1932

Abstract

We conceptualize organizational teams as dynamic systems evolving in response to their environments. We then review the past 10 years of team effectiveness research and summarize its implications by categorizing studies under three main overlapping and coevolving dimensions: compositional features, structural features, and mediating mechanisms. We highlight prominent work that focused on variables in each of these dimensions and discuss their key relationships with team outcomes. Furthermore, we review how contextual factors impact team effectiveness On the basis of this review, we advocate that future research seek to examine team relationships through a dynamic, multilevel perspective, while incorporating new and novel measurement techniques. We submit that the future of teams research may benefit from a conceptualization of them as dynamic networks and modeling them as small complex systems.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015106
2019-01-21
2024-06-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/orgpsych/6/1/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015106.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015106&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aaron JR, McDowell WC, Herdman AO 2014. The effects of a team charter on student team behaviors. J. Educ. Bus. 89:90–97
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aime F, Humphrey S, Derue DS, Paul JB 2014. The riddle of heterarchy: power transitions in cross-functional teams. Acad. Manag. J. 57:327–52
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Arrow H, McGrath JE, Berdahl JL 2000. Small Groups as Complex Systems: Formation, Coordination, Development, and Adaptation Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Sage
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aubé C, Rousseau V, Tremblay S 2011. Team size and quality of group experience: the more the merrier. ? Group Dyn 15:357–75
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Baard SK, Rench TA, Kozlowski SWJ 2014. Performance adaptation: a theoretical integration and review. J. Manag. 40:48–99
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Balkundi P, Barsness Z, Michael JH 2009. Unlocking the influence of leadership network structures on team conflict and viability. Small Group Res 40:301–22
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Balkundi P, Kilduff M, Harrison DA 2011. Centrality and charisma: comparing how leader networks and attributions affect team performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:1209–22
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Balogun J, Bartunek JM, Do B 2015. Senior managers' sensemaking and responses to strategic change. Organ. Sci. 26:960–79
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Banks GC, Batchelor JH, Seers A, O'Boyle EH, Pollack JM, Gower K 2014. What does team-member exchange bring to the party? A meta-analytic review of team and leader social exchange. J. Organ. Behav. 35:273–95
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Baumann MR 2013. Where can I publish “Group” research?. INGRoup News Lett 3:2–8
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Beal DJ, Cohen RR, Burke MJ, McLendorn CL 2003. Cohesion and performance in groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:989–1004References in bold indicate the 25 meta-analyses involving team constructs that we discuss (see also Tables 1 and 2).
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Belbin RM 1985. Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail London: Butterworth-Heinemann
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bell ST 2007. Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:595–615
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bell ST, Villado AJ, Lukasik MA, Belau L, Briggs AL 2011. Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: a meta-analysis. J. Manag. 37:709–43
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ben-Menahem SM, Von Krogh G, Erden Z, Schneider A 2016. Coordinating knowledge creation in multidisciplinary teams: evidence from early-stage drug discovery. Acad. Manag. J. 59:1308–38
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bezrukova K, Spell CS, Caldwell D, Burger JM 2016. A multilevel perspective on faultlines: differentiating the effects between group- and organizational-level faultlines. J. Appl. Psychol. 101:86–107
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bezrukova K, Thatcher SMB, Jehn KA, Spell CS 2012. The effects of alignments: examining group faultlines, organizational cultures, and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:77–92
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bradley BH, Postlethwaite BE, Klotz AC, Hamdani MR, Brown KG 2012. Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: the critical role of team psychological safety climate. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:151–58
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Bradley J, White B, Mennecke BE 2003. Teams and tasks—a temporal framework for the effects of interpersonal interventions on team performance. Small Group Res 34:353–87
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Breuer C, Hüffmeier J, Hertel G 2016. Does trust matter more in virtual teams? A meta-analysis of trust and team effectiveness considering virtuality and documentation as moderators. J. Appl. Psychol. 101:1151–77
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Bunderson JS, Sutcliffe KM 2002. Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: process and performance effects. Acad. Manag. J. 45:875–93
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Cannella AA Jr., Park JH, Lee HU 2008. Top management team functional background diversity and firm performance: examining the roles of team member colocation and environmental uncertainty. Acad. Manag. J. 51:768–84
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Carley KM, Columbus D, Landwehr P 2013. Automap User's Guide 2013 Carnegie Mellon Univ. Tech. Rep. CMU-ISR-13-105, Sch. Computer Sci., Inst. Software Res. Pittsburgh, PA: http://www.casos.cs.cmu.edu/projects/automap/sample.php
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Carter DR, DeChurch LA, Braun MT, Contractor NS 2015. Social network approaches to leadership: an integrative conceptual review. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:597–622
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Castaño N, Watts T, Tekleab AG 2013. A reexamination of the cohesion-performance relationship meta-analyses: a comprehensive approach. Group Dyn 17:207–31
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Chen G, Farh JL, Campbell-Bush EM, Wu Z, Wu X 2013. Teams as innovative systems: multilevel motivational antecedents of innovation in R&D teams. J. Appl. Psychol. 98:1018–27
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Cheng CY, Chua RY J, Morris MW, Lee L 2012. Finding the right mix: how the composition of self-managing multicultural teams' cultural value orientation influences performance over time. J. Organ. Behav. 33:389–411
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Chiocchio F, Essiembre H 2009. Cohesion and performance: a meta-analytic review of disparities between project teams, production teams, and service teams. Small Group Res 40:382–420
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Chiu YT, Staples DS 2013. Reducing faultlines in geographically dispersed teams: self-disclosure and task elaboration. Small Group Res 44:498–531
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Choi K, Cho B 2011. Competing hypotheses analyses of the associations between group task conflict and group relationship conflict. J. Organ. Behav. 32:1106–26
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Christian JS, Pearsall MJ, Christian MS, Ellis APJ 2014. Exploring the benefits and boundaries of transactive memory systems in adapting to team member loss. Group Dyn 18:69–86
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Chun JS, Choi JN 2014. Members' needs, intragroup conflict, and group performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 99:437–50
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Cole MS, Carter MZ, Zhang Z 2013. Leader-team congruence in power distance values and team effectiveness: the mediating role of procedural justice climate. J. Appl. Psychol. 98:962–73
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Courtright SH, McCormick BW, Mistry S, Wang J 2017. Quality charters or quality members? A control theory perspective on team charters and team performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 102:1462–70
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Courtright SH, Thurgood GR, Stewart GL, Pierotti AJ 2015. Structural interdependence in teams: an integrative framework and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:1825–46
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Cramton CD, Hinds PJ 2014. An embedded model of cultural adaptation in global teams. Organ. Sci. 25:1056–81
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Cronin MA, Weingart LR, Todorova G 2011. Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet. ? Acad. Manag. Ann. 5:571–612
    [Google Scholar]
  38. D'Innocenzo L, Mathieu JE, Kukenberger MR 2016. A meta-analysis of different forms of shared leadership–team performance relations. J. Manag. 42:1964–91
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Davison RB, Hollenbeck JR, Barnes CM, Sleesman DJ, Ilgen DR 2012. Coordinated action in multiteam systems. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:808–24
    [Google Scholar]
  40. DeChurch LA, Mesmer-Magnus JR 2010.a The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:32–53
    [Google Scholar]
  41. DeChurch LA, Mesmer-Magnus JR 2010.b Measuring shared team mental models: a meta-analysis. Group Dyn 14:1–14
    [Google Scholar]
  42. DeChurch LA, Mesmer-Magnus JR, Doty D 2013. Moving beyond relationship and task conflict: toward a process-state perspective. J. Appl. Psychol. 98:559–78
    [Google Scholar]
  43. De Dreu CKW, Weingart LR 2003. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:741–49
    [Google Scholar]
  44. De Jong A, Song M, Song LZ 2013. How lead founder personality affects new venture performance: the mediating role of team conflict. J. Manag. 39:1825–54
    [Google Scholar]
  45. De Jong BA, Dirks KT, Gillespie N 2016. Trust and team performance: a meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. J. Appl. Psychol. 101:1134–50
    [Google Scholar]
  46. DeRue DS, Hollenbeck JR, Johnson MD, Ilgen DR, Jundt DK 2008. How different team downsizing approaches influence team-level adaptation and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 51:182–96
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Devine DJ, Philips JL 2001. Do smarter teams do better: a meta-analysis of cognitive ability and team performance. Small Group Res 32:507–32
    [Google Scholar]
  48. De Vries TA, Walter F, Van Der Vegt GS, Essens PJ 2014. Antecedents of individuals' interteam coordination: broad functional experiences as a mixed blessing. Acad. Manag. J. 57:1334–59
    [Google Scholar]
  49. De Wit FRC, Greer LL, Jehn KA 2012. The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:360–90
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Dimotakis N, Davison RB, Hollenbeck JR 2012. Team structure and regulatory focus: the impact of regulatory fit on team dynamic. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:421–34
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Edmondson A 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 44:350–83
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Ellis APJ, Mai KM, Christian JS 2013. Examining the asymmetrical effects of goal faultlines in groups: a categorization-elaboration approach. J. Appl. Psychol. 98:948–61
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Evans NJ, Jarvis PA 1980. Group cohesion: a review and reevaluation. Small Group Behav 11:359–70
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Falk‐Krzesinski HJ, Börner K, Contractor N, Fiore SM, Hall KLet al. 2010. Advancing the science of team science. Clin. Translat. Sci. 3:263–66
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Farh CICC, Seo MG, Tesluk PE 2012. Emotional intelligence, teamwork effectiveness, and job performance: the moderating role of job context. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:890–900
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Foster MK, Abbey A, Callow MA, Zu X, Wilbon AD 2015. Rethinking virtuality and its impact on teams. Small Group Res 46:267–99
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Frazier ML, Fainshmidt S, Klinger RL, Pezeshkan A, Vracheva V 2017. Psychological safety: a meta-analytic review and extension. Pers. Psychol. 70:113–65
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Gelfand MJ, Brett J, Gunia BC, Imai L, Huang TJ, Hsu BF 2013. Toward a culture-by-context perspective on negotiation: negotiating teams in the United States and Taiwan. J. Appl. Psychol. 98:504–13
    [Google Scholar]
  59. George G, Haas MR, Pentland A 2014. Big data and management. Acad. Manag. J. 57:321–26
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Gilson LL, Maynard MT, Jones Young NC, Vartiainen M, Hakonen M 2015. Virtual teams research: 10 years, 10 themes, and 10 opportunities. J. Manag. 41:1313–37
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Gonzalez-Mulé E, DeGeest DS, McCormick BW, Seong JY, Brown KG 2014. Can we get some cooperation around here? The mediating role of group norms on the relationship between team personality and individual helping behaviors. J. Appl. Psychol. 99:988–99
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Greer LL, Homan AC, De Hoogh AHB, Den Hartog DN 2012. Tainted visions: the effect of visionary leader behaviors and leader categorization tendencies on the financial performance of ethnically diverse teams. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:203–13
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Gully SM, Incalcaterra KA, Joshi A, Beaubien JM 2002. A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:819
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Hackman JR, Morris CG 1975. Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: a review and proposed integration. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 8:45–99
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Hale DJR, Ployhart RE, Shepherd W 2016. A two-phase longitudinal model of a turnover event: disruption, recovery rates, and moderators of collective performance. Acad. Manag. J. 59:906–29
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Hambrick DC, Humphrey SE, Gupta A 2015. Structural interdependence within top management teams: a key moderator of upper echelons predictions. Strateg. Manag. J. 36:449–61
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Hartnell CA, Kinicki AJ, Lambert LS, Fugate M, Corner PD 2016. Do similarities or differences between CEO leadership and organizational culture have a more positive effect on firm performance? A test of competing predictions. J. Appl. Psychol. 101:846–61
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Hinsz VB, Wallace DM, Ladbury JL 2009. Team performance in dynamic task environments. Int. Rev. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 24:183–216
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Hirschfeld RR, Bernerth JB 2008. Mental efficacy and physical efficacy at the team level: inputs and outcomes among newly formed action teams. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:1429–37
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Hofstede G 2003. Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Hoisl K, Gruber M, Conti A 2017. R&D team diversity and performance in hypercompetitive environments. Strateg. Manag. J. 38:1455–77
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Hollenbeck JR, Beersma B, Schouten ME 2012. Beyond team types and taxonomies: a dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description. Acad. Manag. Rev. 37:82–106
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Hood AC, Bachrach DG, Zivnuska S, Bendoly E 2016. Mediating effects of psychological safety in the relationship between team affectivity and transactive memory systems. J. Organ. Behav. 37:416–35
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Horwitz SK, Horwitz IB 2007. The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: a meta-analytic review of team demography. J. Manag. 33:987–1015
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Hu J, Judge TA 2017. Leader-team complementarity: Exploring the interactive effects of leader personality traits and team power distance values on team processes and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 102:935–55
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Hughes AM, Gregory ME, Joseph DL, Sonesh SC, Marlow SLet al. 2016. Saving lives: a meta-analysis of team training in healthcare. J. Appl. Psychol. 101:1266–304
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Hülsheger UR, Anderson N, Salgado JF 2009. Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:1128–45
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Humphrey SE, Aime F 2014. Team microdynamics: toward an organizing approach to teamwork. Acad. Manag. Ann. 8:443–503
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Humphrey SE, Morgeson FP, Mannor MJ 2009. Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: a role composition model of team performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:48–61
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Hung H, Gatica-Perez D 2010. Estimating cohesion in small groups using audio-visual nonverbal behavior. IEEE Transact. Multimedia 12:563–75
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Ilgen DR, Hollenbeck JR, Johnson M, Jundt D 2005. Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 56:517–43
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Jobidon ME, Turcotte I, Aubé C, Labrecque A, Kelsey S, Tremblay S 2017. Role variability in self-organizing teams working in crisis management. Small Group Res 48:62–92
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Kellermanns FW, Floyd SW, Pearson AW, Spencer B 2008. The contingent effect of constructive confrontation on the relationship between shared mental models and decision quality. J. Organ. Behav. 29:119–37
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Killumets E, D'Innocenzo L, Maynard MT, Mathieu JE 2015. A multilevel examination of the impact of team interpersonal processes. Small Group Res 46:227–59
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Klein C, Diazgranados D, Salas E, Le H, Burke CSet al. 2009. Does team building work. ? Small Group Res 40:181–222
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Klein KJ, Lim B -C, Saltz JL, Mayer DM 2004. How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Acad. Manag. J. 47:952–63
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Klonek FE, Quera V, Burba M, Kauffeld S 2016. Group interactions and time: using sequential analysis to study group dynamics in project meetings. Group Dyn.: Theory Res. Pract. 20:209–22
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Knight AP, Eisenkraft N 2015. Positive is usually good, negative is not always bad: the effects of group affect on social integration and task performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:1214–27
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Koujaku S, Takigawa I, Kudo M, Imai H 2016. Dense core model for cohesive subgraph discovery. Soc. Netw. 44:143–52
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Kozlowski SW, Ilgen DR 2006. Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 7:77–124
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Krippendorff K 2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Leenders RTA, Contractor NS, DeChurch LA 2016. Once upon a time: understanding team processes as relational event networks. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 6:92–115
    [Google Scholar]
  93. LePine JA, Piccolo RF, Jackson CL, Mathieu JE, Saul JR 2008. A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Pers. Psychol. 61:273–307
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Levine JM, Moreland RL 2012. A history of small group research. Handbook of the History of Social Psychology AW Kruglanski, W Stroebe 383–405 New York: Psychology Press
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Lim BC, Klein KJ 2006. Team mental models and team performance: a field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. J. Organ. Behav. 27:403–18
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Littlepage GE, Hollingshead AB, Drake LR, Littlepage AM 2008. Transactive memory and performance in work groups: specificity, communication, ability differences, and work allocation. Group Dyn 12:223–41
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Liu D, Hernandez M, Wang L 2014. The role of leadership and trust in creating structural patterns of team procedural justice: a social network investigation. Pers. Psychol. 67:801–45
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Lorinkova NM, Pearsall MJ, Sims HP Jr 2013. Examining the differential longitudinal performance of directive versus empowering leadership in teams. Acad. Manag. J. 56:573–96
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Luciano MM, DeChurch LA, Mathieu JE 2018.a Multiteam systems: a structural framework and meso-theory of system functioning. J. Manag. 44:1065–96
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Luciano MM, Mathieu JE, Park S, Tannenbaum SI 2018.b A fitting approach to construct and measurement alignment: the role of big data in advancing dynamic theories. Organ. Res. Methods 21:592–632
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Luciano MM, Mathieu JE, Ruddy TM 2014. Leading multiple teams: average and relative external leadership influences on team empowerment and effectiveness. J. Appl. Psychol. 99:322–31
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Maloney MM, Bresman H, Zellmer-Bruhn ME, Beaver GR 2016. Contextualization and context theorizing in teams research: a look back and a path forward. Acad. Manag. Ann. 10:891–942
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Mannucci PV 2017. Drawing Snow White and animating Buzz Lightyear: technological toolkit characteristics and creativity in cross-disciplinary teams. Organ. Sci. 28:711–28
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ 2001. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad. Manag. Rev. 26:356–76
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Marrone JA 2010. Team boundary spanning: a multilevel review of past research and proposals for the future. J. Manag. 36:911–40
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Martínez-Moreno E, Zornoza A, González-Navarro P, Thompson LF 2012. Investigating face-to-face and virtual teamwork over time: When does early task conflict trigger relationship conflict. ? Group Dyn 16:159–71
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Mathieu JE, Gilson LL 2012. Criteria issues and team effectiveness. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology 2 SWJ Kozlowski 910–30 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Mathieu JE, Heffner TS, Goodwin GF, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA 2000. The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 85:273–83
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Mathieu JE, Hollenbeck JR, Knippenberg DV, Ilgen DR 2017. A century of work teams in the journal of applied psychology. J. Appl. Psychol. 102:452–67
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Mathieu JE, Kukenberger MR, D'Innocenzo L, Reilly G 2015.a Modeling reciprocal team cohesion-performance relationships, as impacted by shared leadership and members' competence. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:713–34
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Mathieu JE, Maynard MT, Rapp T, Gilson L 2008. Team effectiveness 1997–2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. J. Manag. 34:410–76
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Mathieu JE, Rapp TL 2009. Laying the foundation for successful team performance trajectories: the roles of team charters and performance strategies. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:90–103
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Mathieu JE, Rapp TL, Maynard MT, Mangos PM 2009. Interactive effects of team and task shared mental models as related to air traffic controllers' collective efficacy and effectiveness. Hum. Perform. 23:22–40
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Mathieu JE, Tannenbaum SI, Donsbach JS, Alliger GM 2014. A review and integration of team composition models: moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. J. Manag. 40:130–60
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Mathieu JE, Tannenbaum SI, Kukenberger MR, Donsbach JS, Alliger GM 2015.b Team role experience and orientation: a measure and tests of construct validity. Group Organ. Manag. 40:6–34
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Mathieu JE, Wolfson MA, Park S 2018. The evolution of work team research since Hawthorne. Am. Psychologist 73:308–21
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Maynard MT, Gilson LL, Mathieu JE 2012. Empowerment—fad or fab? A multilevel review of the past two decades of research. J. Manag. 38:1231–81
    [Google Scholar]
  118. McGrath JE 1964. Social Psychology: A Brief Introduction New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
    [Google Scholar]
  119. McGrath JE, Tschan F 2007. Temporal matters in the study of work groups in organizations. Psychologist-Manager J 10:3–12
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Mesmer-Magnus JR, DeChurch LA 2009. Information sharing and team performance: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:535–46
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Meyer B, Glenz A, Antino M, Rico R, González-Romá V 2014. Faultlines and subgroups: a meta-review and measurement guide. Small Group Res 45:633–70
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Morgeson FP, Hofmann DA 1999. The structure and function of collective constructs: implications for multilevel research and theory development. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24:249–65
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Morgeson FP, Mitchell TR, Liu D 2015. Event system theory: an event-oriented approach to the organizational sciences. Acad. Manag. Rev. 40:515–37
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Mukhopadhyay SC 2015. Wearable sensors for human activity monitoring: a review. Sens. J. IEEE 15:1321–30
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Mumford TV, Van Iddekinge CH, Morgeson FP, Campion MA 2008. The team role test: development and validation of a team role knowledge situational judgment test. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:250
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Nielsen TM, Hrivnak GA, Shaw M 2009. Organizational citizenship behavior and performance: a meta-analysis of group-level research. Small Group Res 40:555–77
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Nishii LH 2013. The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Acad. Manag. J. 56:1754–74
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Ou AY, Tsui AS, Kinicki AJ, Waldman DA, Xiao Z, Song LJ 2014. Humble chief executive officers' connections to top management team integration and middle managers’ responses. Adm. Sci. Q. 59:34–72
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Pearsall MJ, Ellis APJ 2011. Thick as thieves: the effects of ethical orientation and psychological safety on unethical team behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:401–11
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Perry SJ, Lorinkova NM, Hunter EM, Hubbard A, McMahon JT 2016. When does virtuality really “work”? Examining the role of work–family and virtuality in social loafing. J. Manag. 42:449–79
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Randall KR, Resick CJ, DeChurch LA 2011. Building team adaptive capacity: the roles of sensegiving and team composition. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:525–40
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Ren H, Gray B, Harrison DA 2015. Triggering faultline effects in teams: the importance of bridging friendship ties and breaching animosity ties. Organ. Sci. 26:390–404
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Salas E, DiazGranados D, Klein C, Burke CS, Stagl KCet al. 2008. Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis. Hum. Factors 50:903–33
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Salas E, Edens E, Wilson KA 2017.a Crew Resource Management: Critical Essays New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Salas E, Kozlowski SWJ, Chen G 2017.b A century of progress in industrial and organizational psychology: discoveries and the next century. J. Appl. Psychol. 102:589–98
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Sauer SJ 2011. Taking the reins: the effects of new leader status and leadership style on team performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:574–87
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Schippers MC, West MA, Dawson JF 2015. Team reflexivity and innovation: the moderating role of team context. J. Manag. 41:769–88
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Seibert SE, Wang G, Courtright SH 2011. Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: a meta-analytic review. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:981–1003
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Sewell DK, Chen Y 2016. Latent space models for dynamic networks with weighted edges. Soc. Netw. 44:105–16
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Shea GP, Guzzo RA 1987. Groups as human resources. Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag. 5:323–56
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Srikanth K, Harvey S, Peterson R 2016. A dynamic perspective on diverse teams: moving from the dual-process model to a dynamic coordination-based model of diverse team performance. Acad. Manag. Ann. 10:453–93
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Stewart GL 2006. A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. J. Manag. 32:29–55
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Stuart HC 2017. Structural disruption, relational experimentation, and performance in professional hockey teams: a network perspective on member change. Organ. Sci. 28:283–300
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Tannenbaum SI, Cerasoli CP 2013. Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Hum. Factors 55:231–45
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Tannenbaum SI, Yukl G 1992. Training and development in work organizations. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 43:399–441
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Taras V, Kirkman BL, Steel P 2010. Examining the impact of culture's consequences: a three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede's cultural value dimensions. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:405–39
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Tsai MH, Bendersky C 2016. The pursuit of information sharing: expressing task conflicts as debates versus disagreements increases perceived receptivity to dissenting opinions in groups. Organ. Sci. 27:141–56
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Vashdi DR, Bamberger PA, Erez M 2013. Can surgical teams ever learn? The role of coordination, complexity, and transitivity in action team learning. Acad. Manag. J. 56:945–71
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Waller MJ, Okhuysen GA, Saghafian M 2016. Conceptualizing emergent states: a strategy to advance the study of group dynamics. Acad. Manag. Ann. 10:561–98
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Walumbwa FO, Schaubroeck J 2009. Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:1275–86
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Wang S 2015. Emotional intelligence, information elaboration, and performance: the moderating role of informational diversity. Small Group Res 46:324–51
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Wang D, Waldman DA, Zhang Z 2014. A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness. J. Appl. Psychol. 99:181–98
    [Google Scholar]
  153. Webber SS, Donahue LM 2001. Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis. J. Manag. 27:141–62
    [Google Scholar]
  154. Weingart LR 1992. Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and planning on group performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 77:682–93
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Wiener EL, Kanki BG, Helmreich RL 2010. Crew Resource Management Cambridge, MA: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  156. Zaccaro SJ, Marks MA, DeChurch L 2012. Multiteam Systems: An Organization Form for Dynamic and Complex Environments London: Routledge Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  157. Zappa P, Robins G 2016. Organizational learning across multi-level networks. Soc. Netw. 44:295–306
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015106
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015106
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error