Performance Adaptation

Abstract

Stability and routine are two words that can rarely be used to describe the present-day workplace. Instead, individuals, teams, and organizations are required to respond to dynamic and changing situations. As a result, researchers have become increasingly interested in understanding performance adaptation, evident in the substantial growth in research over the past two decades. However, what researchers mean when they study adaptation is often broad, vague, and inconsistent—especially at the organizational level—such that drawing solid conclusions is challenging. To move toward integration, we focused the review on individual and team performance adaptation, where the mechanisms of adaptation can be observed. We developed a conceptual taxonomy to map extant research, provide insights for synthesis, and identify directions for future theory building and research. Specifically, we identify four theoretical approaches: (a) a performance construct, (b) an individual difference construct, (c) a change in performance, and (d) a process. Each perspective is reviewed, identifying definitions and key assumptions; discussing conceptual foundations and empirical findings; and highlighting discrepancies, similarities, and opportunities for synthesis. The discussion recommends useful lines of inquiry for future research. Moreover, to promote individual-, team-, and organizational-level integration, we propose a multilevel conceptual architecture specifying the what (nature), where (levels), and how (mechanisms) of adaptation to better define the nature of the phenomenon. In combination, the taxonomy, review content, and conceptual architecture are designed to enhance conceptual clarity and consistency, encourage integration, and advance theory and research on adaptation as a pervasive phenomenon in organizational science.

Network measures for characterising team adaptation processes

“…First, we have captured the adaptation process through quantitative measurement of communication patterns. In this sense, we have begun to unpack the black box of the performance adaptation process, as recommended by Baard et al (2014). More specifically, it was argued that the mechanisms of the adaptation process should not be phrased in static, componential terms such as 'situation assessment', 'leadership', 'diagnosis' or 'decision making.'…”

“…In a field study, it was observed how a paediatric cardiac surgical team adapts to changes in task complexity and ongoing dynamic complexity. First, we will position our research in the conceptual architecture recently proposed by Baard, Rench, and Kozlowski (2014). Second, we will justify our approach of applying social network analysis (SNA) measures to the communication processes employed by the team under study.…”

“…Third, based on previous research on characterising communication patterns, we will develop our research questions. Baard, Rench, and Kozlowski (2014) argue that it is important for any study on adaptation to specify (a) what it is to which an entity is adapting, (b) what level(s) of the organisational system(s) are implicated and (c) what mechanisms underlie that particular form of adaptation at that level or at multiple levels. Our approach to adaptation focuses on the processes teams use to respond to changes necessitating adaptation.…”

The mediating role of task conflict and crossunderstanding in the relation between transactional leadership and team adaptive performance

“…Researchers have identified several individual difference factors as predictors of adaptive performance (Baard et al, 2013): cognitive ability demonstrates a positive relationship with adaptive performance (Griffin & Hesketh, 2004;Pulakos et al, 2002), personality variables demonstrated consistent and positive correlations with adaptive performance including consciousness (Griffin & Hesketh, 2004;Shoss, Witt,& Vera, 2012), achievement orientation (Pulakos et al, 2000;Pulakos et al, 2002), openness to experience (Griffin & Hesketh, 2004;Griffin et al, 2007). In spite of these individual differences being identified as predictors of adaptive performance, there is a scarcity of research that has investigated the impact of contextual factors on adaptive performance (Baard et al, 2013).…”

“…In spite of these individual differences being identified as predictors of adaptive performance, there is a scarcity of research that has investigated the impact of contextual factors on adaptive performance (Baard et al, 2013). This may be a potential area for synergy between the individual and team level research and the organizational research, where more of these contextual factors have been examined (Baard et al, 2013).…”