Search

As the COVID-19 pandemic has ravaged the United States, health care teams are on the frontlines of this global crisis, often navigating harrowing conditions at work, such as a lack of personal protective equipment and staffing shortages, and distractions at home, including worries about elderly relatives or making childcare arrangements. While the nature and severity of stressors impacting health care teams are in many ways unprecedented, decades of psychological research exploring teamwork in extreme contexts can provide insights to understand and improve outcomes for teams in a crisis. This review highlights the psychological principles that apply to teams in a crisis and illustrates how psychologists can use this knowledge to improve teamwork for medical teams in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic., The review also provides a glimpse toward the future, noting both how psychologists can help health care teams recover and rebound, as well as how additional research can improve psychologists' understanding of teamwork in times of crisis. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Team training contributes to improved performance, reduced errors, and even saving lives-and it exists today because psychologists collaborated across domains to contribute their expertise. Our objective was to highlight the salient role of multidisciplinary collaboration in the success of team training, an area driven by psychologists responding to real-world problems. In this article, we deliver (a) a historical account of team training research, acknowledging critical turning points that shaped the science; (b) a synthesis of major contributions from subdisciplines of psychology; and (c) a collection of lessons learned in the science and practice of team training. We begin with the history of problems that created a need for solutions and the psychologists across domains who worked together to develop a science to improve teamwork. We give poignant examples of fatal mistakes that incited action and enabled scientific breakthroughs through research partnerships. Next, we detail the theoretical drivers behind the science and the hands-on approach of investigating how we turn a team of experts into an expert team. We discuss the spectrum of team training research throughout time, including major influences that shifted dominant paradigms of thought, while emphasizing its multidisciplinary nature and the contributions of psychologists. Finally, we provide a list of lessons learned from a half-century of multidisciplinary research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

We need teams in nearly every aspect of our lives (e.g., hospitals, schools, flight decks, nuclear power plants, oil rigs, the military, and corporate offices). Nearly a century of psychological science has uncovered extensive knowledge about team-related processes and outcomes. In this article, we draw from the reviews and articles of this special issue to identify 10 key reflections that have arisen in the team literature, briefly summarized here. Team researchers have developed many theories surrounding the multilayered aspects of teams, such that now we have a solid theoretical basis for teams. We have recognized that the collective is often stronger than the individual, initiating the shift from individual tasks to team tasks. All teams are not created equal, so it is important to consider the context to understand relevant team dynamics and outcomes, but sometimes teams performing in different contexts are more similar than not. It is critical to have teamwork-supportive organizational conditions and environments where psychological safety can flourish and be a mechanism to resolve conflicts, ensure safety, mitigate errors, learn, and improve performance. There are also helpful teamwork competencies that can increase effectiveness across teams or tasks that have been identified (e.g., coordination, communication, and adaptability). Even if a team is made up of experts, it can still fail if they do not know how to cooperate, coordinate, and communicate well together. To ensure the improvement and maintenance of effective team functioning, the organization must implement team development interventions and evaluate relevant team outcomes with robust diagnostic measurement. We conclude with 3 main directions for scientists to expand upon in the future: (a) address issues with technology to make further improvements in team assessment, (b) learn more about multiteam systems, and (c) bridge the gap between theory and practice. In summary, the science of teams has made substantial progress but still has plenty of room for advancement. (PsycINFO Database Record, ((c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).)

The rate of teamwork and collaboration within the workforce has burgeoned over the years, and the use of teams is projected to continue increasing. With the rise of teamwork comes the need for interventions designed to enhance teamwork effectiveness. Successful teams produce desired outcomes; however, it is critical that team members demonstrate effective processes to achieve these outcomes. Team development interventions (TDIs) increase effective team competencies and processes, thereby leading to improvements in proximal and distal outcomes. The effectiveness of TDIs is evident across domains (e.g., education, health care, military, aviation), and they are applicable in a wide range of settings. To stimulate the adoption and effective use of TDIs, the current article provides a review of four types of evidence-based TDIs including team training, leadership training, team building, and team debriefing. In doing so, we aim to provide psychologists with an understanding of the scientific principles underlying TDIs and their impact on team dynamics. Moreover, we provide evidence-based recommendations regarding how to increase the effectiveness of TDIs as well as a discussion on future research needed within this domain. (PsycINFO Database Record, ((c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).)

The term teamwork has graced countless motivational posters and office walls. However, although teamwork is often easy to observe, it is somewhat more difficult to describe and yet more difficult to produce. At a broad level, teamwork is the process through which team members collaborate to achieve task goals. Teamwork refers to the activities through which team inputs translate into team outputs such as team effectiveness and satisfaction. In this article, we describe foundational research underlying current research on teamwork. We examine the evolution of team process models and outline primary teamwork dimensions. We discuss selection, training, and design approaches to enhancing teamwork, and note current applications of teamwork research in real-world settings. (PsycINFO Database Record, ((c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).)

Background: Team science has been applied to many sectors including health care. Yet there has been relatively little attention paid to the application of team science to developing and sustaining primary care teams. Application of team science to primary care requires adaptation of core team elements to different types of primary care teams., Core Team Elements: Six elements of teams are particularly relevant to primary care: practice conditions that support or hinder effective teamwork; team cognition, including shared understanding of team goals, roles, and how members will work together as a team; leadership and coaching, including mutual feedback among members that promotes teamwork and moves the team closer to achieving its goals; cooperation supported by an emotionally safe climate that supports expression and resolution of conflict and builds team trust and cohesion; coordination, including adoption of processes that optimize efficient performance of interdependent activities among team members; and communication, particularly regular, recursive team cycles involving planning, action, and debriefing. These six core elements are adapted to three prototypical primary care teams: teamlets, health coaching, and complex care coordination., Conclusion: Implementation of effective team-based models in primary care requires adaptation of core team science elements coupled with relevant, practical training and organizational support, including adequate time to train, plan, and debrief. Training should be based on assessment of needs and tasks and the use of simulations and feedback, and it should extend to live action. Teamlets represent a potential launch point for team development and diffusion of teamwork principles within primary care practices., (Copyright © 2017 The Joint Commission. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Our review addresses one of the most used, but debated, topics in Ergonomics: Situation Awareness (SA). We examine and elaborate upon key SA models. These models are divided into individual SA, team SA and systems SA categories. Despite, or perhaps because of, the debates surrounding SA it remains an enduring theme for research and practice in the domain of Ergonomics, now for over two decades. A contingent approach, which seeks to match different models of SA to different types of ergonomics problem, enables the differences between positions to be revealed and reconciled, and the practitioner guided towards optimum methodological solutions. Practitioner Summary: Measuring SA in individuals, teams and systems has become a key objective in Ergonomics. One single approach to SA does not fit all problems encountered. This review shows the importance of considering all three types of models and achieving a match between them and the problem at hand.

Objective: The purpose of this article is twofold: to provide a critical cross-domain evaluation of team cognition measurement options and to provide novice researchers with practical guidance when selecting a measurement method., Background: A vast selection of measurement approaches exist for measuring team cognition constructs including team mental models, transactive memory systems, team situation awareness, strategic consensus, and cognitive processes., Methods: Empirical studies and theoretical articles were reviewed to identify all of the existing approaches for measuring team cognition. These approaches were evaluated based on theoretical perspective assumed, constructs studied, resources required, level of obtrusiveness, internal consistency reliability, and predictive validity., Results: The evaluations suggest that all existing methods are viable options from the point of view of reliability and validity, and that there are potential opportunities for cross-domain use. For example, methods traditionally used only to measure mental models may be useful for examining transactive memory and situation awareness. The selection of team cognition measures requires researchers to answer several key questions regarding the theoretical nature of team cognition and the practical feasibility of each method., Conclusions: We provide novice researchers with guidance regarding how to begin the search for a team cognition measure and suggest several new ideas regarding future measurement research., Applications: We provide (1) a broad overview and evaluation of existing team cognition measurement methods, (2) suggestions for new uses of those methods across research domains, and (3) critical guidance for novice researchers looking to measure team cognition.

Introduction: NASA's Mission Control Center (MCC) is responsible for control of the International Space Station (ISS), which includes responding to problems that obstruct the functioning of the ISS and that may pose a threat to the health and well-being of the flight crew. These problems are often complex, requiring individuals, teams, and multiteam systems, to work collaboratively. Research is warranted to examine individual and collaborative problem-solving processes in this context. Specifically, focus is placed on how Mission Control personnel-each with their own skills and responsibilities-exchange information to gain a shared understanding of the problem. The Macrocognition in Teams Model describes the processes that individuals and teams undertake in order to solve problems and may be applicable to Mission Control teams., Method: Semistructured interviews centering on a recent complex problem were conducted with seven MCC professionals. In order to assess collaborative problem-solving processes in MCC with those predicted by the Macrocognition in Teams Model, a coding scheme was developed to analyze the interview transcriptions., Results: Findings are supported with excerpts from participant transcriptions and suggest that team knowledge-building processes accounted for approximately 50% of all coded data and are essential for successful collaborative problem solving in mission control. Support for the internalized and externalized team knowledge was also found (19% and 20%, respectively)., Discussion: The Macrocognition in Teams Model was shown to be a useful depiction of collaborative problem solving in mission control and further research with this as a guiding framework is warranted.

Objective: This article provides a systematic review of the team knowledge literature and guidance for further research., Background: Recent research has called attention to the need for the improved study and understanding of team knowledge. Team knowledge refers to the higher level knowledge structures that emerge from the interactions of individual team members., Method: We conducted a systematic review of the team knowledge literature, focusing on empirical work that involves the measurement of team knowledge constructs. For each study, we extracted author degree area, study design type, study setting, participant type, task type, construct type, elicitation method, aggregation method, measurement timeline, and criterion domain., Results: Our analyses demonstrate that many of the methodological characteristics of team knowledge research can be linked back to the academic training of the primary author and that there are considerable gaps in our knowledge with regard to the relationships between team knowledge constructs, the mediating mechanisms between team knowledge and performance, and relationships with criteria outside of team performance, among others. We also identify categories of team knowledge not yet examined based on an organizing framework derived from a synthesis of the literature., Conclusion: There are clear opportunities for expansion in the study of team knowledge; the science of team knowledge would benefit from a more holistic theoretical approach., Application: Human factors researchers are increasingly involved in the study of teams. This review and the resulting organizing framework provide researchers with a summary of team knowledge research over the past 10 years and directions for improving further research.

Objective: We examine the construct of collective orientation, develop a measure to assess individual differences in collective orientation, and examine the extent to which the collective orientation of team members predicts performance on a variety of team tasks., Background: Scholars increasingly emphasize the importance of teamwork in collaborative work environments, and evidence indicates that a lack of teamwork is a prominent factor in many real-world accidents. Although it is clear that some persons are more team oriented than others are, there are few instruments available to assess individual differences in collective orientation in a team context., Method: We develop a scale to measure collective orientation in teams, gather evidence on reliability and construct validity, and examine the extent to which collective orientation predicts team performance., Results: Results indicate that the Collective Orientation Scale is reliable, correlates with cognate measures, and predicts performance on a variety of team tasks., Conclusion: We discuss the role of collective orientation in teams and the application of this scale to assess and diagnose teamwork deficiencies in work groups., Application: This research should contribute to a further understanding of factors that influence collaboration and coordination in teams.

Objective: This article presents a model for predicting complex collaborative processes as they arise in one-of-a-kind problem-solving situations to predict performance outcomes. The goal is to outline a set of key processes and their interrelationship and to describe how these can be used to predict collaboration processes embedded within problem-solving contexts., Background: Teams are increasingly called upon to address complex problem-solving tasks in novel situations. This represents a domain of performance that to date has been underrepresented in the research literature., Method: Multidisciplinary theoretical and empirical literature relating to knowledge work in teams is synthesized., Results: A set of propositions developed to guide research into how teams externalize cognition and build knowledge in service of problem solving is presented. First, a brief overview of macrocognition in teams is provided to distinguish the present work from other views of team cognition. Second, a description of the foundational theoretical concepts driving the theory of macrocognition in teams presented here is provided. Third, a set of propositions described within the context of a model of macrocognition in teams is forwarded., Conclusion: The theoretical framework described in this article provides a set of empirically testable propositions that can ultimately guide practitioners in efforts to support macrocognition in teams., Application: A theory of macrocognition in teams can provide guidance for the development of training interventions and the design of collaborative tools to facilitate knowledge-based performance in teams.

Background: In health care, others' lives depend on the team operating at a level beyond the sum of its individual parts. A framework (a heuristic) represents a three-pronged approach to teamwork in health care that entails communication, coordination, and cooperation. These fundamental requirements of teamwork represent the constant interaction that team members undertake to become an effective team. Guidelines, tips, and examples show how the framework can be applied to establishing and enabling teams to provide safe, reliable care., Guidelines: The guidelines are as follows: (1) Support precise and accurate communication through a closed-loop communication protocol; (2) diagnose communication errors as you would any illness--Examine the team and look for symptoms, then treat the symptoms through team learning and self-correction; (3) recognize functional expertise by identifying and publicizing topical experts to evenly distribute work load and increase accuracy; (4) institute frequent practice opportunities to keep team skills in good shape because poorly honed skills will limit performance; (5) refine the team's shared mental models (SMMs) by pre-planning to build its implicit coordination skills, adaptability, and flexibility; (6) shape adaptive expertise by fostering a deep understanding of the task to increase team effectiveness; (7) build team orientation by taking steps to increase trust and cohesion to lower stress levels and increase satisfaction, commitment, and collective efficacy; and (8) prepare the team by providing learning opportunities for new competencies that will expose members to feedback and increase the team's overall efficacy., Conclusion: Although not a comprehensive list, the guidelines and tips represent the most essential requirements for effective teamwork.

Objective: We developed a theoretically based taxonomy for classifying shared cognition breakdowns related to teamwork which contribute to fratricide incidents., Background: Fratricide on the battlefield is an inescapable cost of war. A number of technological advancements have been made in terms of combat identification systems to reduce the risk of these incidents. However, fratricide continues to occur at alarming rates., Method: We take a human-centered approach to understanding errors leading to fratricide incidents by focusing on shared cognition. We turn to the literature and provide the theoretical foundations for an error classification taxonomy to improve understanding of why fratricide incidents occur., Results: Based on our review of the literature, we identified a number of problem areas leading to fratricide incidents. However, many of the cited contributing factors were broad terms (e.g., poor coordination) and did little to tell us why the breakdown occurred and where improvements are needed. Therefore, we chose to focus on one specific area--teamwork breakdowns--and discuss in depth how these breakdowns contribute to fratricide., Conclusion: In this paper, we take a first step toward proposing a taxonomy that allows for the diagnostic assessment of what causes teamwork breakdowns in fratricide. We understand that a taxonomy is only as good as the data available and encourage richer case studies from which to learn., Application: To apply this taxonomy in an operational setting, we provide a set of behavioral markers that can be used to identify teamwork breakdowns on the battlefield.

As the scope and complexity of modern task demands exceed the capability of individuals to perform, teams are emerging to shoulder the burgeoning requirements. Accordingly, researchers have striven to understand and enhance human performance in team settings. The purpose of this review is to summarize that research, from the theoretical underpinnings that drive it, to the identification of team-level elements of success, to the methodologies and instruments that capture and measure those characteristics. Further specified are three important avenues to creating successful teams: team selection, task design and team training. In other words, one can select the right people, provide them with a task engineered for superior performance and train them in the appropriate skills to accomplish that task. Under task design, new technologies and automation are examined that both support and impede team functioning. Finally, throughout are provided critical remarks about what is known about teamwork and what is needed to be known to move the science and practice of team performance forward. The paper concludes with the identification of team issues that require further investigation.

The influence of teammates' shared mental models on team processes and performance was tested using 56 undergraduate dyads who "flew" a series of missions on a personal-computer-based flight-combat simulation. The authors both conceptually and empirically distinguished between teammates' task- and team-based mental models and indexed their convergence or "sharedness" using individually completed paired-comparisons matrices analyzed using a network-based algorithm. The results illustrated that both shared-team- and task-based mental models related positively to subsequent team process and performance. Furthermore, team processes fully mediated the relationship between mental model convergence and team effectiveness. Results are discussed in terms of the role of shared cognitions in team effectiveness and the applicability of different interventions designed to achieve such convergence.

Although the importance of team training has become widely recognized, research is needed to more clearly understand what instructional strategies actually lead to enhanced teamwork and performance. This research incorporates a theoretical framework, based on the work of J.A. Cannon-Bowers, S.I. Tannenbaum, E. Salas, and C.E. Volpe (1995), to guide the systematic development of training that targeted specific team competencies (i.e., knowledge, skills, and attitudes). The theoretically designed training was delivered to 42 male aviators from an undergraduate naval aviation community. A comprehensive evaluation of this training was conducted using a multiple-measurement approach. Results provide strong support for the effectiveness of this team training in improving critical team competencies.

The importance of having well-developed knowledge structures to enhance complex team performance has been recently indicated in the training effectiveness literature. This work tested that proposition within an aviation team training setting. Results suggested that aviation team training improved the knowledge structures of those participants who received the training. Knowledge structure data also provided information related to the training that was not available from more traditional measures of learning. Finally, results obtained from the knowledge structure measures were consistent with performance results, suggesting that knowledge structure measures are a potentially valid predictor of performance.

The effect of team-member experience was examined in relation to perceptions of importance of teamwork behaviors during an analysis of team performance. Importance ratings were collected from military aircrews (i.e., two-member teams) from three distinct types of aircraft. Results indicated that when assessing team behavior importance, less experienced team members weighted difficulty of performing team behaviors more heavily, whereas more experienced team members weighted time spent performing team behaviors more heavily. Implications for analyzing team performance, with respect to the process of conducting such analyses and the type of information collected, are discussed.

The construct validity of measures of team process was evaluated using predictive, known groups and multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) validation strategies. Military air crews (N = 51) flew two simulated missions. Independent judges provided evaluations of the same six team process variables in both scenarios. An MTMM analysis of judges' ratings treating judges as a method variable showed good convergent and discriminant validity. Judges' mean ratings of the six process variables were correlated with mission effectiveness. Some process measures discriminated between student and instructor teams, thus showing discrimination between known groups. Conversely, an MTMM analysis of ratings treating scenarios as a method showed poor convergent validity. We concluded that important team process behaviors have been identified and can be rated validly but that multiple observations are necessary to assess characteristics of individual teams with any accuracy. The discussion includes implications for practice and future research.