Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T09:19:13.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Teams: Unifying Themes and the Way Ahead

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Scott I. Tannenbaum ,
John E. Mathieu ,
Eduardo Salas  and
Debra Cohen
Scott I. Tannenbaum*
Affiliation:
Group for Organizational Effectiveness
John E. Mathieu
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Eduardo Salas
Affiliation:
University of Central Florida
Debra Cohen
Affiliation:
Society for Human Resource Management
*
E-mail: scott.tannenbaum@groupoe.com, Address: Group for Organizational Effectiveness, Inc., 727 Waldens Pond Road, Albany, NY 12203
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The commentaries to our focal article were both interesting and stimulating. As we generally agreed with the major points raised in the commentaries, we use this response to frame an on-going tension point or challenge regarding team definitions, highlight a few unifying themes that weave through our initial article and the commentaries, and discuss the transition from research to informed practice. The past few decades have been exciting times for team researchers and practitioners, and the time is ripe for new energies and approaches.

Type
Response
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 56 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2012 

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

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2012). Three conceptual themes for future research on teams. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 45–48.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01403.xGoogle Scholar
Bell, S. T., & Fisher, D. M. (2012). Does dynamic composition mean the demise of shared team properties and the rise of global team properties? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 39–41.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01401.xGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1953). Group dynamics. London, UK: Tavistock. Google Scholar
DeCostanza, A. H., DiRosa, G. A., Rogers, S. E., Slaughter, A. J., & Estrada, A. X. (2012). Researching teams: Nothing's going to change our world. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 36–39.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01400.xGoogle Scholar
Hackman, J. R. (2003). Learning more by crossing levels: Evidence from airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 905–922. 10.1002/job.226Google Scholar
Keeton, K. E., Slack, K. J., Schmidt, L. L., & Malka, A. A. (2012). The rocket science of teams. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 32–35.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01399.xGoogle Scholar
Klein, C. (2012). Research will evolve, but we must do a better job of translating what we already know. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 52–55.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01405.xGoogle Scholar
Klimoski, R. (2012). Context matters. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 28–32.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01398.xGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, J. E., Marks, M. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). Multi-team systems. In Anderson, N., Ones, D., Sinangil, H. K., & Viswesvaran, C. (Eds.), International handbook of work and organizational psychology (pp. 289–313). London, UK: Sage. Google Scholar
Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T. L., & Gilson, L. L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–476. 10.1177/0149206308316061Google Scholar
Murase, T., Doty, D., Wax, A., DeChurch, L. A., & Contractor, N. (2012). Teams are changing: Time to “think networks.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 41–44.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01402.xGoogle Scholar
Salas, E., Wilson, K. A., Sims, D. E., Burke, C. S., & Priest, H. A. (2007). Teamwork training for patient safety: Best practices and guiding principles. In Carayon, P. (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and patient safety (pp. 803–822). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Shaw, M. E. (1964). Communication networks. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 111–147). New York, NY: Academic Press. 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60050-7Google Scholar
Wageman, R., Gardner, H., & Mortensen, M. (2012). Team have changed: Catching up to the future. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 48–52.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01404.xGoogle Scholar
West, M. A., & Lyubovnikova, J. (2012). Real teams or pseudo teams? The changing landscape needs a better map. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 25–28.10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01397.xGoogle Scholar
Zaccaro, S., Marks, M., & DeChurch, L. (2011). Multiteam systems: An organizational form for dynamic and complex environments. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar