Team Dynamics Theory: Nomological network among cohesion, team mental models, coordination, and collective efficacy

Abstract

I put forth a theoretical framework, namely Team Dynamics Theory (TDT), to address the need for a parsimonious yet integrated, explanatory and systemic view of team dynamics. In TDT, I integrate team processes and outputs and explain their relationships within a systemic view of team dynamics. Specifically, I propose a generative nomological network linking cohesion, team mental models, coordination, collective efficacy, and team outcomes. From this nomological conceptualization, I illustrate how myriad alternative models can be derived to account for variance in different working teams, each comprised of unique members, and embedded in singular contexts. I outline TDT's applied implications for team development, the enhancement of team functioning, and the profiling of team resilience. I conclude by discussing how TDT's ontological and nomological propositions can be tested through various theoretical inquiries, methodological approaches, and intervention-based studies.

Coordination Cost and Super-Efficiency in Teamwork: The Role of Communication, Psychological States, Cardiovascular Responses, and Brain Rhythms

“…Thus, in teams, more focused attention for the learning and execution of a specialized task is needed but, in turn, less decision-making processing and motor effort is required. Therefore, if for a given task teamwork is advantageous by nature, such advantage might not be clear at the initial stages of team development, as this study shows and previous research has documented (Bonebright 2010;Filho et al 2015a, b;Filho 2019;Gabelica et al 2016) because other team properties that precede coordination are not well-developed yet.…”

“…Over three matches of a dyadic video game, we explored changes in performance, communication patterns, core affect (arousal and pleasantness levels), efficacy beliefs, attentional states, and cardiovascular responses. As team coordination and other team processes develop over time and as a sense of team evolves, teammates communicate better and show more positive affect, efficacy beliefs, and functional joint attentional patterns; and less physiological stress (see Boulton and Cole 2016 ; Filho et al 2015a , b , 2016 , 2017 ; Filho 2019 ; LeCouteur and Feo 2011 ; Mohammed et al 2010 ; Stone et al 2019 ). Accordingly, over the three matches, we expected to observe improvements in performance, communication patterns, positive core affect, and efficacy beliefs, and a decrease in attentional levels and cardiovascular responses.…”

“…On the flip side, there is a cost to teamwork, often referred to as “coordination cost” (Becker and Murphy 1992 ). To be coordinated in space and time, teammates must invest time and energy to learn their distinct roles within the team (see Eccles, 2010 ), while also developing social bonds and trust with one another (Cooke et al 2000 ; Filho 2019 ). In fact, congruent with the notion of reciprocal determinism put forth by Bandura ( 1997 ), team coordination influences and is influenced by team performance and other team processes, such as cohesion and collective efficacy (Bonebright 2010 ; Filho et al 2015a , b ; Gabelica et al 2016 ; Mathieu et al 2000 ).…”

“…To this extent, multi-person physiological studies with interactive jugglers (e.g., Filho et al 2015a , b ; Filho et al 2016 ; Filho et al 2017 ; Stone et al 2019 ) and duet-guitar players (see Sänger et al 2012 , 2013 ) have revealed that team coordination is possible because teammates activate shared and complementary brain areas to sustain joint attention and action. For effective coordination to occur in the natural world, teammates must (a) share knowledge about each other, the task, the “team as a whole” and the context; and (b) possess complementary knowledge that allows for the resolution of complex problems that hinge on “distributed cognition” (Cooke et al 2000 ; Filho 2019 ; Filho and Tenenbaum 2020 ).…”

The Evaluation of Cohesion in the Sports Groups within a Romanian City

“…− cohesion may influence the satisfaction of the group members -in a cohesive group, individuals have high morale, high self-esteem, share feelings of security, high level of participation to the group life, etc (Widmeyer & Williams, 1991;Andrews et al, 2008, Marcos et al, 2010Taghizadeh & Shojaie, 2012;Paradis & Loughead, 2012;Carless andDe Paola, 2000, cited in McLeod &von Treuer, 2013;Onag & Tepeci, 2014;Spink et al, 2005, Wolf et al, 2015, cited in Eys & Kim, 2017Haddera, 2016;Filho, 2019); − cohesion may have consequences on performance -positive and negative effects on group performance are reported (Brawley, 1990;Evans & Dion, 1991;Gully, Devine, & Whitney, 1995;Abric, 1996;Chang and Bordia, 2001;Gammage et al, 2001;Carron et al, 2002b and2002c;Shapcott et al, 2006;Chang et al, 2006;Sopa & Pomohaci, 2014;Beal et al, 2003, Mullen & Cooper, 1994, cited in Salas et al, 2015Eys et al, 2015;Muthiane et al, 2015;Smith, 2015;Carron, 2005, Rovio et al, 2009, Shapcott & Carron, 2010, Bruner et al, 2014, cited in Eys & Kim, 2017. − cohesion exercises influences, often negative ones, on group thinking (Janis, 1972;Oberlé, 1995) The new theoretical approaches -in contradiction with the classic models studying the phenomenon of cohesion, discussing cohesion as a result of the interdependence of the individuals with a role in ...…”