Task Types and Team-Level Attributes

Wildman, Jessica L.; Thayer, Amanda L.; Rosen, Michael A.; Salas, Eduardo; Mathieu, John E.; Rayne, Sara R.

doi:10.1177/1534484311417561

Cited by 92 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Team virtuality is concerned with "the degree to which team members do not work in either the same place and/or at the same time" (De Jong, Dirks, & Gillespie, 2016, p. 1136. Collocated teams collaborate face to face, whereas noncollocated teams rely on technologymediated communication (Wildman et al, 2012). With the rapid advancement in information and communication technology, multinational corporations increasingly use noncollocated virtual teams (Connaughton & Shuffler, 2007;Hinds, Liu, & Lyon, 2011;Leung & Peterson, 2011).…”

Section: Team Virtualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Team creativity/innovation in culturally diverse teams: A meta‐analysis

Wang

Cheng

Chen³

et al. 2019

J Organ Behavior

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary This meta‐analysis investigates the direction and strength of the relationship between diversity in culturally diverse teams and team creativity/innovation. We distinguish the effects of two diversity levels (i.e., surface level vs. deep level) in culturally diverse teams and examine the moderators suggested by the socio‐technical systems framework (i.e., team virtuality and task characteristics in terms of task interdependence, complexity, and intellectiveness). Surface‐level diversity in culturally diverse teams is not related to team creativity/innovation, whereas deep‐level diversity in culturally diverse teams is positively related to team creativity/innovation. Moreover, surface‐level diversity in culturally diverse teams and team creativity/innovation are negatively related for simple tasks but unrelated for complex tasks. Deep‐level diversity in culturally diverse teams and team creativity/innovation is positively related for collocated teams and interdependent tasks but unrelated for noncollocated teams and independent tasks. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications.

show abstract

Section: Team Virtualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Team creativity/innovation in culturally diverse teams: A meta‐analysis

Wang

Cheng

Chen³

et al. 2019

J Organ Behavior

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Wildman et al (2012) reported 17 published attempts to create group typologies, and Hollenbeck, Beersma, and Schouten (2012) identified 50 distinct group types across these frameworks. Thus, researchers have identified a need to integrate existing categories into a more inclusive typology based on key structural and task-based team traits (e.g., Devine, 2002;Hollenbeck et al, 2012;Wildman et al, 2012). For example, Wildman et al (2012) integrated the available literature to produce an overall taxonomy of 12 group types and proposed a list of higher-order characteristics that are intended to help researchers describe team types.…”

Section: Group Typologiesmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The need to assess effectiveness is particularly relevant in this case because the distinctiveness of the group types in the current typology have not been confirmed empirically; a limitation held in common with most other group typologies (e.g., Devine, 2002;Hollenbeck et al, 2012;McGrath, 1984;Steiner, 1972;Wildman et al, 2012). With regard to identifying an ideal classification, the evaluation of typology effectiveness involves three primary aspects: internal validity, external validity, and utility (Fleishman & Zaccaro, 1992).…”

Section: Typology Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Thus, researchers have identified a need to integrate existing categories into a more inclusive typology based on key structural and task-based team traits (e.g., Devine, 2002;Hollenbeck et al, 2012;Wildman et al, 2012). For example, Wildman et al (2012) integrated the available literature to produce an overall taxonomy of 12 group types and proposed a list of higher-order characteristics that are intended to help researchers describe team types. The characteristics included in the list were as follows: (a) task interdependence, (b) role structure, (c) leadership structure, (d) communication structure, (e) physical distribution, and (f) team life span.…”

Section: Group Typologiesmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Seeing the “we” in “me” sports: The need to consider individual sport team environments.

Evans¹,

Eys²,

Bruner³

2012

Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most individual sport settings involve groups, as athletes often train in a team environment even though they compete individually and often in opposition to their teammates. Despite the pervasiveness of individual sport, group dynamics research has almost exclusively investigated team sports because team members rely on one another during the competitive group task. However, the reliance on task interdependence to dichotomize sport environments into one of two categories (i.e., team or individual) overlooks further differences in how members rely on each other (e.g., interdependence for individual and group-level outcomes or resources). The purpose of this article is to promote the investigation of group dynamics and social influence in individual sport by proposing a typology that distinguishes types of sport group environments according to levels of structural interdependence. This typology identifies six distinct sport team types and leads to a number of relevant theoretical and practice-based propositions. This work is a call for increased group dynamics research involving individual sport environments that acknowledges the multiple forms of interdependence that are present both in the group structure and the perceptions held by athletes.

show abstract

“…In examining the moderating role of team characteristics, we focus on task interdependence, team virtuality, temporal stability, authority differentiation, and skill differentiation; five structural design features that describe how the team as a whole is composed and organized (Stewart, 2006). Our choice of variables is grounded in two recently developed taxonomic frameworks for classifying and differentiating teams: one developed by Hollenbeck, Beersma, and Schouten (2012), which identifies temporal stability, authority differentiation, and skill differentiation as key features of a team's structural design, and one developed in parallel by Wildman, Thayer, Rosen, Salas, Mathieu, and Rayne (2012), which identifies three similar features 1 , as well as virtuality and task interdependence as two additional features. Including these latter two characteristics adds to the comprehensiveness of our examination, and allows us to address mixed findings regarding their moderator role that have been found across studies on intrateam trust (see Alge et al, 2003;Bierly et al, 2009;Muethel et al, 2012;Staples & Webster, 2008).…”

Section: Moderators Of the Trust-performance Relationshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates.

Jong¹,

Dirks

Gillespie

2016

Journal of Applied Psychology

409

335

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cumulating evidence from 112 independent studies (N = 7,763 teams), we meta-analytically examine the fundamental questions of whether intrateam trust is positively related to team performance, and the conditions under which it is particularly important. We address these questions by analyzing the overall trust-performance relationship, assessing the robustness of this relationship by controlling for other relevant predictors and covariates, and examining how the strength of this relationship varies as a function of several moderating factors. Our findings confirm that intrateam trust is positively related to team performance, and has an above-average impact (ρ = .30). The covariate analyses show that this relationship holds after controlling for team trust in leader and past team performance, and across dimensions of trust (i.e., cognitive and affective). The moderator analyses indicate that the trust-performance relationship is contingent upon the level of task interdependence, authority differentiation, and skill differentiation in teams. Finally, we conducted preliminary analyses on several emerging issues in the literature regarding the conceptualization and measurement of trust and team performance (i.e., referent of intrateam trust, dimension of performance, performance objectivity). Together, our findings contribute to the literature by helping to (a) integrate the field of intrateam trust research, (b) resolve mixed findings regarding the trust-performance relationship, (c) overcome scholarly skepticism regarding the main effect of trust on team performance, and (d) identify the conditions under which trust is most important for team performance. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

Task Types and Team-Level Attributes

Cited by 92 publications

References 45 publications

Team creativity/innovation in culturally diverse teams: A meta‐analysis

Team creativity/innovation in culturally diverse teams: A meta‐analysis

Seeing the “we” in “me” sports: The need to consider individual sport team environments.

Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About