Search results

On the path to accomplishing task work, teams may face disruptive events like budget issues, equipment failures, and membership change that trigger adaptation. While recently researchers have clarified the team adaptation nomological network, our objective is to extend theory by providing a roadmap about various ways in which temporal considerations may complicate the impact of adaptation triggers on team adaptation and in turn adaptive outcomes.

We present three adaptation temporal considerations (i.e., timing, duration, and frequency) that may change the way team adaptation unfolds in response to a given adaptation trigger. We further explore and offer propositions about how the impact of adaptation timing, adaptation duration, and adaptation frequency differ by the type of adaptation trigger (i.e., task-based or team-based) experienced by the team.

By examining adaptation to task-based or team-based triggers from a temporal perspective researchers may better explain why the timing of when the team adapts across its lifecycle (adaptation timing), how long the team takes to adapt (adaptation duration), and the recurrent need to adapt (adaptation frequency) is more or less likely to lead to positive adaptive performance outcomes.

Organizations may benefit from setting up teams for success by helping members understand that there are inherent differences in the adaptation triggers they face including temporal expectations. Organizations may see value in providing initial and on-going support to teams so they are better able to adapt when needed and mitigate negative effects due to adaptation timing, adaptation duration, and adaption frequency.

While the topic of team adaptation is gaining in prominence within the broader team effectiveness literature, there remain numerous unanswered questions about the way it affects, and is affected by, team dynamics over time. In particular, within this chapter, we seek to more fully examine the relationship between team adaptation and team cohesion to set the stage for additional investigations of team adaptation – team emergent state relationships. However, beyond merely suggesting that a linear relationship exists between team adaptation and cohesion, we envision the relationship as likely being curvilinear as well as reciprocal in nature. Additionally, we consider how temporal factors may shape this relationship by considering how the team’s performance on prior disruptions may influence the link between team cohesion and different adaptive outcomes (i.e., meritorious, maintenance, or maladaptation) as well as flowing along a feedback loop to affect team adaptation processes and team adaptability. By theorizing about these underexamined relationships, our intent is to introduce a framework that can be utilized as a foundation upon which future team adaptation research can build. Finally, we discuss how practitioners can leverage our thoughts in order to more effectively manage adaptation and cohesion within their teams.

This study aims to contribute to the team learning literature, by analyzing how reflective team learning is related to interfering events and to subsequent team adaptation.

Longitudinal data were obtained from 33 project teams consisting of 131 students. Participants answered an online questionnaire three times during the term. The data were analyzed at the team level by conducting multiple hierarchical regression and bootstrap analyses.

Results show an indirect effect of interfering events on team adaptation through reflective team learning, supporting recent models of episodic team processes and interruptive events. Findings indicate that reflective team learning is related to situational events and subsequent team adaptation. It was concluded that events that interfere with team action in a given time period stimulate the occurrence of reflective behavior, resulting in team adaptation.

The sample size is rather small, the context is very specific and the study focuses on reflective team learning. Therefore, future studies should try to replicate the findings with larger samples in other work contexts and also explore other facets of team learning.

The findings are valuable for managers because they highlight the opportunities interferences offer for team learning and how they can be used to achieve team adaptation.

This study contributes to team learning research by shedding light on emerging conditions of team learning processes. It provides empirical support for current models of team learning and team adaptation by analyzing longitudinal data.

Several theoretical models have been developed to describe the process of successful team adaptation. Testing the models through empirical research is lacking. This study aims to empirically examine the way teams adapt to unexpected or novel circumstances and investigate the four-phase team adaptation process (i.e. situation assessment → plan formulation → plan execution → team learning), as proposed by Rosen et al. (2011).

To test the positive relationship between the four team adaptation phases and their suggested sequence, a cross-sectional field study was conducted. Data were collected from 23 teams participating during an 8-week team project.

Results from random intercept models confirmed that the team adaptation process consisted of four phases that were positively related to each other. As expected, plan formulation mediated the positive relationship between situation assessment and plan execution. However, team learning was independently related to all three previous phases, and not only to situation assessment as theory suggests.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the present study is one of the first attempts to test the theoretical model of the team adaptation process presented by Rosen et al. (2011). Findings illustrated that the team adaptation process is not a simple four-phase sequence, but it constitutes four dynamic phases that are strongly interrelated to each other.

As operational environments become increasingly fluid, organizations are turning to teams as a proven performance arrangement to structure complex work. Teams are ubiquitous in modern organizations because they can be used to create synergies, streamline workflow, deliver innovative services, satisfy incumbent needs, maximize the benefits of technology connecting distributed employees, and seize market opportunities in a global village. Teams are also increasingly used because coordinating the “…activities of individuals in large organizations is like building a sand castle using single grains of sand” (West, Borrill, & Unsworth, 1998, p. 6).

Teams focus on a common and valued goal, and effective teams are able to alter their behaviors in pursuit of this goal. When teams are viewed in the context of a dynamic environment, they must adapt to challenges in the environment in order to maintain team effectiveness. In this light, we describe various sources of team variation and how they combine with individual-level, team-level, and dynamical mechanisms for maintaining team effectiveness in a dynamic environment. The combination of these elements produces a systems view of team effectiveness. Our goals are to begin to define, both in words and in operational terms, team effectiveness from this perspective and to evaluate this definition in the context of team training using intelligent tutoring systems (team ITS). In addressing these goals, we present an example of real-time analysis of team effectiveness and some challenges for team ITS training based on a dynamical systems view of team effectiveness.

The purpose of this study is to show that the presence of strong personality traits in management teams may have limiting effects on the teams' ability to adapt to critical changes in their business environments.

The financial operations characterizing ten management teams have been traced over three years, and the personalities of all managers were measured during the first phase of the project. A critical incident in the market signalled a need to adapt after about 20 months. The ensuing adaptation was analysed and related to the presence of strong personality traits, plotting all data in two‐dimensional space to visualize the relationship between personality and business operations.

The intra‐team maximum traits were systematically related to a tendency to perform habitual business in the teams. Only intelligence and stability were related to better performance after the crisis, suggestion that other strong traits may impose rigidity.

The sample is limited to ten management teams, but these are followed for three years through 33 observation points. Also, a visualization technique based on factor analysis is used in addition to regression equations as one of the main methodological tools.

Managers composing teams should observe the presence of strong traits and take action to prevent obstructing adaptation after crises. This knowledge may induce efforts to overcome rigidity and understand the value of reflection‐in‐action for teams.

The paper presents a new way of conceptualizing the role of personality in management teams and shows its immediate impact on business performance in a real‐life setting.

This study examines the motivational processes of charged behavior and collective efficacy driving interdependence and agency in new product development (NPD) teams and the moderating impact of team risk-taking propensity as affective, cognitive and behavioral social processes support team innovation.

Data were collected from 92 NPD teams engaged in B2C and B2B product and service development. Mediating and moderating effects are examined using partial least squares structural equation modeling, referencing social cognitive and collective agency theories as the research framework.

The analysis validates collective self-efficacy and charged behavior as interdependent motivational–affective processes that align cognitive resources and govern team effort toward innovativeness. Teams' risk-taking propensity regulates behavior, and collective efficacy facilitates self-regulated motivational engagement. Charged behavior cultivates the emotional contagion, team identification, cohesion and adaptation required for team functioning. Team potency fosters cohesiveness, while team learning improves adaptability along the innovation journey. The resulting theory asserts that motivational drivers enhance the interplay between cognitive and behavioral processes.

Managers should consider NPD teams as social systems with a capacity for collective agency nurtured through interdependence, which requires collective efficacy and shared competencies to generate motivational purpose and innovativeness. Managers must remain mindful of teams' risk tolerance as regulating the impact of motivational factors on innovativeness.

This study contributes to research on the motivational–affective drivers of NPD charged behavior and collective efficacy as complementary to cognitive and behavioral processes sustaining team innovativeness.

There are two broad approaches in the literature to studying challenges faced in multicultural teams. One approach is to examine the effects of demographic differences among individual team members (e.g., gender, ethnicity, age) on group process. This literature supports the notion that compositional heterogeneity can be both positive and negative in terms of successful group process (Ely & Thomas, 2001). On one hand, heterogeneity increases the chances that a group will bring a wide range of experiences and consider multiple perspectives in solving problems (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Jehn et al., 1999). On the other, heterogeneity makes it more difficult for groups to establish effective group process. For example, it is more difficult for heterogeneous groups to communicate and to develop work norms (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985). They are also more prone to conflict (Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Jehn et al., 1999). So, although the theoretical benefits of diversity to pool unique perspectives and resources exist, they are more difficult to attain and sustain in practice.

Multiteam systems (MTSs) have been employed across numerous organizations and occupations (e.g., healthcare, emergency disaster response, business, and military) to achieve complex goals over time. As MTSs are inherently different than team level and organizational level theories, this chapter highlights the defining features of these dynamic systems through a temporal lens. Thus, the main purpose of our chapter is to address the challenges and issues concerning MTSs over time in order to provide a future agenda to guide researchers and practitioners.

To explore temporality throughout this chapter, we leverage two key MTSs frameworks along with contributions from the literature to produce a review, which demonstrates the extent of MTS theoretical and practical findings. After reviewing the definitional components of MTSs, we highlight various compositional, linkage, and developmental attributes that operate within a system. We then expand upon these attributes to consider the structural features of the system that enhance boundaries between component teams (i.e., differentiation) and may disrupt the system over time (i.e., dynamism).

After reviewing and integrating current MTS literature, we provide a new conceptual framework for MTSs and their temporal complexities. We offer several methodologies that managers and researchers can employ to assess these complex systems and suggest practical recommendations and areas for future research as we continue to study MTSs.

Our original conceptual framework considers MTSs through a dynamic lens developing over time and suggests the need for future research to build upon this perspective.