Unpacking team process dynamics and emergent phenomena: Challenges, conceptual advances, and innovative methods.

Abstract

Psychologists have studied small-group and team effectiveness for decades, and although there has been considerable progress, there remain significant challenges. Meta-analyses and systematic research have provided solid evidence for core team cognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral processes that contribute to team effectiveness and empirical support for interventions that enhance team processes (e.g., team design, composition, training, and leadership); there has been substantial evidence for a science of team effectiveness. Nonetheless, there have also been concerns that team processes, which are inherently dynamic, have primarily been assessed as static constructs. Team-level processes and outcomes are multilevel phenomena that emerge, bottom-up from the interactions among team members over time, under the shifting demands of a work context. Thus, theoretical development that appropriately conceptualizes the multiple levels, process dynamics, and emergence of team phenomena over time are essential to advance understanding. Moreover, these conceptual advances necessitate innovative research methodologies to better capture team process dynamics. We explicate this foundation and then describe 2 promising streams of scientific inquiry-team interaction sensors and computational modeling-that are advancing new, unobtrusive measurement techniques and process-oriented research methods focused on understanding the dynamics of cohesion and cognition in teamwork. These are distinct lines of research, each endeavoring to advance the science, but doing so through the development of very different methodologies. We close by discussing the near-term research challenges and the potential long-term evolution of these innovative methods, with an eye toward the future for process-oriented theory and research on team effectiveness. (PsycINFO Database Record

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 188 citations exist upstream.