The changing ecology of teams: New directions for teams research

Abstract

SummaryThe nature of collaboration has been changing at an accelerating pace, particularly in the last decade. Much of the published work in teams research, however, is still focused on the archetypal team that has well-defined membership, purposes, leadership, and standards of effectiveness-all characteristics that are being altered by changes in the larger context of collaboration. Each of these features is worth attention as a dynamic construct in its own right. Much of the published work in teams research, however, is still focused on the archetypal team that has well-defined membership, purpose, leadership, and standards of effectiveness. There is still more to learn about that kind of team. But the profound gap between what teams scholars are studying and what people are doing in the world-both within and between organizations-inspired us to propose this special issue. Our goal is to provoke theory, research, approaches, and methodologies that will help scholars recognize and understand the rapidly expanding universe of contemporary collaboration and teamwork.Indeed, as we argue in this article and as suggested in some of the articles offered in this issue, the very notion of a traditionally defined "team" may become increasingly outmoded. Our domain in this special issue is collaboration, which we define as "team-like behavior over time and across projects"-a definition that includes but is not restricted to what has traditionally been studied as "teams." Trends such as digitalization and globalization are already well-established subjects in teams research and will be addressed by articles in this issue. Other trends, such as value pluralism and climate change, are having surprising and critical effects on the uses and methods of collaboration but have not yet been the subject of much teams research.

Group, team, or something in between? Conceptualising and measuring team entitativity

“…A team's perceived degree of team entitativity is dynamic and malleable, depending on for example time, team development, and contextual influences. This is in line with the conception of groups as social systems that are dynamically engaged with their contexts (Hackman, 2012;Wageman et al, 2012). Hence, 6 | F L R when positioning our conceptualisation of team entitativity on the essence -agency axis described earlier, it matches the latter perspective.…”

“…In line with the recommendation of Wageman, Gardner, and Mortensen (2012), these gaps indicate the need for a flexible definition of a real team. Wageman et al (2012) stress the value of being able to transfer insights and approaches developed in team research to new kinds of collaboration. In order to make this possible, there is a need for a new and continuum-based team concept.…”

“…However, these conceptions still refer to a black-and-white categorical interpretation: Teams are real teams or pseudo-teams. However, as suggested by Wageman et al (2012), changes in the environment of teams (e.g., increasing virtual and globally dispersed work and collaboration) challenge the boundaries of the traditionally defined team. Rather than using defining features as delineators to distinguish real teams from non-or pseudo-teams, it is valuable to investigate these features as dynamic constructs in their own right (Wageman et al, 2012).…”

“…These include (structural) interdependence, shared objectives, team reflexivity, boundedness (i.e., it is clear who is part of the team and who is not), and stability of membership (Buljac, Van Woerkom, & Van Wijngaarden, 2013;Lyubovnikova et al, 2015;Wageman et al, 2012;West & Lyubovnikova, 2012). In a changing society and environment for teams, the meaning and importance of these features may have changed.…”

“…Moreover, it is prone to lacking both conceptual and methodological rigour: The terminology and conceptualisations of different types of teacher collaboration are often ill-defined (Vangrieken, Dochy, Raes, & Kyndt, 2015) and literature on teacher collaboration tends to be criticised for its lack of methodological rigour (Crow & Pounder, 2000). In line with the recommendation of Wageman, Gardner, and Mortensen (2012), these gaps indicate the need for a flexible definition of a real team. Wageman et al (2012) stress the value of being able to transfer insights and approaches developed in team research to new kinds of collaboration.…”