How does organizational identity affect team functioning? We articulate and test an identity instrumentality hypothesis that suggests that organizational identity (1) directly predicts those aspects of team functioning that enable, and are instrumental in, employees’ fulfillment of their identity with the organization; and (2) indirectly predicts other aspects of team functioning not instrumental to organizational identity fulfillment. Underlying this hypothesis is the idea that some aspects of team functioning, such as team performance and cooperative team behaviors, are important to individuals’ fulfillment of their organizational identity because the implications of these behaviors extend beyond the immediacy of the team, whereas other aspects of team functioning (e.g., team affect) are not instrumental to organizational identity fulfillment because they are relevant mainly within the team context. We test the identity instrumentality hypothesis by using meta-analytic path analysis conducted on effect estimates obtained from 132 independent studies (total N = 28,024) of organizational and team identity. As hypothesized, we find that whereas team identity fully mediates the relationship between organizational identity and team affective constructs (i.e., aspects of team functioning not instrumental to the fulfillment of organizational identity), organizational identity uniquely and directly affects cooperative team behavior and team performance, which are those aspects of team functioning that are instrumental to the fulfillment of organizational identity.

The translation of medical research from bench-to-bedside often requires integrated input from multiple expert teams. These collectives can best be understood through the lens of multiteam systems theory. Team charters are a practical tool thought to facilitate team performance through the creation of explicit shared norms for behavior. We extend the current literature on team charters to the multiteam context and make three practical recommendations for multiteam charter content that could facilitate effective communication and leadership processes between teams.

In this chapter we discuss attitudinal and affective factors in the context of science teams. We review some of the key findings on conflict, trust, and cohesion in teams and discuss the differentiation between teamrelated and task-related definitions of each. In so doing, we discuss their relevance to team effectiveness in science teams and provide guidance on notional areas of research for understanding how these are related to effectiveness in science teams.

Effective teamwork is beneficial for organizations on Earth, but is a sine qua non for teams venturing into outer space. The prospect of sending a team to Mars by the year 2030 invites organizational scientists to take stock of what we know and what we still need to know about teams. The team endeavoring to Mars will be multicultural and interdisciplinary, living and working in uncomfortable and dangerous conditions, and doing so in close collaboration with distant teams back on Earth. Tackling the teamwork challenges associated with a mission to Mars present an opportunity to rapidly accelerate the science of teams. In this conceptual review, we explore seven complexities of teams that are both important and understudied. Results of structured interviews with experts on human space exploration regarding the nature of teamwork in long-duration space exploration illuminate seven complexities, or key features of teams, in general, that serve as a catalyst for identifying, informing, and motivating future directions of inquiry about teams. These features, and the research they inspire, may enable organizations to build more effective teams on Earth and beyond.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Over the past 25 years, industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists have made great strides forward in the area of teams research. They have developed and tested meso-level theories that explain and predict the behavior of individuals in teams and teams operating within and across organizations. The continued contributions of I-O psychologists to theory and research on teams require us to address the challenges—several of which were well described in the focal article (Guzzo, Fink, King, Tonidandel, & Landis, 2015)—and embrace the opportunities that are being ushered in by big and broad data streams (Hendler, 2013). We suggest that a principal unique value add of the I-O psychologist to the basic scientific endeavor of understanding small teams comes in the form of theory—theories that explain why, when, how, and to what end individuals form relationships needed for teams to function in unison toward the accomplishment of collective goals. Some have argued that the big data revolution means “the end of theory,” suggesting petabyte data render theoretical models obsolete (Anderson, 2008). On the contrary, we submit that big-data enabled social science holds the promise of rapid progress in social science theory, particularly in the area of teams.