On Teams: Unifying Themes and the Way Ahead

Tannenbaum, Scott I.; Mathieu, John E.; Salas, Eduardo; Cohen, Debra J.

doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01406.x

Cited by 23 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The tendency to lump together as real teams all entities described by organizational members as 'teams' may well be misguided both theoretically and empirically (Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cohen, 2012b;West & Lyubovnikova, 2012). Indeed, researchers may be including within one category, entities that are fundamentally different (cf.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

24-Karat or fool’s gold? Consequences of real team and co-acting group membership in healthcare organizations

Lyubovnikova

West

Dawson

et al. 2014

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article ReuseUnless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version -refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher's website. TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. REAL TEAM AND CO-ACTING GROUP MEMBERSHIP 1 AbstractWhile theory on team membership is emerging, limited empirical attention has been paid to the effects of different types of team membership on outcomes. We propose that an important but overlooked distinction is that between membership of real teams and membership of coacting groups, with the former being characterized by members who report that their teams have shared objectives, structural interdependence and engage in team reflexivity. We hypothesize that real team membership will be associated with more positive individual and organizational level outcomes. These predictions were tested in the English National Health Service, using data from 62,733 respondents from 147 acute hospitals. The results revealed that individuals reporting the characteristics of real team membership, in comparison to those reporting the characteristics of co-acting group membership, witnessed fewer errors and incidents, experienced fewer work related injuries and illness, were less likely to be victims of violence and harassment, and were less likely to intend to leave their current employment.At the organizational level, hospitals with higher proportions of staff reporting the characteristics of real team membership had lower levels of patient mortality and sickness absence. The results suggest the need to clearly delineate real team membership in order to advance scientific understanding of the processes and outcomes of organizational teamwork.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

24-Karat or fool’s gold? Consequences of real team and co-acting group membership in healthcare organizations

Lyubovnikova

West

Dawson

et al. 2014

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet, even with this aforementioned knowledge at hand, organizational teams still fail on a regular— sometimes daily—basis (Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cohen, 2012). Furthermore, although some organizational teams may not actually be failing, their performance may be less than desirable, plateauing or starting to spiral toward decline.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing, Sustaining, and Maximizing Team Effectiveness: An Integrative, Dynamic Perspective of Team Development Interventions

Shuffler

DiazGranados

Maynard

et al. 2018

ANNALS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizations regularly make significant investments to ensure their teams will thrive, through interventions intended to support their effectiveness. Such team development interventions (TDIs) have demonstrated their value from both a practical and empirical view, through enabling teams to minimize errors and maximize expertise and thereby advance organizational gains. Yet, on closer examination, the current state of the TDI literature appears so piecemeal that the robustness of extant scientific evidence is often lost. Accordingly, we seek to provide a more cohesive and dynamic integration of the TDI literature, evolving thinking about TDIs toward a system of interventions that can be optimized. Drawing on the existing theoretical and empirical literatures, we first broadly define TDIs. We then offer an in-depth look at the most common types of TDIs, in terms of summarizing the state of the science surrounding each TDI. Based on this review, we distinguish features that make for an effective TDI. We then advance a more integrative framework that seeks to highlight certain interventions that are best served for addressing certain issues within a team. In conclusion, we promote a call for evolving this robust yet disjointed TDI literature into a more holistic, dynamic, and intentional action science with clear empirical as well as practical guidance and direction.

show abstract

“…To this point, the first takeaway from this period is that focus on the Virtual Teams cluster (Cluster 2) intensified in line with the increased use of CMC and virtual teams throughout organizations and broader society (Tannenbaum et al, 2012). For example, in line with the broad applicability of the phenomenon, work on virtual teams further expanded into that on decision-making (McLeod, 2013), group diversity (Martins & Shalley, 2011), cultural diversity (Han & Beyerlein, 2016), training (Gilson et al, 2013), faultlines (Chiu & Staples, 2013), and group dynamics (Handke et al, 2019).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping 50 Years of Small Group Research Through Small Group Research

Emich

Kumar

et al. 2020

Small Group Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At its 50-year milestone, we assess the Small Group Research ( SGR) corpus to reflect on the development of group research over the past half century. To do this, we examine the evolution of the corpus’s context and content. We examine its context by assessing its impact, which journals it communicates with, and the internationality of its authors. We examine its content—the topics discussed in its articles—using keyword clustering and co-occurrence network analysis. We identify 10 research communities and track their relationships over the four editorial periods associated with the SGR corpus (lagged 2 years for influence): 1970–1981, 1982–1991, 1992–2010, and 2011–2019. Our analyses indicate that the global and local study of group dynamics has fluctuated over time and that phenomenologically based topics connect theoretical topics and stimulate theoretical development. We also provide three criteria to identify communities and topics of group research most likely to benefit from future integration.

show abstract

On Teams: Unifying Themes and the Way Ahead

Cited by 23 publications

References 12 publications

24-Karat or fool’s gold? Consequences of real team and co-acting group membership in healthcare organizations

24-Karat or fool’s gold? Consequences of real team and co-acting group membership in healthcare organizations

Developing, Sustaining, and Maximizing Team Effectiveness: An Integrative, Dynamic Perspective of Team Development Interventions

Mapping 50 Years of Small Group Research Through Small Group Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About