This review examines research and theory relevant to work groups and teams typically embedded in organizations and existing over time, although many studies reviewed were conducted in other settings, including the laboratory. Research was organized around a two-dimensional system based on time and the nature of explanatory mechanisms that mediated between team inputs and outcomes. These mechanisms were affective, behavioral, cognitive, or some combination of the three. Recent theoretical and methodological work is discussed that has advanced our understanding of teams as complex, multilevel systems that function over time, tasks, and contexts. The state of both the empirical and theoretical work is compared as to its impact on present knowledge and future directions.

SummaryModern work is frequently characterized by jobs where adaptive performance (AP) is crucial for employees to succeed in light of new or altered task demands. This recognition has fueled growing interest in AP as a dimension of workplace performance. To this point, however, research on AP has evolved from disparate perspectives and methods, resulting in fragmentation and a less than coherent knowledge base. This paper presents a comprehensive review of research studies regarding the nomological network of individual AP.In doing so, we synthesize the current knowledge base surrounding correlates of AP, elucidate current ambiguities, and suggest directions for future research efforts. We conclude that although the extant AP literature has amassed a critical body of studies linking various predictors to successful AP outcomes, much remains unknown, most critically regarding the implications of different methods of assessing AP, the effects of different types of changes in the task environment, the process of AP, and the steps organizations can take to foster AP among their employees. We hope that our synthesis and analysis paves the way for efforts to address these important questions. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Keywords: adaptive performance; job performance; adaptive transfer Numerous organizational scholars have recognized that traditional models of performance are static and need to be augmented to include "responsiveness to changing job requirements"-labeled adaptive performance (AP; Allworth & Hesketh, 1999, p. 98;Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007;Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000). As a consequence, researchers anticipated that the study of AP would yield a richer understanding of the dynamic nature of employee performance under conditions of change and ambiguity. Researchers also anticipated that the study of AP would offer practical guidance to organizations regarding how to best handle the "continual obsolescence and displacement" of employees' skills and abilities (LePine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000, p. 564). It has been nearly 15 years since research began on individual AP, and findings have emerged in many domains. For example, empirical research has focused on identifying individual difference factors that predict successful AP (e.g., Griffin & Hesketh, 2003;LePine et al., 2000;Stewart & Nandkeolyar, 2006), the AP requirements of jobs (Pulakos et al., 2000), training techniques that can enhance AP (e.g., Bell & Kozlowski, 2002;, and contextual factors that promote AP (Griffin, Parker, & Mason, 2010;Stewart & Nandkeolyar, 2006). Research has also conceptually and empirically distinguished AP from other performance dimensions (Allworth & Hesketh, 1999;Griffin et al., 2007;Johnson, 2001;Shoss, Witt, & Vera, 2012).With a diverse body of empirical studies on AP, it is a good time to take stock of how far organizational scholars have come in understanding AP and the conditions that foster it. Such a review is particularly valuable given that the AP literature has evolved from disparate res...

To examine social interdependence theory dynamically, we develop a theory of structural adaptation based on "asymmetric adaptability." We suggest that it is more difficult for teams to shift from competitive to cooperative reward structures than from cooperative to competitive structures. We show that teams that switch from competitive to cooperative reward structures demonstrate "cutthroat cooperation." In their performance, marked by lower team decision accuracy and higher speed, they resemble competitive teams more than cooperative teams. Information sharing, also lower for cutthroat cooperation teams than for other cooperative teams, partially mediates the relationship between reward structure and accuracy.

Psychological safety was found to be a predictor of intention to report adverse events. Perceived power distance and leader inclusiveness both influenced the reporting of adverse events through the concept of psychological safety. Because adverse event reporting is shaped by relationships and culture external to the individual, it should be viewed as an organisational as much as a personal function. Supervisors and other leaders in health care should ensure that policies, procedures and leadership practices build psychological safety and minimise power distance between low- and high-status members in order to support greater reporting of adverse events.