Objective: We link the problem of complex sociotechnical systems to a new unit-of-analysis and fruitful developing area of applied research, the multiteam system. Background: Teams are the dominant entity and theoretical lens being applied to understanding the performance of complex sociotechnical systems. We submit that such problems cannot be solved through the teams lens because complex sociotechnical systems exhibit features such as mixed-motive goal structures and complex, layered social identities that do not meet the definitional requirements of a team. Method: We present key findings from multiteam systems research and review the studies contained in the special issue on the basis of the focal constructs and unit of analysis. Results: Although progress is being made on understanding key constructs essential to understanding complex sociotechnical systems, the unit of analysis needs to be shifted upward from the team level to the system level. Conclusion: Progress on understanding the inner workings and leverage points for the success of complex sociotechnical systems requires a fundamental shift in the unit of analysis toward understanding the macrodynamics of larger systems of teams. Application: The multiteam system perspective offers a useful theoretical lens for future research on and tool development (e.g., training, information technology) for improving the functioning of complex sociotechnical systems.
Agarwal, R., Croson, R., & Mahoney, J.T. ( 2010). The role of incentives and communication in strategic alliances: An experimental investigation. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 413-437.
2.
Brewer, M.B., & Pierce, K.P. ( 2005). Social identity complexity and outgroup tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 428-437.
3.
Cobb, M.G., & Mathieu, J.E. (2003, April). The impact of training and environmental complexity on the effectiveness of multi-team systems. In J. E. Mathieu (Chair), Investigations of multi-team systems . A symposium presented at the 18th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
4.
Davison, R.B., & Hollenbeck, J.R. (in press). Boundary spanning in MTSs. In S. J. Zaccaro , M.A. Marks, & L. A. DeChurch (Eds.), Multiteam systems: An organizational form for dynamic and complex environments. New York: Taylor & Francis.
5.
DeChurch, L.A., Burke, C.S., Shuffler, M., Lyons, R., Doty, D., & Salas, E. (in press). A historiometric analysis of leadership in mission critical multiteam environments. Leadership Quarterly.
6.
DeChurch, L.A. & Marks, M.A. ( 2006). Leadership in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 311-329.
7.
DeChurch, L.A., & Mathieu, J.E. ( 2009). Thinking in terms of multiteam systems. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin , & C. S. Burke (eds.), Team Effectiveness in Complex Organizations: Cross-disciplinary Perspectives and Approaches, pp. 267-292. New York: Taylor & Francis.
8.
Hardin, G. ( 1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248.
9.
Hogg, M.A., & Terry, D.J. ( 2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-140.
10.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., & Leidner, D.E. ( 1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791-815.
11.
Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P., Murtha, T.C., Dugdale, B., & Nelson, L. ( 1994). Goal setting, conditions of practice, and task performance: A resource allocation perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology , 79, 826-835.
12.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Ilgen, D.R. ( 2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams . Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77-124.
13.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Klein, K.J. ( 2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
14.
Liu, Y., & Simaan, M.A. ( 2005). Non-inferior Nash strategies for routing control in parallel-link communication networks. International Journal of Communications Systems, 18, 347-361.
Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E., & Zaccaro, S.J. ( 2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes . Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.
17.
Mathieu, J.E., Marks, M.A., & Zaccaro, S.J. ( 2000). Multiteam systems. In N. Anderson, D. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), International handbook of work and organizational psychology (pp. 289-313). London, England: Sage.
18.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T.L., & Gilson, L. ( 2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410-476.
19.
Mesmer-Magnus, J.R., & DeChurch, L.A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 94, 535-546.
20.
Saavedra, R., Earley, P.C., & Van Dyne, L. ( 1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61-72.
21.
Salas, E., Dickinson, T.L., Converse, S.A., & Tannenbaum, S.L. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 3-29). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
22.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O.J., White, B.J., Hood, W.R., & Sherif, C.W. ( 1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers cave experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.
23.
Tajfel, H. ( 1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1-39.
24.
Wageman, R. ( 1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145-180.
25.
Zaccaro, S.J., & DeChurch, L.A. (in press). Leadership forms and functions in multiteam systems. In S. J. Zaccaro, M. A. Marks, & L. A. DeChurch (Eds.), Multiteam systems: An organizational form for dynamic and complex environments. New York: Taylor & Francis.
26.
Zaccaro, S. J., Marks, M. A., & DeChurch, L. A. (Eds.). (in press). Multiteam systems: An organizational form for dynamic and complex environments. New York: Taylor & Francis.
