Search results

Team cognition is known to be an important predictor of team process and performance. DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus (2010) reported the results of an extensive meta-analytic examination into the role of team cognition in team process and performance, and documented the unique contribution of team cognition to these outcomes while controlling for the motivational dynamics of the team. Research on team cognition has exploded since the publication of DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus’ meta-analysis, which raises the question: to what extent do the effect sizes reported in their 2010 meta-analysis still hold with the inclusion of newly published research? The paper aims to discuss this issue.

The authors updated DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus’ meta-analytic database with newly published studies, nearly doubling its size, and reran their original analyses examining the role of team cognition in team process and performance.

Overall, results show consistent effects for team cognition in team process and performance. However, whereas originally compilational cognition was more strongly related to both team process and team performance than was compositional cognition, in the updated database, compilational cognition is more strongly related to team process and compositional cognition is more strongly related to team performance.

Meta-analyses are only as generalizable as the databases they are comprised of. Periodic updates are necessary to incorporate newly published studies and confirm that prior findings still hold. This study confirms that the findings of DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus’ (2010) team cognition meta-analysis continue to generalize to today’s teams.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight a collaborative effort between academia (University of North Texas, Team Sciences) and practice (Toyota Connected (TC)). This study concentrated on current problems that had been experienced by TC: How to structure and manage multiteam systems (MTSs)?

This research study utilized a realist systematic review to address an existing problem by working collaboratively with TC and academia. This collaboration involved problem identification, the development of research questions and a full systematic review guided by the research questions.

This realist systematic review merged the literature with current practices at TC in an effort to gather evidence to support the best method of structuring and managing MTSs. The findings include a leadership structure that incorporates both shared leadership (bottom-up) and existing hierarchical structures (top-down).

The MTS models presented in this study provide new models for organizations/manufacturers/industries to use as a guide when structuring their MTSs.

This study provides an example of a collaborative research effort between practice and academia using a realist systematic review. The paper also provides some multiteam system models that could be implemented and tested in different organizations. Also, new responsibilities and roles for scrum and MTSs are presented as a new method of achieving Agile.

This study aimed to determine the level of training in psychosocial interventions among staff in the 119 early intervention in psychosis (EIP) teams that were established at the time. A brief questionnaire was sent to each of the teams asking for details of the composition of the team, and for details of any training in psychosocial interventions (PSI) the members of the team had undergone. Fifty‐two questionnaires were returned (44%). Over half of the teams had input from social workers, clinical psychologists and occupational therapists to compliment the nursing provision, though less than 50% employed support workers or had specific psychiatry input. All but two of the teams returning the questionnaire had members of staff trained in PSI though the type of training tended to reflect availability of local training provision. The results are discussed and practical recommendations are made to ensure evidencebased care is implemented within EIP.

Officers in post-cold war military operations frequently encounter situations that are not easily handled through central control and chain of command, but demand a more flexible leadership style and the ability to yield some control to subordinates. This study aims to investigate what it takes to train military leaders to master such Maneuver Warfare skills in a culture that still, unconsciously, fosters a chain of command structure.

Using a quasi-experimental pre-post design, the authors studied 30 teams of naval cadets (n = 228) in three separate Leadership Development Programs, each of 12 months full time duration. In the three otherwise identical programs, the authors varied one of the major exercises (sailing) both in duration and degree of structure and challenge. Parameters of team interaction were measured using the Systematizing the Person-Group Relation method and summarized in a construct labeled synergy.

One of the cohorts showed a significant positive effect. This cohort sailed a barque for ten weeks, crossing the Atlantic during winter storms. Apart from the clear mission of sailing the ship safely back to its home haven, they received no further instructions or training. Although the duration and the challenge likely count for part of the result, the authors argue that the lack of initial structure combined with a shared mission were more important.

Because of the cost and time involved in each program, it was not possible to independently vary duration, structure and mission. As a result, conclusions as to the reason for the greater positive effect seen in one of the programs cannot be definitively determined.

The study contributes to the understanding of the effect of unstructured situations on building Maneuver Warfare skills.

A multi‐component design of a “concurrent team” is described here for a concurrent engineering organization. This concurrent “team design” is composed of four essential teaming components: a logical component, a virtual component, a technological component and a personnel (work‐group or humane) component. The description is based on an implementation of a “concurrent team” environment for product development at Delphi Divisions of General Motors. The paper first describes how to configure a “concurrent team” organization that provides a decentralized cooperation during an integrated product development (IPD) process. The paper then shows how, with strategic design of a “concurrent team,” an organization can achieve optimum teamwork productivity during an IPD. As it has been observed during a number of automotive projects that the teamwork productivity of a concurrent engineering organization is largely influenced by the design of such “concurrent teams” as well as by elements of decentralized cooperation, the paper, also describes four key elements of decentralized cooperation that have been found useful with IPD clients.

The Human Organization is a response to the network morphology. As networks supersede hierarchy as the predominant form of organization, fluid processes and flexible teams need to replace fixed reporting lines and familiar functions. The barriers to achieving this are more often cultural and emotional than they are commercial and technological. This paper proposes that effective knowledge‐based businesses will be built on human network connections. This requires much greater investment in social processes of integration and in our individual ability to connect with each other. Without this human agenda, the openness and learning on which the generative knowledge‐based environment depends will remain beyond our reach, together with our ability to work and transfer knowledge across complex and shifting organizational boundaries.

Draws from case study research conducted in 14 UK and USA‐based manufacturing and service firms, most with mature teamworking structures. Aims to examine practitioner perspectives and current practices in teamworking and to assess the strategic contribution that work‐based teams are making to quality improvement.

The purpose of this study is to explore how integration teams can build trusting relationships in component teams to enhance their leadership capability within multiteam systems to achieve common superordinate goals. The study investigates how an integration team diagnoses contextual dynamics to enhance understanding of goals in component teams and spans boundaries to create trusting relationships.

The proposed model was tested by surveying 396 respondents nested within component teams working within five South African manufacturing companies. Structural Equation Modeling was used to analyse the data.

The study reveals that by diagnosing the contextual dynamics within a multiteam system and through boundary spanning, an integration team builds trusting relationships, which will, ultimately, enable teams to achieve common superordinate goals.

This study offers organisations insights into how multiple component teams of different functional disciplines can work effectively towards achieving an overall or common superordinate goal. It offers insights on how to mitigate misalignment challenges by implementing an integration team within the multiteam system context.

Research participants were employees within a manufacturing context, which sets this study apart from many previous ones conducted in a simulated environment within a military context. The study investigates building trusting relationships among multiple component teams within a multiteam system through the implementation of an integration team, which has not been specifically addressed in previous studies.

The paper explores coordination practices in digital–physical product development and their consequences for companies traditionally relying on physical product development.

Using an embedded case study design, the paper reports four action research initiatives addressing the digital–physical coordination challenges encountered by a leading B2C company.

Effective coordination of digital–physical product development, firstly, involves standardization of process, output and skills to accommodate the stability needed for efficient physical product development and manufacturing. Secondly, it involves agile coordination events, such as Scrum ceremonies and PI planning, to facilitate the mutual adjustment needed to allow agility and the differences between digital and physical product development to be continuously and successfully negotiated.

The paper illustrates a research model with case evidence and suggests tentative theory in the form of propositions. Future research should explore coordination problems and solutions in different digital–physical project types and contexts.

Coordination practices for digital–physical product development are presented and analyzed, providing inspiration for companies.

The paper is the first to explore coordination practices within the emerging field of digital–physical product development.