Working in teams provides several advantages to dynamic, data-driven domains, but can also add a layer of complexity to operations. There have been several reviews on teams and team performance analysis; however, there has been limited work in the last five years that has examined micro- and macro-level factors that affect overall team performance. Previous research has proposed a framework within healthcare characterizing team characteristics into three categories: individual contributions, team processes, and organizational structures. However, it is still unclear how new emerging topics in the team literature fit within this framework. Here we provide more specific definitions of the three categories proposed and conduct a review that builds on this framework by adding topics identified from the current literature. To this end, we carried out a systematic search of the human factors literature to examine the research on team performance across various domains from the past five years centered. We then propose ideas for future research on team performance.
more »
« less
Team Membership Change “Events”: A Review and Reconceptualization
Driven by views of teams as dynamic systems with permeable boundaries, scholars are increasingly seeking to better understand how team membership changes (i.e., team members joining and/or leaving) shape the functioning and performance of organizational teams. However, empirical studies of team membership change appear to be progressing in three largely independent directions as researchers consider: (a) how newcomers impact and are impacted by the teams they join; (b) how teams adapt to member departures; or (c) how teams function under conditions of high membership fluidity, with little theoretical integration or consensus across these three areas. To accelerate an integrative stream of research on team membership change, we advance a conceptual framework which depicts each team membership change as a discrete team-level “event” which shapes team functioning to the extent to which it is “novel,” “disruptive,” and “critical” for the team. We use this framework to guide our review and synthesis of empirical studies of team membership change published over the past 20 years. Our review reveals numerous factors, across conceptual levels of the organization, that determine the strength (i.e., novelty, disruptiveness, criticality) of a team membership change event and, consequently, its impact on team functioning and performance. In closing, we provide propositions for future research that integrate a multilevel, event-based perspective of team membership change and demonstrate how team membership change events may impact organizational systems over time and across levels of observation.
more » « less- PAR ID:
- 10529907
- Publisher / Repository:
- SAGE Publications
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Group & Organization Management
- Volume:
- 45
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 1059-6011
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 219-251
- Size(s):
- p. 219-251
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Complex problems require complex teams comprised of individuals with different backgrounds, skills and perspectives to work effectively toward their solution. Increasingly, this is being accomplished through the creation of multi-team systems (MTS) that are developed and implemented in alignment with team science-based strategies. MTS are comprised of individual teams with their own goals that are interconnected and work collaboratively toward a larger, common goal. Attitudinal (cohesion, trust, commitment), behavioral (coordination, communication, shared leadership) and cognitive (situational awareness, shared mental models) competencies support MTS effectiveness. Multisector MTS are even more complex, as team members bring aspects of their organizational culture into the MTS, and if priorities and practices are not well aligned, team function and effectiveness can suffer. Thus, for multisector MTS to work, they must begin with a foundational understanding of the component parts, that is, each organization’s culture and priorities, and how – or if – they align for the success of the collaborative. We created a multisector MTS to develop and implement a project funded by the National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (S-STEM) program. The project’s objectives are to: increase the number of domestic low-income academically talented students with demonstrated financial need obtaining master's degrees in supported disciplines and entering the US STEM workforce; implement and evaluate the impact of our Flexible Internship-Research-Education (FIRE) model, which integrates evidence-based strategies that provide student career and educational development support, on student success; and implement, study and disseminate an MTS model for multi -organizational collaboration toward career and educational development. The partners include four universities – three Carnegie R2 public Historically Black Colleges and Universities and one Carnegie R1 private, highly selective admissions institution – and a major government employer. Six teams comprise our MTS; with the exception of one, each team has representatives from each partner organization. We sought to understand how each organization’s culture influenced – or might potentially influence – team interactions. The guiding research question for this study is: In what ways – positive or negative – do partner organizations’ cultures impact team members’ engagement with the project? We were interested in gauging how organizational culture, operationalized by performance values (rewarding individual performance vs. team performance), communications (transparent vs. need-to-know, clarity, frequency), conflict resolution and collaborative vs. competitive environments, manifested in their engagement with the MTS. We also explored how – or if – their organization’s priorities aligned with the overall project’s aims and what specific areas might be sources of support and/or challenges as the teams progressed. We conducted open-ended structured interviews with eight project team members who each served on at least one of the six teams. We are completing both content and thematic analyses to understand how team members speak about their organizational influences and engagements within and among the teams. We are finding team members are adaptable; regardless of individual or organizational priorities, when challenges arise, they can re-center on the project’s aims and work collaboratively toward student success. We expect results will illuminate factors multisector MTS teams should consider when forming collaborations.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Well‐being (or lack thereof) is one phenomena that is shaped by and has important implications for organizational (in)equalities, yet remains widely conceptualized at an individual level. Through a review of previous research on organizational inequality and diversity, we argue for a shift towards studying “workplace well‐being”—well‐being as created by and through work organizations. We identify and discuss three pillars of workplace well‐being and consider how these pillars are constituted across three levels of analysis. We note that “workplace well‐being” offers a more theoretically‐ and empirically‐grounded framework for understanding how well‐being operates in the workplace. This concept can be utilized to “check” where organizational change is needed and develop change initiatives that better support diversity, inclusivity, and equity.
-
Team membership in today’s open talent economy is more fluid and interchangeable than ever before. In light of these dynamics, we consider how team members’ signaling of human and social capital, in the form of challenging or supportive voice, informs our understanding of how individuals across an organizational network self-assemble into temporary work teams. We test our hypotheses in two separate multiwave studies and find support for our hypotheses above and beyond the effects of homophily. In Study 1, we find support for a human capital pathway in which challenging voice in a team fosters perceptions of quality work that enhance one’s personal reputation in the broader network. Personal reputation, in turn, predicts team assembly decisions. In Study 2, we consider a social capital pathway alongside the human capital pathway. We find that supportive voice in a team fosters friendship that enhances the extent to which one is trusted in the broader network, and trust subsequently influences team assembly decisions. Potential team members appear to prioritize the social capital signaled by supportive voice more so than the human capital signaled by challenging voice, although those who possess both human and social capital are also highly sought during team formation. We discuss the implications of these findings for the literatures on voice and team assembly.more » « less
-
more » « less
By identifying the socio-technical conditions required for teams to work effectively remotely, the Distance Matters framework has been influential in CSCW since its introduction in 2000. Advances in collaboration technology and practices have since brought teams increasingly closer to achieving these conditions. This paper presents a ten-month ethnography in a remote organization, where we observed that despite exhibiting excellent remote collaboration, teams paradoxically struggled to collaborate across team boundaries. We extend the Distance Matters framework to account for inter-team collaboration, arguing that challenges analogous to those in the original intra-team framework --- common ground, collaboration readiness, collaboration technology readiness, and coupling of work --- persist but are actualized differently at the inter-team scale. Finally, we identify a fundamental tension between the intra- and inter-team layers: the collaboration technology and practices that help individual teams thrive (e.g., adopting customized collaboration software) can also prompt collaboration challenges in the inter-team layer, and conversely the technology and practices that facilitate inter-team collaboration (e.g., strong centralized IT organizations) can harm practices at the intra-team layer. The addition of the inter-team layer to the Distance Matters framework opens new opportunities for CSCW, where balancing the tension between team and organizational collaboration needs will be a critical technological, operational, and organizational challenge for remote work in the coming decades.
