Objective We examine whether surgical teams can handle changes in task requirements better when their formal leader and strategic core role holder—that is, the main surgeon—is central to team coordination. Background Evidence regarding the benefits of shared leadership for managing complex tasks is divided. We tested whether a strategic core role holder’s centrality in team coordination helps teams to handle different types of task complexity. Method We observed coordination as specific leadership behavior in 30 surgical teams during real-life operations. To assess the strategic core role holder’s coordination centrality, we conducted social network analyses. Task complexity (i.e., surgical difficulty and unexpected events) and surgical goal attainment were rated in a questionnaire. Results In the critical operation phase, surgical difficulty impaired goal attainment when the strategic core role holder’s coordination centrality was low, while this effect was nonsignificant when his/her coordination centrality was high. Unexpected events had a negative effect on surgical goal attainment. However, coordination centrality of the strategic core role holder could not help manage unexpected events. Conclusion The results indicate that shared leadership is not beneficial when teams face surgical difficulty during the critical operation phase. In this situation, team coordination should rather be centralized around the strategic core role holder. Contrarily, when unexpected events occur, centralizing team coordination around a single leader does not seem to be beneficial for goal attainment. Application Leaders and team members should be aware of the importance of distributing leadership differently when it comes to managing different types of task complexity.

In today’s dynamic work environment, teams are increasingly confronted with disruptions. While there are different types of disruptions that teams face, we contend that team composition disruptions that occur during the completion of a team’s task can be especially challenging. We also argue that it is important to consider different types of team composition changes as they create different demands for team adaptation. Specifically, we assess the effects of loss of a team member and change in team membership resulting from injury substitution. We examine how these two types of team composition disruptions impact coordination and team outcomes (i.e., goals scored) by leveraging data from 2,280 soccer games in the English Premier League. We found that team member loss impaired both team coordination and outcomes while team member substitution only impacted team coordination. Moreover, we build upon and extend existing research that has examined team familiarity by distinguishing between familiarity that is built amongst members on the current team (i.e., current team familiarity) and familiarity that has developed as a result of members working together in prior teams (i.e., prior team familiarity). This distinction appears important as we did not find evidence of a main effect of prior team familiarity on coordination but found evidence of a reversing curvilinear effect of current team familiarity on coordination. Finally, the indirect effect of team member loss on team outcomes through team coordination was more pronounced when teams had low (compared to high) prior team familiarity.

No abstract