No abstract

During the Triassic collision of the Yangtze and Sino‐Korean cratons, the leading edge of the Yangtze crust subducted to mantle depths and was subsequently exhumed as a penetratively deformed, coherent slab capped by a normal shear zone. This geometry requires a reverse shear zone at the base of the slab, and we suggest that the Yangtze foreland fold‐and‐thrust belt constitutes this zone. Lower Triassic rocks of the eastern foreland record NW–SE compression as the oldest compressional stress field; onset of related deformation is indicated by Middle Triassic clastic sedimentation. Subsequent Jurassic stress fields show a clockwise change of compression directions. Based on nearly coeval onset and termination of deformation, and on a common clockwise change in the principal strain/stress directions, we propose that the foreland deformation was controlled by the extrusion of the ultra high‐pressure slab. Widespread Cretaceous–Cenozoic reactivation occurred under regional extension to transtension, which characteristically shows a large‐scale clockwise change of the principal extension directions during the Lower Cretaceous.

Teamwork has been argued to play an increasingly important role in numerous jobs, and several studies focused on the effects of team composition for work-related outcomes. Recent research has also identified individuals’ character strengths and positive team roles (e.g., idea creator and relationship manager) as conducive to work-related outcomes. However, there is a scarcity of research on the role of character strengths or positive team roles on the level of teams. In the present study, we extend theoretical assumptions of team role theories to the study of character strengths and positive team roles: We examined the associations between character strengths and team roles with work-related outcomes on the individual (i.e., job satisfaction, self- and supervisor-rated performance) and the team level (i.e., teamwork quality, self- and supervisor-rated team performance). Further, we examined how the team composition relates to the outcomes, that is, whether balanced teams (i.e., all team roles or character strengths are represented in the current team) go along with desired outcomes and whether an overrepresentation of team roles or character strengths in a team (i.e., a team role or character strengths is represented by multiple team members) goes along with undesired outcomes. We studied a sample of 42 teams (N = 284 individuals) who completed measures of team roles, character strengths, teamwork quality, job satisfaction, and self-rated individual and team performance. Further, supervisor ratings of individual and team performance were collected. Results corroborated the relationships of team roles and character strengths with individual outcomes such as that specific roles and character strengths go along with individual performance and work satisfaction. Further, the results suggested that teams in which more team roles are represented report higher performance and teamwork quality. Also, teams with higher average levels of the character strengths of teamwork and fairness, and teams with more members scoring high in fairness and prudence report higher teamwork quality. Further, there is no evidence that having too many members with a particular character strength has detrimental effects on teamwork quality, work satisfaction, or performance. We conclude that extending the study of character to the level of teams offers an important advancement.