No abstract

Jehn (e.g., 1997) offered three distinct types of team conflict, namely, task conflict, relationship conflict, and process conflict. Despite existing meta-analyses, there remain important and ongoing issues that warrant further meta-analytic investigation. Our contribution is threefold. First, we report novel meta-analytic findings involving moderators of the conflict-team performance relationship. Second, we report on meta-analytic correlations involving all three conflict types and team innovation. Third, we report on the relations involving task conflict and relationship conflict with previously unexamined, but critical, teamwork variables: team potency, cooperative behaviors, competitive behaviors, and avoidance behaviors. Input for the current meta-analysis included 89 independent samples, 6,122 teams, and approximately 28,000 team members.

Objective We define human–autonomy teaming and offer a synthesis of the existing empirical research on the topic. Specifically, we identify the research environments, dependent variables, themes representing the key findings, and critical future research directions. Background Whereas a burgeoning literature on high-performance teamwork identifies the factors critical to success, much less is known about how human–autonomy teams (HATs) achieve success. Human–autonomy teamwork involves humans working interdependently toward a common goal along with autonomous agents. Autonomous agents involve a degree of self-government and self-directed behavior (agency), and autonomous agents take on a unique role or set of tasks and work interdependently with human team members to achieve a shared objective. Method We searched the literature on human–autonomy teaming. To meet our criteria for inclusion, the paper needed to involve empirical research and meet our definition of human–autonomy teaming. We found 76 articles that met our criteria for inclusion. Results We report on research environments and we find that the key independent variables involve autonomous agent characteristics, team composition, task characteristics, human individual differences, training, and communication. We identify themes for each of these and discuss the future research needs. Conclusion There are areas where research findings are clear and consistent, but there are many opportunities for future research. Particularly important will be research that identifies mechanisms linking team input to team output variables.

Team conflict types include task conflict, relationship conflict, and process conflict. Whereas differences in views about the task (task conflict) are often argued to be beneficial, incompatibilities involving personal issues (relationship conflict) and execution issues (process conflict) are often argued to be harmful. However, previous empirical research has tended to treat team conflict types as independent from each other despite their natural coexistence in teams. In two separate studies and one replication study, we identified latent patterns of team conflict, in the form of conflict profiles, that were defined by distinct levels of task conflict, relationship conflict, and process conflict. In Study 1, we investigated whether the conflict profiles had implications for team conflict management and team potency. In Study 2, we examined the generalizability of the conflict profiles to teams with longer life cycles, and we investigated the implications of conflict profiles for team performance. Findings indicated that teams can be reliably assigned to particular profiles of team conflict and that these profiles replicate well. The results also