By Alyssa Curry, Undergraduate Research Assistant
Teams are present in virtually every organizational context. Therefore, it’s important that research is up-to-date on team-related processes and outcomes in order to develop more efficient teams in the workplace. CORE researcher Denise Reyes first identifies 10 crucial reflections drawn from various reviews and articles, and then delineates 3 areas for future research in her
article titled “The Science of Teamwork: Progress, Reflections, and the Road Ahead.”
The first reflection covers theories common in team science. For example, the input-process-outcome (IPO) model is the most frequently used framework for studying organizational teams. Inputs denote the organizational, team, and individual level factors influencing processes. These processes refer to team behaviors, and outcomes are the team-related results. However, Reyes notes that over time, this model has been criticized as oversimplified, leading to a great focus on cyclical models such as the input-mediator-outcome-input (IMOI) model.
Next, the second reflection demonstrates that a more collaborative approach is being taken in organizations. Teams are becoming increasingly more interdisciplinary, interprofessional, and cross-cultural. Much work done in today’s organizations transcends individual capacities and can only be completed with larger collectives.
Third, teams can vary greatly on various factors such as skill differentiation, life span, and many more. It is important to keep this idea at the forefront of team science in order to understand the resulting dynamics and outcomes. However, Reyes’ fourth reflection qualifies this statement by adding that although no two teams are the same, a team’s overall purpose and context provides a way to identify what kind of team it is. She provides an example of how astronaut teams typically operate in isolated and confined environments.
Psychological safety is a hot topic in current research. The term refers to teammates’ shared belief that it is safe to take interpersonal risks without fear of backlash. This can be altered by culture, such as how Americans usually develop trust through friendship whereas Chinese teammates develop trust based on judgments of competency. It’s important to note that psychological safety is a factor that can be developed with the help of debriefs and leadership communication.
Through various studies, researchers have identified transportable (they can be used irrespective of the team or task) competencies such as coordination, communication, and adaptability. Coordination is defined as the process of organizing each team members’ attributes effectively in order to reach a shared goal. Communication covers information exchange between members of a team, and research demonstrates that quality is more important than quantity. Adaptability refers to how the team adjusts behaviors and strategies in order to match the team’s circumstance.
Seventh, Reyes points out that individual experts on a team does not equate to an expert team. Instead of there being an ideal personality, team performance is more based on how individual personalities complement each other.
Next, it’s important to conduct team research in a standardized way in order to get accurate data. A few key processes are collecting data unobtrusively, using a triangulation approach, and measuring teams over time. Reyes also underlines that team interventions are valuable to the improvement of team functioning but should not be relied on as a cure-all. Lastly, organizations should implement reward structures for teamwork in order to promote effective teams.
In terms of future research, Reyes states that scientists should explore multiteam systems and utilize technology in order to measure and understand both teamwork and team interventions. Overall, she pushes for a more multidisciplinary approach to the science of teamwork and highlights the advances the field has made thus far.
Work Cited
Salas, E., Reyes, D. L., & McDaniel, S. H. (2018). The science of teamwork: Progress, reflections,
and the road ahead. American Psychologist, 73(4), 593-600.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000334