821835.
Entin, E., & Serfaty, D. (1999). Adaptive team coordina-
tion. Human Factors, 41, 312325.
Espevik, R., Johnsen, B., Eid, J., & Thayer, J. (2006).
Shared mental models and operational effectiveness:
Effects on performance and team processes in sub-
marine attack teams. Military Psychology, 18, 2336.
Fandt, P., Richardson, W., & Conner, H. (1990). The
impact of goal setting on team simulation experi-
ence. Simulation & Gaming, 21, 411422.
Farr, J. L., & Tippins, N. T. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of
employee selection. New York: Routledge.
Fiore, S., Cuevas, H., Schooler, J., & Salas, E. (2006).
Cognition, teams, and team cognition: Memory
actions and memory failures in distributed team
environments. In C. A. Bowers, E. Salas, & F.
Jentsch (Eds.), Creating high-tech teams: Practical
guidance on work performance and technology
(pp. 7187). Washington, DC: American
Fiore, S., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. (2001). Group
dynamics and shared mental model development. In
M. London (Ed.), How people evaluate others in orga-
nizations (pp. 309336). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fiore, S., Salas, E., Cuevas, H., & Bowers, C. (2003).
Distributed coordination space: Toward a theory of
distributed team process and performance.
Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4, 340.
Fischer, U., McDonnell, L., & Orasanu, J. (2007).
Linguistic correlates of team performance: Toward a
tool for monitoring team functioning during space
missions. Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine, 78, 8695.
Fleishman, E., & Zaccaro, S. (1992). Toward a taxon-
omy of team performance functions. In R. W.
Swezey and E. Salas, (Eds.), Teams: Their training
and performance (pp. 3156). Westport, CT: Ablex
Publishing.
Foltz, P., & Martin, M. J. (2008). Automated communica-
tion analysis of teams. In E. Salas, E. Goodwin &
C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex envi-
ronments. Danvers, MA: CRC Press.
Forester, G., Thoms, P., & Pinto, J. (2007). Importance
of goal setting in virtual project teams. Psychological
Reports, 100, 270274.
Fowlkes, J., Lane, N., Salas, E., Franz, T., & Oser, R.
(1994). Improving the measurement of team perfor-
mance: The TARGETS methodology. Military
Francis, D., & Young, D. (1979) Improving work groups: A
practical manual for team building. San Diego, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Gaddy, C., & Wachtel, J. (1992). Team skills training
in nuclear power plant operations. In R. Swezey &
E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and perfor-
mance (pp. 379396). Westport, CT: Ablex
Publishing.
Gersick, C. (1988). Time and transition in work teams:
Toward a new model of group development.
Academy of Management Journal, 31, 941.
Goldstein, I. (1993). Training in organizations: Needs
assessment, development, and evaluation (3rd ed.).
Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Goldstein, I., & Ford, J. (2002). Training in organiza-
tions: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation
(4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Gonzlez, M., Burke, M., Santuzzi, A., & Bradley, J.
(2003). The impact of group process variables on the
effectiveness of distance collaboration groups.
Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 629.
Graen, G. B., Hui, C., & Gu, Q. L. (2004). A new approach
to intercultural cooperation. In G. B. Graen (Ed.),
New frontiers of leadership. Greenwich, CT:
Information Age.
Graen, G., Hui, C., & Taylor, E. (2006). Experience-
based learning about LMX leadership and fairness in
project teams: A dyadic directional approach.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5,
448460.
Groom, V., & Nass, C. (2007). Can robots be teammates?
Benchmarks in human-robot teams. Interaction
Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in
Biological and Articial Systems, 8, 483500.
Gully, S., & Devine, D. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohe-
sion and performance. Small Group Research, 26,
497517.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In
J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior
(pp. 315342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Halfhill, T., Nielsen, T., Sundstrom, E., & Weilbaecher,
A. (2005). Group personality composition and per-
formance in military service teams. Military
Hall, R., Stevens, R., & Torralba, T. (2002). Disrupting
representational infrastructure in conversations
across disciplines. Mind, Culture & Activity, 9,
179210.
Harris, T. E., & Sherblom, J. C. (2002). Small group and
team communication. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Harrison, D., Price, K., Gavin, J., & Florey, A. (2002).
Time, teams, and task performance: Changing
effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group
644
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 644
functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45,
10291045.
Harville, D., Elliott, L., & Barnes, C. (2007). Analysis of
team communication and performance during sus-
tained command-and-control operations. In R. R.
Hoffman (Ed.), Expertise out of context: Proceedings
of the sixth international conference on naturalistic
decision making (pp. 453472). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Healey, K, Milbourne, G., Aaronson, W., & Errechetti, A.
(2004). The use of standardized patients in inter-
national consultation. Journal of Families, Systems
and Health, 22, 368375.
Hecht, M. (1978). The conceptualization and measure-
ment of interpersonal communication satisfaction.
Human Communication Research, 4, 253264.
Helmreich, R., & Foushee, H. (1993). Why crew resource
management? Empirical and theoretical bases of
human factors training in aviation. In E. Wiener, B.
Kanki, & R. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit resource man-
agement (pp. 345). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Helmreich, R., Wilhelm, J., Gregorich, S., & Chidester, T.
(1990). Preliminary results from the evaluation of
cockpit resource management training: Performance
ratings of ightcrews. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine, 61, 576579.
Hertzel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing
virtual teams: A review of current empirical research.
Human Resource Management Review, 15, 6995.
Hirschfeld, R., Jordan, M., Feild, H., Giles, W., &
Armenakis, A. (2006). Becoming team players: Team
members mastery of teamwork knowledge as a pre-
dictor of team task prociency and observed team-
work effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,
467474.
Hoeft, R., Jentsch, F., & Bowers, C. (2006). Creating
high-tech teams: A conclusion. In C. A. Bowers, E.
Salas, & F. Jentsch (Eds.), Creating high-tech teams:
Practical guidance on work performance and technol-
ogy (pp. 283287). Washington, DC: American
Hollenbeck, J., DeRue, D., & Guzzo, R. (2004). Bridging
the gap between I/O research and HR practice:
Improving team composition, team training, and
team task design. Human Resource Management, 43,
353366.
Holton, E., & Baldwin, T. (Eds.). (2003). Improving learn-
ing transfer in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Homan, A., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G., & De
Dreu, C. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diver-
sity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and
performance in diverse work groups. Journal of
Horowitz, S. K., & Horowitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of
team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic
review of team demography. Journal of Management,
33, 9871015.
Hough, L. (1992). The Big Five personality variables
Construct confusion: Description versus prediction.
Human Performance, 5, 139.
Ilgen, D., Hollenbeck, J., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005).
Teams in organizations: From inputprocessoutput
models to IMOI Models. Annual Review of Psychology,
56, 517543.
Jentsch, F., Barnett, J., Bowers, C., & Salas, E. (1999).
Who is ying this plane anyway? What mishaps tell
us about crew member role assignment and aircrew
situation awareness. Human Factors, 41, 114.
Johnston, M., Reed, K., Lawrence, K., & Onken, M.
(2007). The link between communication and nan-
cial performance in simulated organizational teams.
Journal of Managerial Issues, 19, 536553.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a
cognitive science of language, inference, and conscious-
ness. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters: Innovation for
productivity in the American corporation. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Kichuk, S., & Wiesner, W. (1997). The Big Five personal-
ity factors and team performance: Implications for
selecting successful product design teams. Journal of
Engineering & Technology Management, 14, 195.
Klein, G., & Pierce, L. (2001, June). Adaptive teams.
Paper presented at the International Command and
Control Research and Technology Symposium,
Alexandria, VA.
Klein, G. A., & Thorsden, M. L. (1989). A cognitive model
of team decision making. Yellow Springs, OH: Klein
Associates.
Kleinman, D. L., & Serfaty, D. (1989). Team perfor-
mance assessment in distributed decision making.
In R. Gilson, J. P. Kincaid, & B. Goldiez (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Interactive Networked Simulation for
Training Conference (pp. 2227). Orlando, FL: Naval
Training Systems Center.
Klimoski, R., & Jones, R. G. (1995). Staffing for effec-
tive group decision making: Key issues in matching
people and teams. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.),
Team effectiveness and decision making in organiza-
tions (pp. 291332). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kozlowski, S., & Bell, B. (2008). Team learning, develop-
ment, and adaptation. In V. Sessa & M. London
(Eds.), Work group learning: Understanding, improv-
ing and assessing how groups learn in organizations
(pp. 1544). New York: Taylor & Francis.
645
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 645
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., & Smith,
E. M. (1999). Developing adaptive teams: A theory of
compilation and performance across levels and time. In
D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature
of work and performance: Implications for stafng, per-
sonnel actions, and development (pp. 240292). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kozlowski, S., & Ilgen, D. (2006). Enhancing the Effect-
iveness of Work Groups and Teams. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77124.
Kozlowski, S., & Klein, K. (2000). A multilevel
approach to theory and research in organizations:
Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes.
In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.),
Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organiza-
tions: Foundations, extensions, and new directions
(pp. 390). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kozlowski, S., & Salas, E. (Eds.). (in press). Learning,
training, and development in organizations. London:
Taylor & Francis.
Kozlowski, S., Toney, R., Mullins, M., Weissbein, D.,
Brown, K., & Bell, B. (2001). Developing adaptabil-
ity: A theory for the design of integrated-embedded
training systems. In E. Salas (Ed.), Advances in
human performance and cognitive engineering research
(pp. 59123). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., Lerch, F. J., & Espinosa, A.
(2004). Coordination in teams: Evidence from a sim-
ulated management game. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Leedom, D., & Simon, R. (1995). Improving team coordi-
nation: A case for behavior-based training. Military
LePine, J., Piccolo, R., Jackson, C., Mathieu, J., & Saul, J.
(2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes:
Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships
with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology,
61, 273307.
Levine, E. L., & Dickey, M. T. (1990, August). Measuring
task importance: A replication and extension. Paper
presented at the 98th Annual Convention of the
American Psychological Association, Boston.
Levine, J., & Moreland, R. (1990). Progress in small
group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585.
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Lim, B., & Klein, K. (2006). Team mental models and
team performance: A eld study of the effects of team
mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 27, 403418.
Lingard, L., Espin, S., Whyte, S., Regehr, G., Baker, G.,
Reznick, R., et al. (2004). Communication failures in
the operating room: An observational classication
of recurrent types and effects. Quality & Safety in
Health Care, 13, 330334.
Lorsch, J. (Ed.). (1987). Handbook of organizational
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
MacMillan, J., Entin, E., & Serfaty, D. (2004). Commu-
nication overhead: The hidden cost of team cogni-
tion. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition:
Understanding the factors that drive process and perfor-
mance (pp. 6182). Washington, DC: American
Manser, T., Howard, S., & Gaba, D. (2008). Adaptive
coordination in cardiac anaesthesia: A study of situa-
tional changes in coordination patterns using a new
observation system. Ergonomics, 51, 11531178.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A
temporally based framework and taxonomy of team
processes. Academy of Management Review, 26,
356376.
Marks, M., & Panzer, F. (2004). The inuence of team
monitoring on team processes and performance.
Human Performance, 17, 2541.
Marks, M., Sabella, M., Burke, C., & Zaccaro, S. (2002).
The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness.
Marks, M., Zaccaro, S., & Mathieu (2000). Performance
implications of leader briengs and team-interaction
training for team adaptation to novel environments
Martin-Milham, L., & Fiore, S. (2004). Team situation
assessment training for adaptive coordination. In
N. Stanton, A. Hedge, K. Brookhuis, E. Salas, &
H. Hendrick (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and
ergonomic methods. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
McCann, C., Baranski, J., Thompson, M., & Pigeau, R.
(2000). On the utility of experiential cross-training
for team decision making under time stress.
Ergonomics, 43, 10951110.
McClennan, J., Holgate, A., Omodei, M., & Wearing, A.
(2006). Decision making effectiveness in wildre
incident management teams. Journal of Contingencies
and Crisis Management, 14, 2737.
McClough, A., & Rogelberg, S. (2003). Selection in
teams: An exploration of the Teamwork Knowledge,
Skills, and Ability Test. International Journal of
Selection & Assessment, 11, 5666.
McComb, S., & Green, S. (1999). Project goals, team per-
formance, and shared understanding. Engineering
Management Journal, 11, 7.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1996). Toward a
new generation of personality theories: Theoretical
contexts for the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins
(Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theo-
retical perspectives (pp. 5187). New York:
Guilford Press.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and perfor-
mance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
646
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 646
McGrath, J., & Hollingsworth, A. (1994). Groups interact-
ing with technology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
McNeese, M., & Rentsch, J. (2001). Identifying the social
and cognitive requirements of teamwork using col-
laborative task analysis. In M. D. McNeese, E. Salas,
& M. Endsley (Eds.), New trends in cooperative activi-
ties: Understanding system dynamics in complex envi-
ronments (pp. 96113). Santa Monica, CA: Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Mesmer-Magnus, J., & DeChurch, L. (2009). Information
sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis.
Mittleman, C., & Briggs, R. O. (1999). Communication
technologies for traditional and virtual teams. In
E. Sundstrom (Ed.), Supporting work team effective-
ness (pp. 246270). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mohammed, S., Cannon-Bowers, J., & Foo, S. (2010).
Selection for team membership: A contingency and
multilevel perspective. In J. L. Farr & N. T. Tippins
(Eds.), Handbook of employee selection (pp. 801823).
New York: Routledge.
Mohammed, S., Klimoski, R., & Rentsch, J. (2000). The
measurement of team mental models: We have no
shared schema. Organizational Research Methods, 3,
123.
Mohammed, S., Mathieu, J., & Bartlett, A. (2002).
Technical-administrative task performance, leader-
ship task performance, and contextual performance:
Considering the inuence of team- and task-related
composition variables. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 23, 795.
Morgan, B. B., Glickman, A. S., Woodard, E. A., Blaiwes,
A. S., & Salas, E. (1986). Measurement of team behav-
iors in a Navy environment (Technical Report No.
NTSC TR86014). Orlando, FL: Naval Training
Systems Center.
Morgan, B. B., Salas, E., & Glickman, A. S. (1993). An
analysis of team evolution and maturation. Journal
of General Psychology, 120, 277291.
Morgeson, F., Reider, M., & Campion, M. (2005).
Selecting individuals in team settings: The impor-
tance of social skills, personality characteristics, and
teamwork knowledge. Personnel Psychology, 58,
583611.
Mullen, B., & Cooper, C. (1994). The relation between
group cohesiveness and performance: An integration.
Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210227.
Mullen, B., Driskell, J., & Salas, E. (1998). Meta-analysis
and the study of group performance. Group
Dynamics, 2, 213229.
Mumford, T., Morgeson, F., Van Iddekinge, C., &
Campion, M. (2008). The Team Role Test:
Development and validation of a team role knowl-
edge situational judgment test. Journal of Applied
Nunamaker, J., Jr., Briggs, R., Mittleman, D., Vogel, D., &
Balthazard, P. (1996). Lessons from a dozen years of
group support systems research: A discussion of lab
and eld ndings. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 13, 163207.
Offermann, L., Bailey, J., Vasilopoulos, N., Seal, C., &
Sass, M. (2004). The relative contributions of emo-
tional competence and cognitive ability to individual
and team performance. Human Performance, 17,
219243.
Paris, C., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. (2000). Teamwork
in multi-person systems: A review and analysis.
Ergonomics, 43, 10521075.
Patrashkova-Volzdoska, R., McComb, S., Green, S., &
Compton, W. (2003). Examining a curvilinear rela-
tionship between communication frequency and
team performance in cross-functional project teams.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50,
262269.
Patrick, J., James, N., & Ahmed, A. (2006). Human
processes of control: Tracing the goals and strate-
gies of control room teams. Ergonomics, 49,
13951414.
Pearce, C., & Manz, C. (2005). The new silver bullets of
leadership: The importance of self- and shared
leadership in knowledge work. Organizational
Dynamics, 34, 130140.
Pearsall, M., & Ellis, A. (2006). The effects of critical
team member assertiveness on team performance and
satisfaction. Journal of Management, 32, 575594.
Peeters, M., Van Tuijl, H., Rutte, C., & Reymen, I.
(2006). Personality and team performance: A meta-
analysis. European Journal of Personality, 20,
377396.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999).
Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group
diversity, conict, and performance. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44, 128.
Peters, T. (1988). Thriving on chaos: Handbook for a man-
agement revolution. New York: Knopf.
Porter, C. (2005). Goal orientation: Effects on backing-up
behavior, performance, efcacy, and commitment in
teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 811818.
Porter, C., Hollenbeck, J., Ilgen, D., Ellis, A., & West, B.
(2003). Backing up behaviors in teams: The role of
personality and legitimacy of need. Journal of Applied
Porter, T., & Lilly, B. (1996). The effects of conict, trust,
and task commitment on project team performance.
International Journal of Conict Management, 7,
361376.
647
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 647
Prewett, M. S., Gray, A. A., Stilson, R. B., Rossi, M. E., &
Brannick, M. T. (2009). A meta-analysis of team per-
sonality composition and team performance: The
impact of criterion choice, task type, and interdepen-
dence. Human Performance, 22, 273296.
Priest, H., Stagl, K., Klein, C., Salas, E., & Burke, C. S.
(2006). Virtual teams: Creating context for distributed
teamwork. In C. A. Bowers, E. Salas, & F. Jentsch
(Eds.), Creating high-tech teams: Practical guidance on
work performance and technology (pp. 185212).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Prince, A., Brannick, M., Prince, C., & Salas, E. (1997).
The measurement of team process behaviors in the
cockpit: Lessons learned. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas,
& C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and
measurement: Theory, methods, and applications
(pp. 289310). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Prince, C., & Salas, E. (2000). Team situation awareness,
errors, and crew resource management: Research
integration for training guidance. In M. R. Endsley &
D. J. Garland (Eds.), Situation awareness analysis and
measurement (pp. 325347). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Proctor, M., Panko, M., & Donovan, S. (2004). Consi-
derations for training team situation awareness and
task performance through PC-gamer simulated
multiship helicopter operations. International Journal
of Aviation Psychology, 14, 191205.
Rentsch, J., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Members of great teams
think alike: A model of team effectiveness and schema
similarity among team members. Advances in Inter-
disciplinary Studies of Work Teams, 1, 223261.
Resick, C., & Bloom, A. (1997). Effects of goal setting on
goal commitment, team processes, and performance.
Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 34, 28.
Rice, A. K. (1953). Productivity and social organization
in an Indian weaving shed: An examination of the
socio-technical system of an experimental automatic
loomshed. Human Relations, 6, 297329.
Rico, R., Snchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F., & Gibson, C.
(2008). Team implicit coordination processes: A
team knowledge-based approach. Academy of
Management Review, 33, 163184.
Rosen, B., Furst, S., & Blackburn, R. (2007). Overcoming
barriers to knowledge sharing in virtual teams.
Organizational Dynamics, 36, 259273.
Rosen, M. A., Salas, E., Wilson, K. A., King, H. B.,
Salisbury, M., Augenstein, J. S., et al. (2008).
Measuring team performance in simulation-based
training: Adopting best practices in healthcare.
Simulation in Healthcare, 3, 3341.
Rouse, W., Cannon-Bowers, J., & Salas, E. (1992). The
role of mental models in team performance in com-
plex systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, &
Cybernetics, 22, 12961308.
Rousseau, V., Aub, C., & Savoie, A. (2006). Teamwork
Behaviors: A Review and an Integration of Frame-
works. Small Group Research, 37, 540570.
Saavedra, R., Earley, P., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex
interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal
Salas, E., Bowers, C., & Cannon-Bowers, J. (1995).
Military team research: 10 years of progress. Military
Salas, E., Burke, C., Bowers, C., & Wilson, K. (2001).
Team training in the skies: Does crew resource man-
agement (CRM) training work?. Human Factors, 43,
641.
Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. (1997). Methods, tools,
and strategies for team training. In M. Quinones &
A. Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training for a rapidly changing
workplace: Applications of psychological research
Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A., (2000). The anatomy
of team training. In S. Tobias & D. Fletcher (Eds.),
Training and retraining: A handbook for businesses,
industry, government, and military (pp. 312335).
Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan.
Salas, E., Dickinson, T., Converse, S., & Tannenbaum, S.
(1992). Toward an understanding of team perfor-
mance and training. In R. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.),
Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 329).
Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Salas, E., Nichols, D., & Driskell, J. (2007). Testing three
team-training strategies in intact teams: A meta-
analysis. Small Group Research, 38, 471488.
Salas, E., Prince, C., Baker, D., & Shrestha, L. (1995).
Situation awareness in team performance: Implications
for measurement and training. Human Factors, 37,
123136.
Salas, E., Sims, D., & Burke, C. (2005). Is there a Big Five
in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36, 555599.
Sanchez, J., & Levine, E. (1989). Determining important
tasks within jobs: A policy-capturing approach.
Saunders, C., Robey, D., & Vaverek, K. (1994). The per-
sistence of status differentials in computer confer-
encing. Human Communication Research, 20,
443472.
Schatz, S., Cannon-Bowers, J., & Bowers, C. (2006).
Effects of data visualizations on group decision
making. In C. A. Bowers, E. Salas, & F. Jentsch
(Eds.), Creating high-tech teams: Practical guidance
on work performance and technology (pp. 5167).
Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1990). Proximities, networks, and
schemata. In R. Schvaneveldt (Ed.), Pathnder asso-
648
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 648
ciative networks: Studies in knowledge organization
(pp. 135148). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Scielzo, S., Fiore, S., Jentsch, F., & Finkelstein, N. (2006).
Cognition and collaboration in hybrid human-robot
teams: Viewing workload and performance through
the lens of multimedia cognitive load. In N. J. Cooke,
H. Pringle, & H. Pedersen, H. (Eds.), Human factors of
remotely piloted vehicles (pp. 329342). Amsterdam,
the Netherlands: Elsevier.
Senecal, J., Loughead, T., & Bloom, G. (2008). A season-
long team-building intervention: Examining the
effect of team goal setting on cohesion. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 186199.
Serfaty, D., Entin, E., & Johnston, J. (1998). Team coordi-
nation training. In J. Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.),
Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual
and team training (pp. 221245). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Shebilske, W., Jordon, J., Goettl, B., & Paulus, L. (1998).
Observation versus hands-on practice of complex
skills in dyadic, triadic, and tetradic training-teams.
Siebold, G. (2006). Military group cohesion. In T. W.
Britt, C. A. Castro, & A. B. Adler (Eds.), Military life:
The psychology of serving in peace and combat: Vol. 1.
Military performance (pp. 185201). Westport, CT:
Praeger Security International.
Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T.
(1986). Group processes in computer-mediated com-
munication. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 37, 157187.
Smith, E., Ford, J., & Kozlowski, S. (1997). Building adap-
tive expertise: Implications for training design strate-
gies. In M. A. Quinones & A. Dudda (Eds.), Training
for a rapidly changing workplace: Applications of psy-
chological research (pp. 89118). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Smith-Jentsch, K., Cannon-Bowers, J., Tannenbaum, S.,
& Salas, E. (2008). Guided team self-correction:
Impacts on team mental models, processes, and
effectiveness. Small Group Research, 39, 303327.
Smith-Jentsch, K., Mathieu, J., & Kraiger, K. (2005).
Investigating linear and interactive effects of shared
mental models on safety and efciency in a eld set-
ting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 523535.
Smith-Jentsch, K., Salas, E., & Baker, D. (1996). Training
team performance-related assertiveness. Personnel
Smith-Jentsch, K., Zeisig, R., Acton, B., & McPherson, J.
(1998). Team dimensional training: A strategy for
guided team self-correction. In J. A. Cannon-Bowers
& E. Salas (Eds.), Making decisions under stress:
Implications for individual and team training
Smolek, J., Hoffman, D., & Moran, L. (1999). Organizing
teams for success. In E. Sundstrom and Associates
(Ed.), Supporting work team effectiveness: Best man-
agement practices for fostering high performance
(pp. 2462). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spiro, R., Feltovich, P., Jacobson, M., & Coulson, R.
(1992). Cognitive exibility, constructivism, and
hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced
knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In
T. Duffy & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the
technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 5775).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context
cues: Electronic mail in organizational communica-
tion. Management Science, 32, 14921512.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Two-level perspective
on electronic mail in organizations. Journal of
Organizational Computing & Electronic Commerce,
1, 125.
Staples, D., & Webster, J. (2008). Exploring the effects of
trust, task interdependence and virtualness on
knowledge sharing in teams. Information Systems
Journal, 18, 617640.
Stark, E., Shaw, J., & Duffy, M. (2007). Preference for
group work, winning orientation, and social loaf-
ing behavior in groups. Group & Organization
Management, 32, 699723.
Steadman, R. H., Coates, W. C., Huang, Y. M., Matevosian,
R., Larmon, B. R., McCullough, L., & Ariel, D. (2006).
Simulation-based training is superior to problem-
based learning for the acquisition of critical assess-
ment and management skills. Critical Care Medicine,
34, 151157.
Steiner (1972). Group process and productivity. New York:
Academic Press.
Stevens, M., & Campion, M. (1994). The knowledge, skill,
and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications
for human resource management. Journal of Manage-
ment, 20, 503530.
Stevens, M., & Campion, M. (1999). Stafng work teams:
Development and validation of a selection test for
teamwork settings. Journal of Management, 25,
207228.
Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relation-
ships between team design features and team perfor-
mance. Journal of Management, 32, 29.
Stout, R., Cannon-Bowers, J., Salas, E., & Milanovich, D.
(1999). Planning, shared mental models, and coordi-
nated performance: An empirical link is established.
Straus, S. (1997). Technology, group process, and group
outcomes: Testing the connections in computer-
mediated and face-to-face groups. Human-Computer
Interaction, 12, 227.
649
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 649
Sundstrom, E. (1999). Supporting work team effectiveness.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work
teams: Applications and effectiveness. American
Psychologist, 45, 120133.
Sundstrom, E., McIntyre, M., Halfhill, T., & Richards, H.
(2000). Work groups: From the Hawthorne studies
to work teams of the 1990s and beyond. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 4467.
Svensson, J., & Andersson, J. (2006). Speech acts, com-
munication problems, and ghter pilot team perfor-
mance. Ergonomics, 49, 12261237.
Swezey, R., Owens, J., Bergondy, M., & Salas, E. (1998).
Task and training requirements analysis methodol-
ogy (TTRAM): An analytic methodology for identify-
ing potential training uses of simulator networks in
teamwork-intensive task environments. Ergonomics,
41, 16781697.
Tannenbaum, S., Beard, R., & Salas, E. (1992). Team
building and its inuence on team effectiveness: An
examination of conceptual and empirical develop-
ments. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory, and research
in industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 117153).
Oxford, England: North-Holland.
Tannenbaum, S., Smith-Jentsch, K., & Behson, S. (1998).
Training team leaders to facilitate team learning and
performance. In J. A. Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas
(Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications
for individual and team training (pp. 247270).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Tasa, K., Seijts, G., & Taggar, S. (2007). The develop-
ment of collective efcacy in teams: A multilevel and
longitudinal perspective. Journal of Applied
Taylor, J., & Bowers, D. (1972). Survey of organizations: A
machine-scored standardized questionnaire instrument.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Tesluk, P., Mathieu, J., Zaccaro, S., & Marks, M. (1997).
Task and aggregation issues in the analysis and
assessment of team performance. In M. T. Brannick,
E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance
assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and
applications (pp. 197224). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Thompson, L., & Coovert, M. (2003). Teamwork online:
The effects of computer conferencing on perceived
confusion, satisfaction, and postdiscussion accuracy.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7,
135151.
Tobias, S., & Fletcher, D. (Eds.). (2000). Training and
retraining: A handbook for businesses, industry, govern-
ment, and military. Farmington Hills, MI: Macmillan.
Trist, E., & Bamforth, K. (1951). Some social and psycho-
logical consequences of the Longwall method of
coal-getting. Human Relations, 4, 338.
Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small
groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384399.
Urban, J., Bowers, C., Monday, S., & Morgan, B. (1995).
Workload, team structure, and communication in
team performance. Military Psychology, 7, 123123.
Van de Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. L., & Koenig, R., Jr.
(1976). Determinants of coordination modes within
organizations. American Sociological Review, 41,
322338.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Delbecq, A. L., & Koenig, R., Jr.
(1976). Determinants of coordination modes within
organizations. American Sociological Review, 41,
322338.
Volpe, C., Cannon-Bowers, J., Salas, E., & Spector, P.
(1996). The impact of cross-training on team func-
tioning: An empirical investigation. Human Factors,
38, 87100.
Walvoord, A., Redden, E., Elliott, L., & Coovert, M.
(2008). Empowering followers in virtual teams:
Guiding principles from theory and practice.
Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 18841906.
Webber, S., & Donahue, L. (2001). Impact of highly and
less job-related diversity on work group cohesion
and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Management, 27, 141.
Weisband, S. (2002). Maintaining awareness in distrib-
uted team collaboration: Implications for leader-
ship and performance. In P. Hinds & S. Kiesler,
Distributed work (pp. 311333). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Westbrook, L. (2006). Mental models: A theoretical
overview and preliminary study. Journal of
Information Science, 32, 563579.
Wheeler, S., Goldie, J., & Hicks, C. (1998). Counselor
training: An evaluation of the effectiveness of a resi-
dential outdoor pursuits activity weekend on the per-
sonal development of trainee counselors. Counselling
Psychology Quarterly, 11, 391405.
Wiener, E., Kanki, B., & Helmreich, R. (1993). Cockpit
resource management. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Yoo, Y., & Kanawattanachai, P. (2001). Developments of
transactive memory systems and collective mind in
virtual teams. International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 9, 187208.
Zhang, S., Fjermestad, J., & Tremaine, M. (2005).
Leadership styles in virtual team context:
Limitations, solutions, and propositions. Proceedings
of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, 1, 48c.
650
11819-19_Ch19-rev3.qxd 3/30/10 11:57 AM Page 650

Team Development and Functioning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team Development and Functioning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

597

Mastery of teamwork KSAs should be considered in advancement decisions.

Teach team members the importance of effective communication strategies

Teach team members to seek clarication of ambiguous information

Instruct team members in constructive strategies for providing feedback to teammates

Help team members to accept constructive feedback from teammates

Exercise teams in a variety of situations to build their adaptability

Help team members to respect the views and inputs of teammates

Team ability/aptitudeshould be sufciently high to support learning

Advance organizersshould explain complex team and task relationships

Pre-practice briefsshould explain team roles and clarify expectations

Team level metacognitive skillsshould be supported during training

Feedbackintrateam feedback and self-correction should be fostered

Climate for teamworkshould be established and maintained

Performance appraisalsshould emphasis teamwork and collective achievement

Reward and performance management systemsshould reect team accomplishment

Team goalsshould be developed at the team level

Leader/team member supportshould support transfer of newly learned skills

Relapse preventionshould involved the entire team

You might also like