The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Team Working and Collaborative Processes

By Eduardo Salas and Jonathan Passmore

A state-of-the-art psychological perspective on team working and collaborative organizational processes…

This handbook makes a unique contribution to organizational psychology and HRM by providing comprehensive international coverage of the contemporary field of team working and collaborative organizational processes. It provides critical reviews of key topics related to teams including design, diversity, leadership, trust processes and performance measurement, drawing on the work of leading thinkers including Linda Argote, Neal Ashkanasy, Robert Kraut, Floor Rink and Daan van Knippenberg.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wiley
• Release date: Mar 14, 2017
• ISBN: 9781118909980

Book preview

Introduction

1

The Psychology of Teamwork and Collaborative Processes

Eduardo Salas, Ramón Rico, and Jonathan Passmore

Introduction

Teams are an integral part of society. This handbook endeavors to tease apart the psychological aspects of teamwork and understand the applications and ramifications of teams, both within organizations and in society at large. In this short introductory chapter, we aim to briefly review the nature of teams and the developing research agenda, before highlighting the chapters contained in this book.

What Are Teams?

While the layperson may understand a team simply as a group of people, the scientific literature has spent considerable effort exploring and defining distinguishing characteristics. What makes a given group of people a team – that is, what sets it apart from any other unit? At its core, a team can be operationalized as a set of two or more individuals that adaptively and dynamically interacts through specified roles as they work towards shared and valued goals (Dyer, 1984; Salas, Dickinson, Converse, & Tannenbaum, 1992). Researchers have also identified several other features that characterize the unique dynamics specific to teams, including: existing to perform organizationally relevant tasks; exhibiting task interdependencies (e.g., workflow, goals, knowledge, and outcomes); interacting socially (face‐to‐face or virtually); maintaining and managing boundaries; and being embedded within an organizational context that sets boundaries, constrains the team, and influences exchanges with other units in the broader entity (Arrow, McGrath, & Berdahl, 2000; Hackman, 1987; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, & Smith, 1999; Salas et al., 1992). Clearly, teams are more than just a collection of people; they are functional units, a complex and crucial component of broader human systems. While the science of teams has been expanding rapidly in academic spheres, so too has their import in practice.

Since the late 20th century, the global economy has seen drastic changes economically, strategically, and technologically. In response, organizations have shifted, from focusing on hierarchically structured, individual work to structuring of collective efforts more efficiently (Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1995). Owing to increasing competition, consolidation, and innovation, organizations must tap into, and make sense of, diverse skills, expertise, and experience. Accordingly, teams have emerged as a core building block of organizations (Kozlowski & Bell, 2012). Much can be accomplished when many minds are put together.

The growing awareness of teamwork in the public consciousness, however, is not the only compelling reason for its study. Teams are historically and demonstrably essential to the functioning of organizations and societies. Failing to value and invest in teamwork can have catastrophic consequences, varying in scope from the relatively personal (e.g., a surgery) to the international (e.g., a military engagement). Oftentimes, such unfortunate turns of events can be prevented or contained if participants had been able to coordinate their efforts, adapt to the environment, and overcome stressors as a unit (Salas, Stagl, & Burke, 2004). The promotion of synchronicity in teams has therefore come to the forefront as a crucial way to affect change and influence outcomes. This handbook therefore begins by breaking down the basic theoretical underpinnings of teams before understanding their importance across differing contexts, and looking towards the future of research and practice.

The Developing Research Agenda for Teamwork

Our hope in writing this book was to develop a rich, comprehensive resource on the psychology of teamwork for those in academia and industry alike. This handbook is intended to offer students breadth and depth of knowledge and researchers a sound and stimulating basis upon which to build their lines of inquiry, while also elucidating evidence‐based practices useful to scholar‐practitioners. In order to facilitate deeper understanding, it has been organized to take readers from a macro to a micro perspective on teams, beginning with broad strokes and narrowing down to more specific, detailed components.

Part I

The first section of the handbook gives a bird’s‐eye view of the teamwork literature. The authors describe factors that influence team performance, in terms of overall effectiveness, contextual efficiency, and intrateam synchronicity. These chapters give a general summary of teams in terms of psychological dynamics and greater societal significance.

Part I begins with a chapter by Julie V. Dinh and Eduardo Salas, which provides an overview of the processes underlying teamwork. While both taskwork (e.g., work‐related goals) and teamwork (the behavioral, attitudinal, and cognitive interactions that drive such performance) are critical for efficient team performance, it is paramount to understand and strongly implement the latter across contexts. In particular, nine critical considerations, based on earlier work (Salas, Shuffler, Thayer, Bedwell, & Lazzara, 2015), shape the nature of teamwork, including core processes and emergent states – conflict, coordination, communication, coaching, and cognition – and contextual factors – composition, culture, and context. The model examined in this chapter captures the team dynamics explored in further detail later in the handbook.

In Chapter 3, Daniel J. Slyngstad, Gia DeMichele, and Maritza R. Salazar discuss team performance. The chapter provides a thorough review of conceptualizations of performance before proposing a three‐dimensional framework by which to judge team functional utility. They pay special attention to knowledge work, which, due to its inherent complexity, can pose unique challenges in performance measurement. The conclusion synthesizes strong theoretical and empirical research into an integrative framework for team effectiveness in knowledge work.

Chapter 4 examines team effectiveness from a transnational perspective. Dana Verhoeven, Tiffany Cooper, Michelle Flynn, and Marissa L. Shuffler explore team performance through a theoretical lens of cultural diversity within a team. This approach is particularly useful given today’s rapid globalization and its ramifications for team performance across contexts (such as the development and functioning of geographically dispersed teams). The chapter follows the input–process–output (IPO) framework to discuss, in detail, the components of team effectiveness, before offering alternate, comprehensive models and future directions for research.

Part II

Having set a comprehensive framework through which to understand teams, the second section of the handbook focuses on antecedents of team effectiveness. Each of the chapters addresses considerations regarding the formation and structure of teams, including design, composition, diversity, membership, and status.

The first step in creating a team is understanding and responding to the constraints in which it will operate. Current socioeconomic trends have forced researchers and practitioners to rethink how they organize the work and design teams that compose organizations. Today, teams are frequently formed and disbanded rapidly, distributed across multiple sites, and composed of members simultaneously working on myriad projects, with different bosses competing for their attention. Further, these teams’ work increasingly demands substantial coordination and integration of specialized expertise within and outside of the team (Cross, Ehrlich, Dawson, & Helferich, 2008, p. 75). As such, it is critical to understand how these new realities affect the way in which we design teams. Chapter 5 explores the fundamental design elements that express what it means to be a team. Authors John L. Cordery and Amy W. Tian review recent research and theory relating to team constitution, team structure, and external support as it informs the effective design of organizational teams.

Beyond the design of teams, it is important to compose teams appropriately. In Chapter 6, Mikhail A. Wolfson and John E. Mathieu summarize research and advancements in the vast team composition literature. After describing conventional team composition approaches and their shortcomings, the authors propose the incorporation of network theory and methods as a potential solution. In particular, meta‐networks and multiplex ties may help model the complex nature of teams, exposing areas of need, revealing unique combinations of interpersonal ties, and, in combination, helping optimize individual knowledge, skills, and abilities. The authors thus contribute to the literature by clearly delineating a social network approach that can facilitate a better understanding of team composition.

An important piece of team diversity is found within composition. Research on team diversity has produced many promising, but also many inconsistent, findings. In Chapter 7, Bertolt Meyer organizes the literature on this regard into different streams, differentiated by the ways in which they resolve the bi‐theoretic approaches to diversity: the information/decision‐making paradigm, which predicts positive effects of team diversity, and the social categorization paradigm, which predicts negative effects. Taken in summary, the conceptualizations suggest that practitioners who seek to reap the benefits of team diversity should increase team members’ diversity beliefs and avoid the formation of homogeneous subgroups. Finally, new multilevel/contextual and status‐based models of team diversity extend the theoretical foundations of diversity research beyond the bi‐theoretical approach.

Membership change in organizations inevitably results in the introduction of newcomers, who typically represent a numerical minority in the teams that they join (Choi & Levine, 2004). Theories propose that newcomers, with their different background, are important sources of innovation that facilitate team performance and can thus enhance the long‐term survival changes of teams. Chapter 8’s review of over 50 years of research on this topic demonstrates that this potential is often not realized. Authors Floor Rink, Aimée A. Kane, Naomi Ellemers, and Gerben van der Vegt suggest that the three team receptivity components – team reflection, knowledge utilization, and newcomer acceptance – are interrelated and jointly influence sustained team performance. This framing sheds light on the variables that facilitate team receptivity to newcomers.

Inherent to the discussion on membership within organizations is that of individual role within a larger structure. Explaining the role that status plays in teams and organizations had been a main concern for scholars from the fields of social psychology, sociology, and management. Chapter 9 begins with a review of the definition of status and, more importantly, differentiates it from other related concepts (e.g., power and influence). Kun Luan, Qiong‐Jing Hu and Xiao‐Yun Xie then review the status effects on individual behaviors, team processes, and outcomes, as well as interteam interactions based on different theoretical perspectives. Insightful directions for future exploration that contribute to develop team status study are offered.

Section 2 closed with Chapter 10 by exploring the use of cross‐cultural teams, a growing trend resulting from current globalization processes. Understanding and achieving cross‐cultural team effectiveness are key to the success of many multinational companies. Accordingly, authors Ningyu Tang and Yumei Wang use the IPO framework to consider each of the components that have been studied, considering linkages between each of them. Inputs include cultural diversity, individual characteristics, team factors, and organizational factors, while processes involve action processes (e.g., coordination, learning), interpersonal processes (e.g., cooperation, communication, conflict), and psychological processes (e.g., psychological safety, negative affective state, team shared value). Outputs can be measured through performance (e.g., task performance, creativity performance) and affective reactions (e.g., wellbeing, satisfaction). The chapter then identifies several gaps and consequent directions for future research, in both theory and methods, using the input–process–output analysis, and concludes with the proposal of a more comprehensive multilevel cross‐cultural team effectiveness model.

Part III

The third section of the handbook takes a finer‐grained look at dynamics within teams: core processes, emerging states, and mediators. Each of the authors describes, in detail, different psychological forces that both affect and stem from team interaction.

Section 3 starts with Chapter 11 by discussing teamwork processes and emergent states. Authors Rebecca Grossman, Sarit B. Friedman, and Suman Kalra use an adaptation of the traditional IPO model, the input–mediator–output–input (IMOI) framework, to frame the discussion, given the interconnected and cyclical nature of teamwork processes. In doing so, they are able to fully describe the affective, behavioral, and cognitive mechanisms that influence teamwork, including, respectively: cohesion, team confidence, and team trust; transition processes, action processes, and interpersonal processes; and team mental models, transactive memory systems, and team learning. Following the synthesis of knowledge on team processes and emergent students, future directions for research are proposed, with particular emphasis on the rapid globalization of labor and teamwork.

A critical determinant of team processes is in decision making, which involves gathering, processing, and communicating information in support of arriving at task‐relevant decisions. In order to fully understand this complex process, Tom W. Reader pulls from the social and applied psychology literature, to identify determinants of effective decision making, integrating them into key findings and illustrating them with key examples from history and practice. The author reviews research on the group processes that influence behavior in teams, teamwork and decision making, and relevant and appropriate interventions. Chapter 12 concludes with a four‐point treatise on future areas of inquiry – that is, more interdisciplinary, systematic, naturalistic, and culturally competent research.

Decision making, as well as many other team processes, can be impacted significantly by stress. Chapter 13 focuses on the ever‐changing and unpredictable real‐world environments that challenge teamwork. Aaron S. Dietz, James E. Driskell, Mary Jane Sierra, Sallie J. Weaver, Tripp Driskell, and Eduardo Salas first present an overview of stress within the team context before examining its influence on team performance. Of special note is their parsimonious model framework, used to describe stress, its effects on teamwork, and moderators thereof. The authors then delve into the literature to identify team research in extreme environments and discuss issues in measurement of stress at the team level. Altogether, the chapter demonstrates thorough understanding of antecedents of the broad spectrum of stressors and their consequent influence on team processes.

Intragroup conflict is arguably one of the most important behavioral processes in teams. Research has consistently shown that while conflicts about personal tensions or underlying status concerns can harm team outcomes, debates over work‐related matters can improve team outcomes. In Chapter 14, Lindred L. Greer and Jennifer E. Dannals review recent research aiming to understand the moderators and antecedents of team conflicts, with the hopes of understanding the conditions that give rise to productive team conflicts and minimize destructive team conflicts. Two key themes emerge from the literature. Firstly, teams which have evolved norms encouraging the expression of open, cooperative, non‐emotional task debates are more likely to reap the benefits of conflict in teams. Secondly, status concerns are an insidious challenge to teams, and often may explain why more destructive conflict forms arise in teams, such as process conflicts. As research in this area moves forward, and more attention is paid to the development of such conflicts from individual motivations to group‐level processes, the role of individual conflict behaviors, and the interrelation among the conflict types, we hope that researchers can reach consensus on the understanding and management of conflict in teams.

One critically important avenue which can shape conflict, as well as other key dynamics, within teams is through leadership. Chapter 15 lays groundwork for the argument that team leadership research needs to refocus and prioritize the development of team‐specific leadership theory. Rather than applying generic leadership models to teams, author Daan van Knippenberg closely ties in integrative theories of team processes. This is no small feat, as the development of integrative process theory is likely the main challenge of the team research field as a whole. Due to the broad‐ranging importance of such integrative process theory and the key implications for team performance, no subfield of team research will yield a greater return on investment than team leadership research.

Team cognition has been recognized as one of the most noteworthy developments in team research and accordingly, as Chapter 16 illustrates, this research has maintained an upward trajectory with no signs of waning. Within the team mental models and situation awareness literatures, authors Susan Mohammed, Katherine Hamilton, Miriam Sánchez‐Manzanares, and Ramón Rico identify several important future study needs that will continue to extend these research streams. However, across team mental models and situation awareness research, there are significant opportunities for intersection and integration that would not only enhance these respective literatures, but also advance the science of team cognition as a holistic entity. As such, the authors believe that some of the most exciting developments in the future will result from merging concepts from multiple team cognition literatures, identifying causal linkages between different forms of team knowledge, and testing how each differentially predicts various team processes and effectiveness indicators.

Team cognition is facilitated by trust, another crucial concept in teamwork, among members. Chapter 17 reviews a large body of literature and empirical findings relevant to team‐level trust. Ana Cristina Costa and Neil Anderson show that there has been a concerted effort among researchers to uncover and quantify the substantial number of antecedents held to be related to team‐level trust. In turn, relationships are shown with other, more distal outcomes such as team performance and team innovativeness. Developments in some areas of this body of knowledge have been considerable, now allowing a far more comprehensive and finer‐grained understanding of relationships between individual, team, and organizational‐level variables and team trust as a pertinent outcome. More specifically, the movement of research towards multilevel processes has been key in advancing our understanding of trust at work phenomena. Given the role that team trust plays in a host of outcomes at the individual, team, and organizational levels of analysis, this chapter sets out a holistic and timely narrative review of our understanding of team trust in workplace settings that will stimulate further research.

The psychological contract construct has enhanced the focus on the analysis of relations between employees and organizations in the last two decades. In Chapter 18, research into the psychological contract in work teams is reviewed. While this research is not particularly extensive, authors Carlos‐María Alcover, Ramón Rico, William H. Turnley, and Mark C. Bolino endeavor to paint a broad canvas, including the multiple agency context and multiple foci social exchange relationships in the development and fulfillment of the psychological contract, which also considered the links between leader–member exchange theory, peer justice, social support in teams, and psychological contracts. The results of this review highlight a field in which research is still at an early stage and where promising lines of inquiry exist to capture the specific features of new forms of individual–organization relations existing in contemporary work contexts.

Given the rise of team‐based structures in organizations, it is imperative to understand how and when collective emotional states may impact critical team functions, such as creativity. In Chapter 19, March L. To, Neal M. Ashkanasy, and Cynthia D. Fisher seek to make a key conceptual extension from individual to group creativity, noting that this entails an extra degree of complexity. They begin with a review of research findings on affect and its effects at the level of individual creativity, and follow up by describing the research that has extended individual phenomena to the group level, including discussion of the dynamic nature of creativity in groups. Finally, the authors identify the inadequacies of the conceptual extension in current group research and offer recommendations for future research. The aspects of group affect addressed in this chapter will hopefully enable scholarly efforts to develop a more integrative theory concerning the (complicated) effects of affect on creativity in contemporary workplace settings.

Part III ends with an important component of team cognition: reflexivity. In Chapter 20, Michaéla C. Schippers, Michael A. West, and Amy C. Edmondson emphasize that team reflexivity can help innovation and thus aid processes of teams that operate in a demanding, knowledge‐intensive context. A proposed model of antecedents and consequences of team reflexivity may help researchers and practitioners further explore and apply team reflexivity, which can be a powerful way of overcoming the group information‐processing problems inherent in team‐based knowledge work. Indeed, the human capacity to reflect is a valuable but often underutilized resource, enabling team productivity, innovation, and effectiveness. Unfortunately, because focused research is in its infancy, this chapter also serves as a call to study the conscious use of reflexivity in teams and other settings in which people are working to achieve shared goals. The arguments and model presented here will spur new research and new understanding of the mechanisms that underlie team reflexivity and its role in enhancing team innovation.

Part IV

The fourth section explores methods of managing and assessing teams. The study of teamwork does not end once a team has formed and performed – just as essential to the team functioning are maintenance of psychological dynamics and measurement of output. Relatedly, extreme environments can critically influence the manner in which teams are organized and evaluated. In these and other cases, interventions may be required to assist in the optimal functioning of teams. The authors in this section discuss, in depth, the factors that can influence and capture teamwork during and after the performance period.

In order to properly manage teams, organizations must be able to accurately and comprehensively evaluate indices of teamwork. Chapter 21 provides an overview of fundamental concepts in the measurement of team performance. Authors Michael A. Rosen and Aaron S. Dietz describe factors that may influence assessment, including purpose, content, location, frequency and timing, and method. Special attention is paid to emerging strategies that are unobtrusive, integrative, and comprehensive, particularly in light of the dynamic and often physically distributed nature of teams today. Excitingly, as research understanding and methodological tools develop, the measurement of team performance becomes more advanced and robust.

Chapter 22 centers upon the development and management of team performance. Charles P. R. Scott and Jessica L. Wildman rigorously review the current literature to extract empirically sound findings on management of work teams. In order to do so methodically, they use the IMOI framework and dichotomous categorization (core processes and emergent states) to organize mediators of team development and management, beginning with outputs and working backwards towards antecedents. Their methodical review on the scientific literature and best practices makes sense of a confusing body of work, yielding interventional recommendations for practitioners and academic areas of interest for researchers.

Naturally, team management is taxed when it occurs in extreme environments. Chapter 23 focuses on these teams that are socially isolated from other teams and individuals, physically confined for long periods of time, and exposed to significant danger due to prevailing environmental factors (Palinkas, 2003). Examples of such contexts include polar bases and expeditions, spaceflight, and offshore oil rigs, wherein effectual teamwork is both critical and challenged. Authors William B. Vessey and Lauren B. Landon explore how these circumstances can influence team composition, cohesion, conflict, leadership, and communication, offering deep insight to nuances of each factor as well as countermeasures to buffer against ill effects. They conclude with emerging areas in the team research literature, including team effects, multiteam systems, and selection, composition, and interventions.

Relatedly, interventions are an incredibly useful tool for restructuring and directing teams. In Chapter 24, Deborah DiazGranados, Marissa L. Shuffler, Jesse A. Wingate, and Eduardo Salas offer a comprehensive explanation of the team lifecycle before focusing specifically on team development. They describe processes and concepts key to the team intervention arenas of training, building, chartering, and coaching. Both the scientific literature and corporate practices indicate movement towards integration of interventional approaches, emphasis on both functional and dysfunctional aspects of teamwork, and incorporation of globalization and technology trends in development.

Part V

The fifth section closes this title with Chapter 25 offering a perspective on the future of teamwork research. Michael A. West’s chapter presents a novel, holistic perspective on teamwork. He extracts central principles of humanity – interconnectedness, belonging, and compassion – and expands upon them within the context of teams and the modern world. With philosophical clarity and scientific precision, he describes the teamwork literature, its projected directions, and the larger questions it can help answer.

Conclusion

We have carefully curated this handbook to provide both breadth and depth in describing teamwork. Our authors demonstrate a broad range of subject matter expertise, expanding the field’s understanding of teamwork by proposing novel models of understanding, relevant implications for practice, and compelling areas for future research. In order to emphasize the globalizing nature of teamwork, we have compiled knowledge from internationally minded contributors from diverse backgrounds. Finally, we firmly believe in the interrelatedness of research and practice as a driver in the science of teamwork, and have thus taken a scholar‐practitioner approach throughout the handbook. We hope to provide our audience, at any stage in academia or industry, with thorough insight into the current state of teamwork practice.

References

Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Choi, H. S., & Levine, J. M. (2004). Minority influence in work teams: The impact of newcomers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 273–280.

Cross, R., Ehrlich, K., Dawson, R., & Helferich, J. (2008). Managing collaboration: Improving team effectiveness through a network perspective. Californian Management Review, 58(4), 74–98.

Dyer, J. L. (1984). Team research and team training: A state of the art review. In F. A. Muckler (Ed.), Human factors review (pp. 285–323). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.

Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology. Vol. 12: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333–375). New York: Wiley‐Blackwell.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2012). Work groups and teams in organizations. In N. W. Schmitt & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Industrial and organizational psychology Vol. 12: Industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 413–469). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

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 performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 240–292). San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.

Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E. (1995). Creating high performance organizations: Survey of practices and results of employee involvement and TQM in Fortune 1000 companies (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.

Palinkas, L. A. (2003). The psychology of isolated and confined environments: Understanding human behavior in Antarctica. American Psychologist, 58(5), 353–363.

Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Salas, E., Shuffler, M. L., Thayer, A. L., Bedwell, W. L., & Lazzara, E. H. (2015). Understanding and improving teamwork in organizations: A scientifically based practical guide. Human Resource Management, 54(4), 599–622.

Salas, E., Stagl, K. C., & Burke, C. S. (2004). 25 years of team effectiveness in organizations: Research themes and emerging needs. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 19, 47–91.

Part I

Overview of Team Effectiveness

2

Factors that Influence Teamwork

Julie V. and Dinh Eduardo Salas

Introduction

Today, the word team often calls to mind the highly visible groups seen in the media, such as the Manchester United football team or the US Navy SEALs. In truth, however, teams are all around us, running critical day‐to‐day processes. As smaller, more specialized units of organizations, teams are involved in many facets of society, from military operations and healthcare systems to research groups and private companies. Together, individuals are able to accomplish work possible only through united efforts – that is, through teamwork, or the funneling of interdependent actions of individuals towards a common goal (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). By harnessing the strengths of many, teams have the potential to offer greater adaptability, productivity, and creativity than can be offered by any one individual (Gladstein, 1984; Hackman, 1987). Furthermore, they can provide more complex, innovative, and comprehensive solutions to organizational problems (Sundstrom, de Meuse, & Futrell, 1990). Increasingly, organizations are turning to team‐based structures in order to contend with growing complexities of the environments in which their employees operate (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993).

Given the benefits and increasing awareness of teams, it is worthwhile exploring the underlying factors that influence teamwork. This chapter aims to define and describe teamwork as a set of actions and processes that contribute towards group and organizational goals.

Defining Teamwork

In discussing teamwork, it is first important to define teams themselves. Teams are a distinguishable set of two or more people who interact dynamically, interdependently, and adaptively towards a common and valued goal/objective/mission (Salas, Dickinson, Converse, & Tannenbaum, 1992, p. 4). As mentioned above, teams can exist and perform in a number of contexts – from private industries to governmental research. Within each of these teams, it is key to organize members’ efforts internally and align them towards external goals.

In order for teams to be effective, they must successfully engage in both taskwork and teamwork (Burke, Wilson, & Salas, 2003) – two distinctly different dimensions. Taskwork refers to the performance of specific tasks needed to achieve team goals. Tasks are those work‐related activities that individuals or teams engage in as an essential function of their organizational role (Wildman et al., 2012). Taskwork typically becomes the key focus as teams work towards their goals, but is majorly aided by teamwork. Teamwork involves the shared behaviors, attitudes, and cognitions that make team functioning and the achievement of their goals possible (Morgan, Salas, & Glickman, 1993). This adaptive, dynamic, and episodic process can make the difference between success and failure, regardless of team members’ task‐relevant expertise (Gregorich, Helmreich, & Wilhelm, 1990; Salas, Shuffler, Thayer, Bedwell, & Lazzara, 2015; Schmidt, Keeton, Slack, Leveton, & Shea, 2009; Smith, 1979). For example, a surgical team’s taskwork involves successfully completing the many stages of an operation, from perioperative patient preparation to postoperative recovery. In order to accomplish these goals, the members must engage in teamwork and effectively orchestrate their actions; the anesthesiologist must coordinate the administration of anesthesia, while the surgeon must communicate with the supporting staff as he or she operates. Both taskwork and teamwork are crucial to effective team performance, with each one bolstering the other. This chapter, in particular, will focus on teamwork, specifically as it describes the more general conditions within a group necessary for success.

Teamwork consists of three psychological facets: attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions (Cannon‐Bowers & Bowers, 2011; Cannon‐Bowers & Salas, 2014; Cannon‐Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Volpe, 1995; Salas, Cooke, & Rosen, 2008). Team‐level attitudes are those internal states which affect interactions, such as mutual trust, cohesion, and collective efficacy. Team‐level attitudes have been associated with improved team outcomes, including satisfaction, organizational commitment, and performance (Costa, 2003). Team behaviors refer to the processes necessary to engaging in teamwork, including information exchange, support of team members during critical stressors, and monitoring progress in order to detect errors and problems. Clearly, behaviors are vital for successful outcomes, or performance, in a variety of domains (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008). Finally, team cognition describes the structure and representation of knowledge among members, allowing teams to plan and execute actions efficiently. In a meta‐analysis of 65 studies, DeChurch and Mesmer‐Magnus (2010) found that cognition has consistently been linked to outcomes. Indeed, even when a team possesses extensive task‐related knowledge, they will fail if members cannot trust one another and successfully coordinate behavior and share knowledge (Mathieu et al., 2008). As such, it is critical to foster all three dimensions of teamwork – positive attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions – within teams.

Critical Considerations

The dimensions of teamwork may be further organized into specific categories. A study by Salas and colleagues (2015) consolidated and distilled findings in the field into a heuristic of nine critical considerations, as shown in Table 2.1. Six of these involve core processes, or the conversion of inputs to outcomes through affective, behavioral, and cognitive mechanisms, and emergent states, or resultant properties of a team (Marks et al., 2001): (1) cooperation; (2) conflict; (3) coordination; (4) communication; (5) coaching; and (6) cognition. In addition to these core processes, Salas and colleagues (2015) identified three influencing conditions in their nine critical considerations: (1) composition; (2) culture; and (3) context. These factors describe the contexts within which the aforementioned core processes and emergent states operate. The variance in these dimensions can both directly impact team outcomes and indirectly influence performance through the above‐mentioned processes and emergent states (Salas et al., 2015). Indeed, there are interdependent relationships between each of these nine critical considerations, which are illustrated in Figure 2.1.

Table 2.1 Critical considerations.

Source: Salas et al. (2015).

Schematic listing the influencing conditions (context, composition, culture) surrounding core processes and emergent states (cooperation, conflict, coordination, communication, coaching, cognition).

Figure 2.1 Critical considerations of teamwork.

(adapted from Salas et al., 2015); KSA = knowledge, skills, and abilities

Core processes and emergent states

As stated previously, core processes and emergent states describe key dynamics that influence teamwork. Of these, certain core processes, such as cooperation and coordination, represent an overarching construct of more granular concepts (e.g., trust, cohesion, team orientation, situation monitoring). In particular, cooperation encompasses all affective components involved in teamwork, whereas coordination encapsulates behaviors such as backup behavior and mutual support.

Cooperation

Cooperation, as a comprehensive consideration, captures the motivational drivers of teamwork – that is, the attitudes, beliefs, and feelings of the team that drive behavioral action (Salas et al., 2015). The literature covers a number of important indices of team cooperation, each of which contributes to team cohesion and performance. Cohesion, a broader construct encompassing cooperation and other core processes, describes the degree to which team members desire to remain in the team and are committed to the team goal (Forsyth, 2009). Cooperation is essential to maintaining the deep involvement, positive responses, and strong communication indicative of high cohesion (Landy & Conte, 2009). Furthermore, cooperation can be broken down into constituent parts or subconstructs, each of which contributes to teamwork as a whole. While, as mentioned earlier, cooperation is a complicated, broad consideration, the remainder of this section describes some of the dynamics involved therein.

Collective efficacy describes the collective sense of competence or perceived empowerment to control the team’s performance or environment (Katz‐Navon & Erez, 2005; Mathieu, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006; Zaccaro, Blair, Peterson, & Zazanis, 1995). Teams whose members demonstrate collective efficacy tend to exert more effort, take more strategic risks, have better performance, and be more satisfied (Knight, Durham, & Locke, 2001; Lester, Meglino, & Korsgaard, 2002). Collective efficacy, as an important component of cooperation in the field, can be fostered through the promotion of early wins (Tasa, Taggar, & Seijts, 2007). Newly formed teams who experience high levels of initial success can consequently develop a collective sense of accomplishment – momentum that will help boost later performance (Salas et al., 2015). By helping teams feel in control, agentic, and capable, organizations can improve cooperation and consequent performance.

Another central component of cooperation is trust, the shared belief that all team members will contribute appropriately and as necessary and protect the team (Bandow, 2001; Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005). Trust has been shown to influence the level of intrateam monitoring and moderate the relationships between team training proficiency and performance and task and relationship conflict (Langfred, 2004; Salas et al., 2015). Trust, as an extensively studied dimension, has been linked to citizenship behaviors, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, positive attitudes towards the organization, and greater levels of performance (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007; Costa, 2003; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002; Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2006; Langfred, 2007; Webber, 2008). Relatedly, psychological safety, or the shared feeling of safety within a team allowing for interpersonal risk taking, builds upon a foundation of team trust and has been linked to team effectiveness (Edmondson, 1999).

The development of trust can be fostered through the practice of checking in, or discussion of prior and relevant experiences before task performance. For example, operating teams preparing for surgery may benefit from sharing previous experiences in similar surgical situations (Salas et al., 2015). This exercise has twofold benefits. First, it allows members of a team to ascertain each others’ abilities, an essential antecedent to trust (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Second, the discussion may foster a sense of commonality and community, as members begin to realize they have experienced similar experiences in the past. Social identity theory and social categorization (Tajfel & Turner, 2004; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) suggest that individuals who perceive similarity with others may also associate them with predetermined assumptions, giving way to a sense of predictability and comfort. That is, individuals are likely to trust others who appear to be similar (Brewer, 1979; Brewer & Kramer, 1986; Kramer & Brewer, 1984). Therefore, these pre‐performance discussions may aid the facilitation of trust and related cooperative attitudes, influencing teamwork potential positively.

Members who trust one another may also be more likely to face challenges with a group‐level mindset. Team/collective orientation describes the general preference for, and belief in, the importance of teamwork (Eby & Dobbins, 1997; Jackson, Colquitt, Wesson, & Zapata‐Phelan, 2006). A similar concept, shown to impact team performance, is team learning orientation, or the shared belief regarding the degree to which team goals are geared towards learning (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003). Finally, goal commitment, or the determination to achieve team goals, has been suggested as a critical attitude for effective teamwork, though it has also been proposed as a subdimension of the aforementioned cohesion construct (Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003). Regardless, fostering group‐centered orientations in team members can increase overall propensity to cooperate.

Conflict

At the opposite end of the spectrum from cooperation is conflict, or the perceived incompatibility in interests, beliefs, or views held by one or more team members (Jehn, 1995). Conflict is an inevitability, given inherent differences among individuals – and indeed, one of the classic models of team development involves a storming stage, in which members are expected to work out differences in opinion and perspectives (Tuckman, 1965). Conflict, too, may range in magnitude, manifesting as something as simple as a brief discussion or escalating into heated argument based on irreconcilable differences (Jehn, 1995, 1997). Conflict becomes a particular issue for teams when it leads to errors and breakdowns in performance (Salas et al., 2008), and when it is magnified by the complexity of the team’s task (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003).

Broadly, conflict is a result of perceived lack of resources or treatments due to the actions or inactions of another party. In a team setting, such conflict can be task‐based (that is, when there are differences in perspective regarding the execution of tasks) or relationship‐based (when interpersonal differences create annoyance or tension among members). The literature suggests the inclusion of a third dimension, process conflict, which involves the division and delegation of tasks and responsibilities among team members (Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, & Trochim, 2008; Jehn, 1997).

The literature is divided in its perspectives towards the ramifications of these different dimensions of conflict. Some argue that relationship conflict is the most detrimental to team performance, while task conflict can actually increase performance in specific situations (Bradley, Postlethwaite, Klotz, Hamdani, & Brown, 2012). That is, task conflict can create a forum for team members in which they can explore multiple, potentially conflicting solutions to problems; after generating ideas and alternatives, the team can then select the most viable option. Such open discussion would lead to stronger, more thoroughly developed outcomes, particularly in troubleshooting tasks that require innovation and creativity. In contrast, however, De Dreu and Weingart (2003) found that both relationship‐ and task‐based conflict have strong negative correlations with team performance and member satisfaction. Furthermore, although conflict may have initial beneficial impact, over time this effect wears away and lowers group cohesion (Copeland & Wida, 1996; Klein & Christiansen, 1969).

Still other studies suggest a more complicated relationship between these types of conflict. Shaw et al. (2011) found a moderating effect of relationship conflict on task conflict and team performance: when relationship conflict was low, task conflict had a curvilinear relationship with team performance; when relationship conflict was high, there was a negative and linear relationship. That is, when team members had positive interpersonal relationships, task conflict was beneficial, but when those interpersonal relationships were strained, task conflict exacerbated and lowered team performance. Relatedly, researchers have found that external conditions can foster positive and beneficial task conflict. Bradley and colleagues (2012) demonstrated that a psychologically safe climate, in which team members feel comfortable openly sharing information without threat of repercussion, can reduce relationship conflict and promote a small, beneficial amount of task conflict. It is clearly important to continue these lines of research in order to better understand how different types of conflict may influence each other and impact overall team performance.

Owing to the potentially negative and complicated ramifications of conflict, it is crucial for organizational leadership to consider the management and resolution thereof. Through the proactive development and reactive implementation of conflict management strategies, teams can help correct more serious consequences of conflict. Prior to performance, teams should clearly identify norms and guidelines surrounding conflict. Furthermore, once conflict arises, teams should address problems in a straightforward fashion, relying upon the previously identified conflict management strategies (Salas et al., 2015). Studies show that these strategies alleviate negative impacts of conflict, including on team cohesion (Tekleab, Quigley, & Tesluk, 2009). Proactive and direct management of conflict has been shown to create healthy, open, constructive environments conducive to team performance (Cameron, 2000; Campbell & Dunnette, 1968; Montoya‐Weiss, Massey, & Song, 2001). The ability to anticipate and resolve conflict in real‐world settings can make the difference between sweeping success and critical failure.

Coordination

Coordination is the enactment of behavioral mechanisms necessary to perform a task and transform team resources into outcomes (Sims & Salas, 2007). Specifically, coordination involves orchestrating the sequence and timing of interdependent actions (Marks et al., 2001, p. 363). Team‐level strategies are applied to align knowledge and actions towards a common goal (Arrow, McGrath, & Berdahl, 2000; Brannick, Prince, Prince, & Salas, 1995). A systematic meta‐analysis by Rousseau, Aubé, and Savoie (2006) integrated 29 frameworks that focused on teamwork behaviors, emphasizing coordination as a vital dimension.

Coordination can be explicit (i.e., team members directly and intentionally plan and communicate in order to manage interdependencies) or implicit (i.e., members anticipate team needs and organically, dynamically adjust their behaviors without instruction) (Rico, Sánchez‐Manzanares, Gil, & Gibson, 2008). Numerous field and laboratory studies have found that both types of coordination drive team performance. Well‐coordinated teams are able to obtain information from other members when needed and move easily from one task to another (Swezey & Salas, 1992). Effective coordination can ensure positive outcomes, while breakdowns thereof may lead to increased errors and misunderstandings, consequently derailing performance (Sims & Salas, 2007). Teams who experience coordination loss typically expend energy in different directions or fail to synchronize their work on time‐critical tasks, which will naturally harm overall performance (Landy & Conte, 2009).

Coordination can manifest itself in myriad ways, both within and between teams. Individuals within a team may occupy the same or complementary roles with varying degrees of interdependence (Guastello & Guastello, 1998), thereby influencing the organization of efforts. In a meta‐analysis of 92 studies, Stewart (2006) found that within‐team coordination corresponded with higher team performance. Coordination takes on even greater import in more complex organizational structures, such as multiteam systems, in which multiple teams must work together towards a common goal (Mathieu et al., 2008). Several studies have found that effective coordination at this level also facilitates coordination within the comprising teams (de Jong, de Ruyter, & Wetzels, 2005; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Mathieu & Schulze, 2006). Such nested coordination may be particularly important for dynamic, multilevel organizations, such as those in the medical and military sectors.

In order to maximize coordination, it is important to define team member roles in a manner that is clear yet not overly rigid (Salas, Rosen, Burke, Goodwin, & Fiore, 2006). Doing so can maximize contributions of all team members, prevent redundancies in work, and guide expectations regarding individual roles and responsibilities. Clarifying routines and distribution of responsibilities leads to more effective teamwork (Gersick, 1988; Gersick & Hackman, 1990; Weick & Roberts, 1993). Importantly, however, teams should remain relatively flexible such that, should unexpected issues arise, individual team members may step up to fulfill necessary responsibilities (Salas et al., 2015). Towards this end, Rosen and colleagues (2011) developed an index of behavioral markers of team adaptability, highlighting the importance of coordination. Their suggestions include effective communication of status and needs, as well as the use and observation of cues indicating synchronization of behaviors.

In addition to role clarification and structuring as means of increasing coordination prior to task performance, teams may also use debriefing sessions to learn from experiences after the fact. Following performance episodes, teams may review positive and negative aspects as they relate to the efficiency of their coordination (Smith‐Jentsch, Cannon‐Bowers, Tannenbaum, & Salas, 2008). Debriefs allow teams the space to developmentally reflect on aspects of performance and have been empirically linked to positive outcomes (Ellis, Ganzach, Castle, & Sekely, 2010). Research has shown that properly constructed debriefs can increase team coordination and other performance outcomes by 20–25% (Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, 2013). The practice of reflection can help draw attention to and identify areas of improvement, especially in the planning and organization of efforts.

Communication

It is no surprise that communication is a critical component of teamwork, as it is essential to all types of interpersonal and organizational relationships. Communication can be approached from two different perspectives. The first categorizes communication as a linear‐like transfer of information between sender and receiver (Deetz, 1994). However, this straightforward characterization does not fully capture the internal and external nuances that influence the sending, interpretation, and response of such communication, particularly in a team context (Salas et al., 2015). A fuller definition illustrates communication as a transactional process, in which communicators can send and receive information simultaneously and influence these pathways (Barnlund, 2008). According to this model, details (e.g., the specific sender and the method of delivery) influence the interpretation and response of messages. In line with this thinking, we define communication in teams as a reciprocal process of team members’ transmission and receipt of information, which thereby reforms a team’s attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions (Craig, 1999).

The importance of team communication is well documented in the literature and in practice. Industries such as aviation, military, and health care have noted effective team communication’s role in reducing errors (Helmreich, Merritt, & Wilhelm, 1999), self‐adjusting plans in light of teamwork breakdowns (Smith‐Jentsch, Zeisig, Acton, & McPherson, 1998) and acknowledging proper information (Weaver et al., 2010). Indeed, Elder and Dovey (2002) cite communication breakdown as a major source of preventable errors in healthcare delivery. Furthermore, in a 2009 meta‐analysis of 72 studies, Mesmer‐Magnus and DeChurch (2009) found that information sharing positively and significantly predicts team performance. The research supports the intuitive belief that communication is critical to teamwork.

Communication also inherently influences other aspects of teamwork, such as coordination and conflict (LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul, 2008; Rosen et al., 2011). Communication structures are the medium through which information flows, consequently influencing a team’s ability to work together and accomplish goals (Dyer, 1984). Teams that communicate effectively may use both explicit (wherein messages are transmitted and acknowledged overtly) and implicit forms (in which information is more passively conveyed) (Espinosa, Lerch, & Kraut, 2004). Indeed, it is important to note that even effective teams may exchange few words during performance episodes, instead relying on nonverbal cues and an ingrained understanding of one another’s roles and expertise in order to accomplish goals (Entin & Serfaty, 1999). Communication, in its various forms, can be used to convey important messages to members of a team.

Existing literature in the field offers two methods of optimizing team communication. The first, which is dependent on context, centers on increasing accessibility of information. In face‐to‐face interactions, team members should be encouraged to share information uniquely held by each individual. In practice, however, members typically only share commonly held information (Mesmer‐Magnus & DeChurch, 2009). Therefore, it is critical to team success to encourage the disclosure of unique information, meaning expertise or task‐relevant information held by a single team member. Alternately, in virtual environments, information should be openly available (Mesmer‐Magnus & DeChurch, 2009; Mesmer‐Magnus, DeChurch, Jimenez‐Rodriguez, Wildman, & Shuffler, 2011). In these settings, teams typically exchange only task‐specific messages, consequently losing the rich contexts afforded by openness of information. In order to develop cooperative attitudes and increase efficiency, team members should be encouraged to share information openly rather than selectively (Mesmer‐Magnus et al., 2011).

Second, closed‐loop communication procedures should be implemented in order to acknowledge the receipt of information and clarify any discrepancies in interpretation (McIntyre & Salas, 1995). Closed‐loop communication occurs when team members confirm that a message has been successfully relayed and received (Salas et al., 2005). Teams should establish closed‐loop communication protocols prior to performance episodes in order to ensure that all team members send, receive, and process information in a shared, appropriate manner (McIntyre & Salas, 1995). In doing so, information exchange challenges can be minimized, promoting successful communication and team performance (Salas et al., 2015). The clearer communication is, the more efficient teamwork is.

Coaching

What happens when teams fail to coordinate, communicate, or overcome conflict efficiently? On their own, teams may not necessarily recognize when breakdowns occur or understand how to optimize expertise and resources (Hackman, 2011). Strong coaching, or leadership, both internally and externally, can provide the needed direction and support to help teams overcome this potential for process loss (Hackman & Wageman, 2005; Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2002). Coaching refers to the host of activities performed by both individuals and teams for the sake of team effectiveness (Hackman & Wageman, 2005). Here, however, we define it as the enactment of leadership behaviors to establish goals and set direction towards the successful accomplishment thereof (Fleishman et al., 1992). This functional perspective promotes an understanding of specific coaching behaviors that must be enacted for team success (Salas et al., 2015).

Leadership behaviors can initiate structure and contribute to overall team effectiveness (Burke, Stagl, Salas, Pierce, & Kendall, 2006). Most significantly, leadership behaviors facilitate the emergence of effective processes and states in teams, including cooperation (e.g., motivation and affect) and coordination (Hackman, 2011; Zaccaro et al., 2002). Research has provided recommendations regarding specific approaches to coaching (Coultas, Bedwell, Shawn, & Salas, 2011; Hackman & Wageman, 2005). For example, coaches must be attuned to needs of teams before, during, and after performance (Kozlowski, Watola, Jensen, Kim, & Botero, 2009). Not only this, but team coaches must also attend to the overall needs of the team as well as the individual needs of members (Salas et al., 2015). Consequently, leadership strategies may not necessarily relate directly to task performance; rather, diagnosing and solving problems may be addressed through guidance of team members. That is, coaching in this sense involves building teamwork, not doing the team’s work (Hackman, 2002, p. 167).

Salas and colleagues (2015) posit that perhaps the most critical responsibility of leaders in teams is diagnosing and addressing team problems as they arise. Coaching can recognize and correct vital team errors or problems and provide guidance in challenging situations. Baran and Scott (2010) elaborate on this in a field study of firefighters, citing the importance of coaching behaviors such as direction setting, role modeling, sensemaking, and framing in near miss situations. In a 2007 meta‐analysis, these behaviors have been positively correlated with perceived team effectiveness, productivity, and learning (Burke, Sims, Lazzara, & Salas, 2007), as well as follower job satisfaction, leadership effectiveness, satisfaction with leader, and group performance (Derue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011).

In fact, a need for shared leadership among multiple individuals (both formally and informally) can often arise in order to appropriately facilitate teamwork (Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2009). Although the assumption is often that coaching stems from a single individual (Conger & Pearce, 2002), given the import of strong leadership, many contexts can demand more complex and adaptable forms of guidance. Coaching can thus originate from one or several leaders, internal or external to the team, including those officially acknowledged as leaders and others who informally step up when the need arises (Morgeson et al., 2009). Furthermore, the distribution of leadership responsibilities among members often results in a number of positive benefits (Zaccaro & DeChurch, 2012). Shared leadership can facilitate effective teamwork, enhance team performance, and reduce workload on individuals (Balkundi & Harrison, 2006; Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007; Conger & Pearce, 2002; Mehra, Smith, Dixon, & Robertson, 2006), especially when the distribution of leadership is based on expertise.

Through the recognition of performance and process gaps, coaching can dynamically guide and foster team development and performance throughout the team lifecycle (Hackman & Wageman, 2005; Kozlowski et al., 2009). As such, it is critical to understand how to apply coaching and leadership in team design, development, and performance (Salas et al., 2015).

Cognition

Within team research, there is a robust body of literature on shared team knowledge or cognition. Team cognition is a foundational component of effective team processes, as it allows teams to enter performance episodes with a mutual baseline understanding of how to engage in the task at hand (Salas et al., 2015). Specifically, cognition refers to the shared understanding among team members that develops as a result of team member interactions, including shared mental models and transactive memory systems (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994). Cannon‐Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, and Volpe (1995) describe a shared mental model as a knowledge‐based team competency essential to team effectiveness. It allows people to describe, explain, and predict the behavior of others, providing team members with a baseline, common understanding of task requirements, and improving coordination processes and consequent performance (Marks et al., 2001; Smith‐Jentsch, Mathieu, & Kraiger, 2005). Transactive memory systems describe the collective, shared memory of a group in two senses: internal (what individuals know personally) and external (what individuals know can be retrieved from other sources, including from other team members) (Peltokorpi, 2008). Team cognition may also involve: knowledge of roles and responsibilities; team mission objectives and norms; the situation within which the team is operating; and familiarity with teammate knowledge, skills, and abilities (Wildman et al., 2012). The failure to develop team cognition can result in impaired performance and negative outcomes, including life‐threatening outcomes.

Team research has extensively examined the effects of team cognition. In a 2010 meta‐analysis, DeChurch and Mesmer‐Magnus found that team cognition serves as an important foundation for teamwork and is strongly related to emergent affective states and team processes and performance. Accordingly, a 15‐year review of the team cognition literature identified a number of empirically evaluated, team‐level outcomes, including team norms, coordination, communication, team performance, team viability, and strategy implementation (Mohammed, Ferzandi, & Hamilton, 2010). Furthermore, both theoretical and empirical research suggests relationships of team cognition with team adaptation (Burke et al., 2006; Resick et al., 2010) and implicit coordination (Rico et al., 2008). Without the pooled resources of team cognition, teamwork would be severely impaired, if near impossible.

By establishing shared understanding of team objectives, roles, expertise, and situational variables, teams can preemptively avoid potential missteps and failures (Salas et al., 2015). As such, it is important to establish a clear shared understanding of team functioning – but one that is also amenable to appropriate changes during the team lifecycle. Guided team self‐correction is a debriefing strategy, developed around an expert model in which team members are given responsibility for systematically diagnosing and solving team problems (Smith‐Jentsch et al., 1998). This type of team training can help teams develop a more accurate sense of team knowledge, consequently improving team process and performance (Smith‐Jentsch et al., 2008). That is, teams that leverage self‐correction should also be able to effectively establish the shared cognition necessary to enhance teamwork.

Another strategy which increases team cognition is cross‐training, which involves having team members learn the tasks of other team members. This type of training develops more accurate understanding of member roles and responsibilities by creating shared task models and developing knowledge regarding specific tasks (Blickensderfer, Cannon‐Bowers, & Salas, 1997; Salas et al., 2005). It has been shown to have potentially high impact on teams, with performance increases of 12–40% following implementation (Volpe, Cannon‐Bowers, Salas, & Spector, 1996). However, it should be noted that cross‐training is only beneficial when its benefits outweigh the process loss in time and energy needed to learn the task – for example, when the tasks are not highly complex or specialized (Salas et al., 2015). Other types of training which have been shown to increase shared team knowledge include team interaction and computer‐based models (Marks, Zaccaro, & Mathieu, 2000; Smith‐Jentsch, Baker, Salas, & Cannon‐Bowers, 2001). Training can be a highly effective, proactive step towards establishing better cognition among members of a team.

While there is an abundance of research on the outcomes and practical aspects of cognition, however, it is significantly more difficult to study the developmental, psychological underpinnings thereof. Owing to the deeply internal and inherently dynamic nature of human thought, it is substantially more challenging for researchers to measure and examine team cognition. Regardless, research to date suggests that there are certain member characteristics, including tenure, experience, and similarity, which play a role in the development of shared knowledge (Salas et al., 2015). More research is needed in order to more fully understand the antecedents of cognition in teamwork.

Altogether, these teamwork processes and emergent states are critical to team performance. Cooperation, conflict, coordination, communication, coaching, and cognition ensure that teams are motivated and capable of executing behaviors and processes crucial to success.

Influencing conditions

Teams do not perform in a vacuum, however; in considering teamwork and performance, it is essential to take into account the surrounding environment. While the aforementioned critical considerations derive from dynamics internal to the team, external forces on teams, such as composition, context, and culture, have significant impact as well. Influencing conditions are the factors that influence these core teamwork processes and emergent states, shaping the manner or degree to which teams engage in teamwork.

Composition

By exploring how composition influences effectiveness, organizations can develop selection systems that aid managerial decisions when forming teams. Team composition refers to the attributes of team members, including skills, abilities, experiences, and personality characteristics (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). This involves understanding several component parts, including: individual factors relevant to team performance; what constitutes a good team member; what the best configuration of team member knowledge, skills, abilities (KSAs), and other characteristics is; and the role that diversity (that is, differences among team members, including function/role, occupation/discipline, culture, race/ethnicity, and gender) plays in team effectiveness (Cannon‐Bowers & Bowers, 2011).

Unsurprisingly, composition has been one of the most heavily researched areas in the teamwork literature, having been related to team effectiveness for over 50 years (Mann, 1959). Indeed, the study of composition entails a major area of interest in industrial/organizational psychology: the selection of individuals who can best contribute to the team. Many studies have indicated that cognitive ability