Teams

Question 1

Hollenbeck et al. (2012)

Answer 1

Beyond team types and taxonomies: a dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description

instead of using the many different team taxonomies, recommend classifying teams using 3 dimensions: (high vs low for each axis)
(a) skill differentiation,
(b) authority differentiation, and
(c) temporal stability

the many team taxonomies that exist are too muddy, lack of parsimony, not all teams can fit in each category and should be seen along a spectrum

dimensions better enable future research; mediators, moderators, better situated to be studied with continuous outcomes b/c the dimensions are continuous and normally distributed (e.g., we aren’t immediately restricting our results)

Question 2

Mathieu et al. (2015)

Answer 2

Team role experience and Orientation (TREO): a measure and test of construct validity

Experience and orientations = predisposition into 6 different team roles

Organizer, Doer (Task-work oriented)
Challenger, Innovator (Destabilizing/change oriented)
Team Builder, Connector (Socio-emotional)

Connection to role theory: roles could naturally be tied to the formal position, but roles are emergent and not strictly tied to formal structure

Question 3

Chan (1998)

Answer 3

Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: a typology of composition models

additive, direct consensus, referent-shift, dispersion, and process

additive model: higher level is a direct summation of the lower level units regardless of variance; sum or average lower level scores

direct consensus model: higher level is represented by the degree of consensus among lover level units; within-group agreement

referent-shift consensus model: like direct consensus, but the referent is changed to reflect the group (e.g., my organization feels…)

dispersion model: higher level is represented by dispersion of variance in lower level units; within-group variance (e.g., climate strength, smaller variance is stronger climate)

process model: focuses on the processes of the higher level, which are composed of process parameters at the lower level (e.g., org climate emergence)

Question 4

Hofmann (1997)

Answer 4

walks through rationale behind using HLM to answer multi-level RQs & provides example

HLM lets us look at
(a) relationships within each level
(b) relationships across hierarchical levels

in HLM, we need to simultaneously estimate two models:
(a) relationships within each of the lower level units
(b) modeling how those relationships vary between units

4 graphs: fixed effects (single line), different intercepts (many lines with same slope), different slopes (same starting point with lines going all different directions), intercepts and slopes vary (all different lines and starting points)

random coefficients, fixed effects, variance-covariance component

Question 5

Klein & Kozlowski (2000)

Answer 5

From micro to meso: critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research

specifies:
3 types of higher level construct (global, shared, configural)
3 types of models (single-level, cross-level, homologous)
describes pros and cons of different ways to justify aggregation and analyze data [e.g., using within-group r]

properties of teams when measuring:
(a) global properties - readily available, easy to observe, not emergent in teams
(b) shared properties - any sort of values, shared experiences, etc that team members have in common [need to justify how you aggregate these in your study]
(c) configural properties - originate / emerge from team members but these capture the array/variability of individual characteristics within the team

Question 6

Burke (2004)

Answer 6

lists and describes the steps that comprise a team task analysis

Question 7

Marks et al. (2001)

Answer 7

temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes

(a) transition phase
(b) action phase
(c) interpersonal processes which occur throughout transition and action phases

figure 2 shows continuum of transition and action phases

transition = mission analysis, goal specification, strategy planning

action = monitoring goal progress, systems, and teams; coordinating efforts throughout

Question 8

Uitdewilligen et al. (2018)

Answer 8

fluid and stable: dynamics of team action patterns and adaptive outcomes

action patterns (recurring work actions) can predict team effectiveness during stable times

shared taskwork mental models help teams adapt after task changes (increase effectiveness)

teams in firefighting simulations with discontinuous changes

in the later timepoints, high mental models continued to perform well and low mental models decreased after peak performance

Question 9

Wageman (1995)

Answer 9

interdependence and group effectiveness

examined how task & outcome interdependence impact group effectiveness over time

3x3 matrix of total interdependence, one side is task interdependence and the other is outcome interdependence (individual, hybrid, group, where both on individual is very low and both on group is very high)

groups were MOST EFFECTIVE when tasks and outcomes both were purely individual or purely group (this is all on me or we are all doing this for each other)

hybrid group performed poorly compared to others, lowest quality processes due to weak cooperation norms / interpersonal processes

increased outcome interdependence decreased individual effort

over time, individuals’ autonomy preferences were influenced by an increase of interdependence in their work

Question 10

Breuer et al. (2020)

Answer 10

used qual interviews and CIT to develop a conceptual model of team trust (perceived trustworthiness in teams -> behavioral intention -> risk taking behaviors in teams); found all elements of model to be present in both virtual and face-to-face teams

Question 10

Bachrach et al. (2018)

Answer 10

Transactive memory systems (TMS) in context: meta-analytic examination of contextual factors in TMS development and team performance

national culture factors are very important (e.g., power distance) in forming a strong TMS: impact of TMS is stronger where power distance and in-group collectivism are higher.

meta analysis investigating the relationship between
TMS -> performance (task, affective, creative) = all positive

context antecedents -> TMS (team human capital +; informational and gender diversity –; environmental volatility +; leadership +)

moderators (power distance, performance orientation, collectivism) on TMS -> perf = the TMS/performance relationship is stronger negative in contexts with a performance orientation

Question 11

DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus (2010)

Answer 11

Team collective cognition (compositional - SMM & compilational - TMS) positively impacts team performance ( r = .38) and also uniquely impacts performance independent of behavior and motivation

Question 12

Grand et al. (2016)

Answer 12

the dynamics of team cognition: a process-oriented theory of knowledge in teams

investigated the process of team knowledge emergence

provides an explicit conceptualization of how, when, and why team knowledge manifests

Question 13

Andrews et al. (2023)

Answer 13

human-AI teams

Question 14

Luciano et al. (2018)

1. Shared team experiences
2. MTS structure

Answer 14

1. Shared team experiences and team effectiveness: unpacking contingent effects of entrained rhythms and task characteristics

main point: Infrequent tasks benefit from high STTS due to better coordination and information processing. But in frequent tasks—especially difficult ones—too much routine familiarity can backfire.

STTS experience = shared-team task-specific experience

Higher Shared Task Team Specific (STTS) experience improves both efficiency and quality outcomes (like patient recovery), particularly in difficult or less routine tasks.

Interpretation: Teams with more shared experience can coordinate, communicate, and adapt more effectively under novel or stressful conditions—critical in crisis response when errors have high stakes.

Familiarity with tasks: An inverted U-shaped relationship suggests that too much familiarity can lead to complacency, reducing vigilance and system monitoring, especially when tasks are difficult. [developing automatic routines when tasks are common]

2. Multiteam systems: A structural framework and meso-theory of system functioning

• proposes a framework of MTS structural features (differentiation, dynamism)
• key factors of MTS dynamism = change in goal hierarchy, uncertainty of task requirements, fluidity of the system structural configuration, fluidity of system composition, diversion of attention
• lead to MTS structural forces (boundary-enhancing, disruptive)
• then influence individual affective motives, belonging needs, and cognitive motives which shape team and MTS emergent states

Question 15

Zaccaro et al. (2012)

*could use as mts cite

Answer 15

intro chapter to book on MTSs

Multiteam systems: an introduction

sample model of MTS effectiveness

compositional attributes, linkage attributes, developmental attributes –> inter and intra multiteam processes –> multiteam effectiveness

Question 16

Zaccaro et al. (2020)

*could also use as MTS cite

Answer 16

MTS: integrative review and comparison of different forms [annual review]

evaluates whether MTS coordination, leadership, and emergent states differ by:
- boundary status (internal / external)
- component team distance (high / low based on geographical, cultural, functional diversity)
- goal type (intellectual, physical)

Question 17

Kozlowski et al. (2016)

Answer 17

Team-centric leadership: an integrative review

used a multilevel, IPO temporal framework to review approaches to team leadership:
TFL, LMX, shared leadership, and functional leadership

proposed future research directions:
- capitalize on full multilevel IPO framework
- use team context to bring theoretical convergence to process mediation and contextual moderation
- incorporate time (development and dynamism) in theory and research
- employ innovative research designs (e.g., computational modeling, social network approaches)

Question 18

Madrid et al. (2014)

Answer 18

Leader affective presence and innovation in teams

affective presence = tendency for individuals to make their interaction partners feel similarly positive or negative

examined the effect of leader affective presence on team effectiveness

results:
leader positive affective presence –> team info sharing –> team innovation
leader negative affective presence –> (-) team info sharing –> (weak -) team innovation

Question 19

Morgeson et al. (2010)

Answer 19

Leadership in teams: a functional approach to understand leadership structures and processes

sources of leadership:
- locus (internal, external)
- formality (formal, informal)

different types of leadership are most effective in different transition and action processes to help teams accomplish their goals

Question 20

Zaccaro et al. (2001)

Answer 20

designates sources of leadership (locus: internal; external and formality: formal; informal) and which source of leadership is most useful during different transition and action phases to help teams accomplish their goal

Question 21

Zettna et al. (2024)

Answer 21

leading out of team silence (added to Steve’s fall 2024)

Question 22

Burke et al. (2006)

Answer 22

creates a model of team adaptatation and specifies team adaptation as outcome (adaptive team performance is an antecedent)

Question 23

Mathieu et al. (2019)

Answer 23

review of team effectiveness resarch from 2008-2018 focuses on structural features, compositional features, mediating mechanisms and their overlap; encourages future research to consider dynamism & multilevel aspect of teams

Question 24

Stoverink et al. (2020)

Answer 24

proposes a theoretical model of work team resilience using COR in which team level resources contribute to team reslience (an emergent state); integrates Marks et al. (2001) team process taxonomy with adversity minimzing, adversity managing, and post-adversity mending

Question 25

Gersick (1988)

Answer 25

Through case study proposed model of group development called "punctuated equilibrium": inertia 1, transition, inertia 2; transition occurs at midpoint in time

Question 26

Matusik et al. (2019)

Answer 26

uses dynamic systems theory from developmental psychology to test principles about team dynamism and within-construct change; finds that team properties with observable behaviors (team processes) are not dynamic but properties that don't observable behaviors (emergent states) are dynamic

Question 27

Rink et al (2013)

Answer 27

historical overview of teams and newcomers (on Steve's fall 2024)

Question 28

Courtwright et al. (2017)

Answer 28

empirical study that finds that team charters more positively impact team performance for teams low on conscientiousness (vs. high)

Question 29

Mathieu et al. (2014)

Answer 29

advocate for a dynamic and temporal framework for team composition. The most applicable (of 4) team composition models depends on task, situation, and outcomes considered.

Question 30

Morgeson et al. (2005)

Answer 30

social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge are related to individual contextual performance in teams

Question 31

Ostermeier et al. (2020)

Answer 31

empirical study that demonstrates the importance of conceptualizing individual dif (i.e., negative affectivity, conscientiousness) as compositional (mean) and compilational (skewness) in predicting team level outcomes (psych safety -> team potency -> performance)

Question 32

Hunter & Cushenbery (2011)

Answer 32

model depicting the indirect and direct leadership influences on individual creativity, team creativity, and organizational innovation

Question 33

Hülsheger et al. (2009)

Answer 33

Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensive meta analysis spanning 3 decades of research meta-analysis of team input and team process variables on team innovation team *process* variables (e.g., internal and external communication, vision, cohesion) were more influential on innovation than team *input* variables (e.g., job relevant diversity, team size)

Question 34

Lehmann-Willenbrock (2017) *can use this as trend for teams research to be temporal / multilevel

Answer 34

Team learning: new insights through a temporal lens introduction to a special issue that describes articles which offer new insights into complex phenomena of team learning by advocating a *temporal perspective* (at multiple levels: macro, meso, micro)

Question 35

Rauter et al. (2018)

Answer 35

empirical study; found team reflexivity to moderate the relationship between team affective reaction to setback and team learning (high reflexivity - w high reflexivity, pos relationship; w low reflexivity, reg relationship

Question 36

WIlson et al. (2007)

Answer 36

Group learning propose criteria for group learning theories to be 1) at the group level of analysis 2) include processes of sharing, storage, and retrieval 3) conceptualize learning as an *outcome*, not using performance as an outcome of learning 4) incorporate time (some interval) a note on (2) sharing--storage--retrieval all interact with each other

Question 37

Van Knippenberg et al (2024)

Answer 37

new on steve fall 2024

Question 38

Kerr & Tindale (2004) *could use as a catch all

Answer 38

Group performance and decision making provides a review of these topics: - group process losses & gains - group brainstorming - group motivation losses & gains - group goal setting - stress & group performance - collective induction; combining preferences - combining preferences w/ limited (or no) discussion - combining or sharing cognitions - cognitive centrality of group members - shared task representation & mental models - group decision making procedures - groupthink

Question 39

Park & DeShon (2010)

Answer 39

multilevel investigation on minority opinion influence on decision making and team performance team *learning goal orientation* --> minority influence through increased team *discussion* minority influence --> team performance and team satisfaction should implement team learning goal orientation interventions

Question 40

Zhu et al. (2021)

Answer 40

Team decision making: the dynamic effects of team decision style composition and performance via decision strategy IMOI = Input-Mediator-Output-Input study draws on IMOI framework and episodic performance logic goal: advance theory for dynamic team decision making, involving: - team mean rational decision style - team rational strategy - team performance teams composed of members with higher rational decision styles --> more likely to engage in rational decision strategies --> superior performance (when rational decisions needed) member composition --> decisions - are particularly important early in the team's life outcome feedback --> decisions - are more salient later on

Question 41

de Wit et al. (2012)

Answer 41

The process of intergroup conflict: a meta-analysis relationship conflict = personal conflicts, clashing process conflict = disagreements about HOW to accomplish (e.g., delegation, management) task conflict = disagreements about the task itself (e.g., structure, distributing resources) - relationship and process conflict negatively related to proximal and distal team outcomes - task conflict and group performance relationship is rho = .-1, suggesting need to look at moderators and a contingency approach Task conflict is more *positively* related to team performance when: - task conflict and relationship conflict are weakly connected - conflict occurs among top management teams rather than teams at lower levels of org - performance is operationalized financially or decision quality (compared to 'overall performance')

Question 42

Tekalb et al. (2009)

Answer 42

longitudinal study - found that high levels of conflict management mitigate negative impacts of relationship conflict on team cohesison whereas low levels of conflict management pertaining to task conflict enhance team cohesion; then team cohesion leads to perceived team performance, satisfaction with the team, and team viability

Question 43

Arthur et al. (2005)

Answer 43

Team task analysis: identifying jobs and tasks that are team based *use for cite about doing a TTA goal of scales: capture the extent to which tasks have high level of "teamness" or interdependency, operationalized by: 3 team task analysis scales 1 - team relatedness 2- team workflow 3 - team-task ratio

Question 44

Luciano et al. (2020)

Answer 44

Strategic leadership systems: viewing TMTs and BODs from a MTS perspective consideration of the TMT and board as part of a strategic-oriented multi-team system, which we refer to as a *strategic leadership system* Main proposition: attention to working independently and interdependently among TMTs and boards facilitates coordination of action / understanding, and it enhances group/shared task performance importance of attention to working interdependently/independently with system effectiveness depends on environmental dynamism/complexity

Question 45

Kozlowski et al. (2013)

Answer 45

Advancing multilevel research design *can cite for methods on teams / multilevel As quantitative multilevel research begins to probe across multiple organizational levels and time to better comprehend systems, process dynamics, and emergence, it is increasingly clear that the traditional twin pillars of scientific research design—correlational and experimental methods—are limited in what they can reveal. We think that there is a need to enlarge the array of research design approaches and that a compelling case can be made for better incorporating computational modeling/and agent-based simulation in our methodological toolbox EMERGENCE is multilevel, process-oriented, and temporal

Question 46

Jimenez et al. (2017) *consider

Answer 46

Working Across Boundaries: Current and Future Perspectives on Global Virtual Teams 3D framework to classify global virtual teams X-AXIS: TIME (asynchronous--synchronous) - related to distance and also location in the past, in as much as connecting distant locations or overcoming their differences required a considerable amount of time. Beyond that, time is generally shaped by the cultural and technological characteristics of a particular location Y-AXIS: LOCATION (home based--expatriate) - local context in which GVTs members are embedded, in terms of their social networks, norms and cultural values of their local communities, their organizational memberships and administrative frameworks Z-AXIS: DISTANCE (single distance--multiple distance) - institutional, economic, technological, educational or demographic distances; physical distance is not equivalent (consider UK and Australia)

Question 47

Hoever et al. (2012) *could be a useful support for intergroup contact

Answer 47

Fostering team creativity: perspective taking as a key to unlocking diversity's potential diversity of perspectives --> information elaboration --> team creativity moderated by perspective taking team creativity = joint novelty and usefulness of a final idea developed by a group of people