A Conceptual Review of Emergent State Measurement

Abstract

Team research increasingly incorporates emergent states as an integral mediator between team inputs and outcomes. In conjunction with this, we have witnessed a proliferation and fragmentation of measurement techniques associated with emergent states. This inconsistency in measurement presents a problem for scientists and practitioners alike. For the scientist, it becomes difficult to better understand the nature and effects of various emergent states on team processes and outcomes. For the practitioner, it complicates the process of measurement development, selection, and implementation. To address these issues, we review the literature on emergent states focusing on various measurement strategies, to better unpack best practices. In so doing, we highlight existing research that suggests innovative solutions to the conceptual, methodological, and logistical problems that consistently plague emergent state research. Our aim is to enhance emergent state theory by applying psychometric principles to the measurement techniques associated with them.

Measuring Team Cohesion

“…To address this issue, we encourage researchers to begin developing the construct of "swift cohesion" (Coultas et al, 2014). Research on "swift trust" (Meyerson, Weick, & Kramer, 1996) and "swift psychological safety" (Dufresne, 2007) suggests that when constructs rapidly emerge, they may be conceptually different from their more gradual counterparts (see also transactive memory systems; Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2007).…”

Team Performance: Evidence for Validity of a Measure

“…Regarding their occurrence, Chan (1998), Klein and Kozlowski (2000), and more recently, Coultas et al (2014) point out that these are specific phenomena originating from cognitions, motivations, or emotions of individuals (team members), but due to everyday experience of working together, transformations happen and evolve into a collective characteristic. On this new state, they do not allow for distinguishing one member from another, but do differentiate one team from another.…”

“…The requirement to define different strategies for measuring collective characteristics or behaviors is supported by the fact that many of them arise through processes of emergence (Coultas, Driskell, Burke, & Salas, 2014;González-Romá et al, 2009). For Klein and Kozlowski (2000), these are transformations of individual attributes from which shared or collective characteristics originate, which are termed bottom-up relations.…”

“…In this regard González-Romá, Fortes-Ferreira, and Peiró (2009) highlight the need for collective performance measurement to demonstrate the sharing and emergence in which such constructs (at the meso level) are sustained. While Coultas, Driskell, Burke, and Salas (2014), specifically focusing on the processes of emergence, indicate the need to observe the theoretical nature of the construct, the requirements linked to the development of the measurement, and the required analytical strategies.…”

A emersão na articulação de níveis em Psicologia Organizacional e do Trabalho

“…Compreender como os fenômenos organizacionais de níveis superiores (meso ou macro) emergem a partir do nível micro tem sido preocupação de alguns pesquisadores de POT (Coultas, Driskell, Burke, & Salas, 2014;González-Romá & Peiró, 1999;Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Acompanhando essas preocupações, um dos focos centrais deste manuscrito foi chamar a atenção quanto ao fato de os níveis dos construtos precisarem ser adequadamente delimitados evitando falhas tanto na sua compreensão, como nas conclusões tecidas acerca de relações que mantêm com outras variáveis.…”