Teams are pervasive in today's world, and rightfully so as we need them. Drawing upon the existing extensive body of research surrounding the topic of teamwork, we delineate nine “critical considerations” that serve as a practical heuristic by which HR leaders can determine what is needed when they face situations involving teamwork. Our heuristic is not intended to be the definitive set of all considerations for teamwork, but instead consolidates key findings from a vast literature to provide an integrated understanding of the underpinnings of teamwork—specifically, what should be considered when selecting, developing, and maintaining teams. This heuristic is designed to help those in practice diagnose team-based problems by providing a clear focus on relevant aspects of teamwork. To this end, we first define teamwork and its related elements. Second, we offer a high-level conceptualization of and justification for the nine selected considerations underlying the heuristic, which is followed by a more in-depth synthesis of related literature as well as empirically-driven practical guidance. Third, we conclude with a discussion regarding how this heuristic may best be used from a practical standpoint, as well as offer areas for future research regarding both teamwork and its critical considerations

Understanding and improving teamwork in organizations: a scientifically based practical guide

Strength in numbers

Organizations increasingly operate within dynamic environments that require them to adapt. To respond quickly and effectively to acute or on-going change, many organizations use teams to help them remain competitive. Accordingly, the topic of team adaptation has become more prominent within the broader organizational team literature. Given the wealth of knowledge that has been accumulated, we consider what has been learned to date. However, even with the increased attention to team adaptation within the literature, not all teams are created equal in terms of their capacity for adaptability. Thus, we review factors that serve as antecedents of team adaptation, the process of adaptation, and the resulting adaptive outcomes. Finally, we suggest future directions for research and practice as we introduce a conceptual framework, whereby the focus of a team’s adaptation process is impacted by the type and severity of the disruption or trigger that gives rise to the need for adaptation.

Team adaptation: A fifteen-year synthesis (1998–2013) and framework for how this literature needs to “adapt” going forward

Managing adaptive performance in teams: Guiding principles and behavioral markers for measurement

Objective:The purpose of this article is twofold: to provide a critical cross-domain evaluation of team cognition measurement options and to provide novice researchers with practical guidance when ...

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0018720813515907

Measuring Cognition in Teams: A Cross-Domain Review

This paper empirically examines the convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of three team mental model measurement approaches. Specifically, this study measures the similarity (MM-similarity) and quality (MM-quality) facets of team strategyfocused mental models using structural networks, priority rankings, and importance ratings. The convergent and divergent relationships among the three mental model metrics are then examined via a multi-facet multi-method matrix. Finally, the relative utility of each metric for understanding the relationships between team mental models, team adaptability, and decision effectiveness are compared. The study was conducted in a laboratory setting, modeling 56 four-person decision-making teams. Results indicate little convergent and extensive discriminant validity across the three mental model metrics. In addition, only mental models measured using the structural networks metric were found to have predictive validity in relation to team adaptation and performance. The quality and similarity of team structural networks were found to have interactive effects in relation to adaptation such that mental model quality was most strongly related to adaptation for teams with low mental model similarity and unrelated to adaptation for teams with high similarity. In turn, adaptation was critical for team decision effectiveness.

Mental model metrics and team adaptability: A multi-facet multi-method examination

We agree with Kalokerinos, von Hippel, and Zacher (2014) that stereotype threat is a useful construct for research and practice in workplace settings and that more research needs to be conducted on stereotype threat in organizations. Inducing stereotype threat in organizational settings is not typically practical, however, because it is reasonable to expect that it could lead to negative performance and attitudinal outcomes. Thus, ethical and legal concerns limit researchers from manipulating stereotype threat in organizations (Cullen, Hardison, & Sackett, 2004; Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002). Rather than manipulating stereotype threat, we believe that most workplace research is likely to measure stereotype threat and correlate it with relevant predictors and consequences. As such, our purpose is twofold: First, we discuss the current state of stereotype threat measurement. Second, we suggest that additional construct explication, measures, and validation are needed so that researchers have adequate tools to use when conducting the important studies suggested by Kalokerinos et al. In laboratory research, studies often infer the presence of stereotype threat

Elizabeth Sanz

Papers

Mental model metrics and team adaptability: A multi-facet multi-method examination

Stereotype Threat: How Does It Measure Up?

Leadership and emergent collective cognition