Search results

The purpose of this article is to address and gain a more complete understanding of the effects on performance attributable to the gender composition of teams.

The authors examined gender as a team composition variable that influences performance on a computer‐based task, and we investigated task framing (masculine/feminine) and competition (isolated/dyad) as explanatory factors in the gender composition‐performance relationship. Whereas previous research combines matched gender dyads in analyses, we distinguished male/male from female/female dyads to isolate the effects on performance and examine competition effects.

Distinguishing between male/male and female/female dyads revealed only male/male dyads had superior performance. Task framing was not supported as an explanation for the observed performance differences, but competition was. Contrasting the gender effect in competitive conditions relative to isolated conditions revealed a gender difference in performance between competitive conditions only.

Given competition's clear role in the gender composition‐performance relationship, a more rigorous examination and manipulation of competition is needed beyond the comparison of isolated and dyadic conditions.

Previous research suggests to organizations/practitioners that matching teams by gender will result in optimal performance. Based on our findings, such an implementation would be to the detriment of female teams in the organization, and associated legal issues could arise.

The authors found the superior performance of matched teams to be attributable to the matching of male/male teams and the associated competitive context, and not attributable to matched teams in general. The results should be considered as a caution for both the academic and applied domain alike.

The purpose of this paper is to present an empirical examination of the convergent validity of the two foremost measurement methods used to assess adaptive performance: subjective ratings and objective task scores. Predictors of adaptive performance have been extensively examined, but limited research attention has been directed at adaptability itself as a validated construct within the job performance domain. Due to this neglect, it is unclear if researchers can generalize findings across criterion measurement methods.

Teams of five (275 individuals) performed a computer‐based task that involved a series of disruptions requiring an adaptive response. In addition to post‐disruption task scores, subjective self‐ and peer‐ratings of adaptive performance were collected.

Results did not indicate strong support for the convergent validity of subjective and objective measures. Although the measures were significantly related (r=0.47, p < 0.001) and shared a relatively similar correlation pattern in the multitrait‐multimethod matrix, 78 percent of the variance between measures was unexplained.

Given the goal of understanding “job” performance, results should be confirmed for actual jobs where adaptive performance is imperative (e.g. emergency response, multicultural teams).

These findings should serve as a warning that the construct validity of adaptive performance has yet to be fully established, and previous research results should be interpreted cautiously as generalizations about adaptive performance may be limited by the particular measures used to assess the construct.

This study was unique in its examination of both subjective and objective measures of adaptive performance. The findings of the present study highlight the need for sound theory to support the adaptive performance construct.

The purpose of this study is to understand virtual care use (e.g. telephone and video visits) during the COVID-19 pandemic across three hospital-based ambulatory clinics (i.e. mental health, renal and respiratory care) and to describe associated patient and provider experiences.

A mixed-methods convergent study was conducted including quantitative electronic medical records data on virtual care use, electronic surveys assessing domains of experience (e.g. satisfaction, acceptance and technology use) among patient and providers and semi-structured interviews exploring the associated barriers and facilitators of virtual care adoption.

Virtual care adoption rates and relative modality use (telephone vs video) varied across specialty clinics. Mental health clinics) showed the greatest use of virtual care and greater use of video over telephone, as compared to renal and respiratory care, where telephone was used almost exclusively. Patients and providers reported an overall good satisfaction and acceptance of virtual care (60–72%) across clinics, but commonly observed barriers (technical problems, behavioral adaptations needed and inequity) persisted. Good value propositions, tech support and the presence of early adopters who can support others in workflow re-design and highlight value propositions of virtual care were listed as adoption facilitators.

The study provides a unique opportunity to compare the rate of virtual care adoption before and during the COVID-19 pandemic across distinct specialties that operate within the same organizational and political setting. This study showed that the nature of the condition (e.g. mental health conditions) and the characteristics of the users (e.g. younger patients) may drive models of care with higher rate of video use. Focusing on removing common barriers, like providing tech support and ensuring equitable access to patients, continues to be important even in the context of high virtual care adoption rates during the pandemic.