Teams are pervasive in today's world, and rightfully so as we need them. Drawing upon the existing extensive body of research surrounding the topic of teamwork, we delineate nine “critical considerations” that serve as a practical heuristic by which HR leaders can determine what is needed when they face situations involving teamwork. Our heuristic is not intended to be the definitive set of all considerations for teamwork, but instead consolidates key findings from a vast literature to provide an integrated understanding of the underpinnings of teamwork—specifically, what should be considered when selecting, developing, and maintaining teams. This heuristic is designed to help those in practice diagnose team‐based problems by providing a clear focus on relevant aspects of teamwork. To this end, we first define teamwork and its related elements. Second, we offer a high‐level conceptualization of and justification for the nine selected considerations underlying the heuristic, which is followed by a more in‐depth synthesis of related literature as well as empirically‐driven practical guidance. Third, we conclude with a discussion regarding how this heuristic may best be used from a practical standpoint, as well as offer areas for future research regarding both teamwork and its critical considerations. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Facilitating team innovation is paramount to promoting progress in the science, technology, engineering, and math fields, as well as advancing national health, safety, prosperity, and welfare. However, innovation teams face a unique set of challenges due to the novelty and uncertainty that is core to the definition of innovation, as well as the paradoxical nature of idea generation and idea implementation processes. These and other challenges must be overcome for innovation teams to realize their full potential for producing change. The purpose of this review is, thus, to provide insight into the unique context that these teams function within and provide an integrative, evidence-based, and practically useful, organizing heuristic that focuses on the most important considerations for facilitating team innovation. Finally, we provide practical guidance for psychologists, organizations, practitioners, scientists, educators, policymakers, and others who employ teams to produce novel, innovative solutions to today's problems. (PsycINFO Database Record

Organizations have increasingly turned to the use of virtual teams (VTs) to tackle the complex nature of today’s organizational issues. To address these practical needs, VTs researchers from different disciplines have begun to amass a large literature. However, the changing workplace that is becoming so reliant on VTs comes with its own set of management challenges, which are not sufficiently addressed by current research on VTs. Paradoxically, despite the challenges associated with technology in terms of its disruption to trust development in VTs, trust is one of the most promising solutions for overcoming myriad problems. Though the extant literature includes an abundance of studies on trust in VTs, a comprehensive multidisciplinary review and synthesis is lacking. Addressing this gap, we present a systematic theoretical review of 124 articles from the disparate, multidisciplinary literature on trust in VTs. We use the review to develop an integrated model of trust in VTs. Based on our review, we provide theoretical insights into the relationship between virtuality and team trust, and highlight several critical suggestions for moving this literature forward to meet the needs of workplaces of the future, namely: better insight into how trust evolves alongside the team’s evolution, clarity about how to adequately conceptualize and operationalize virtuality, and greater understanding about how trust might develop differently across diverse types of virtual contexts with various technology usages. We conclude with guidelines for managing VTs in the future workplace, which is increasingly driven and affected by changing technologies, and highlight important trends to consider.

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.

Within team research, there is no shortage of literature classifying teams. However, the team taxonomic literature suffers from a few limitations. First, many taxonomies claim to classify teams into mutually exclusive classes, yet when examined closely, are not. Second, some of the most well-known taxonomies are descriptive of various tasks teams engage in, but not of the holistic team-level properties that define different types of teams. A clear understanding of both is necessary if human resource development (HRD) professionals are to develop and train different teams effectively. Therefore, the purpose of the current article is twofold: to present an integrative taxonomy of task types and a set of team-level characteristics that have been carefully synthesized from the prior literature and to explain how these tools can be used in conjunction to inform team-oriented HRD research and practice.

In this commentary we argue that therapists commonly employ memory recovery methods such as guided imagery for sexual abuse victims, despite the fact that little empirical evidence exists to support their therapeutic benefits. Moreover, research on source monitoring and imagination inflation indicates that guided imagery may carry too many risks to be used for memory recovery in a therapeutic context. Because false memories can have devastating consequences for individuals and families, therapists should make every effort to evaluate the role of suggestion, suggestibility, and imagination inflation in their treatment.

No abstract

Briner and Rousseau (2011) raise an important point in questioning the degree to which the industrial-organizational (I-O) profession is truly evidence based. In response, what we suggest is twofold: first, there are areas of I-O psychology in which we have made strides in the use of evidence in science and practice despite the odds, and second, that to truly increase the evidence-based nature of I-O psychology as a whole, we must focus on the root of the problem: the lack of an educational and professional foundation that promotes a synergy between science and practice. We Are There, to Some ExtentBriner and Rousseau make the argument that the I-O psychology profession is lacking in problem-focused systematic reviews that address specific questions with practical application in mind. We answer that the literature consists of a number of metaanalyses that do just that. For example, one such practice-relevant topic that has been addressed in the meta-analytic literature is organizational productivity. Guzzo, Jette, and Katzell (1985) conducted a meta-analysis specifically examining the