As the fabric of modern organizations, teams provide capacity to handle the ongoing adaptation demanded by contexts that characterize the future of work. While scholars have studied how team composition and structural characteristics facilitate team adaptation, both research and practice will benefit from also explicating the process of adapting—how a team’s active coping determines team adaptation over time. To move in this direction, we integrate perspectives on team adaptation which emphasize how teams understand complex environments and combine coordination processes to reach adaptive outcomes. This clarifies when, why, and how teams adapt, yielding performance benefits for organizations. Our goal is to offer evidence-based insights and theoretical reasoning to foster future research explaining the team adaptation–performance connection in current complex and changing work environments.
AudiaPGLockeEASmithKG (2000) The paradox of success: An archival and a laboratory study of strategic persistence following radical environmental change. Academy of Management Journal43: 837–853.
2.
BaardSKRentchTAKozlowskiSW (2014) Performance adaptation: A theoretical integration and review. Journal of Management40: 48–99.
3.
BernsteinEBunchJCannerN, et al. (2016) Beyond the holacracy hype. Harvard Business Review94: 38–49.
4.
BonannoGABurtonCL (2013) Regulatory flexibility: An individual differences perspective on coping and emotion regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science8: 591–612.
5.
BonnerBLBaumannMRNetchaevaE (2015) Adapting to fill the void: Dynamic group coordination as a function of differing domain roles and instrumentality. European Journal of Social Psychology46: 63–76.
6.
BurkeCSSalasEDiazD (2008) The role of team learning in facilitating team adaptation within complex environments: Tools and strategies. In: SessaVILondonM (eds) Work Group Learning: Understanding, Improving and Assessing How Groups Learn in Organizations. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 217–241.
7.
BurkeCSStaglKCSalasE, et al. (2006) Understanding team adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology91: 1189–1207.
8.
BurtscherMJWackerJGroteG, et al. (2010) Managing nonroutine events in anesthesia: The role of adaptive coordination. Human Factors52: 282–294.
9.
CarrollJSRudolphJWHatakenakaS (2002) Learning from experience in high-hazard organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior24: 87–137.
10.
Charbonnier-VoirinAEl AkremiAVandenbergheC (2010) A multilevel model of transformational leadership and adaptive performance and the moderating role of climate for innovation. Group & Organization Management35: 699–726.
11.
ChristianJSChristianMSPearsallMJ, et al. (2017) Team adaptation in context: An integrated conceptual model and meta-analytic review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes140: 62–89.
12.
CollinsCGibsonCBParkerS, et al. (2016) Unpacking team dynamics with growth modeling: An approach to test, refine, and integrate theory. Organizational Psychology Review6: 63–91.
13.
De JongADe RuyterKLemminkJ (2004) Antecedents and consequences of the service climate in boundary-spanning self-managing service teams. Journal of Marketing68: 18–35.
14.
DeChurchLAHaasCD (2008) Examining team planning through an episodic lens: Effects of deliberate, contingency, and reactive planning on team effectiveness. Small Group Research39: 542–568.
15.
DenrellJMarchJG (2001) Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stove effect. Organization Science12: 523–538.
16.
DeRueDSHollenbeckJRJohnsonMD, et al. (2008) How different team downsizing approaches influence team-level adaptation and performance. Academy of Management Journal51: 182–196.
17.
DiedrichFJFreemanJEntinEE, et al. (2005) Modeling, measuring, and improving cognition at the team level. Proceedings of Augmented Cognition (SchmorrowD, ed.) Human Factors & Ergonomics Society11: 114–139.
18.
DybåTDingsøyrT (2008) Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology50: 833–859.
19.
EllisSMendelRNirM (2006) Learning from successful and failed experience: The moderating role of kind of after-event review. Journal of Applied Psychology91: 669–680.
20.
FioreSMRosenMASmith-JentschKA, et al. (2010) Toward an understanding of macrocognition in teams: Predicting processes in complex collaborative contexts. Human Factors52: 203–224.
21.
FrickSEFletcherKARamsayPS, et al. (2018) Understanding team maladaptation through the lens of the four R’s of adaptation. Human Resource Management Review28: 411–422.
22.
GardnerSAQuigleyNR (2015) Toward a dynamic, multilevel theory of team personality. Organizational Psychology Review5: 364–384.
23.
GibsonCBBirkinshawJ (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal47: 209–226.
24.
GohYMMichelerSSanchez-SalasA, et al. (2019) A variability taxonomy to support automation decision-making for manufacturing processes. Production Planning & Control31: 383–399.
25.
GormanJCCookeNJAmazeenPG (2010) Training adaptive teams. Human Factors52: 295–307.
26.
GroteGKolbeMZala-MezöE, et al. (2010) Adaptive coordination and heedfulness make better cockpit crews. Ergonomics53: 211–228.
27.
HackmanJR (2011) Collaborative Intelligence: Using Teams to Solve Hard Problems. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
28.
HackmanJROldhamGR (1980) Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
29.
HackmanJRWagemanR (2005) A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review30: 269–287.
30.
HæremTPentlandBTMillerKD (2015) Task complexity: Extending a core concept. Academy of Management Review40: 446–460.
31.
HamiltonKMancusoVMinotraD, et al. (2010) Using the NeoCITIES 3.1 simulation to study and measure team cognition. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting54: 433–437.
32.
HarrisonGLMcKinnonJLWuA, et al. (2000) Cultural influences on adaptation to fluid workgroups and teams. Journal of International Business Studies31: 489–505.
33.
HinszVBTindaleRSVollrathDA (1997) The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin121: 43–64.
34.
HollenbeckJREllisAPJHumphreySE, et al. (2011) Asymmetry in structural adaptation: The differential impact of centralizing versus decentralizing team decision-making structures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes114: 64–74.
35.
IlgenDRHollenbeckJRJohnsonM, et al. (2005) Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review Psychology56: 517–543.
36.
JohnsonMDHollenbeckJRHumphreySE, et al. (2006) Cutthroat cooperation: Asymmetrical adaptation to changes in team reward structures. Academy of Management Journal49: 103–119.
KozlowskiSWBellBS (2003) Work groups and teams in organizations. In: BormanWCIlgenDRKlimoskiRJ (eds) Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 12. London: Wiley, pp. 333–375.
39.
KozlowskiSWKleinKJ (2000) A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: KleinKJKozlowskiSW (eds) Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 3–90.
40.
KozlowskiSWGullySMNasonER, et al. (1999) Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. In: IlgenDRPulakosED (eds) The Changing Nature of Work Performance: Implications for Staffing, Personnel Actions, and Development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 240–292.
41.
LandonLBVesseyWBBarrettJD (2015) Risk of performance and behavioral health decrements due to inadequate cooperation, coordination, communication, and psychosocial adaptation within a team. Technical report, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX.
42.
LangJWBliesePD (2009) General mental ability and two types of adaptation to unforeseen change: Applying discontinuous growth models to the task-change paradigm. Journal of Applied Psychology94: 411–428.
43.
LasiHFettkePKemperHG, et al. (2014) Industry 4.0. Business & Information Systems Engineering6: 239–242.
44.
LeeGXiaW (2010) Toward agile: An integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data on software development agility. MIS Quarterly34: 87–114.
45.
LePineJA (2003) Team adaptation and postchange performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members’ cognitive ability and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology88: 27–39.
46.
LePineJA (2005) Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: Effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology90: 1153–1167.
47.
LePineJAColquittJAErezA (2000) Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel Psychology53: 563–593.
48.
LevinthalDRerupC (2006) Crossing an apparent chasm: Bridging mindful and less-mindful perspectives on organizational learning. Organization Science17: 502–513.
49.
LewisK (2003) Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology88: 587–604.
50.
MarksMAMathieuJEZaccaroSJ (2001) A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review26: 356–376.
51.
MarksMAZaccaroSJMathieuJE (2000) Performance implications of leader briefings and team-interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments. Journal of Applied Psychology85: 971–986.
52.
MathieuJMaynardMTRappT, et al. (2008) Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management34: 410–476.
53.
MaynardMTKennedyDMSommerSA (2015) Team adaptation: A fifteen-year synthesis (1998-2013) and framework for how this literature needs to “adapt” going forward. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology24: 1–26.
54.
McCombSKennedyDPerrymanR, et al. (2010) Temporal patterns of mental model convergence: Implications for distributed teams interacting in electronic collaboration spaces. Human Factors52: 264–281.
55.
MohammedSDumvilleBC (2001) Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior22: 89–106.
56.
MohammedSHamiltonKSanchez-ManzanaresM, et al. (2017) Team cognition: Team mental models and situation awareness. In: SalasERicoRPassmoreJ (eds) The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Teamwork and Collaborative Team Processes. London, UK: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 369–392.
57.
MohrmanSACohenSGMorhmanAMJr (1995) Designing Team-Based Organizations: New Forms for Knowledge Work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
58.
MoonHHollenbeckJRHumphreySE, et al. (2004) Asymmetric adaptability: Dynamic team structures as one-way streets. Academy of Management Journal47: 681–695.
59.
MorgesonFP (2005) The external leadership of self-managing teams: Intervening in the context of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology90: 497–508.
60.
MorgesonFPMitchellTRLiuD (2015) Event system theory: An event-oriented approach to the organizational sciences. Academy of Management Review40: 515–537.
61.
NerurSBalijepallyV (2007) Theoretical reflections on agile development methodologies. Communications of the ACM50: 79–83.
62.
PloyhartREBliesePD (2006) Individual adaptability (IADAPT) theory: Conceptualizing the antecedents, consequences, and measurement of individual differences in adaptability. In: BurkeCSPierceLGSalasE (eds) Understanding Adaptability: A Prerequisite for Effective Performance within Complex Environments, vol. 6. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
63.
PloyhartREVandenbergRJ (2010) Longitudinal research: The theory, design and analysis of change. Journal of Management36: 94.
64.
PulakosEDAradSDonovanMA, et al. (2000) Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology85: 612–624.
65.
RandallKRResickCJDeChurchLA (2011) Building team adaptive capacity: The roles of sensegiving and team composition. Journal of Applied Psychology96: 525–540.
66.
RenYQKieslerSFussellSR (2008) Multiple group coordination in complex and dynamic task environments: Interruptions, coping mechanisms, and technology recommendations. Journal of Management Information Systems25: 105–130.
67.
ResickCJMuraseTBedwellWL, et al. (2010) Mental model metrics and team adaptability: A multi-facet multi-method examination. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice14: 332.
68.
RicoRGibsonCAntinoM, et al. (2016) Coordination and performance: Unpacking adaptation on firefighter teams. Paper presented to the 11th INGroup Conference, Helsinki, Finland.
69.
RicoRGibsonCBSanchez-ManzanaresM, et al. (2019) Building team effectiveness through adaptation: Team knowledge and implicit and explicit coordination. Organizational Psychology Review9: 71–98.
70.
RicoRSanchez-ManzanaresMGilF, et al. (2008) Team coordination processes: A team knowledge-based approach. Academy of Management Review33: 163–185.
71.
RosenMABedwellWLWildmanJL, et al. (2011) Managing adaptive performance in teams: Guiding principles and behavioral markers for measurement. Human Resource Management Review21: 107–122.
72.
SargutGMcGrathRG (2011) Learning to live with complexity. Harvard Business Review89: 68–76.
73.
Saucedo-MartínezJAPérez-LaraMMarmolejo-SaucedoJA, et al. (2018) Industry 4.0 framework for management and operations: A review. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing9: 789–801.
74.
SchwabK (2017) The Fourth Industrial Revolution. New York: Crown Business.
75.
SiggelkowNRivkinJW (2005) Speed and search: Designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organization Science16: 101–122.
76.
Smith-JentschKACannon-BowersJATannenbaumSI, et al. (2008) Guided team self-correction impacts on team mental models, processes, and effectiveness. Small Group Research39: 303–327.
77.
StachowskiAKaplanSAWallerM (2009) The benefits of flexible team interaction during crises. Journal of Applied Psychology94: 1536–1543.
78.
SummersJKHumphreySEFerrisGR (2012) Team member change, flux in coordination, and performance: Effects of strategic core roles, information transfer, and cognitive ability. Academy of Management Journal55: 314–338.
79.
SundstromEDe MeuseKPFutrellD (1990) Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist45: 120–133.
80.
SutcliffeKMVogusTJ (2003) Organizing for resilience. In: CameronKSDuttonJEQuinnRE (eds) Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, pp. 94–110.
81.
TschanFSemmerNKNägeleC, et al. (2000) Task adaptive behavior and performance in groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations3: 367–386.
82.
UitdewilligenSRicoRWallerMJ (2018) Fluid and stable: Dynamics of team action patterns and adaptive outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior39: 1113–1128.
83.
UitdewilligenSWallerMPitariuAH (2013) Mental model updating and team adaptation. Small Group Research44: 127–158.
84.
VeraDCrossanM (2005) Improvisation and innovative performance in teams. Organization Science16: 203–224.
85.
VilladoAJArthurWJr (2013) The comparative effect of subjective and objective after-action reviews on team performance on a complex task. Journal of Applied Psychology98: 514–528.
86.
WagemanR (1995) Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly40: 145–180.
87.
WallerMJ (1999) The timing of adaptive group responses to nonroutine events. Academy of Management Journal42: 127.
88.
WallerMJUitdewilligenS (2013) Transitions in action teams. In: GraenGB (ed.) Management of Team Leadership in Extreme Context. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, pp. 167–196.
89.
WoodRE (1986) Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes37: 60–82.
ZaccaroSJBaderP (2003) E-Leadership and the challenges of leading e-teams: Minimizing the bad and maximizing the good. Organizational Dynamics31: 377–387.
92.
ZaccaroSJRittmanALMarksMA (2001) Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly12: 451–483.
93.
Zellmer-BruhnMGibsonCB (2006) Multinational organizational context: Implications for team learning and performance. Academy of Management Journal49: 501–518.
