Search results

In this chapter we develop a conceptual model describing how global teams do more than accomplish discrete tasks, and create “spillover coordination” effects by influencing the amount of work-related direct contact among team members outside the task boundaries of the team. We theorize that spillover coordination is the result of relational and cognitive social capital developed through team interaction. We also propose that the design of the team and the context in which it operates influence the degree to which social capital develops.

We develop a conceptual model including propositions that can be tested empirically. We suggest avenues for future research.

Our model proposes that teams are a more powerful cross-border integration mechanism than originally thought in existing literature in international management and organizational behavior, since they affect social capital that can benefit the broader MNE beyond scope of the task and after the team disbands. Our approach suggests that MNE managers should be mindful of global team spillover effects and intentional in the way they design global teams if those benefits are to be achieved.

Most research on global teams, and teams in general, does not look past the task and time boundary of the team. We expand the view of team effectiveness to encompass those dimensions.

This paper deals with the organizing of interactive product development. Developing products in interaction between firms may provide benefits in terms of specialization, increased innovation, and possibilities to perform development activities in parallel. However, the differentiation of product development among a number of firms also implies that various dependencies need to be dealt with across firm boundaries. How dependencies may be dealt with across firms is related to how product development is organized. The purpose of the paper is to explore dependencies and how interactive product development may be organized with regard to these dependencies.

The analytical framework is based on the industrial network approach, and deals with the development of products in terms of adaptation and combination of heterogeneous resources. There are dependencies between resources, that is, they are embedded, implying that no resource can be developed in isolation. The characteristics of and dependencies related to four main categories of resources (products, production facilities, business units and business relationships) provide a basis for analyzing the organizing of interactive product development.

Three in-depth case studies are used to explore the organizing of interactive product development with regard to dependencies. The first two cases are based on the development of the electrical system and the seats for Volvo’s large car platform (P2), performed in interaction with Delphi and Lear respectively. The third case is based on the interaction between Scania and Dayco/DFC Tech for the development of various pipes and hoses for a new truck model.

The analysis is focused on what different dependencies the firms considered and dealt with, and how product development was organized with regard to these dependencies. It is concluded that there is a complex and dynamic pattern of dependencies that reaches far beyond the developed product as well as beyond individual business units. To deal with these dependencies, development may be organized in teams where several business units are represented. This enables interaction between different business units’ resource collections, which is important for resource adaptation as well as for innovation. The delimiting and relating functions of the team boundary are elaborated upon and it is argued that also teams may be regarded as actors. It is also concluded that a modular product structure may entail a modular organization with regard to the teams, though, interaction between business units and teams is needed. A strong connection between the technical structure and the organizational structure is identified and it is concluded that policies regarding the technical structure (e.g. concerning “carry-over”) cannot be separated from the management of the organizational structure (e.g. the supplier structure). The organizing of product development is in itself a complex and dynamic task that needs to be subject to interaction between business units.

In this chapter we examine various human resource management (HRM) implications involved in the leadership of fluid teams. Leadership of fluid teams, which are distinguished by their dynamic composition, requires consideration of issues that may not be as pertinent for stable teams. In particular, we focus on the concept of familiarity. Composing and leading teams with members exhibiting varying degrees of familiarity with one another creates obstacles to effective and efficient functioning and may ultimately lead to poor performance. With this in mind, leaders must pay particular attention to issues of coordination, and composition such that a broad range of generalizable teamwork skills exists within the team. Within this chapter, we explain the concepts of fluid teams, team leadership within fluid teams, and other relevant concepts related to the formation of familiarity. Next, we thoroughly review extant empirical and theoretical research within these areas. We identify areas of correspondence among the various concepts and findings of the reviewed studies and generate an integrated model of fluid team leadership. To conclude, we highlight the distinct HRM implications associated with the use, and leadership, of fluid teams.

Unobtrusive measurement methodologies are critical to implementing intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) for teams. Such methodologies allow for continuous measurement of team states and processes while avoiding disruption of mission or training performance, and do not rely on post hoc feedback (including for the aggregation of data into measures or to develop insights from these real-time metrics). This chapter summarizes advances in unobtrusive measurement developed within Army research programs to illustrate the variety and potential that unobtrusive measurement approaches can provide for building ITS for teams. Challenges regarding the real-time aggregation of data and applications to current and future ITS for teams are also discussed.

Spaceflight presents a unique environment in which multiteam coordination is often required for mission success. This chapter will explore the topic of multiteam systems (MTSs) and their functioning in this environment.

This chapter describes the MTS case of human spaceflight in terms of a specific subset of the system involved in current human spaceflight missions: NASA Mission Control and the NASA astronauts aboard the International Space Station. In addition to describing the system itself, this chapter describes notable advantages and disadvantages of this particular MTS, along with potential future issues in human spaceflight and research directions for use of MTSs in spaceflight.

More than 40 years of successful human spaceflight missions have demonstrated many of the benefits and drawbacks of MTSs across some of the most challenging environments faced by any teams attempting coordination. These environmental challenges include extreme distances, limited modes of communication, complex systems, novel problems, and coordination between teams from multiple countries with differing goals and priorities. The specific advantages and drawbacks of MTSs in this environment, and the impacts of the aforementioned environmental challenges, are discussed.

This chapter examines a known operational and successful MTS that operates in an environment in which many of the standard assumptions regarding teams and MTSs may not apply.

The heart of the CERTT Laboratory, shown in Fig. 1, is a flexible Synthetic Task Environment (STE) that is designed to study many different synthetic tasks for teams working in complex environments. STEs provide an ideal environment for the study of team cognition in complex settings by providing a middle-ground between the highly artificial tasks commonly found in laboratories and the often uncontrollable conditions found in the field or high fidelity simulations.

The team members’ expertise has been shown to increase team effectiveness when it is actively coordinated. While in face-to-face teams such expertise coordination unfolds through direct interaction, expertise coordination in dispersed teams is unlikely to evolve automatically. In this context, shared leadership, that is, the distribution of leadership influence across multiple team members is argued to serve as initiating mechanism for expertise coordination.

To understand the importance of coordination and collaboration for ROV teams, let us examine some of the typical tasks that ROV operators might be required to perform (Cooke & Shope, 2004; Gugerty, DeBoom, Walker, & Burns, 1999). To do so, we will use the members of a U.S. Air Force Predator crew as an example. The team consists of three members: an Air Vehicle Operator (AVO) who pilots the aircraft, a Payload Operator (PLO) who operates the surveillance equipment, and a Data Exploitation, Mission Planning, and Communications Operator (DEMPC) who is responsible for mission planning. In the course of a mission, the AVO is responsible for the take off and landing of the aircraft. Because they fly the aircraft from a remote location, AVOs are generally required to use visual input from a camera mounted on the nose of the aircraft to guide their flight. Once in the air, the PLO can operate cameras and sensors mounted on the belly of the plane to gather information. The DEMPC, who is in contact with the upper echelons of the organization, provides the AVO with the desired heading and the PLO with target coordinates.

Despite air travel having become a widely used means of transportation, the technological sophistication and human skill required for flying an aircraft remains a source of fascination and admiration. Aviation has been coined an ultra-safe system, coping with the duality of safety and efficiency by emphasizing expertise and learning, but also standardization and automation. Highly selected and continuously trained pilots have to work with increasingly complex and autonomous technology, which creates tensions between routinization and responsible action. Research on leadership and coordination in aircrews is reviewed in light of these tensions, pointing to the benefits of a functional approach to leadership which promotes optimal use of all resources in the team toward adaptive coordination. Furthermore, the leadership requirements arising from the fact that aircrews are ad hoc teams, usually only formed for a few flights, are discussed in terms of fast team-building coupled with the reliance on shared knowledge stemming from high levels of standardization. Due to the complex demands for leadership in aircrews, special training programs were developed early on, which have become a standard that many other high-risk industries are still striving for. The generalizability and need for further development of concepts embedded in successfully leading aircrews is scrutinized, focusing especially on leadership in ad hoc teams, the interplay of standardization and leadership, and the balance between shared and formal leadership.