Team Development Interventions: Evidence-Based Approaches for Improving Teamwork

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.

Team Development Interventions: Evidence-Based Approaches for
Improving Teamwork
Christina N. Lacerenza
University of Colorado Boulder
Shannon L. Marlow
Rice University
Scott I. Tannenbaum
The Group for Organizational Effectiveness, Inc.,
Albany, New York
Eduardo Salas
Rice University
The rate of teamwork and collaboration within the workforce has burgeoned over the years,
and the use of teams is projected to continue increasing. With the rise of teamwork comes the
need for interventions designed to enhance teamwork effectiveness. Successful teams pro-
duce desired outcomes; however, it is critical that team members demonstrate effective
processes to achieve these outcomes. Team development interventions (TDIs) increase
effective team competencies and processes, thereby leading to improvements in proximal and
distal outcomes. The effectiveness of TDIs is evident across domains (e.g., education, health
care, military, aviation), and they are applicable in a wide range of settings. To stimulate the
adoption and effective use of TDIs, the current article provides a review of four types of
evidence-based TDIs including team training, leadership training, team building, and team
debriefing. In doing so, we aim to provide psychologists with an understanding of the
scientific principles underlying TDIs and their impact on team dynamics. Moreover, we
provide evidence-based recommendations regarding how to increase the effectiveness of
TDIs as well as a discussion on future research needed within this domain.
Keywords: teams, team training, team debriefing, leadership training, team building
According to a recent survey conducted by Deloitte
across 130 countries and over 7,000 participants, the num-
ber one global workforce trend is teamwork (Kaplan, Dol-
lar, Melian, Van Durme, & Wong, 2016). Employees are
expected to work more collaboratively than ever before, and
according to Cross, Rebele, and Grant (2016), “collabora-
tion is taking over the workplace” (p. 4), with employees
and managers reporting at least a 50% increase in the
amount of time spent on team-related tasks. Specifically,
organizations are implementing networks of teams, whereby
projects are assigned to groups of individuals who work inter-
dependently, employ high levels of empowerment, communi-
cate freely, and either disband following project completion or
continue collaborating. The rise of teamwork spans industries,
including health care, science, engineering, and technology
(e.g.,Wuchty, Jones, & Uzzi, 2007). Teamwork is even critical
for successful space exploration as is evidenced by the recent
push for teamwork research to support a future Mars mission
(Salas, Tannenbaum, Kozlowski, Miller, Mathieu, & Vessey,
2015).
Effective teamwork allows teams to produce outcomes
greater than the sum of individual members’ contributions
(Stagl, Shawn Burke, & Pierce, 2006) and is driven by team
processes (i.e., “interdependent acts that convert inputs to
outcomes through cognitive, verbal, and behavioral activi-
ties directed toward organizing taskwork to achieve collec-
tive goals”; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001, p. 357) and
emergent states (i.e., dynamic properties of the team that
vary depending upon various factors), both of which require
Editor’s note. This article is part of a special issue, “The Science of
Teamwork,” published in the May–June 2018 issue of American Psychol-
ogist. Susan H. McDaniel and Eduardo Salas served as guest editors of the
special issue, with Anne E. Kazak as advisory editor.
Authors’ note. Christina N. Lacerenza, Leeds School of Business, Uni-
versity of Colorado Boulder; Shannon L.Marlow,Department of Psychology,
Rice University; Scott I. Tannenbaum, The Group for Organizational Effective-
ness, Inc., Albany, New York; Eduardo Salas, Department of Psychology, Rice
University.
This work was supported in part by contract 80NSSC18K0092 with the Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to the Group for Organi-
zational Effectiveness, contracts NNX16AP96G and NNX16AB08G with NASA
to Rice University, and research grants from the Ann and John Doerr Institute for
New Leaders at Rice University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eduardo
Salas, Department of Psychology, Rice University, 6100 Main Street,
Houston, TX 77005. E-mail: [e-mail]
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.
American Psychologist
© 2018 American Psychological Association 2018, Vol. 73, No. 4, 517–531
0003-066X/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000295
517

task and team competencies. 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
leads to positive team-based outcomes (Salas, Rosen,
Burke, & Goodwin, 2009). Thus, in addition to exhibiting
individual-level expertise (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 that are most critical to team
effectiveness. For example, for teams at Google, those most
critical include psychological safety and dependability
(among others; Rozovsky, 2015), while Salas and col-
leagues (2009) provide a general list of competencies rele-
vant to teams across domains (see Figure 1 for a subset of
these competencies), which can be classified into three
broad categories (i.e., attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions).
Despite the increased expectations to 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 recent study 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 boost effective 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 et al.,
2001), interpersonal processes (e.g., conflict resolution,
trust development; Shuffler, DiazGranados, & Salas, 2011),
and leadership capabilities (e.g., intrapersonal skills, busi-
ness skills; Hogan & Warrenfeltz, 2003).
One way to improve teamwork is through the implemen-
tation of team development interventions (TDIs; Shuffler et
al., 2011). We define a TDI as a systematic activity aimed
at improving 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 content focus, the intent of 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.
518 LACERENZA, 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 theoretical and empirical evidence in support of its
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 et al., 2011) types of TDIs, we
include the aforementioned four to provide readers with an
understanding of the range of interventions and how and why
they work.1 All four can be effective, but they serve different
purposes and are designed differently (as identified in Figure
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 highlight the main goal of each.2 In the
following sections, we define each TDI, highlight evidence in
support of their success, 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 suggests its effectiveness across various outcomes
(e.g., team communication, patient deaths; Hughes et al.,
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 Patient Safety (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 by Lisbon 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 (see info.catme.org for 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
1 Although the current framework is nested within the teams literature,
it is important to note that it is not necessarily comprehensive and other
modes of organizing the team development intervention literature may
exist.
2 Although 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 at all
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 surgical errors. 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) that allow the participants to practice and
receive feedback on their communication and mutual monitor-
ing skills. Follow-up shows that participants 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 for the 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 development interventions. This figure illustrates the four methods of team 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.
520 LACERENZA, MARLOW, TANNENBAUM, AND SALAS

ship training refers to interventions systematically designed
to enhance leader knowledge, skills, abilities, and other
components. The intent of these programs is to 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), recent meta-
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 their ability to utilize concepts on the job, which is
known as transfer), but they 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.
For example, in the context of occupational safety, we
see that leadership training (and more specifically safety
leadership and transformational leadership 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 individuals into
team leader positions. These leaders understand taskwork
requirements, but are often ill-equipped to address team-
work demands. The company decides to develop a team
leader training 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 member conflict.
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 reflect on their leadership 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
of training, there are several underlying concepts which
translate to both domains (and mostly all training 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-
tant to note that merely providing training does not
guarantee desired outcomes will be achieved. Furthermore,
it is also important to clarify that regardless of the size of the
investment in the training program, following evidence-
based recommendations is the key to ensure outcomes
(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, it is
critical that salient theory and evidence are referenced to
provide the most effective training. Theoretical frameworks
of transfer (i.e., the extent to which trained behaviors are
implemented on-the-job after training has ended), usually
the primary goal of training, have been introduced and
refined such that there now exists empirically supported
frameworks to guide the design, delivery, and evaluation of
training. One of the seminal frameworks of transfer was
introduced by Baldwin 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-
acteristics of the work environment (e.g., organizational
support). There is meta-analytic evidence to support Bald-
win and Ford’s (1988) model of transfer (Blume, Ford,
Baldwin, & Huang, 2010) and this model applies to the
context of team (e.g., Hughes et al., 2016) and leadership
training (Lacerenza et al., 2017).
An important step to be taken during the initial stages of
training development is that of 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 other elements of the environment that will affect
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). It also provides insight into 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 element that
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 et al., 2012). For example, in House’s (2001) lead-
ership training program for employees of a high technology
company, the program included lectures, discussion, role
play, case studies, and other exercises; the program ulti-
mately proved to be successful at improving key manage-
ment skills 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 that ultimately led to
transfer 18 months following 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 as this enables them 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/her with 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 it is 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 higher than a control on various leadership skills
(e.g., problem resolution, managing information) a few
months following the training program. When imple-
menting feedback for developmental purposes, however,
it is important to frame the information as diagnostic
rather than evaluative (e.g., Kluger & DeNisi, 1996), to
help reduce reactance and increase acceptance.
Leadership Training
In addition to the aforementioned general guidelines,
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., organizational results, transfer,
learning) because leadership training programs may 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 et al., 2017). As
such, when designing a leadership training program, it
might be more beneficial to 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 development because 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.
522 LACERENZA, MARLOW, TANNENBAUM, AND SALAS

consist of that which is proven to influence the desired
outcome. For instance, if team level outcomes are desired
(e.g., cohesion, team satisfaction), the training should in-
corporate skills which support these outcomes. For instance,
research suggests that transformational leaders engender
team cohesion, potency, and performance; as such, if an
organization wishes to increase these outcomes, we suggest
to implement a program incorporating transformational
leadership skills, such as charisma, risk-taking, and mentor-
ing (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Furthermore, because research
suggests a strong impact of 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 that team
leadership training programs that build skills related 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 additional recom-
mendations specific to team training. As the goal of 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 at the team level (Salas et al., 2015).
Similarly, researchers note that both 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). As an
example of an outcome measure, Siassakos and colleagues
(2009) evaluated the effectiveness of a health care team
training program with a measure of patient outcomes (e.g.,
rate of admission to neonatal intensive care unit). As an
example of a process measure, Sonesh et al. (2015) imple-
mented a self-report measure 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 insight into why a certain level of per-
formance is being observed. For example, a measure of
team process could reveal that team communication is a
major challenge.
Another recommendation specific to team training is to
foster psychological safety 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-
chological safety provides team members the comfort
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 psychological safety is established, team
members will be 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 foster improvement within 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
set the goal of meeting twice a week. Support for setting
difficult yet specific 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 management compo-
nent to team building focuses on developing trust and 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
component as helping team members identify and solve
task-related problems as well as identifying effective decision-
making processes.
A meta-analysis conducted by Klein and colleagues
(2009), based on 60 effect sizes, 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 not find a significant direct effect of
team-building on team performance although perfor-
mance may be enhanced via improvements in the cogni-
tive, affective, and process outcomes discussed. Their
results further indicate that all four components generally
associated with team building interventions significantly
improved some outcomes but goal setting and role clar-
ification were the most effective. Goal setting and role
clarification components build shared understandings of
the task and team (i.e., shared mental models) 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

Team Building: What Works, According
to Science
Each of the components of team building are founded on
theories that have been experimentally supported. Organi-
zations should clarify the needs of the teams to determine
the most appropriate team building components. Locke and
Latham (2002) suggest that goal setting 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 members and to focus on team outcomes (Mills,
1984). Interpersonal-relationship management is a compo-
nent that fosters trust and provides team members with ways
to manage team conflict effectively (Argyris, 1962). This
typically involves a facilitator fostering open conversations
among team members to address any issues, resolve any
existing conflicts, and subsequently improve trust among
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 all teams
experience conflict at times, so conflict management is also
important for effective team functioning. Top performing
MBA teams were 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 of roles and responsibilities, team members attain a
better understanding of their own 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 does not assume role rigidity. Rather, it
implies a 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 about how
different people should fill different roles based on specific
work demands, they have role clarity without role rigidity.
Role clarity is important in almost any team, but may 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 implement solutions accordingly.
Dyer (1977) suggests that this component enhances team
effectiveness because it provides 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 as a whole, each of the components of team
building serves an integral purpose in furthering team
effectiveness, and when using any of these approaches, it
is critical that teams delineate tangible action plans or
agreements to ensure there is no confusion about what
needs to be done. It is also important to follow up on
these plans to maintain accountability (Tannenbaum et
al., 1992). The aforementioned information reflects
evidence-based components of team building programs.
Oftentimes, organizations respond to teamwork issues by
scheduling team activities that are seemingly light-
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, it is 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 customer needs, 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 several team members,
the team leader recognizes that there is a great deal of
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.
524 LACERENZA, MARLOW, TANNENBAUM, AND SALAS

ambiguity about roles and sense of direction. She decides to
conduct a 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-
sions and exercises. For example, they reestablish their
mission statement (why the team exists), conduct a role
clarification exercise to clarify responsibilities and 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 commit to 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 for accelerating 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
what happened during the event, uncover problems and
improvement areas, confirm successes, and develop a plan
for future 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 about roles 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
to increase team effectiveness (DeChurch & Mesmer-
Magnus, 2010). Researchers have developed several types
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 that originated in the U.S Army (Darling, Parry, &
Moore, 2005). This technique represents a typical team
debrief such that team 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 additional settings
(e.g., virtual teams, 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 it works across
team types because certain elements can be tailored and the
content discussed during a team debrief is specific to the
team at hand. For instance, although team debriefs are
typically conducted following a work shift or performance
episode, they can be implemented during any point of an
ongoing project (Gómez & Ballard, 2011). However, cer-
tain fundamental elements influence team debrief efficacy,
which are discussed below.
Team climate plays an important role in determining
the success of a debrief, because this TDI often involves
surfacing constructive criticism of the team and individ-
ual team members (Arafeh, Hansen, & Nichols, 2010).
As such, team members should be informed how to
provide appropriate feedback, such as focusing on task-
related information instead of person-oriented factors
(Flanagan, 2008). In addition, it is important for the team
to exhibit a psychologically safe team climate as dis-
cussed within the team training section. This type of team
climate is important for team debriefs because it reduces
the onset of interpersonal conflict, enabling team mem-
bers to contribute constructively to team discussions.
Similarly, while teams can conduct self-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). Whether facilitator or
team-led, the person guiding the debrief should encour-
age participation among all team members, ask open-
ended questions targeting both team and task relevant
KSAs, and encourage discussion of inhibiting team be-
haviors (Arafeh et al., 2010; Fanning & Gaba, 2007;
Halamek, 2008). In addition, effective debrief leaders
explain the debriefing process but do not lecture or
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 leader and each other (Scott et al.,
2013).
Debriefs are more effective when they are structured
and follow a logical process rather than a free-form
discussion. Research suggests that team debriefs struc-
tured by performance related or teamwork related cate-
gories are more effective than those structured chrono-
logically (Smith-Jentsch et al., 2008). In the context of
SBT, rather than following a strict chronological recap of
what happened, it can be helpful to guide the team to
consider specific factors such as how they communi-
cated, made decisions, or provided each other with
backup behavior (Eddy et al., 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 mental models, and provides targets for action
plans to improve performance (Ellis & Davidi, 2005;
Taylor, Russ-Eft, & Chan, 2005). Following the team
debrief, conclusions and agreements should be docu-
mented and revisited to facilitate follow-up on commit-
ments and promote accountability (Salas et al., 2008).
In sum, the aforementioned interventions represent four
primary TDIs; because teamwork is multifaceted (consist-
ing of processes and emergent states; Marks et al., 2001)
there is not an all-encompassing TDI that targets each
teamwork facet. Leadership training represents the method
by which leader capabilities are improved, team training
targets team competencies, team building enhances inter-
personal competencies, and team debriefs enhance team
processes (again, see Figure 2 for 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 support of 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.
526 LACERENZA, MARLOW, TANNENBAUM, AND SALAS

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 number of significant challenges. As with most senior
leadership teams, their team members come from different
parts of the business (e.g., finance, marketing, human re-
sources, operations) and often interact with different cus-
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
of team debriefs and bring in a facilitator for assistance.
During the first debrief they reflect on their most recent
team meeting. They identify where they worked well to-
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-
cuss other performance events; for example, 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 environmental influ-
ences. A variety of team types exist and they differ in
regards to tasks, purpose, and level of interdependence (e.g.,
Sundstrom, McIntyre, Halfhill, & Richards, 2000). It is
possible that certain team types may benefit more from any
specific TDI, rather than each TDI being universal. Further-
more, because environmental factors (e.g., globalization,
technological improvements) 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 benefit from targeted TDIs. Specifically, three
such types of teams include virtual teams, software devel-
opment teams, and teams with nonhierarchical leadership
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 virtual teams identified within the literature
include communication via virtual tools, geographical dis-
tribution, group membership in multiple organizations, and
coordination across multiple time zones (Schweitzer &
Duxbury, 2010). Although virtual teams 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 for these concerns. For instance, misunder-
standings may arise from a lack of nonverbal cues (e.g.,
facial expressions; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986). As a conse-
quence of these communication limitations, researchers
have suggested that teams communicating solely via virtual
tools will experience limited social presence or a lack of
social and psychological connection with other team mem-
bers (Biocca, Harms, & Burgoon, 2003). Because of limited
social presence and a lack of face-to-face contact, team
members may struggle to form interpersonal relationships
and develop trust (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). Other mis-
understandings may arise because virtual teams often in-
clude team members from multiple organizations; each or-
ganization may have unique norms and approaches to
works. Taken as a whole, these potential challenges 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
that provides feedback in real-time (e.g., as you go team
training) or from wearable technology (e.g., sociometric
badges). For example, wearable sensors provide information
regarding social interactions among team members, and a
real-time TDI could be programmed to alert virtual team
members if repeated interactions have yet to occur between
certain team members, triggering interpersonal team devel-
opment.
Software development teams represent another opportu-
nity for additional TDIs. These teams are often virtual and
consequently face many of the challenges outlined above.
Moreover, software development teams often form for a
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 order to complete task requirements, and often have
insufficient time to build strong interpersonal relationships.
Action, such as a well-developed TDI, that helps these
teams build trust swiftly is critical, as early trust has been
found to predict team performance (Crisp & Jarvenpaa,
2013). Moreover, such teams are increasingly using agile
programming approaches, which call for ongoing coordina-
tion, continual adjustments, and a high degree of team
adaptation (Larman, 2004; Nerur, Mahapatra, & Man-
galaraj, 2005). Another possibility for conflict or misunder-
standings arises because software development teams 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
(Nerur et al., 2005). Conflicts and 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-
ment of 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 adopt the use of self-managed teams, across
industries (e.g., military, health care, technology). In these
teams, some leadership functions are distributed or shared
among team members, or they organically emerge over
time. As a result, these teams experience different dynamics
that may require specially targeted TDIs. Because of the
inherent differences between shared and hierarchical lead-
ership (i.e., leadership is distributed throughout team mem-
bers instead of a single individual; Ensley, Hmieleski, &
Pearce, 2006), we argue that different leadership capabili-
ties are needed for an individual to flourish within this
structure. For instance, competencies required for effective
shared leadership may include team competencies (e.g.,
developing and sustaining psychological safety; Edmond-
son, 1999), while effective traditional leadership warrants
individual competencies (e.g.,self-efficacy).As such, shared
leadership training programs may include team competencies
in addition to individual competencies; 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 next piece of life-changing tech-
nology. The issues faced by organizations today are com-
plex and dynamic, requiring responsive, quick, adaptive,
and diverse groups of individuals (Tannenbaum et al.,
2012). Although individual-based work continues to evolve
into team-based work, the solution is not as simple as
replacing a team for an individual. The solution requires an
effective team, 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 boost a 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
chance to spend time together or perform some fun
activity together will make them into a better team. We
are not against teams having fun, but it is important to
differentiate between research-tested, evidence-based
TDIs like the ones described above and those that are
simply a pleasant, fun diversion that might boost team
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 transformational leadership development program.
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 from https://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). Interpersonal competence and organizational behav-
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 impact research: Ex-
perimental and quasi-experimental studies. 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
of Applied 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.
528 LACERENZA, 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 conflict type, conflict management strategies, 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 elements on 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 from https://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 must for developing an
effective training program. Public Personnel Management, 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-
trial and organizational psychology, Vol 2: 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. Personnel Psychology, 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.
Journal of Applied 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 outcomes from critical illness: 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. Journal of Personnel Psychol-
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. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 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 of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95, 32–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017328
De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and 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 from https://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). Interpersonal conflicts at work. 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
successful and failed experience. Journal of Applied 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
implications of a developmental assessment center process. 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 vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management
teams: Implications for the performance of startups. 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). The role of debriefing 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 of goal orientation, 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 of experience. 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. In Research 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
and neonatal 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

Hogan, R., & Warrenfeltz, R. (2003). Educating the modern manager.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2, 74 – 84. http://dx
.doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2003.9324043
House, D. A. (2001). Evaluating a new manager management training
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 trust in
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 test of their relative validity. Journal of
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.
Journal of Applied 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 capital trends 2016 survey. Oakland, CA: Deloitte University
Press. Retrieved from deloitte.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? Small Group 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. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254 –284.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning as the science of learning 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 of Management Proceedings, 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-factor model and team performance in typical and
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-
iors after implementation of TeamSTEPPS training in an academic
emergency department: A pilot report. American Journal of Medical
Quality, 31, 86 –90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1062860614545123
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory
of goal setting and task motivation. A 35-year odyssey. 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. Psychological Bulletin, 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 of leadership 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-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 52– 83. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(87)90045-8
Mills, T. (1984). The sociology of small groups (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 from http://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 from http://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
from http://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 of the ACM, 48, 72–78.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1060710.1060712
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence 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
from https://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 intact teams a meta-analysis. Small Group 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.
530 LACERENZA, 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 effect of
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? Small Group 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
frontier for the science of team effectiveness. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 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. Psychological Science 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 of dissent in post-incident discussion. The
Journal of Business Communication (1973), 50, 383– 402.
SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management). (2012). Virtual
Teams. Retrieved from http://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
for that: Team development interventions in organizations. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 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 cohort study of diagnosis-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 individual and team training (pp. 271–297).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 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.),
Understanding adaptability: 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 works of Burns, 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 best practices
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 of conceptual and
empirical developments. 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. Journal of Applied 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 occupational health 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 from http://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-
nal Quality & 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-
ment setting. Journal for Nurses in Staff Development, 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