Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T06:48:57.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

19 - The Changing Nature of Teams

Recommendations for Managing Twenty-First-Century Teamwork

from Part III - Implications for Talent Management and Impact on Employees

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2020

By
Justin M. Jones ,
Gouri Mohan ,
Hayley M. Trainer  and
Dorothy R. Carter
Edited by
Brian J. Hoffman ,
Mindy K. Shoss  and
Lauren A. Wegman
Brian J. Hoffman
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Mindy K. Shoss
Affiliation:
University of Central Florida
Lauren A. Wegman
Affiliation:
University of Georgia
Get access

Summary

Teams are an integral part of organizations; however, changes in the nature of work – including increases in globalization, the scale and complexity of problems, and the capabilities of technology – have fundamentally altered the nature of teams. In this chapter, we delineate three important changes to the nature of teams: (1) complex organizational challenges are requiring complex and fluid patterns of teamwork; (2) teams are being assembled and led by members as well as managers; and (3) technology is increasingly interwoven with teamwork. In reference to these changes, we provide recommendations for future research and management of teams.

Keywords

teamschangemanagementinnovationtechnology
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the Changing Nature of Work , pp. 406 - 424
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackers, M. (2017). One unit standing together: Police and firefighters learned from past tragedies, using different tactic to save lives. Las Vegas Sun, October 22. Retrieved from https://lasvegassun.com/news/2017/oct/22/one-unit-standing-together-police-and-firefighters/Google Scholar
Aime, F., Humphrey, S., DeRue, D. S., & Paul, J. B. (2014). The riddle of heterarchy: Power transitions in cross-functional teams. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 327–352.Google Scholar
Asencio, R., Carter, D. R., DeChurch, L. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Fiore, S. M. (2012). Charting a course for collaboration: A multiteam perspective. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 2(4), 487–494.Google Scholar
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989–1004.Google Scholar
Beck, T. E., & Plowman, D. A. 2014. Temporary, emergent interorganizational collaboration in unexpected circumstances: A study of the Columbia space shuttle response effort. Organization Science, 25, 1234–1252.Google Scholar
Bell, S. T., Brown, S. G., Colaneri, A., & Outland, N. (2018). Team composition and the ABCs of teamwork. American Psychologist, 73(4), 349–362.Google Scholar
Bertolotti, F., Mattarelli, E., Mortensen, M., O’Leary, M., & Incerti, V. (2013). How many teams should we manage at once? The effect of multiple team membership, collaborative technologies, and polychronicity on team performance. 34th International Conference on Information Systems, December 15–18, 2013. Association for Information Systems, Milan, Italy. Retrieved from https://dblp.org/db/conf/icis/icis2013Google Scholar
Bui, L., Zapotosky, M., Barrett, D., & Berman, M. (2017). At least 59 killed in Las Vegas shooting rampage, more than 500 others injured. Washington Post, October 2. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/10/02/Google Scholar
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1189–1207.Google Scholar
Carpenter, J. (2013). The quiet professional: An investigation of US military explosive ordnance disposal personnel interactions with everyday field robots (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, USA.Google Scholar
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1217–1234.Google Scholar
Carter, D. R., DeChurch, L. A., Braun, M. T., & Contractor, N. S. (2015). Social network approaches to leadership: An integrative conceptual review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 597–622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038922Google Scholar
Connaughton, S. L., Williams, E. A., & Shuffler, M. L. (2012). Social identity issues in multiteam systems: Considerations for future research. In Zaccaro, S. J., Marks, M. A., & DeChurch, L. (Eds.), Multiteam systems: An organization form for dynamic and complex environments (pp. 109–140). New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Contractor, N. (2013). Some assembly required: Leveraging Web science to understand and enable team assembly. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371(1987), 20120385. doi:10.1098/rsta.2012.0385Google Scholar
Cox, J., Oh, E. Y., Simmons, B., Lintott, C., Masters, K., Greenhill, A., ... & Holmes, K. (2015). Defining and measuring success in online citizen science: A case study of Zooniverse projects. Computing in Science & Engineering, 17(4), 28–41.Google Scholar
Cullen-Lester, K. L., Maupin, C. K., & Carter, D. R. (2017). Incorporating social networks into leadership development: A conceptual model and evaluation of research and practice. Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 130–152.Google Scholar
Cunningham, S., Chellali, A., Jaffre, I., Classe, J., & Cao, C. G. (2013). Effects of experience and workplace culture in human–robot team interaction in robotic surgery: A case study. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(1), 75–88.Google Scholar
Davison, R. B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Barnes, C. M., Sleesman, D. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2012). Coordinated action in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 808–824.Google Scholar
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 857–880.Google Scholar
DeChurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. (2006). Leadership in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 311–329.Google Scholar
De Jong, B. A., & Elfring, T. (2010). How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 535–549.Google Scholar
DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627–647.Google Scholar
De Vries, T. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Davison, R. B., Walter, F., & Van der Vegt, G. S. (2016). Managing coordination in multiteam systems: Integrating micro and macro perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5), 1823–1844.Google Scholar
D’Onfro, J. (2018, March 18). These Google employees used their “20 percent” time to improve Maps for people in wheelchairs. Business Insider. Retrieved from www.businessinsider.com/google-20-percent-time-policy-2015-4Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. C., & Harvey, J. F. (2018). Cross-boundary teaming for innovation: Integrating research on teams and knowledge in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 28(4), 347–360.Google Scholar
Firth, B. M., Hollenbeck, J. R., Miles, J. E., Ilgen, D. R., & Barnes, C. M. (2015). Same page, different books: Extending representational gaps theory to enhance performance in multiteam systems. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 813–835.Google Scholar
Fortson, L., Masters, K., Nichol, R., Borne, K., Edmondson, E., Lintott, C., ... & Wallin, J. (2012). Galaxy zoo: Morphological classification and citizen science. In Way, M. J., Scargle, J. D., Ali, K. M., & Srivastava, A. N. (Eds.), Advances in machine learning and data mining for astronomy (pp. 213–236). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Friedrich, T. L., Griffith, J. A., & Mumford, M. D. (2016). Collective leadership behaviors: Evaluating the leader, team network, and problem situation characteristics that influence their use. Leadership Quarterly, 27, 312–333.Google Scholar
Friedrich, T. L., Vessey, W. B., Schuelke, M. J., Ruark, G. A., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). A framework for understanding collective leadership: The selective utilization of leader and team expertise within networks. Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 933–958.Google Scholar
Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(20), 1–35.Google Scholar
Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451–495.Google Scholar
Gittell, J. H., Godfrey, M., & Thistlethwaite, J. (2013). Interprofessional collaborative practice and relational coordination: Improving healthcare through relationships. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 27(3), 210–213.Google Scholar
Gombolay, M. C., Wilcox, R. J., & Shah, J. A. (2018). Fast scheduling of robot teams performing tasks with temporospatial constraints. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 34(1), 220–239.Google Scholar
Gorman, J. C., Cooke, N. J., & Amazeen, P. G. (2010). Training adaptive teams. Human Factors, 52(2), 295–307.Google Scholar
Groom, V., & Nass, C. (2007). Can robots be teammates?: Benchmarks in human–robot teams. Interaction Studies, 8(3), 483–500.Google Scholar
Grossman, D. (2018). Amazon fired its resume-reading AI for sexism. Retrieved from www.popularmechanics.com/technology/robots/a23708450/amazon-resume-ai-sexism/Google Scholar
Gruenfeld, D. H., Martorana, P. V., & Fan, E. T. (2000). What do groups learn from their worldliest members? Direct and indirect influence in dynamic teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 45–59.Google Scholar
Guimera, R., Uzzi, B., Spiro, J., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2005). Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science, 308(5722), 697–702.Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R. (1998). Why teams don’t work. In Tindale, R. S., Heath, L., & Edwards, J. (Eds.), Theory and research on small groups (pp. 245–267). New York, NY: Plenum.Google Scholar
Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y., De Visser, E. J., & Parasuraman, R. (2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human–robot interaction. Human Factors, 53(5), 517–527.Google Scholar
Hausknecht, J. P., & Holwerda, J. A. (2013). When does employee turnover matter? Dynamic member configurations, productive capacity, and collective performance. Organization Science, 24(1), 210–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, E. (2008, May 12). Google’s 20 percent factor. ABC News. Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4839327&page=1Google Scholar
Hinds, P. J., Carley, K. M., Krackhardt, D., & Wholey, D. (2000). Choosing work group members: Balancing similarity, competence, and familiarity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81(2), 226–251.Google Scholar
Hogg, M. A., Van Knippenberg, D., & Rast, D. E. III (2012). Intergroup leadership in organizations: Leading across group and organizational boundaries. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 232–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshi, A., & Knight, A. P. (2015). Who defers to whom and why? Dual pathways linking demographic differences and dyadic deference to team effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 59–84.Google Scholar
Klein, K. J., Ziegert, J. C., Knight, A. P., & Xiao, Y. (2006). Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(4), 590–621.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In Borman, W. C., Ilgen, D. R., & Klimoski, R. J. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Vol. 12: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333–375). London, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124.Google Scholar
Kuhn, K. M. (2016). The rise of the “Gig Economy” and implications for understanding work and workers. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 157–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanaj, K., Foulk, T. A., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2018). The benefits of not seeing eye to eye with leadership: Divergence in risk preferences impacts multiteam system behavior and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 61(4), 1554–1582.Google Scholar
Lanaj, K., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2015). Leadership over-emergence in self-managing teams: The role of gender and countervailing biases. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1476–1494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanaj, K., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Barnes, C. M., & Harmon, S. J. (2013). The double-edged sword of decentralized planning in multiteam systems. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 735–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 385–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 585–634.Google Scholar
Lewis, K., Belliveau, M., Herndon, B., & Keller, J. (2007). Group cognition, membership change, and performance: Investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(2), 159–178.Google Scholar
Lintott, C. J., Schawinski, K., Slosar, A., Land, K., Bamford, S., Thomas, D., ... & Murray, P. (2008). Galaxy Zoo: morphologies derived from visual inspection of galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 389(3), 1179–1189.Google Scholar
Luciano, M. M., DeChurch, L. A., & Mathieu, J. E. (2018). Multiteam systems: A structural framework and meso-theory of system functioning. Journal of Management, 44(3), 1065–1096.Google Scholar
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376.Google Scholar
Marr, B. (2018, August 29). The future of work: Are you ready for smart cobots? Forbes. Retrieved from www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2018/08/29/the-future-of-work-are-you-ready-for-smart-cobots/#174e49e522b3Google Scholar
Maruping, L. M., & Agarwal, R. (2004). Managing team interpersonal processes through technology: A task–technology fit perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 975–990.Google Scholar
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, J. E., Marks, M. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). Multi-team systems. In Anderson, N., Ones, D. S., Sinangil, H. K., & Viswesvaran, C. (Eds.), Organizational psychology, Vol. 2: Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (pp. 289–313). London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2014). A review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40(1), 130–160.Google Scholar
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., Carter, D. R., Asencio, R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2016). Space exploration illuminates the next frontier for teams research. Group & Organization Management, 41(5), 595–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, M., Woolley, A. W., & O’Leary, M. B. (2007). Conditions enabling effective multiple team membership. In Crowston, K., Sieber, S., & Wynn, E. (Eds.), Virtuality and virtualization (pp. 215–228). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business.Google Scholar
Murase, T., Carter, D. R., DeChurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. (2014). Mind the gap: The role of leadership in multiteam system collective cognition. Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 972–986.Google Scholar
O’Leary, M. B., Mortensen, M., & Woolley, A. W. (2011). Multiple team membership: A theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 461–478.Google Scholar
Osborn, K. (2016, June 6). Real-time drone footage just gave the Apache a deadly advantage. Business Insider. Retrieved from www.businessinsider.com/real-time-drone-footage-for-apache-2016-6Google Scholar
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Pluut, H., Flestea, A. M., & Curşeu, P. L. (2014). Multiple team membership: A demand or resource for employees? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 18(4), 333–348.Google Scholar
Robinette, P., Li, W., Allen, R., Howard, A. M., & Wagner, A. R. (2016). Overtrust of robots in emergency evacuation scenarios. 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human–Robot Interaction, March 7–10, 2016, Christchurch, New Zealand. Association for Computing Machinery/Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. Retrieved from http://humanrobotinteraction.org/2016/Google Scholar
Sauermann, H., & Franzoni, C. (2015). Crowd science user contribution patterns and their implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(3), 679–684.Google Scholar
Shuffler, M. L., & Carter, D. R. (2018). Teamwork situated in multiteam systems: Key lessons learned and future opportunities. American Psychologist, 73(4), 390–406.Google Scholar
Simpson, R., Page, K. R., & De Roure, D. (2014). Zooniverse: Observing the world’s largest citizen science platform. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW ’14 Companion) (pp. 1049–1054). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Spitzmuller, M., & Park, G. (2018). Terrorist teams as loosely coupled systems. American Psychologist, 73(4), 491–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinke, J., Bolunmez, B., Fletcher, L., Wang, V., Tomassetti, A. J., Repchick, K. M., ... & Tetrick, L. E. (2015). Improving cybersecurity incident response team effectiveness using teams-based research. IEEE Security & Privacy, 13(4), 20–29.Google Scholar
Sullivan, S. D., Lungeanu, A., DeChurch, L. A., & Contractor, N. S. (2015). Space, time, and the development of shared leadership networks in multiteam systems. Network Science, 3(1),124–155.Google Scholar
Torres-Cortez, R. (2017, October 7). Firefighters’ training kicked in, helping curb shooting death toll. Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved from https://lasvegassun.com/news/2017/oct/07/firefighters-training-kicked-in-helping-curb-shoot/Google Scholar
Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342(6157), 468–472.Google Scholar
Wang, J., & Hicks, D. (2015). Scientific teams: Self-assembly, fluidness, and interdependence. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wax, A. (2015). Self-assembled teams: Attraction, composition, and performance (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgia Institute of Technology, USA.Google Scholar
Weaver, C. P., Mooney, S., Allen, D., Beller-Simms, N., Fish, T., Grambsch, A. E., ... & Langner, L. (2014). From global change science to action with social sciences. Nature Climate Change, 4(8), 656–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaccaro, S. J., Marks, M. A., & DeChurch, L. A. (2012). Multiteam systems: An introduction In Multiteam systems (pp. 18–47). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 451–483.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×