Hostname: page-component-669899f699-vbsjw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T05:30:28.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Teams Are Changing: Are Research and Practice Evolving Fast Enough?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Scott I. Tannenbaum ,
John E. Mathieu ,
Eduardo Salas  and
Debra Cohen
Scott I. Tannenbaum*
Affiliation:
Group for Organizational Effectiveness
John E. Mathieu
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Eduardo Salas
Affiliation:
University of Central Florida
Debra Cohen
Affiliation:
Society for Human Resource Management
*
E-mail: scott.tannenbaum@groupoe.com, Address: Group for Organizational Effectiveness, Inc., 727 Waldens Pond Road, Albany, NY 12203.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the past, there was a fairly strong alignment between what teams experienced, the topics that team researchers were studying, and the practices that organizations used to manage their teams. However, the nature of teams and the environment in which they operate has changed, and as a result, new needs have emerged. Although there have been some innovative advancements, research and practice have not always adjusted to remain aligned with emerging needs. We highlight 3 significant change themes that are affecting teams: (a) dynamic composition, (b) technology and distance, and (c) empowerment and delayering. For each theme, we share our observations, review the related science and identify future research needs, and specify challenges and recommendations for employing effective team-based practices in applied settings. We conclude with thoughts about the future and suggest that new theories, research methods, and analyses may be needed to study the new team dynamics.

Type
Focal Article
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 2 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This research was partially supported by NASA Grant (#NNX11AR22G) awarded to The Group for Organizational Effectiveness, Inc. and NASA Grant (#NNX09AK48G) awarded to the University of Central Florida.

References

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1998). Rethinking team composition from the outside in. In Neale, M. A., Mannix, E. A., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (Vol. 1, pp. 21–38). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Google Scholar
Armstrong, D., & Cole, P. (2002). Managing distances and differences in geographically distributed work groups. In Hinds, P. & Kiesler, S. (Eds.), New ways of working across distance using technology (pp. 167–189). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Arrow, H. (1997). Stability, bistability, and instability in small group influence patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 75–85. Google Scholar
Arrow, H., & Crosson, S. (2003). Musical chairs— Membership dynamics in self-organized group formation. Small Group Research, 34, 523–556. Google Scholar
Arrow, H., & McGrath, J. E. (1995). Membership dynamics in groups at work—A theoretical framework. Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, 17, 373–411. Google Scholar
Balkundi, P., Kilduff, M., Barsness, Z. I., & Michael, J. H. (2007). Demographic antecedents and performance consequences of structural holes in work teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 241–260. Google Scholar
Baltes, B. B., Dickson, M. W., Sherman, M. P., Bauer, C. C., & LaGanke, J. S. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 156–179. Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman. Google Scholar
Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29, 991–1013. Google Scholar
Burke, C. S., Salas, E., Estep, S., & Pierce, L. (2007). Facilitating team adaptation “in the wild”: A theoretical framework, instructional strategies, and research agenda. In Hoffman, R. (Ed.), Expertise out of context (pp. 507–524). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group. Google Scholar
Burnes, B. (2007). Kurt Lewin and the Harwood studies: The foundations of OD. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 213–231. Google Scholar
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–850. Google Scholar
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining team competencies and establishing team training requirements. In Guzzo, R. & Salas, E. (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
Carley, K. M. (2003). Dynamic network analysis. In Breiger, R., Carley, K., & Pattison, P. (Eds.), Dynamic social network modeling and analysis (pp. 133–145). Washington, D.C.: National Research Council. Google Scholar
Cascio, W. F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 81–90. Google Scholar
Chafkin, M. (2010, April 1). The case, and the plan, for the virtual company. INC., 62–73. Google Scholar
Contractor, N. (2009). The emergence of multidimensional networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 743–747. Google Scholar
Contractor, N., Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (2006). Testing multi-theoretical multilevel hypotheses about organizational networks: An analytic framework and empirical example. Academy of Management Review, 31, 681–703. Google Scholar
Cummings, J., & Pletcher, C. (2011). Why project networks beat project teams. MIT Sloan Management Review, 52, 75–80. Google Scholar
Cummings, J. N. (2007, July). Membership intensity and the performance of geographically dispersed teams. Paper presented at the 2nd annual ING Conference, Lansing, Michigan.Google Scholar
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new approach to managerial behavior and organization design. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 191–233. Google Scholar
DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use—Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5, 121–147. Google Scholar
DeSanctis, G., Poole, M. S., & Dickson, G. W. (2000). Teams and technology: Interactions over time. In Neale, M. A., Mannix, E. A., & Griffith, T. L. (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (pp. 1–27). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Google Scholar
Drach-Zahavy, A. (2011). Interorganizational teams as boundary spanners: The role of team diversity, boundedness, and extrateam links. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 89–118. Google Scholar
Ellis, A. P. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Porter, C., West, B. J., & Moon, H. (2003). Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 821–835. Google Scholar
Espinosa, J. A., Cummings, J. N., Wilson, J. M., & Pearce, B. M. (2003). Team boundary issues across multiple global firms. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19, 157–190. Google Scholar
Fong, T., Thorpe, C., & Baur, C. (2003). Collaboration, dialog, and human-robot interaction. Robotics Research, 6, 255–266. Google Scholar
Gaston, M., & DesJardins, M. (2008). The effect of network structure on dynamic team formation in multi-agent systems. Computational Intelligence, 24, 122–157. Google Scholar
Gevers, J. M. P., van Eerde, W., & Rutte, C. G. (2009). Team self-regulation and meeting deadlines in project teams: Antecedents and effects of temporal consensus. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 295–321. Google Scholar
Gonzalez, V., & Mark, G. (2004, April). Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness: Managing multiple working spheres . Paper presented at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York.Google Scholar
Green, S. A., Billinghurst, M., Chen, X., & Chase, J. G. (2008). Human-robot collaboration: A literature review and augmented reality approach in design. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 5, 1–18. Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R., & Oldman, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
Harmati, I., & Skrzypczyk, K. (2009). Robot team coordination for target tracking using fuzzy logic controller in game theoretic framework. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 57, 75–86. Google Scholar
Harrison, D. A., & Humphrey, S. E. (2010). Designing for diversity or diversity for design? Tasks, interdependence, and within-unit differences at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 328–337. Google Scholar
Harrison, D. A., Mohammed, S., McGrath, J. E., Florey, A. T., & Vanderstoep, S. W. (2003). Time matters in team performance: Effects of member familiarity, entrainment, and task discontinuity on speed and quality. Personnel Psychology, 56, 633–669. Google Scholar
Hempel, P. S., Zhang, Z. X., & Han, Y. E. (in press). Team empowerment and the organizational context: Decentralization and the contrasting effects of formalization. Journal of Management.Google Scholar
Hill, W. F., & Gruner, L. (1973). A study of development in open and closed groups. Small Group Research, 4, 355–381. Google Scholar
Hirst, G. (2009). Effects of membership change on open discussion and team performance: The moderating role of team tenure. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 231–249. Google Scholar
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14, 29–64. Google Scholar
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Rao, V. S., & Huber, G. P. (1988). Computer support for meetings of groups working on unstructured problems: A field experiment. MIS Quarterly, 12, 645–666.Google Scholar
Kim, P. H. (1997). When what you know can hurt you: A study of experiential effects on group discussion and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 165–177. Google Scholar
Kirkman, B. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management, 31, 700–718. Google Scholar
Kirkman, B. L., Mathieu, J. E., Cordery, J. L., Kukenberger, M. R., & Rosen, B. (2011). Managing a new collaborative entity in business organizations: Understanding organizational communities of practice effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1234–1245.Google Scholar
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58–74. Google Scholar
Klein, C., DiazGranados, D., Salas, E., Le, H., Burke, C. S., Lyons, R., Goodwin, G. F. (2009). Does team building work? Small Group Research, 40, 181–222. Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In Borman, W., Ilgen, D. & Klimoski, R. (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology, Vol. 12: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333–375). New York, NY: Wiley. Google Scholar
Lewis, K. (2004). Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: A longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management Science, 50, 1519–1533. Google Scholar
Lewis, K., Belliveau, M., Herndon, B., & Keller, J. (2007). Group cognition, membership change, and performance: Investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 159–178. Google Scholar
Lipnack, J., & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time and organizations with technology. New York, NY: Wiley. Google Scholar
Littlepage, G., Robison, W., & Reddington, K. (1997). Effects of task experience and group experience on group performance, member ability, and recognition of expertise. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 133–147. Google Scholar
Majchrzak, A., Rice, R. E., Malhotra, A., King, N., & Ba, S. L. (2000). Technology adaptation: The case of a computer-supported inter-organizational virtual team. MIS Quarterly, 24, 569–600. Google Scholar
Marks, M. L., & De Meuse, K. P. (2003). The realities of resizing. In Marks, M. L. & Meuse, K. P. D. (Eds.), Resizing the organization: Managing layoffs, divestitures, and closings (pp. 1–38). San Franciso, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
Marrone, J. A. (2010). Team boundary spanning: A multilevel review of past research and proposals for the future. Journal of Management, 36, 911–940. Google Scholar
Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 805–835. Google Scholar
Mathieu, J. E., Marks, M. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). Multi-team systems. In Anderson, N., Ones, D., Sinangil, H. K., & Viswesvaran, C. (Eds.), International handbook of work and organizational psychology (pp. 289–313). London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T. L., & Gilson, L. L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–476. Google Scholar
Maynard, T., Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L., & Rapp, T. (in press). Something(s) old and something(s) new: Modeling drivers of global virtual team effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior.Google Scholar
Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L., & Hamilton, K. (2010). Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model. Journal of Management, 36, 876–910. Google Scholar
Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M. Jr. (1995). Designing team-based organizations: New forms of knowledge work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
Mortensen, M., Woolley, A. W., & O’Leary, M. B. (2007). Conditions enabling effective multiple team membership. In Crowston, K., Sieber, S., & Wynn, E. (Eds.), Virtuality and virtualization (Vol. 236, pp. 215–228). Portland, OR: Springer. Google Scholar
O’Leary, M. B., & Cummings, J. N. (2007). The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. Management Information Science Quarterly, 31, 433–452. Google Scholar
O’Leary, M., Mortensen, M., & Woolley, A. (2011). Multiple team membership: A theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams. Academy of Management Review, 36, 461–478.Google Scholar
Robert, L. P., Dennis, A. R., & Hung, Y. T. C. (2009). Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face-to-face and virtual team members. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26, 241–279. Google Scholar
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404. Google Scholar
Salas, E., Burke, C. S., & Fowlkes, J. E. (2006). Measuring team performance “in the wild”: Challenges and tips. In Bennett, W., Lance, C., & Woehr, D. (Eds.), Performance measurement: Current perspectives and future challenges (pp. 245–272). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In Swezey, R. W. & Salas, E. (Ed.), Teams: Their training and performance (Vols. 3–29). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Google Scholar
Seibert, S., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analysis review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 981–1003.Google Scholar
Shah, J., & Breazeal, C. (2010). An empirical analysis of team coordination behaviors and action planning with application to human-robot teaming. Human Factors, 52, 234–245. Google Scholar
Silver, S., Randolph, W. A., & Seibert, S. (2006). Implementing and sustaining empowerment: Lessons learned from comparison of a for-profit and a nonprofit organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15, 47–58. Google Scholar
Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (2008). Guided team self-correction: Impacts on team mental models, processes, and effectiveness. Journal of Small Group Research, 39, 303–327. Google Scholar
Straus, S. (1997). Technology, group process, and group outcomes: Testing the connections in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 227–266. Google Scholar
Subramony, M. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between HRM bundles and firm performance. Human Resource Management, 48, 745–768. Google Scholar
Sundstrom, E. (1999). The challenges of supporting work team effectiveness. In Sundstrom, E. (Ed.), Supporting work team effectiveness (pp. 3–23). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., McNall, L. A., & Salas, E. (2010). Informal learning and development in organizations. In Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Salas, E. (Eds.), Learning, training, and development in organizations (pp. 303–332). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar
Trist, E. L., Higgin, G. W., Murray, H., & Pollack, A. B. (1963). Organizational choice. London, UK: Tavistock. Google Scholar
Tversky, B., Lee, P., & Mainwaring, S. (1999). Why do speakers mix perspectives? Spatial Cognition Computing, 1, 399–412. Google Scholar
Wallace, J. C., Johnson, P. D., Mathe, K., & Paul, J. (2011). Structural and psychological empowerment climates, performance, and the moderating role of shared felt accountability: A managerial perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 840–850.Google Scholar
Walther, J. B. (2002). Time effects in computer-mediated groups: Past, present, and future. In Hinds, P. J. & Kiesler, S. (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 235–257). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
Webber, S. S., & Klimoski, R. J. (2004). Crews: A distinct type of work team. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 261–279. Google Scholar
Wildman, J., Thayer, A., Rosen, M., Salas, E., Mathieu, J. E., & Rayne, S. (in press). Task types and team-level attributes: Synthesis of team classification literature. Human Resource Development Review.Google Scholar
Xi, Y., & Tang, F. (2004). Multiplex multi-core pattern of network organizations: An exploratory study. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 10, 179–195. Google Scholar
Yin, R. (1993). Applications of case study research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
Zaccaro, S., Marks, M., & DeChurch, L. (2011). Multiteam systems: An organizational form for dynamic and complex environments. New York, NY: Routledge Academic Google Scholar
Zigurs, I., & Khazanchi, D. (2008). From profiles to patterns: A new view of task-technology fit. Information Systems Management, 25, 8–13. Google Scholar