Team Development Interventions: Evidence-Based Approaches for Improving Teamwork
Verified
Added on 2022/12/28
|15
|15728
|28
AI Summary
This article provides a review of four types of evidence-based team development interventions (TDIs) including team training, leadership training, team building, and team debriefing. It aims to provide psychologists with an understanding of the scientific principles underlying TDIs and their impact on team dynamics.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
taskandteamcompetencies. While taskwork competencies are the knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs) necessary to achieve individual task performance, team competencies are those KSAs critical for team members to interdependently interact with one another effectively and in such a way that leadstopositiveteam-basedoutcomes(Salas,Rosen, Burke,& Goodwin,2009).Thus,in addition to exhibiting individual-levelexpertise(i.e.,taskwork competencies), team members must also display expertise in teamwork (i.e., team competencies).A vast domain of team competencies exists, with organizational scientists from both industry and academia identifying those thatare mostcriticalto team effectiveness. For example, for teams at Google, those most criticalincludepsychologicalsafetyanddependability (among others;Rozovsky,2015),whileSalasand col- leagues (2009)provide a general list of competencies rele- vant to teams across domains (seeFigure 1for a subset of these competencies),which can be classified into three broad categories (i.e., attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions). Despite the increased expectationsto work collabora- tively and the benefits associated with effective teamwork, companies continue to report a lack of team competencies among their employees.According to a recentstudy con- ducted by PayScale, 36% of recent graduates have deficient team and interpersonal competencies (Dishman, 2016). Re- latedly, companies also demonstrate the inability to manage and arrange teams because only 21% of executives believe their company holds expertise in designing cross-functional teams (Kaplan et al., 2016). As such, there is a compelling need to deploy psychologically sound,empirically tested ways to boosteffective teamwork,and,more specifically, team competencies (e.g., adaptability, team orientation;Salas, Sims,& Burke,2005),team processes (e.g.,mission anal- ysis,team monitoring,and backup behavior;Marks etal., 2001),interpersonalprocesses(e.g.,conflictresolution, trust development;Shuffler, DiazGranados, & Salas, 2011), and leadership capabilities (e.g.,intrapersonalskills,busi- ness skills;Hogan & Warrenfeltz,2003). One way to improve teamwork is through the implemen- tation ofteam development interventions(TDIs;Shuffler et al.,2011).We define a TDI as a systematic activity aimed atimproving requisite team competencies,processes,and overall effectiveness. There are multiple types of TDIs that are used in organizations across industries.Although TDIs may differ in terms of contentfocus,the intentof each is similar,to improve team effectiveness in order to enhance Christina N. Lacerenza Figure 1.Team competencies: Attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions. This figure provides a subset of evidence- based team competencies. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 518LACERENZA,MARLOW,TANNENBAUM,AND SALAS
results—and meta-analytic and empirical evidence suggest they do so successfully across proximal (e.g.,team perfor- mance;Salas,Nichols,& Driskell,2007) and distal(e.g., reduction in patient deaths;Hughes et al., 2016) outcomes. In the current article, we identify four major types of TDIs and synthesize scientific evidence supporting the use of each intervention type. In doing so, we aim to provide psychologists with an understanding of the scientific principles and evidence underlying TDIs.The four types of TDIs presented are (1) team training,(2) leadership training,(3) team building,and (4) team debriefing. We selected these TDIs because each has ample theoreticaland empiricalevidence in supportofits efficacy and because each intervention serves a distinct pur- pose.Although previous reviews have focused on one (e.g., team building;Klein et al., 2009) or two (e.g., team building and team training;Shuffler etal.,2011) types of TDIs,we include the aforementioned four to provide readers with an understanding of the range of interventions andhowandwhy they work.1All four can be effective, but they serve different purposes and are designed differently (as identified inFigure 2). We note there to be two main categories of TDIs, training interventions and process interventions.These TDIs can be further distinguished by identifying who is attending the train- ing program, either a leader (i.e., individual), or team members belonging to a team that is either intact (i.e., a team with fairly stable membership and shared work experience with each other) or ad hoc (i.e., a team with individuals lacking a history of working together). Generally, process interventions are de- signed for intact teams, while training interventions can be for leaders, ad hoc, or intact teams. As such, it is not our intention to promote the use of one TDI over the other; rather, our goal is to identify the conditions under which each strategy is most effective and to highlightthe main goalofeach.2In the following sections, we define each TDI, highlight evidence in supportoftheirsuccess,and synthesize scientific findings regarding boundary conditions and influences on their effec- tiveness. We also describe four scenarios to provide the reader with a sense of the way in which each TDI tends to work in practice.These scenarios are based,in part,on the authors’ experiences. Improving Team Competencies: Team Training Team training is a formalized, structured learning experience with preset objectives and curriculum that target specific team competencies.Furthermore,this intervention improves team processes by improving these competencies and is argued to foster enhanced teamwork by promoting improvement in spe- cific teamwork skills linked to team performance (Salas et al., 2008). Team training has been implemented across industries (e.g., engineering, education, health care;Salas et al., 2008) as science suggestsitseffectivenessacrossvariousoutcomes (e.g.,team communication,patientdeaths;Hughesetal., 2016). Because of the strong empirical support for team train- ing, we are seeing a rise in the implementation of these pro- grams across health care settings nationwide to reduce the amount of medical errors caused by teamwork failures (e.g., Weaver,Dy,& Rosen,2014).For example,the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ, which is housed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) invested in the development and dissemination of Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and PatientSafety (Team- STEPPS;AHRQ,2017),which is a team training program consisting of case studies and web-based tools. This program has been used across health care institutions and is customiz- able (as evidenced byLisbon et al. [2016], who implemented a version that entailed video vignettes, group discussion, and informational modules). In addition to health care, team train- ing has also been circulated within the education domain; for example,CATME (the Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness) was developed to assist student engi- neering teams with their team effectiveness and consists of web-based tools,teamwork evaluation metrics,and other re- lated instruments (seeinfo.catme.orgfor more information). These examples represent a few of many approaches to team training.Many team training programs have been created, there are many different tools available to facilitate them, and there is ample evidence supporting their effectiveness across 1Although the current framework is nested within the teams literature, itis importantto note thatitis notnecessarily comprehensive and other modes oforganizing the team developmentintervention literature may exist. 2Although these four TDIs can be used for multiple purposes (e.g., team training can include interpersonal content), the current paper focuses on the primary purpose of each TDI type for sake of parsimony. Shannon L. Marlow This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 519TEAM DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS
affective,cognitive,and performance-based outcomes atall levels (i.e., individual, team, organization;Delise, Allen Gor- man, Brooks, Rentsch, & Steele-Johnson, 2010;Hughes et al., 2016;Salas et al., 2007;2008). Scenario 1: Team Training for Surgical Teams A hospital has an active, high-volume surgical center. Sur- geries are performed by teams (e.g., surgeon, anesthesiologist, nurse, tech) that must coordinate to provide safe, effective care. They discover that teamwork breakdowns are a primary cause of surgicalerrors.Because team membership changes from surgery to surgery, it is very difficult to intervene at the intact team level, so they decide to conduct team training that focuses on transportable competencies that individuals can deploy during any surgery. They conduct a training needs analysis and discover that the most critical competencies are related to communication and mutual monitoring skills, including being alert for potential mis- takes, speaking up regardless of seniority, communicating us- ing standard language,and ensuring messages are accurately received (“closed-loop” communication). Using good instruc- tional design principles, they develop learning objectives and a training curriculum that includes exercises (role-plays and sim- ulated surgery)thatallow the participantsto practice and receive feedback on their communication and mutual monitor- ing skills.Follow-up shows thatparticipants have acquired competencies they can apply during any surgery. Improving Leader Capabilities: Leadership Training Heredity explains roughly 30% of the variance in leader- ship,while diverse experiences,training,and other factors are responsible forthe remaining 70% (Arvey,Rotundo, Johnson, Zhang, & McGue, 2006). This suggests that indi- vidual leadership capabilities can be improved, particularly with well-designed leadership training programs, and meta- analytic evidence supports this claim (Lacerenza,Reyes, Marlow,Joseph,& Salas,2017).Because leaders are an essential element to teams (Salas, Priest, & DeRouin, 2005), leadership training is an important TDI to discuss. Leader- Scott I. Tannenbaum Figure 2.Team developmentinterventions.This figure illustrates the fourmethods ofteam development interventions. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 520LACERENZA,MARLOW,TANNENBAUM,AND SALAS
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
ship training refers to interventions systematically designed to enhance leaderknowledge,skills,abilities,and other components.The intentofthese programsisto ensure participants are able to act effectively in formally appointed leadership roles and engage in successful leadership behav- iors, which support effective team processing (Day, 2001). While leadership training has been criticized by some (Morgan,2015;Myatt,2012;Nelson,2016),recentmeta- analytic evidence suggests that it improves learning,trans- fer, and organizational outcomes by up to 29% (Lacerenza et al., 2017). Thus, not only do these programs affect leaders participating in the programs (i.e.,by increasing learning and theirability to utilize concepts on the job,which is known as transfer),butthey also influence desired subor- dinate outcomes as well(e.g.,subordinate job satisfac- tion, turnover;Lacerenza et al., 2017). Furthermore, they increase leadership capabilities which enhance team per- formance (e.g., transformational and empowering leader- ship;Stewart, 2006), thereby also leading to increases in team performance and other desired team level outcomes. Forexample,in the contextofoccupationalsafety,we see that leadership training (and more specifically safety leadership and transformationalleadership training) en- hances safety climate,safety compliance,and safety be- haviors (e.g.,von Thiele Schwarz,Hasson,& Tafvelin, 2016). Scenario 2: Leadership Training for High-Tech Leaders A high-tech company is growing rapidly.They deploy teams extensively, from software development to customer service. They need more team leaders who are prepared to promote team effectiveness,but it is hard to keep up with growth demands.As is true with many organizations,they have been promoting technically strong individualsinto team leader positions.These leaders understand taskwork requirements,butare often ill-equipped to address team- work demands.The company decides to develop a team leadertraining program.As with any good training pro- gram,they assess the learning needs of their team leaders, and establish learning objectives and a training curriculum. The program focuses on a variety of team leadership com- petencies, including for example, how to provide construc- tive feedback and how to handle team memberconflict. Leaders are asked to complete two online modules to ac- quire foundational knowledge.They then attend live train- ing in cohorts of 16,where they engage in role-play exer- cises to practice new skills and receive feedback,have the opportunity to reflecton theirleadership practices,and develop personal action plans for applying their new skills when they return to their team. Team and Leadership Training: What Works, According to Science The science of training is a line of research that is quite established and has led to the development of several con- clusions regarding how to maximize training effectiveness (Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger, & Smith-Jentsch, 2012). Al- though team and leadership training represent distinct types oftraining,there are severalunderlying concepts which translate to both domains (and mostly alltraining types; Arthur,Bennett,Edens,& Bell,2003).As such,we first discuss those generalizable training features,and then out- line characteristics that may be unique to team and leader- ship training,respectively.First and foremost,it is impor- tanttonotethatmerelyprovidingtrainingdoesnot guarantee desired outcomes will be achieved. Furthermore, it is also important to clarify that regardless of the size of the investmentin the training program,following evidence- based recommendationsisthekey to ensureoutcomes (Brown & Sitzmann,2011).As Wakefield and colleagues stated, “. . . simply spending money on leadership programs is unlikely to be enough. . . . [they] must be targeted at what works” (Wakefield,Abbatiello,Agarwal,Pastakia,& van Berkel,2016).When delivering training programs,itis criticalthatsalienttheory and evidence are referenced to provide the most effective training. Theoretical frameworks of transfer (i.e.,the extentto which trained behaviors are implemented on-the-job after training has ended),usually the primary goaloftraining,have been introduced and refined such thatthere now exists empirically supported frameworks to guide the design, delivery, and evaluation of training.One ofthe seminalframeworks oftransferwas introduced byBaldwin and Ford (1988), who proposed that Eduardo Salas This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 521TEAM DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS
the extent to which learning transfers into on-the-job behav- iors is influenced by: training design features (e.g., training content), trainee characteristics (e.g., motivation), and char- acteristicsofthe work environment(e.g.,organizational support).There is meta-analytic evidence to supportBald- win and Ford’s (1988)modeloftransfer(Blume,Ford, Baldwin,& Huang,2010)and this modelapplies to the contextof team (e.g.,Hughes etal.,2016) and leadership training (Lacerenza et al.,2017). An important step to be taken during the initial stages of training developmentis thatof a needs analysis.A needs analysis reflects the “process of gathering data to determine what training needs exist so that training can be developed to help the organization accomplish its objectives” (Brown, 2002,p.569).During this analysis,you identify elements such as the teams that require training, the KSAs necessary for effectively completing team tasks,organizational goals and otherelementsofthe environmentthatwillaffect training success, and the KSAs required for effective team- work (Brown,2002).A needs analysis boosts training ef- fectiveness via identifying gaps between the existing and required skills and tailoring the training to address those gaps (Brown,2002).Italso provides insightinto whether the organization will support training transfer. As an exam- ple,House (2001)first conducted a thorough needs analysis, including interviews and focus groups with stakeholders (e.g.,experienced managers) and a review of competitors’ leadership training procedures, before developing the lead- ership training program.This process also provides an op- portunity to ensure that the goals of training align with both the needed skills of the trainees and the stakeholders’ ex- pectations of training. Delivery methods are another well-known elementthat influences outcomes, and they can be categorized into three overarching dimensions: information (e.g., lecture), demon- stration (e.g., video), and practice (e.g., role play). Although benefits exist for all three categories, research suggests the most effective programs tend to include a mix of the three (Salas etal.,2012).For example,inHouse’s (2001)lead- ership training program for employees of a high technology company,the program included lectures,discussion,role play,case studies,and otherexercises;the program ulti- mately proved to be successfulatimproving key manage- mentskills following training.Similarly,House and Tosi (1963)implemented information-(i.e.,discussions,lec- tures, reading materials) and practice-based (i.e., on-the-job training exercises) delivery methods in a leadership training program with engineering managers thatultimately led to transfer18 monthsfollowing training.By incorporating multiple delivery methods, various learning methods can be used (e.g.,individuals are provided with opportunities to practice leadership skills in addition to being exposed to the underlying information asthisenablesthem to actively participate,reflect,and grow;McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004), and both passive and active learning benefits can be achieved (Hughes et al.,2016;Zapp,2001). In addition to information,demonstration,and practice- based delivery methods,research also supports the use of feedback in both leadership and team training.When pos- sible, trainees should receive diagnostic feedback as part of their learning experience, whether it be following a role play exercise,on-the-job training,or a related experience (e.g., Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996). Feedback can improve an individual’s awareness of strengths and weaknesses, and provide him/herwith information on how to self-correct undesirable behavior (Kluger & DeNisi,1996).Lab- and field-based research supports the effectiveness of feedback (Engelbrecht& Fisher,1995;Ford,Smith,Weissbein, Gully,& Salas,1998),and itis a commonly used design feature in leadership (e.g.,Abrell,Rowold,Weibler,& Moenninghoff,2011) and team training programs (Hughes et al., 2016). For example,Engelbrecht and Fischer (1995) provided managers with a feedback report including strengths, weaknesses, and a developmental action plan during their leadership training program;training participants were rated higherthan a controlon various leadership skills (e.g.,problem resolution,managing information)a few monthsfollowing the training program.When imple- menting feedback for developmental purposes,however, itisimportantto frame the information asdiagnostic rather than evaluative (e.g.,Kluger & DeNisi,1996),to help reduce reactance and increase acceptance. Leadership Training In addition to the aforementioned generalguidelines, there are several design and delivery characteristics specific to leadership training.In particular,research suggests that leadership training developers should pay close attention to the desired outcome (e.g.,organizationalresults,transfer, learning)becauseleadership training programsmay be more effective for some than others. While leadership train- ing typically shows positive results for affective learning and affective transfer,they tend to be even stronger for cognitive learning,cognitive transfer,skill-based learn- ing,and skill-based transfer (Avolio,Reichard,Hannah, Walumbwa,& Chan,2009;Lacerenza etal.,2017).As such,when designing a leadership training program,it mightbe more beneficialto include (and evaluate) cog- nitive and/or skill-based content.Relatedly,stakeholder expectations should be managed to reflect these potential differences (e.g., make them aware that effects might not be as large for affective outcomes compared with skill- based). The desired outcome(s) should also be identified early on during training developmentbecause the training design should align with the coveted outcome. Specifically, content included in the program (e.g.,the skills trained)should This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 522LACERENZA,MARLOW,TANNENBAUM,AND SALAS
consistofthatwhich is proven to influence the desired outcome.For instance,if team leveloutcomes are desired (e.g.,cohesion,team satisfaction),the training should in- corporate skills which support these outcomes. For instance, research suggeststhattransformationalleadersengender team cohesion,potency,and performance;as such,ifan organization wishes to increase these outcomes, we suggest to implementaprogram incorporating transformational leadership skills, such as charisma, risk-taking, and mentor- ing (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Furthermore, because research suggests a strong impactof certain leadership styles (i.e., transformational leadership, empowering leadership;Lim & Ployhart,2004) on team-based outcomes,we recommend the adoption of programs incorporating related skills if team outcomes are desired.Research has also shown thatteam leadership training programsthatbuild skillsrelated to initiating structure (a well-known facet of leadership;Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004) produce team level effects following training. Team Training As with leadership training,there are additionalrecom- mendations specific to team training.As the goalof team training is to foster improved teamwork, the training should be tailored such that it is at the team level. In other words, training goals should be set at the team level and outcomes should be evaluated atthe team level(Salas etal.,2015). Similarly,researchers note thatboth team processes (e.g., team communication)and outcomes(e.g.,performance) should be measured to evaluate team effectiveness post- training (Smith-Jentsch,Sierra,& Wiese,2013).Asan example of an outcome measure,Siassakos and colleagues (2009)evaluated the effectiveness ofa health care team training program with a measure of patient outcomes (e.g., rate ofadmission to neonatalintensive care unit).As an example of a process measure,Sonesh et al. (2015)imple- mented a self-reportmeasure of perceived teamwork fol- lowing a team training intervention. Data on team outcomes indicate how well the team is performing while data on team processes provide insightinto why a certain levelof per- formance is being observed.Forexample,a measure of team process could revealthatteam communication is a major challenge. Another recommendation specific to team training is to fosterpsychologicalsafety during training.Psychological safety is a mutual belief among team members that the team can take interpersonal risks and that a “sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject, or punish someone for speaking up” (Edmondson,1999,p.354) exists.Psy- chologicalsafetyprovidesteam membersthecomfort needed to openly discuss errors without fear of punishment (Edmondson,1999).This is especially critical during team training, as learning from errors has been shown to facilitate enhanced performance in lab-based settings (Bell& Koz- lowski,2008).If psychologicalsafety is established,team members willbe more likely to openly discuss errors and how to address them in the future (Edmondson,1999).If psychological safety is not in place, such a discussion may not occur. Improving Team Dynamics: Team Building Team building has been defined as an intervention de- signed to fosterimprovementwithin a team,providing individuals closely involved with the task with the strategies and information needed to solve their own problems (Tan- nenbaum, Beard, & Salas, 1992). Researchers suggest there are four primary components to team building which can be implemented alone or in some combination: (a) goal setting, (b) interpersonal-relationship management,(c) role clarifi- cation,and (d) problem solving (Beer,1976;Dyer,1977). Locke,Shaw,Saari,and Latham (1981)suggested that setting difficult yet specific goals can improve performance. As an example of a difficult yet specific goal, a team might setthe goalof meeting twice a week.Supportfor setting difficultyetspecific goals has received ample empirical support(e.g.,Mento,Steel,& Karren,1987).In a team building context, the goal-setting component often includes the establishment of goals at both the individual and team- level.The interpersonal-relationship managementcompo- nentto team building focuses on developing trustand re- solving conflict,whereas the role clarification component entails uncovering role ambiguities and conflicts and then establishing clear roles within the team (Beer,1976).Fi- nally,Buller and Bell (1986)describe the problem solving componentas helping team members identify and solve task-related problems as well as identifying effective decision- making processes. A meta-analysisconducted byKlein and colleagues (2009),based on 60 effectsizes,supports the utility of team building for several outcomes. Their results indicate significant positive increases in several cognitive,affec- tive (e.g.,trust),and process(e.g.,coordination)out- comes as a function of team building interventions. How- ever,they did notfind asignificantdirecteffectof team-buildingonteam performancealthoughperfor- mance may be enhanced via improvements in the cogni- tive,affective,and processoutcomesdiscussed.Their results further indicate that all four components generally associated with team building interventions significantly improved some outcomes butgoalsetting and role clar- ification were the mosteffective.Goalsetting and role clarification components build shared understandings of the task and team (i.e.,shared mentalmodels)that,in turn,may foster changes in team processes. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 523TEAM DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Team Building: What Works,According to Science Each of the components of team building are founded on theories thathave been experimentally supported.Organi- zations should clarify the needs of the teams to determine the most appropriate team building components.Locke and Latham (2002)suggestthatgoalsetting improves perfor- mance through four specific mechanisms,by: (1) directing attention and effort toward identified goals, (2) energizing, (3) affecting persistence,and (4) affecting action through the discovery and/or use of knowledge pertinent to the task. Goals set at the team level are intended to be relevant to all team membersand to focuson team outcomes(Mills, 1984).Interpersonal-relationship managementis a compo- nent that fosters trust and provides team members with ways to manage team conflicteffectively (Argyris,1962).This typically involves a facilitator fostering open conversations among team members to address any issues,resolve any existing conflicts,and subsequently improve trustamong team members through these discussions (Salas et al., 2005). Providing individuals the opportunity to self-discover concerns through these discussions or other means can lead to awareness of specific teamwork weaknesses. Trust enables team members to overcome uncertainty and accept vulnerability toward teammates, enabling better team coordination and performance; this is a robust finding meta- analytically demonstrated across both field and lab samples (De Jong,Dirks,& Gillespie,2016).Virtually allteams experience conflict at times, so conflict management is also importantfor effective team functioning.Top performing MBA teamswere found to engage in effective conflict resolution techniques,including:(a) targeting content,rather than interpersonal interactions, (b) discussing the rationale for work assignments, and (c) assigning work based on expertise (Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, & Trochim, 2008). Team building can help a team develop constructive conflict management techniques and avoid behaviors such as blaming and with- holding information (Edelmann, 1993).Behfar et al. (2008) note that such behaviors can result in a decreased willing- ness to contribute to the team in a proactive manner (Jehn, 1997). Role clarification serves a similarly important func- tion in increasing team effectiveness.Research in field settings indicates that through establishing clearer delinea- tion ofroles and responsibilities,team members attain a betterunderstanding oftheirown and the teammates’ re- sponsibilities (Salas,Rozell,Mullen,& Driskell,1999).A similar finding with real-world teams indicates that role clarity can decrease confusion during task performance,facilitate backup behavior,and yield more effective outcomes (Eys & Carron, 2001). Role clarity doesnotassume role rigidity.Rather,it impliesa common understanding among team members about the way roles should be performed. There can be role clarity in teams that require team flexibility. For example, if team members have a common understanding abouthow different people should fill different roles based on specific work demands,they have role clarity without role rigidity. Role clarity is importantin almostany team,butmay be particularly so in teams that need to be adaptive.During a team building intervention, team members may discuss and determine the situations and task characteristics that require individuals to assume other team members’ roles. Research in field settings has shown that this type of role flexibility can lead to enhanced team performance (Campion,Med- sker,& Higgs,1993) although the necessity of role flexi- bility is contingent upon team type and associated demands. Finally, problem solving helps team members identify task- related problems,and implementsolutionsaccordingly. Dyer (1977)suggests thatthis componentenhances team effectiveness because itprovides a structure for teams to work together, pooling individual resources, to address key team problems.Shuffler et al. (2011)further argues this can develop enhanced decision-making skills,which has also been linked to more effective team performance (Kerr & Tindale,2004). Taken asa whole,each ofthe componentsofteam building serves an integralpurpose in furthering team effectiveness, and when using any of these approaches, it is criticalthatteams delineate tangible action plans or agreements to ensure there is no confusion aboutwhat needs to be done.Itis also importantto follow up on these plans to maintain accountability (Tannenbaum et al.,1992).Theaforementionedinformationreflects evidence-based components of team building programs. Oftentimes, organizations respond to teamwork issues by schedulingteam activitiesthatareseeminglylight- hearted, fun, and increase time spent between team mem- bers (e.g.,a ropes course,icebreaker).Although these exercises may work in the short-term,there is limited evidence suggesting that team building activities lacking scientifically based components are effective (Shuffler, Burke,Kramer,& Salas,2013).As such,itis recom- mended to incorporate only scientifically derived team building interventions to ensure benefits are achieved. Scenario 3: Team Building in an Insurance Claims Team Insurance claims teams need to coordinate and commu- nicate effectively to respond to customerneeds,making prompt, smart decisions that benefit both the customer and the company.In one organization,a number of disruptive changes were introduced, including a change in technology and an organizational restructuring that resulted in a change of leaders and responsibilities. As a result, one of the teams was struggling.After talking with severalteam members, the team leaderrecognizes thatthere is a greatdealof This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 524LACERENZA,MARLOW,TANNENBAUM,AND SALAS
ambiguity about roles and sense of direction. She decides to conducta facilitated team building session to address the concerns. As part of this process intervention, the facilitator leads the team through a series of semistructured discus- sionsand exercises.Forexample,they reestablish their mission statement(why the team exists),conducta role clarification exercise to clarify responsibilitiesand who needs to be consulted before and informed after decisions are made, and agree to a few “rules of engagement” in terms of how they want to interact with one another. As part of the role clarification exercise, they identify a few tasks that will require role flexibility,allowing them to quickly fill in for one another to address customer needs.They committo a monthly follow-up for the next few months to assess prog- ress and make adjustments. Improving Team Processes: Team Debriefing Team debriefing represents “...one of the most prom- ising methods foraccelerating learning from experience” (Eddy, Tannenbaum, & Mathieu, 2013, p. 976), and targets team processes.During a team debrief,team members re- flect on a performance episode or experience. They discuss whathappened during the event,uncoverproblemsand improvement areas,confirm successes,and develop a plan forfuture performance periods(Tannenbaum,Beard,& Cerasoli,2013).Team debriefs are designed to improve teamwork processes by engaging team members in active learning throughout the learning cycle (Kolb, 1984), which helps team members become more open to novel or oppos- ing ideas and exhibit heightened levels of insight. An effective debrief can lead to a shared understanding among team members aboutroles and responsibilities and about the team’s priorities, strengths, and shortcomings. In other words, team debriefs help a team build shared mental models (i.e., collective knowledge structures encompassing task and team relevant knowledge) which have been shown toincreaseteam effectiveness(DeChurch& Mesmer- Magnus,2010).Researchers have developed severaltypes of debriefs;however,the underlying purpose is consistent across specific debriefing techniques:to enhance team ef- fectiveness by leveraging active learning.For example,af- teraction reviews (AARs) represent a team debriefing tech- nique thatoriginated in the U.S Army (Darling,Parry,& Moore,2005).Thistechnique representsa typicalteam debrief such thatteam members discuss teamwork related issues following a performance episode.Another specific type of team debriefing used in the military is guided team self-correction (Smith-Jentsch,Cannon-Bowers,Tannen- baum, & Salas, 2008). This technique incorporates a trained facilitator who focuses the team’s discussion,creates and sustains a positive learning environment,encourages equal participation,demonstrates proper feedback practices,and coaches team members. Team debriefs have been implemented across a variety of team types,in both high-stakes environments where mis- takes may potentially cause catastrophic error (e.g.,health care,Gaba, Howard, Fish, Smith, & Sowb, 2001; aviation, Dismukes & Smith,2000;first-responders,Scott,Allen, Bonilla,Baran,& Murphy,2013)and additionalsettings (e.g.,virtualteams,Roebuck,Brock,& Moodie,2004). Meta-analytic evidence suggests that team debriefs increase team performance by an average of 20% to 25% (Tannen- baum & Cerasoli,2013),and despite their relatively short nature (average debrief time across 46 samples in a meta- analytic investigation was approximately 18 min;Tannen- baum & Cerasoli, 2013), their capacity for improving team effectiveness is powerful.In fact,Couper,Salman,Soar, Finn,and Perkins (2013)conducted a meta-analytic inves- tigation of team debriefing among intensive care medicine clinicians and found that it improved patient outcomes (e.g., the return of spontaneous circulation during a cardiac arrest) in addition to boosting learning, nontechnical, and technical performance.Furthermore,Chen,Bamberger,Song,and Vashdi (2017)found team debriefs led to improvements in employee burnout over time. As with other TDIs, while on average,team debriefs are quite effective,their efficacy is influenced by several factors. Team Debriefs: What Works,According to Science As mentioned previously, research shows team debriefing works across a variety of team types,and itworks across team types because certain elements can be tailored and the contentdiscussed during a team debrief is specific to the team athand.Forinstance,although team debriefsare typically conducted following a work shift or performance episode,they can be implemented during any pointof an ongoing project(Gómez & Ballard,2011).However,cer- tain fundamental elements influence team debrief efficacy, which are discussed below. Team climate plays an importantrole in determining the success of a debrief,because this TDI often involves surfacing constructive criticism of the team and individ- ualteam members (Arafeh,Hansen,& Nichols,2010). Assuch,team membersshould beinformed how to provide appropriate feedback,such as focusing on task- related information instead ofperson-oriented factors (Flanagan, 2008). In addition, it is important for the team to exhibita psychologically safe team climate asdis- cussed within the team training section. This type of team climate is important for team debriefs because it reduces the onsetof interpersonalconflict,enabling team mem- bersto contributeconstructively to team discussions. Similarly,while teams can conductself-led debriefs if structured properly (Eddy et al., 2013), research supports This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 525TEAM DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS
the use of a trained facilitator when feasible (Fanning & Gaba,2007;Halamek,2008).Whetherfacilitatoror team-led,the person guiding the debrief should encour- age participation among allteam members,ask open- ended questions targeting both team and task relevant KSAs,and encourage discussion of inhibiting team be- haviors(Arafeh etal.,2010;Fanning & Gaba,2007; Halamek,2008).In addition,effective debriefleaders explain thedebriefing processbutdo notlectureor dominate the discussion (Dismukes & Smith, 2000). Sat- isfaction with the debrief is heightened when team mem- bers feel included in the discussion and believe they can disagree with the leaderand each other(Scottetal., 2013). Debriefs are more effective when they are structured and follow alogicalprocessratherthan afree-form discussion.Research suggests thatteam debriefs struc- tured by performance related or teamwork related cate- gories are more effective than those structured chrono- logically (Smith-Jentsch etal.,2008).In the contextof SBT, rather than following a strict chronological recap of whathappened,itcan be helpfulto guide the team to considerspecific factorssuch ashow they communi- cated,madedecisions,orprovidedeachotherwith backupbehavior(Eddyetal.,2013;Smith-Jentsch, Zeisig,Acton,& McPherson,1998).Effective debriefs include a discussion of positive and negative behaviors as this fosters learning, furthers the development of accurate shared mentalmodels,and providestargetsforaction plansto improve performance (Ellis& Davidi,2005; Taylor,Russ-Eft,& Chan,2005).Following the team debrief,conclusionsand agreementsshould bedocu- mented and revisited to facilitate follow-up on commit- ments and promote accountability (Salas etal.,2008). In sum,the aforementioned interventions representfour primary TDIs;because teamwork is multifaceted (consist- ing of processes and emergentstates;Marks etal.,2001) there isnotan all-encompassing TDIthattargetseach teamwork facet.Leadership training represents the method by which leadercapabilities are improved,team training targets team competencies,team building enhances inter- personalcompetencies,and team debriefsenhance team processes (again,seeFigure 2for a model depicting these relationships). To achieve the most out of each intervention, evidence-based practices should be followed.We have re- viewed these practices above, and key conclusions from the science in supportof each method are briefly outlined in Table 1. Table 1 Evidence-Based Recommendations for Designing,Delivering,and Implementing Team Development Interventions (TDIs) General training •Use multiple and effective training methods (information,demonstration,practice,feedback) •Conduct a needs analysis •Provide diagnostic feedback •Ensure stakeholders’ expectations align with the goals of the training Leadership training •Target soft skills (i.e.,interpersonal,intrapersonal,and leadership skills) to enhance subordinate teamwork •Provide training on leadership styles related to teamwork (e.g.,transformational leadership,empowering leadership) •Target skills related to initiating structure (e.g.,managing team workload) •Evaluate cognitive and/or skill-based content Team training •Set training goals at the team level •Evaluate team processes (e.g.,communication) and outcomes (e.g.,performance) to assess training •Foster psychological safety during training Team building •Clarify needs of the teams to identify which components (i.e.,problem-solving,interpersonal relationship management,goal setting,or role clarification) are most needed for team improvement •Incorporate discussions and exercises that enable the team to self-discover concerns that can hurt their effectiveness •Guide the team to develop tangible action plans/agreements •Follow up on plans/agreements to maintain accountability Team debriefing •Ensure a psychologically safe team climate exists •If possible,use a trained facilitator,regardless provide ample structure to the debrief •Focus on performance- and teamwork-related categories,rather than reviewing events chronologically •Discuss positive and negative examples of behavior •Document conclusions and agreements reached Note.Selected citations:Abrell,Rowold,Weibler,& Moenninghoff,2011;Arafeh,Hansen,& Nichols,2010;Arthur,Bennett,Edens,& Bell,2003; Avolio,Reichard,Hannah,Walumbwa,& Chan,2009;Barling,Weber,& Kelloway,1996;Brown,2002;Dyer,1977;Eddy,Tannenbaum,& Mathieu, 2013;Ellis & Davidi, 2005;Engelbrecht & Fischer, 1995;Fanning & Gaba, 2007;Flanagan, 2008;Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully, & Salas, 1998;Halamek, 2008;House, 2001;Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004;Kerr & Tindale, 2004;Kluger & DeNisi, 1996;Lacerenza et al., 2016;Lim & Ployhart, 2004;Locke & Latham,2002;McCauley & Van Velsor,2004;Mills,1984;Piaget,1952;Salas,Rozell,Mullen,& Driskell,1999;Salas,Tannenbaum,Kraiger,& Smith-Jentsch,2012;Shuffler,DiazGranados,& Salas,2011;Smith-Jentsch,Zeisig,Acton,& McPherson,1998;Smith-Jentsch,Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum,& Salas,2008;Tannenbaum & Cerasoli,2013;Taylor,Russ-Eft,& Chan,2005;Zapp,2001. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 526LACERENZA,MARLOW,TANNENBAUM,AND SALAS
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
Scenario 4: Team Debriefing With a Senior Leadership Team In a financial services organization, the senior leadership team (SLT) of one of their largest business units was facing a numberofsignificantchallenges.As with mostsenior leadership teams,their team members come from different parts of the business (e.g.,finance,marketing,human re- sources,operations) and often interactwith differentcus- tomers (e.g., Region A vs. B). Each team member is also the leader of their own, more homogenous, team. When work- ing on the SLT,they are expected to represent the overall enterprise,but they often default to representing their own areas during SLT meetings.They acknowledge that this is adversely affecting their ability to work as a team and to make effective decisions, so they decide to conduct a series ofteam debriefs and bring in a facilitatorforassistance. During the firstdebriefthey reflecton theirmostrecent team meeting.They identify where they worked wellto- gether and where there were disconnects. For example, they uncover where one team member was simply intending to update the team about his area, but the other team members thought they were there to make a collective decision. They reach a few tangible agreements about how they intend to work together during future meetings.During subsequent debriefs they assess progress on prior agreements, and dis- cussotherperformanceevents;forexample,how they worked together during a recent change initiative. Areas for Future Research and Practice The information presented described the large body of research surrounding TDIs;however,more remains to be discovered,particularly in regards to environmentalinflu- ences.A variety ofteam typesexistand they differin regards to tasks, purpose, and level of interdependence (e.g., Sundstrom,McIntyre,Halfhill,& Richards,2000).Itis possible that certain team types may benefit more from any specific TDI, rather than each TDI being universal. Further- more,because environmentalfactors(e.g.,globalization, technologicalimprovements) lead to alterations in the na- ture of work (e.g.,knowledge-based work,collaboration), we argue that some team types will be used more frequently, and could benefitfrom targeted TDIs.Specifically,three such types of teams include virtual teams,software devel- opmentteams,and teams with nonhierarchicalleadership structures; all of which are discussed below. Virtual teams are becoming increasingly common (SHRM [Society for Human Resource Management], 2012) because they offer many potential advantages. Some common char- acteristics of virtualteams identified within the literature include communication via virtual tools,geographical dis- tribution, group membership in multiple organizations, and coordination acrossmultipletimezones(Schweitzer& Duxbury,2010).Although virtualteams may experience different challenges because of the variety of possible team characteristics,(for example,telecommunicating programs allow some team members to work remotely, although they may be within the same time zone, while other individuals on the team continue to work in the office [Bloom,2014]) some core challenges remain the same as a function of the widely used virtual communication tools. In particular, both the richness and the timeliness of team communication may be impacted by the tools used to communicate (Daft,Len- gel, & Trevino, 1987), warranting the use of TDIs designed specifically forthese concerns.Forinstance,misunder- standings may arise from a lack ofnonverbalcues (e.g., facialexpressions;Sproull& Kiesler,1986).As a conse- quenceofthesecommunication limitations,researchers have suggested that teams communicating solely via virtual tools willexperience limited socialpresence or a lack of social and psychological connection with other team mem- bers (Biocca, Harms, & Burgoon, 2003). Because of limited socialpresence and a lack offace-to-face contact,team members may struggle to form interpersonalrelationships and develop trust (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). Other mis- understandings may arise because virtualteams often in- clude team members from multiple organizations; each or- ganization may haveuniquenormsand approachesto works.Taken as a whole,these potentialchallenges high- light the need to develop future TDIs specifically suited to target these challenges (Schweitzer & Duxbury, 2010). Vir- tual teams may be better suited for a team training program thatprovides feedback in real-time (e.g.,as you goteam training)orfrom wearabletechnology (e.g.,sociometric badges). For example, wearable sensors provide information regarding socialinteractions among team members,and a real-time TDI could be programmed to alertvirtualteam members if repeated interactions have yet to occur between certain team members, triggering interpersonal team devel- opment. Software developmentteams representanother opportu- nity for additional TDIs. These teams are often virtual and consequently face many of the challenges outlined above. Moreover,software developmentteams often form fora new project,and disband upon completion,so they lack team history (Faraj& Sproull,2000).Teams with short lifespans require team members to trust one another quickly in orderto complete task requirements,and often have insufficient time to build strong interpersonal relationships. Action,such asa well-developed TDI,thathelpsthese teams build trust swiftly is critical,as early trust has been found to predictteam performance (Crisp & Jarvenpaa, 2013).Moreover,such teams are increasingly using agile programming approaches, which call for ongoing coordina- tion,continualadjustments,and a high degree ofteam adaptation (Larman,2004;Nerur,Mahapatra,& Man- galaraj, 2005). Another possibility for conflict or misunder- standings arises because software developmentteams are This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 527TEAM DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS
typically self-organized and self-managed,with fluid roles (Neruretal.,2005).Conflictsand confusion may arise because of this lack of clearly structured roles (Moe, Ding- søyr,& Dybå,2009).As a consequence,there is a clear need to adapt TDIs so they target the specific team compe- tencies required to supplement existing IT techniques.For example,IT teams are increasingly using a “scrum” tech- nique, in which they organize their work into 2-week cycles called sprints. In this approach, after projects are identified, sprints are structured around the requirements.Each sprint has its own list of deliverables.Regular meetings are con- ducted to ensure team members are meeting targets and the team is expected to make adjustments, as needed, along the way. It is easy to see how TDIs, such as team debriefs, can be tailored to supplement the scrum technique. Relatedly, a team building TDI could enable team members to address interpersonal problems that may arise with trying to meet a series of short deadlines,and team training that involves a simulated scrum assignment could assist with the develop- mentof team adaptability,and related team competencies necessary for this context. Last,the movement from hierarchical,top-down leader- ship to decentralized, team-led leadership is prevalent (Tan- nenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cohen, 2012) as organizations continue to adoptthe use ofself-managed teams,across industries (e.g.,military,health care,technology).In these teams,some leadership functions are distributed or shared among team members,orthey organically emerge over time. As a result, these teams experience different dynamics thatmay require specially targeted TDIs.Because ofthe inherentdifferences between shared and hierarchicallead- ership (i.e., leadership is distributed throughout team mem- bers instead of a single individual;Ensley,Hmieleski,& Pearce,2006),we argue thatdifferentleadership capabili- ties are needed foran individualto flourish within this structure. For instance, competencies required for effective sharedleadership may include team competencies(e.g., developing and sustaining psychologicalsafety;Edmond- son,1999),while effective traditionalleadership warrants individual competencies (e.g.,self-efficacy).As such,shared leadership training programs may include team competencies in addition to individualcompetencies;however,future re- search is needed to discern whether this holds true. Conclusion Teams are found everywhere,saving lives in hospitals, operating planes, executing military orders, solving societal issues,and inventing the nextpiece of life-changing tech- nology.The issues faced by organizations today are com- plex and dynamic,requiring responsive,quick,adaptive, and diversegroupsofindividuals(Tannenbaum etal., 2012). Although individual-based work continues to evolve into team-based work,the solution isnotassimple as replacing a team for an individual.The solution requires an effectiveteam, equipped with the KSAs, both at the individual and team level, that is capable of high-quality team processes and can adjust to meet evolving performance demands.This does not happen by chance and we cannot assume assembling a group of highly skilled individuals will result in an expert team.In addition to being technically able to perform their assignments, team members must also demonstrate teamwork competencies and leader capabilities, and the team as a whole must engage in effective interpersonal and team processing. To achieve these aims, teams should participate in psychologically sound,evidence-based TDIs as ample evidence exists high- lighting that when designed and implemented properly,they can boosta team’s capabilities and performance.Unfortu- nately, we have seen many organizations use other team inter- ventions with the false hope that simply giving a team the chanceto spend timetogetherorperform somefun activity together willmake them into a better team.We are notagainstteams having fun,butitis importantto differentiatebetweenresearch-tested,evidence-based TDIs like the ones described above and those thatare simply a pleasant,fun diversion thatmightboostteam affect for a few days. When the need for collaboration is real and consequences of poor teamwork are significant, the choice of an evidence-based TDI is a sound one. References Abrell,C.,Rowold,J.,Weibler,J.,& Moenninghoff,M.(2011).Evalua- tion of a long-term transformationalleadership developmentprogram. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 25,205–224.http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/239700221102500307 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).(2017).Team- STEPPS® 2.0.Retrieved fromhttps://www.ahrq.gov/teamstepps/ instructor/index.html Arafeh,J.M.,Hansen,S.S.,& Nichols,A.(2010).Debriefing in simulated-based learning: Facilitating a reflective discussion.The Jour- nal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing, 24,302–309.http://dx.doi.org/10 .1097/JPN.0b013e3181f6b5ec Argyris,C.(1962).Interpersonalcompetence and organizationalbehav- ior.Homewood,IL: Irwin. Arthur,W.,Jr.,Bennett,W.,Jr.,Edens,P.S.,& Bell,S.T.(2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features.Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,234 –245.http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.234 Arvey,R.,Rotundo,M.,Johnson,W.,Zhang,Z.,& McGue,M.(2006). The determinants of leadership role occupancy.The Leadership Quar- terly,17,1–20.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.10.009 Avolio, B. J., Reichard, R. J., Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A.(2009).A meta-analytic review of leadership impactresearch:Ex- perimentaland quasi-experimentalstudies.The Leadership Quarterly, 20,764 –784.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.006 Baldwin,T.T.,& Ford,J.K.(1988).Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research.Personnel Psychology, 41,63–105.http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00632.x Barling,J.,Weber,T.,& Kelloway,E.K.(1996).Effects of transforma- tional leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes.Journal ofApplied Psychology,81,827– 832.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021- 9010.81.6.827 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 528LACERENZA,MARLOW,TANNENBAUM,AND SALAS
Beer,M.(1976).The technology of organization development.In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.),Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp.937–994).Chicago,IL: Rand McNally. Behfar,K.J.,Peterson,R.S.,Mannix,E.A.,& Trochim,W.M.(2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflicttype,conflictmanagementstrategies,and team out- comes.Journal of Applied Psychology,93,170 –188.http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.170 Bell,B.S.,& Kozlowski,S.W.(2008).Active learning: Effects of core training design elementson self-regulatory processes,learning,and adaptability.Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,296 –316.http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.296 Biocca,F.,Harms,C.,& Burgoon,J.K.(2003).Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence (Cambridge,Mass.),12,456 – 480.http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ 105474603322761270 Bloom, N. (2014, January). To raise productivity, let more employees work from home.Harvard Business Review.Retrieved fromhttps://hbr.org/ 2014/01/to-raise-productivity-let-more-employees-work-from-home Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review.Journal of Management, 36,1065– 1105.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352880 Brown,J.(2002).Training needs assessment:A mustfor developing an effective training program.Public PersonnelManagement,31,569 – 578.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009102600203100412 Brown, K. G., & Sitzmann, T. (2011). Training and employee development for improved performance. In S. Zedeck (Ed.),APA handbook of indus- trialand organizationalpsychology,Vol2: Selecting and developing members for the organization(pp. 469 –503).http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 12170-016 Buller, P. F., & Bell, C. H. (1986). Effects of team building and goal setting on productivity: A field experiment.Academy of Management Journal, 29,305–328.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256190 Campion,M.A.,Medsker,G.,& Higgs,C.(1993).Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups.PersonnelPsychology,46,823– 847.http://dx .doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb01571.x Chen, J., Bamberger, P. A., Song, Y., & Vashdi, D. R. (2017). The effects of team reflexivity on psychological well-being in manufacturing teams. JournalofApplied Psychology.Advance online publication.http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/apl0000279 Couper,K.,Salman,B.,Soar,J.,Finn,J.,& Perkins,G.D.(2013). Debriefing to improve outcomesfrom criticalillness:A systematic review and meta-analysis.Intensive Care Medicine,39,1513–1523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-013-2951-7 Crisp, C. B., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2013). Swift trust in global virtual teams: Trusting beliefs and normative actions.JournalofPersonnelPsychol- ogy,12,45–56.http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000075 Cross, R., Rebele, R., & Grant, A. (2016). Collaborative overload.Harvard Business Review,94,74 –79. Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems.ManagementInformation SystemsQuarterly,11,355–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/248682 Darling,M.,Parry,C.,& Moore,J.(2005).Learning in the thick of it. Harvard Business Review,83,84 –92. Day,D.V.(2001).Leadership development:A review in context.The Leadership Quarterly,11,581– 613.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048- 9843(00)00061-8 DeChurch,L.A.,& Mesmer-Magnus,J.R.(2010).The cognitive under- pinnings ofeffective teamwork:A meta-analysis.JournalofApplied Psychology,95,32–53.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017328 De Jong,B.A.,Dirks,K.T.,& Gillespie,N.(2016).Trustand team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects,moderators,and covari- ates.Journal of Applied Psychology, 101,1134–1150.http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/apl0000110 Delise,L.A.,Allen Gorman,C.,Brooks,A.M.,Rentsch,J.R.,& Steele-Johnson,D.(2010).The effects of team training on team out- comes: A meta-analysis.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 22,53– 80.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/piq.20068 Dishman, L. (May, 2016).These are the biggest skills that new graduates lack.Retrieved fromhttps://www.fastcompany.com/3059940/the- future-of-work/these-are-the-biggest-skills-that-new-graduates-lack Dismukes, K. & Smith, G. M. (Eds.). (2000).Facilitation and debriefing in aviation training and operations(pp.1–12).Aldershot,United King- dom: Ashgate. Dyer, W. G. (1977).Team building: Issues and alternatives. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Eddy, E. R., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Mathieu, J. E. (2013). Helping teams to help themselves: Comparing two team-led debriefing methods.Person- nel Psychology,66,975–1008.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/peps.12041 Edelmann,R.(1993).Interpersonalconflictsatwork.Exeter,United Kingdom: British Psychological Society. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.Administrative Science Quarterly, 44,350 –383.http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2307/2666999 Ellis,S.,& Davidi,I.(2005).After-event reviews: Drawing lessons from successfuland failed experience.JournalofApplied Psychology,90, 857– 871.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.857 Engelbrecht, A. S., & Fischer, A. H. (1995). The managerial performance implicationsofa developmentalassessmentcenterprocess.Human Relations,48,387– 404.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00187267950 4800405 Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of verticaland shared leadership within new venture top management teams:Implications forthe performance ofstartups.The Leadership Quarterly,17,217–231.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.002 Eys, M., & Carron, A. V. (2001). Role ambiguity, task cohesion, and task self-efficacy.Small Group Research,32,356 –373.http://dx.doi.org/10 .1177/104649640103200305 Fanning,R.M.,& Gaba,D.M.(2007).Theroleofdebriefing in simulation-based learning.Simulation in Healthcare, 2,115–125.http:// dx.doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e3180315539 Faraj,S.,& Sproull,L.(2000).Coordinating expertise in software devel- opment teams.Management Science,46,1554 –1568.http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1287/mnsc.46.12.1554.12072 Flanagan,B.(2008).Debriefing:Theory and techniques.In R.H.Riley (Eds.),Manual of simulation in healthcare(155–170). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Ford,J.K.,Smith,E.M.,Weissbein,D.A.,Gully,S.M.,& Salas,E. (1998).Relationships ofgoalorientation,metacognitive activity,and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer.Journal of Ap- plied Psychology, 83,218 –233.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83 .2.218 Gaba,D.M.,Howard,S.K.,Fish,K.J.,Smith,B.E.,& Sowb,Y.A. (2001). Simulation-based training in anesthesia crisis resource manage- ment(ACRM):A decade ofexperience.Simulation & Gaming,32, 175–193.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104687810103200206 Gómez, L., & Ballard, D. I. (2011). Communication for change: Transac- tive memory systems as dynamic capabilities. InResearch in organiza- tional change and development(pp. 91–115). Bingley, England: Emer- ald Group Publishing Limited . Halamek,L.P.(2008,December).The simulated delivery-room environ- ment as the future modality for acquiring and maintaining skills in fetal andneonatal resuscitation.Seminars in Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, 13, 448 – 453.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2008.04.015 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 529TEAM DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Hogan,R.,& Warrenfeltz,R.(2003).Educating the modern manager. Academy ofManagementLearning & Education,2,74 – 84.http://dx .doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2003.9324043 House,D.A.(2001).Evaluating a new manager managementtraining program(Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.(1403972). House, R. J., & Tosi, H. (1963). An experimental evaluation of a manage- ment training program.Academy of Management Journal,6,303–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/255156 Hughes,A.M.,Gregory,M.E.,Joseph,D.L.,Sonesh,S.C.,Marlow, S.L.,Lacerenza,C.N.,...Salas,E.(2016).Saving lives:A meta- analysis of team training in healthcare.Journal of Applied Psychology, 101,1266 –1304.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000120 Jarvenpaa,S.L.,& Leidner,D.E.(1998).Communication and trustin global virtual teams.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3, 791– 815. Jehn, K. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups.Administrative Science Quarterly,42,530 –557. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393737 Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership:A meta-analytic testoftheirrelative validity.Journalof Applied Psychology,89,755–768.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010 .89.5.755 Judge,T.A.,Piccolo,R.F.,& Ilies,R.(2004).The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. JournalofApplied Psychology,89,36 –51.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-9010.89.1.36 Kaplan,M.,Dollar,B.,Melian,V.,Van Durme,Y.,& Wong,J.(2016). Human capitaltrends 2016 survey.Oakland,CA:Deloitte University Press.Retrieved fromdeloitte.com/us/en/pages/human-capital/articles/ introduction-human-capital-trends.html Kerr,N.L.,& Tindale,R.S.(2004).Group performance and decision making.Annual Review of Psychology,55,623– 655.http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009 Klein, C., DiazGranados, D., Salas, E., Le, H., Burke, C. S., Lyons, R., & Goodwin,G.F.(2009).Does team building work?SmallGroup Re- search,40,181–222.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496408328821 Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.PsychologicalBulletin,119,254 –284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 Kolb,D.(1984).Experientiallearning as the science oflearning and development.Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall. Lacerenza, C. N., Reyes, D. L., Marlow, S. L., Joseph, D. L., & Salas, E. (2017).Leadership training design,delivery,and implementation:A meta-analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology,102,1686 –1718.http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000241 Lacerenza, C. N., & Sonesh, S. C. (2016). What Makes an Expert Team? A Decade of Research.Academy ofManagementProceedings,2016, 17915.http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2016.17915abstract Lacerenza, C. N., & Sonesh, S. C. (2016, January).What makes an expert team? A decade of research.In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2016, No. 1, p. 17915). Anaheim, CA: Academy of Management. Larman,C.(2004).Agile and iterative development: A manager’s guide. Boston,MA: Addison Wesley Professional. Lim,B.C.,& Ployhart,R.E.(2004).Transformational leadership: Rela- tions to the five-factormodeland team performance in typicaland maximum contexts.Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,610 – 621.http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.610 Lisbon, D., Allin, D., Cleek, C., Roop, L., Brimacombe, M., Downes, C., & Pingleton,S.K.(2016).Improved knowledge,attitudes,and behav- iorsafterimplementation ofTeamSTEPPS training in an academic emergency department:A pilotreport.American JournalofMedical Quality,31,86–90.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1062860614545123 Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory ofgoalsetting and task motivation.A 35-yearodyssey.American Psychologist,57,705–717.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9 .705 Locke,E.A.,Shaw,K.N.,Saari,L.M.,& Latham,G.P.(1981).Goal setting and task performance:1969 –1980.PsychologicalBulletin,90, 125–152.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.90.1.125 Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes.Academy of Management Review,26,356 –376.http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4845785 McCauley, C. D. & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (2004).The center for creative leadership handbook ofleadership development(Vol.29).San Fran- cisco,CA: Wiley. Mento, A. J., Steel, R. P., & Karren, R. J. (1987). A meta-analytic study of the effects of goal setting on task performance: 1966 –1984.Organiza- tionalBehavior and Human Decision Processes,39,52– 83.http://dx .doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(87)90045-8 Mills,T.(1984).The sociology ofsmallgroups(2nd ed.).Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall. Moe,N.B.,Dingsøyr,T.,& Dybå,T.(2009).Overcoming barriers to self-management in software teams.IEEE Software,26,20 –26.http:// dx.doi.org/10.1109/MS.2009.182 Morgan, J. (2015, October). Why giving managers leadership training is a waste of time.Forbes Magazine. Retrieved fromhttp://www.forbes.com/ sites/jacobmorgan/2015/10/01/why-giving-managers-leadership- training-is-a-waste-of-time/#441d1e0141a5 Myatt, M. (2012, December). The # 1 reason leadership development fails. Forbes Magazine. Retrieved fromhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/ 2012/12/19/the-1-reason-leadership-development-fails/#546bde6234ce Nelson, C. (2016, April). Ditch your corporate leadership training program: Launch a Shakespeare Book Club instead.Forbes Magazine. Retrieved fromhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/christophernelson/2016/04/06/ditch- your-corporate-leadership-training-program-launch-a-shakespeare-book- club-instead/#1946b8f539d6 Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R., & Mangalaraj, G. (2005). Challenges of migrat- ing to agile methodologies.Communications ofthe ACM,48,72–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1060710.1060712 Piaget,J.(1952).The originsofintelligence in children(Vol.8,pp. 18 –1952).New York,NY: International Universities Press. Roebuck, D. B., Brock, S. J., & Moodie, D. R. (2004). Using a simulation to explore the challenges of communicating in a virtual team.Business Communication Quarterly, 67,359 –367.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1080 569904268083 Rozovsky, J. (2015).The five keys to a successful Google team. Retrieved fromhttps://rework.withgoogle.com/blog/five-keys-to-a-successful- google-team/ Salas, E., Benishek, L., Coultas, C., Dietz, A., Grossman, R., Lazzara, E., & Oglesby, J. (2015).Team training essentials: A research-based guide. New York,NY: Routledge. Salas,E.,DiazGranados,D.,Klein,C.,Burke,C.S.,Stagl,K.C.,Good- win,G.F.,& Halpin,S.M.(2008).Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis.Human Factors,50,903–933.http://dx .doi.org/10.1518/001872008X375009 Salas,E.,Nichols,D.R.,& Driskell,J.E.(2007).Testing three team training strategies in intactteams a meta-analysis.SmallGroup Re- search,38,471– 488.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496407304332 Salas,E.,Priest,H.A.,& DeRouin,R.E.(2005).Team building.In N. Stanton,H. Hendrick, S. Konz, K. Parsons, & E. Salas (Eds.),Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods(pp.48 –1,48 –5).London, England: Taylor & Francis. Salas, E., Rosen, M., Burke, C. S., & Goodwin, G. F. (2009). The wisdom of collectives in organizations:An update of the teamwork competen- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 530LACERENZA,MARLOW,TANNENBAUM,AND SALAS
cies. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.),Team effective- ness in complex organizations(pp.39 –79) New York,NY:Taylor & Francis. Salas,E.,Rozell,D.,Mullen,B.,& Driskell,J.E.(1999).The effectof team building on performance: An integration.Small Group Research, 30,309 –329.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104649649903000303 Salas,E.,Sims,D.E.,& Burke,C.S.(2005).Is there a “big five” in teamwork?SmallGroup Research,36,555–599.http://dx.doi.org/10 .1177/1046496405277134 Salas,E.,Tannenbaum,S.I.,Kozlowski,S.W.,Miller,C.A.,Mathieu, J.E.,& Vessey,W.B.(2015).Teams in space exploration:A new frontierforthe science ofteam effectiveness.CurrentDirections in PsychologicalScience,24,200 –207.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963 721414566448 Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of training and development in organizations: What matters in practice.PsychologicalScience in the Public Interest,13,74 –101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436661 Schweitzer, L., & Duxbury, L. (2010). Conceptualizing and measuring the virtuality of teams.Information Systems Journal, 20,267–295.http://dx .doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2009.00326.x Scott, C., Allen, J. A., Bonilla, D. L., Baran, B. E., & Murphy, D. (2013). Ambiguity and freedom ofdissentin post-incidentdiscussion.The Journal of Business Communication (1973),50,383– 402. SHRM (Society forHuman ResourceManagement).(2012).Virtual Teams.Retrieved fromhttp://www.shrm.org/research/surveyfindings/ articles/pages/virtualteams.aspx Shuffler, M. L., Burke, C. S., Kramer, W. S., & Salas, E. (2013). Leading teams: Past,present,and future perspectives.In M.Rumsey (Ed.),The Oxford handbook of leadership(pp. 144 –166). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Shuffler,M.L.,DiazGranados,D.,& Salas,E.(2011).There’s a science forthat:Team developmentinterventionsin organizations.Current Directions in PsychologicalScience,20,365–372.http://dx.doi.org/10 .1177/0963721411422054 Siassakos, D., Hasafa, Z., Sibanda, T., Fox, R., Donald, F., Winter, C., & Draycott,T.(2009).Retrospective cohortstudy ofdiagnosis-delivery interval with umbilical cord prolapse: The effect of team training.BJOG, 116,1089 –1096.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02179.x Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (2008). Guided team self-correction: Impacts on team mental models, processes, and effectiveness.Small Group Research, 39,303–327.http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496408317794 Smith-Jentsch,K.A.,Sierra,M.J.,& Wiese,C.W.(2013).How,when, and why you should measure team performance.In E.Salas,S.I. Tannenbaum, D. Cohen, & G. Latham (Eds.),Developing and enhanc- ing teamwork in organizations(pp.552–580).San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass. Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Zeisig, R. L., Acton, B., & McPherson, J. A. (1998). Team dimensional training: A strategy for guided team self-correction. In J.A.Cannon-Bowers & E.Salas (Eds.),Making decisions under stress:Implications for individualand team training(pp.271–297). Washington,DC:American PsychologicalAssociation.http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/10278-010 Sonesh, S. C., Gregory, M. E., Hughes, A. M., Feitosa, J., Benishek, L. E., Verhoeven,D.,...Salas,E.(2015).Team training in obstetrics:A multi-level evaluation.Families, Systems & Health, 33,250 –261.http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/fsh0000148 Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues. Electronic mail in organizational communication.Management Science, 32,1492– 1512.http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1492 Stagl, K. C., Burke, C. S., Salas, E., & Pierce, L. (2006). Team adaptation: Realizing team synergy. In C. S. Burke, L. G. Pierce, & E. Salas (Eds.), Understandingadaptability:A prerequisite for effective performance within complex environments(pp.117–141).Amsterdam,the Nether- lands: Elsevier. Stewart,J.(2006).Transformational leadership: An evolving concept ex- amined through the worksofBurns,Bass,Avolio,and Leithwood. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 54,1–29. Sundstrom,E.,McIntyre,M.,Halfhill,T.,& Richards,H.(2000).Work groups:From the Hawthorne studies to work teams of the 1990s and beyond.Group Dynamics,4,44 – 67.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089- 2699.4.1.44 Tannenbaum,S.I.,Beard,R.L.,& Cerasoli,C.P.(2013).Conducting team debriefs that work: Lessons from research and practice. In E. Salas, S.I.Tannenbaum,D.Cohen,& G.Latham (Eds.)Developing and enhancing teamwork in organizations:Evidence-based bestpractices and guidelines(pp.488 –519).San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass. Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., & Salas, E. (1992). Team building and its influence on team effectiveness:An examination ofconceptualand empiricaldevelopments.Advances in Psychology,82,117–153.http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62601-1 Tannenbaum,S.I.,& Cerasoli,C.P.(2013).Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis.Human Factors,55, 231–245.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018720812448394 Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough?Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5,2–24.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01396.x Taylor,P.J.,Russ-Eft,D.F.,& Chan,D.W.(2005).A meta-analytic review of behavior modeling training.JournalofApplied Psychology, 90,692–709.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.692 von Thiele Schwarz,U.,Hasson,H.,& Tafvelin,S.(2016).Leadership training as an occupationalhealth intervention:Improved safety and sustained productivity.Safety Science,81,35– 45.http://dx.doi.org/10 .1016/j.ssci.2015.07.020 Wakefield, N., Abbatiello, A., Agarwal, D., Pastakia, K., & van Berkel, A. (2016).Leadership awakened:Generations,teams,science.Oakland, CA: Deloitte University Press. Retrieved fromhttp://dupress.com/articles/ identifying-future-business-leaders-leadership/ Weaver,S.J.,Dy,S.M.,& Rosen,M.A.(2014).Team-training in healthcare: A narrative synthesis of the literature.British Medical Jour- nalQuality & Safety,23,359 –372.http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs- 2013-001848 Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge.Science,316,1036 –1039.http://dx .doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099 Zapp,L.(2001).Use of multiple teaching strategies in the staff develop- mentsetting.Journalfor Nurses in StaffDevelopment,17,206 –212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00124645-200107000-00011 Received February 02,2017 Revision received December 20,2017 Accepted December 20,2017䡲 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 531TEAM DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS