Measuring Team Performance: Review of Current Methods and Consideration of Future Needs

Kendall, Dana L.; Salas, Eduardo

doi:10.1016/s1479-3601(04)05006-4

Cited by 36 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, five categories of performance measurement methods exist: (1) event-based measurement (EBM), (2) automated performance monitoring (APM), (3) behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS), (4) behavioral observation scales (BOS), and (5) self-assessment reports (SAR) (Kendall and Salas 2004). In team performance assessment literature, team performance is often seen as a function of one or more of: (1) individual processes, (2) individual outcomes, (3) team processes, and (4) team outcomes (Smith-Jentsch et al 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite a plethora of available team performance models, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Careful consideration is advised to select and tailor the measurement approach to the setting in which it will be used (Kendall and Salas 2004). In an attempt to demystify team cognition and team performance, based on an extensive review of relevant literature, the Big five framework proposes five core components of generic teamwork: (1) team leadership, (2) mutual performance monitoring, (3) backup behavior, (4) adaptability, and (5) team orientation (Salas et al 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Approaches to team performance assessment: a comparison of self-assessment reports and behavioral observer scales

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human factors research popularly employs perception-based techniques to investigate team performance and its dependency to cognitive processes. Such studies frequently rely upon either observer-based or self-assessment techniques to collect data. In this study, we examined behavioral observer ratings and self-assessment ratings for measuring team performance in virtual teams, with team performance regarded as a combination of task outcome and team cognition. Juxtaposing self-assessments and observer ratings from a quasi-experiment comparing team performance rating techniques reveals that they indeed produce overall similar results, with both singling out teamwork effectiveness ratings as the strongest contributor to overall team performance. However, the comparisons show remarkably low correlation on individual questionnaire items. The most striking difference is that the team members' self-assessments of workload are lower than the corresponding observer ratings. In particular, the selfassessments do not correlate at all with overall team performance, whereas the observers' workload ratings are more consistent with contemporary research that suggests a strong correlation between workload and team performance, suggesting that observer-based techniques are more reliable than self-assessments for assessing workload. For other ratings, the results show that the two techniques are fairly equal, suggesting that the choice between methods to employ can be deferred to other considerations such as obtrusiveness, accessibility, and resource availability.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Approaches to team performance assessment: a comparison of self-assessment reports and behavioral observer scales

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Measuring Collaboration Viabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using these instructions, a less-aware respondent may induce the strength of a peer"s perception of a Pillar based upon considering the four reactions (Greitemeyer, 2012). Additionally, when familiarity is a factor, we postulate that objective evaluation of familiar conspecifics is promoted by the BOS instructions, while recent acquaintances escape unfair presumption of guilt (Kendall & Salas, 2015). Table 3.…”

Section: Addressing Varying Interpretation and Opacitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Upon sign of collaboration unviability, the member"s first recourse is to limit their ongoing investment, such as dedicating less time or money. Once perceived risks outweigh the likelihood of success, leaving the collaboration may be the only option, knowing that doing so may cause sacrificing investments already made (Kendall & Salas, 2015).It is desirable to ameliorate threats to collaboration before members curtail their participation, or withdraw completely, since either may become a self-fulfilling prophecy (Jehn & Mannix, 2001;Morgeson & DeRue, 2006). Reasons for collaboration breakdown highlighted by the literature are free-riders, interpersonal conflict and poor leadership (Kuhn, 2015), which may be ameliorated through retraining and changes to; roles, workflow processes, oversight systems, and delegation (Daley, 1992).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are We Collaborating Yet? Employee Assessment of Peer’s Perceptions

Heslop¹,

Stojanovski²,

Paul³

et al. 2017

IJHRS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Employers rarely utilise their employees" capacity to assess the collegiality and productivity of their own work unit, yet they are determinants of employee retention and profitability. One reason is the lack of a reliable, valid survey instrument to measure collaboration viability (CoVi), which we postulate is the construct that employees use to implicitly assess their work unit. Inherent weaknesses of own-perception and peer-assessment instruments prevent them reliably measuring CoVi. A novel method overcoming respective deficiencies by combining the strengths of both approaches is proposed that we term peer"s-perception. It is contended that such an instrument may be improved through formulation in accordance with a universal model of collaboration. The model chosen is PILAR as it encapsulates a variety of social and organisational psychology theories. Prospects, involved, liked, agency and respect constitute five Pillars of collaboration . Based on this review, we propose a peer"s-perception instrument (Pillar-PP) and that this instrument be formally evaluated.Keywords: productivity, psychological safety, cohesion, collaboration, peer"s-perception, PILAR Measuring Collaboration ViabilityCollaboration is a synergistic, voluntary combining of individual contributions for a collective goal (Hughes & Jones, 2011;Thomas et al., 2007). Viability of collaboration can be threatened, such as by interpersonal conflict, poor strategy, or selfish manoeuvring (Chen, Ünal, Leung, & Xin, 2016;Topping, 2010). Collaborators are instinctively wary of such behaviours, and monitor their threat to collective success. Upon sign of collaboration unviability, the member"s first recourse is to limit their ongoing investment, such as dedicating less time or money. Once perceived risks outweigh the likelihood of success, leaving the collaboration may be the only option, knowing that doing so may cause sacrificing investments already made (Kendall & Salas, 2015).It is desirable to ameliorate threats to collaboration before members curtail their participation, or withdraw completely, since either may become a self-fulfilling prophecy (Jehn & Mannix, 2001;Morgeson & DeRue, 2006). Reasons for collaboration breakdown highlighted by the literature are free-riders, interpersonal conflict and poor leadership (Kuhn, 2015), which may be ameliorated through retraining and changes to; roles, workflow processes, oversight systems, and delegation (Daley, 1992). To ensure that failing collaboration in the workplace may be identified and repaired, the present study seeks an instrument that can reliably measure collaboration viability (CoVi).The standard method of measuring constructs reminiscent of CoVi is to survey group members for their perceptions of the group, which this article terms own-perception (Edmondson, 1999). A second approach is peer-assessment, which is rarely used to measure CoVi, but offers certain advantages over own-perception. We examine the weaknesses and ISSN 2162-3058 2017 http://ijhrs.macrothink.org 177 strengths of ...

show abstract

Integrating the science of team training: Guidelines for continuing education *

Weaver¹,

Rosen

Salas

et al. 2010

Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The provision of high-quality, efficient care results from the coordinated, cooperative efforts of multiple technically competent health care providers working in concert over time, spanning disciplinary and professional boundaries. Accordingly, the role of medical education must include the development of providers who are both expert clinicians and expert team members. However, the competencies underlying effective teamwork are only just beginning to be integrated into medical school curricula and residency programs. Therefore, continuing education (CE) is a vital mechanism for practitioners already in the field to develop the attitudes, behaviors (skills), and cognitive knowledge necessary for highly reliable and effective team performance.The present article provides an overview of more than 30 years of evidence regarding team performance and team training in order to guide, shape, and build CE activities that focus on developing team competencies. Recognizing that even the most comprehensive and well-designed team-oriented CE programs will fail unless they are supported by an organizational and professional culture that values collaborative behavior, ten evidence-based lessons for practice are offered in order to facilitate the use of the science of team-training in efforts to foster continuous quality improvement and enhance patient safety.

show abstract

Measuring Team Performance: Review of Current Methods and Consideration of Future Needs

Cited by 36 publications

References 38 publications

Approaches to team performance assessment: a comparison of self-assessment reports and behavioral observer scales

Approaches to team performance assessment: a comparison of self-assessment reports and behavioral observer scales

Are We Collaborating Yet? Employee Assessment of Peer’s Perceptions

Integrating the science of team training: Guidelines for continuing education *

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About