Team Physiological Dynamics: A Critical Review

Kazi, Salahuddin; Khaleghzadegan, Salar; Dinh, Julie; Shelhamer, Mark; Sapirstein, Adam; Goeddel, Lee A.; Chime, Nnenna O.; Salas, Eduardo; Rosen, Michael A.

doi:10.1177/0018720819874160

Cited by 44 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 78 publications

(279 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our methods mirror recent search approaches in literature reviews reported in this journal (e.g., Kazi et al, 2019;Patterson, 2018). The criteria for inclusion in the current review were fourfold.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective We define human–autonomy teaming and offer a synthesis of the existing empirical research on the topic. Specifically, we identify the research environments, dependent variables, themes representing the key findings, and critical future research directions. Background Whereas a burgeoning literature on high-performance teamwork identifies the factors critical to success, much less is known about how human–autonomy teams (HATs) achieve success. Human–autonomy teamwork involves humans working interdependently toward a common goal along with autonomous agents. Autonomous agents involve a degree of self-government and self-directed behavior (agency), and autonomous agents take on a unique role or set of tasks and work interdependently with human team members to achieve a shared objective. Method We searched the literature on human–autonomy teaming. To meet our criteria for inclusion, the paper needed to involve empirical research and meet our definition of human–autonomy teaming. We found 76 articles that met our criteria for inclusion. Results We report on research environments and we find that the key independent variables involve autonomous agent characteristics, team composition, task characteristics, human individual differences, training, and communication. We identify themes for each of these and discuss the future research needs. Conclusion There are areas where research findings are clear and consistent, but there are many opportunities for future research. Particularly important will be research that identifies mechanisms linking team input to team output variables.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human–Autonomy Teaming: A Review and Analysis of the Empirical Literature

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, we encourage future research efforts to consider a wider range of possible well-being indicators. For example, objective data that indicate stress (e.g., saliva cortisol concentration, heart-rate variability, blood-pressure; for a review of physiological measurement in team settings see Kazi et al, 2019) may supplement self-reported data on health and well-being.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal dynamics of shared leadership

Klasmeier¹,

Lehmann‐Willenbrock²,

Rowold³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shared leadership is conceptualized as a dynamic team state, yet surprisingly most research is based on cross-sectional designs. Additionally, as prior studies mostly focused on performance-enhancing effects of shared leadership, little is known about consequences for team members’ work-related well-being. We expand the job demands-resources perspective to build a dynamic model of shared leadership as a team resource that affects team members’ well-being and emotional exhaustion. Furthermore, we investigate the interplay between shared leadership and team workload. We applied a daily diary study over five consecutive working days with data from 265 team members nested in 77 teams. As hypothesized, dynamic changes in shared leadership were associated with an increase in collective member well-being and a reduction of emotional exhaustion over time. Further, team workload interacted with shared leadership so that high team workload dynamics were associated with dynamics changes in collective emotional exhaustion when shared leadership dynamics were low. However, collective member well-being was not affected by such an interaction effect. These findings contribute a temporal perspective to shared leadership as a dynamic team state, establish shared leadership as an important team resource, and address the missing link between the sharing of leadership functions and collective member well-being.

show abstract

“…Landon et al ( 2019 ) provide a wide ranging and integrative review of the topic as it relates to performance within ICE settings, and Stevens et al ( 2019 ) provide a remarkable example of how patterns of physiological activation across team members can be identified and used to predict team outcomes. These articles are exemplars of the emerging area of team physiological dynamics, which has accelerated rapidly in recent years (Kazi et al, 2019 ). The science of teams can progress quickly in this area by exploring related areas of social (Cacioppo et al, 2000 ) and organizational neuroscience (Becker et al, 2011 ) and interpersonal physiological dynamics outside of work team contexts (Palumbo et al, 2017 ).…”

Section: Team Science Now Incorporates Ever Broader Ranges Of Individmentioning

confidence: 99%