As the need to tackle complex clinical and societal problems rises, researchers are increasingly taking on a translational approach. This approach, which seeks to integrate theories, methodologies, and frameworks from various disciplines across a team of researchers, places emphasis on translation of findings in order to offer practical solutions to real-world problems. While translational research leads to a number of positive outcomes, there are also a multitude of barriers to conducting effective team science, such as effective coordination and communication across the organizational, disciplinary, and even geographic boundaries of science teams. Given these barriers to success, there is a significant need to establish team interventions that increase science team effectiveness as translational research becomes the new face of science. This review is intended to provide translational scientists with an understanding of barriers to effective team science and equip them with the necessary tools to overcome such barriers. We provide an overview of translational science teams, discuss barriers to science team effectiveness, demonstrate the lacking state of current interventions, and present recommendations for improving interventions in science teams by applying best practices from the teams and groups literature across the four phases of transdisciplinary research.

After more than 80 years in predicting organizational performance, empirical evidence reveals a science of teams that seems unable to consistently implement solutions for teams performing in real work settings –outside and away from the isolated teams breeding in research laboratories in the academic context. To bridge this growing practitioners-researchers divide, we first identify five main challenges involved in working with teams today (purposeful team staffing; proper task design and allocation; task and interaction process functionality; appropriate affective tone; and suitable team assessment). And second, we offer a toolbox of interventions (empowering and restorative) to help practitioners to transform the potential threats inherent in these challenges into opportunities for team effectiveness. Our five-challenge diagnosis and proposed intervention toolbox contribute to better address research questions and theoretical falsifiability using teams performing in real work settings, and to assess and intervene in teams by adjusting their internal functioning to contextual conditions and constraints.

Facilitation style appears to be an important determinant of design team effectiveness. The neutrality of the group facilitator may be a key factor; however, the characteristics and impact of neutrality are relatively understudied. In a designed classroom setting, we examine the impact of two different approaches to group facilitation: (i) facilitator’s neutrality expressed as low equidistance and high impartiality and (ii) facilitator’s neutrality expressed as high equidistance and low impartiality, on team trust, trust to the facilitator and team potency. To do this, we conducted a repeated-measures experiment with a student sample. Our results indicate that facilitators expressing neutrality through low equidistance and high impartiality had a greater positive impact on team trust. The two approaches did not differ on team potency and facilitator trust. These results contribute to developing theories of design facilitation and team effectiveness by suggesting how facilitation may shape team trust and potency in group design. Based on our findings, we point to the need for future work to further examine the impact of facilitator’s process awareness and neutrality, and show how facilitation methods may benefit teams during creative design teamwork.

In this study, I propose supervisors’ upward leader–leader exchange relationships as an important boundary condition for the relationship between average leader–member exchange (LMX) relationships and a climate for innovation support at the group level. Specifically, I argue that the effect of resource spillover to poor-LMX subordinates within a work group is an important mechanism that leads to the development of a climate that supports innovation. I test the hypothesized moderated-mediation model by using multisource and multiwave data collected from 590 employees and 75 supervisors. The findings indicate that the indirect effect of team LMX relationships on team effectiveness via a climate for innovation support is more positive under high conditions of leader–leader exchange, whereas the effect is less positive under low conditions of leader–leader exchange. Implications and limitations relevant to developing research around LMX and innovation are addressed.

Team emotional intelligence is expected to have a significant impact on intrateam conflict and team effectiveness. However, to date, there has been a dearth of empirical evidence of this link. Taking a comprehensive approach, our study contributes to the literature on intrateam conflict and team emotional intelligence. Data collected from 79 teams in South Korean companies reveal that team emotional intelligence is negatively related to team process (i.e., task conflict and relationship conflict) and positively related to team effectiveness (i.e., team performance, innovation, and cohesion). In addition, team emotional intelligence has a moderating effect on decoupling task conflict and relationship conflict. Our findings also indicate that team emotional intelligence decreases the negative effects of task conflict on team effectiveness, and of relationship conflict on team cohesion. We conclude this study with a discussion of limitations and implications for future research.

Despite a prolific research literature on the question of what makes teams effective, the literature is still limited on the role that team level emotions play in this process. In this article, we argue that the construct of workgroup emotional climate (WEC) provides a useful perspective from which to examine this matter. Following a discussion of the importance of considering emotions in organizational studies generally and team research, specifically, we draw on evidence of cultural differences in emotional experience and expression to develop a model explicating how cultural orientation can impact on the relationship between WEC and workgroup effectiveness. The model presented in the paper represents a significant development in our understanding of the role of cultural differences, specifically the influence of the individualism–collectivism identity orientation, in WEC and its relationship to workgroup effectiveness. Future directions for research and practice arising from the model are also presented.

Definitions are social constructions rather than objective descriptions. They set clear boundaries for what is considered normal in a situation. Common words in organizations, like effectiveness or success, carry different meaningss in different contexts. In this paper, we evaluate the Delphi Technique as a method for explicating context-specific definitions and illustrate its use in formulating a context-specific definition of ‘an effective health care team’. Eight multi-disciplinary organization members participated in the study and reached consensus on characteristics assigned to team effectiveness in three rounds. The final definition implies the influence of organizational values, underscoring the importance of context specificity in organization studies.

There has been increasing interest in team learning processes in recent years. Researchers have investigated the impact of team learning on team effectiveness and analyzed the enabling conditions for the process, but team learning in virtual teams has been largely ignored. This study examined the relationship between team learning and effectiveness in virtual teams, as well as the role of team beliefs about interpersonal context. Data from 48 teams performing a virtual consulting project over 4 weeks indicate a mediating effect of team learning on the relationship between beliefs about the interpersonal context (psychological safety, task interdependence) and team effectiveness (satisfaction, viability). These findings suggest the importance of team learning for developing effective virtual teams.