This article presents a comprehensive synthesis and quantitative review of studies examining relationships between team design characteristics and team performance. Across 398 primary studies, the present study meta-analytically investigated the effects of team composition, team task design, and team leadership characteristics on team performance. The study further investigates how the effects of these team design characteristics differ according to the industry context within which the team is embedded (high technology, manufacturing, service, or student). Overall, this review emphasizes the importance of continued inquiries focusing on team design while also discussing the implications of this review for theory, practice, and future research.
*AdamsS. J.RochS. G.AymanR. (2005). Communication medium and member familiarity: The effects of decision time, accuracy, and satisfaction. Small Group Research, 36, 321-353. doi:10.1177/1046496405275232
2.
AguinisH.O’BoyleE. (2014). Star performers in twenty-first century organizations. Personnel Psychology, 67, 313-350. doi:10.1111/peps.12054
3.
*AlnuaimiO. A.RobertL. P.MarupingL. M. (2010). Team size, dispersion, and social loafing in technology-supported teams. A perspective on the theory of moral disengagement. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27, 203-230. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222270109
4.
AveryD. R.McKayP. F.WilsonD. C. (2007). Engaging the aging workforce: The relationship between perceived age similarity, satisfaction with coworkers, and employee engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1542-1556. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1542
5.
*AvgerinosE.GokpinarB. (2017). Team familiarity and productivity in cardiac surgery operations: The effect of dispersion, bottlenecks, and task complexity. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 19, 19-35. doi:10.1287/msom.2016.0597
6.
AvolioB. J.GardnerW. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001
7.
Backes-GellnerU.VeenS. (2012). Positive effects of ageing and age diversity in innovative companies—Large scale empirical evidence on company productivity. Human Resource Management Journal, 23, 279-295. doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12011
8.
BaltesB. B.DicksonM. W.ShermanM. P.BauerC. C.LaGankeJ. S. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 156-179. doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2961
9.
BanksG. C.BatchelorJ. H.SeersA.O’BoyleE. H.PollackJ. M.GowerK. (2014). What does team–member exchange bring to the party? A meta-analytic review of team and leader social exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 273-295. doi:10.1002/job.1885
10.
*BarrickM. R.BradleyB. H.Kristof-BrownA. L.ColbertA. E. (2007). The moderating role of top management team interdependence: Implications for real teams and working groups. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 544-557. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.25525781
11.
BarrickM. R.MountM. K.JudgeT. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next?International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9-30. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00160
12.
BarrickM. R.MountM. K.LiN. (2013). The theory of purposeful work behavior: The role of personality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics. Academy of Management Review, 38, 132-153. doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0479
BassB. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S
15.
BeersmaB.HollenbeckJ. R.HumphreyS. E.MoonH.ConlonD. E.IlgenD. R. (2003). Cooperation, competition, and team performance: Toward a contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 572-590. doi:10.2307/30040650
16.
BellS. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595-615. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595
17.
BellS. T.VilladoA. J.LukasikM. A.BelauL.BriggsA. L. (2011). Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 37, 709-743. doi:10.1177/0149206310365001
18.
BelloD.LeungK.RadebaughL.TungR. L.van WitteloostuijnA. (2009). From the editors: Student samples in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 361-364. doi:10.1057/jibs.2008.101
19.
*BezrukovaK.SpellC. S.CaldwellD.BurgerJ. M. (2016). A multilevel perspective on faultlines: Differentiating the effects between group- and organizational-level faultlines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 86-107. doi:10.1037/apl0000039
20.
BodenheimerT.ChenE.BennettH. D. (2009). Confronting the growing burden of chronic disease: Can the U.S. health care workforce do the job?Health Affairs, 28, 64-74. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.28.1.64
21.
BrodbeckF.GreitemeyerT. (2000). A dynamic model of group performance: Considering the group members’ capacity to learn. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 159-182. doi:10.1177/1368430200003002004
22.
BrownM. E.TreviñoL. K.HarrisonD. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117-134. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002
23.
*CameloC.Fernández-AllesM.HernándezA. B. (2010). Strategic consensus, top management teams, and innovation performance. International Journal of Management, 31, 678-696. doi:10.1108/01437721011073373
24.
CampionM. A.MumfordT. V.MorgesonF. P.NahrgangJ. D. (2005). Work redesign: Eight obstacles and opportunities. Human Resource Management, 44, 367-390. doi:10.1002/hrm.20080
25.
*CarmeliA.TishlerA.EdmondsonA. C. (2012). CEO relational leadership and strategic decision quality in top management teams: The role of team trust and learning from failure. Strategic Orientation, 10, 31-54. doi:10.1177/1476127011434797
26.
CarnallC. A. (1982). Semi-autonomous work groups and the social structure of the organization. Journal of Management Studies, 19, 277-294. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1982.tb00109.x
27.
*CarsonJ. B.TeslukP. E.MarroneJ. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1217-1234. doi:10.5465/amj.2007.20159921
28.
*CarterM. Z.MossholderK. W. (2015). Are we on the same page? The performance effects of congruence between supervisor and group trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1349-1363. doi:10.1037/a0038798
29.
*CartonA. M.CummingsJ. N. (2013). The impact of subgroup type and subgroup configurational properties on work team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 732-758. doi:10.1037/a0033593
30.
Ceri-BoomsM.CurşeuP. L.OerlemansL. A. G. (2017). Task and person-focused leadership behaviors and team performance: A meta-analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 27, 178-192. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.09.010
31.
*ChenG.TjosvoldD. (2014). Leader productivity and people orientations for cooperative goals and effective teams in China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 2129-2145. doi:10.1080/09585192.2013.872168
32.
ChinM. H.ClarkeA. R.NoconR. S.CaseyA. A.GodduA. P.KeeseckerN. M.CookS. C. (2012). A roadmap and best practices for organizations to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27, 992-1000. doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2082-9
33.
ChoS.CrenshawK. W.McCallL. (2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38, 785-810. doi:10.1086/669608
34.
Chrobot-MasonD.RudermanM. N.WeberT. J.ErnstC. (2009). The challenge of leading on unstable ground: Triggers that activate social identity faultlines. Human Relations, 62, 1763-1794. doi:10.1177/0018726709346376
35.
CohenS. G.BaileyD. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(97)90034-9
36.
CorderyJ. L.MorrisonD.WrightB. M.WallT. D. (2010). The impact of autonomy and task uncertainty on team performance: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 240-258. doi:10.1002/job.657
37.
CostaP. T.McCreaR. R. (1992). The NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
38.
CourtrightS. H.ThurgoodG. R.StewartG. L.PierottiA. J. (2015). Structural interdependence in teams: An integrative framework and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1825-1846. doi:10.1037/apl0000027
39.
*CramtonC. D.WebberS. S. (2005). Relations among geographic dispersion, team processes, and effectiveness in software development work teams. Journal of Business Research, 58, 758-765. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.10.006
40.
CrawfordE. R.LePineJ. A. (2013). A configural theory of team processes: Accounting for the structure of taskwork and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 38, 32-48. doi:10.5465/amr.2011.0206
41.
*DaspitJ. J.RamachandranI.D’SouzaD. E. (2014). TMT shared leadership and firm performance: Investigating the mediating role of absorptive capacity. Journal of Managerial Issues, 26, 219-239.
42.
*DayanM.Di BenedettoC. A. (2011). Team intuition as a continuum construct and new product creativity: The role of environment turbulence, team experience, and stress. Research Policy, 40, 276-286. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.10.002
43.
*del Carman TrianaM.MillerT. L.TrzebiatowskiT. M. (2013). The double-edged nature of board gender diversity: Diversity, firm performance, and the power of women directors as predictors of strategic change. Organization Science, 25, 609-632. doi:10.1287/orsc.2013.0842
44.
*DeRueD. S.BarnesC. M.MoregesonF. P. (2010). Understanding the motivational contingencies of team leadership. Small Group Research, 41, 621-651. doi:10.1177/1046496410373808
45.
*DeShonR. P.KozlowskiS. W. J.SchmidtA. M.MilnerK. R.WiechmannD. (2004). A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1035-1056. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1035
46.
Drach-ZahavyA.SomechA. (2001). Understanding team innovation: The role of team processes and structures. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5, 111-123. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.5.2.111
47.
EaglyA. H.WoodW. (1991). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A meta-analytic perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 306-315. doi:10.1177/0146167291173011
48.
EdwardsJ. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 144-192. doi:10.1177/109442810142004
49.
EhrhartM. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61-94. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.tb02484.x
50.
Else-QuestN. M.HydeJ. S. (2016a). Intersectionality in quantitative psychological research: I. Theoretical and epistemological issues. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 155-170. doi:10.1177/0361684316629797
51.
Else-QuestN. M.HydeJ. S. (2016b). Intersectionality in quantitative psychological research: II. Methods and techniques. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 319-336. doi:10.1177/0361684316647953
52.
*EnglishA.GriffithR. L.SteelmanL. A. (2004). Team performance: The effect of team conscientiousness and task type. Small Group Research, 35, 643-665. doi:10.1177/1046496404266320
53.
*EspinosaJ. A.SlaughterS. A.KrautR. E.HerbslebJ. D. (2007). Familiarity, complexity, and team performance in geographically distributed software development. Organization Science, 18, 613-630. doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0297
54.
*FarhC. I. C.ChenZ. (2014). Beyond the individual victim: Multilevel consequences of abusive supervision in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1074-1095. doi:10.1037/a0037636
55.
FleishmanE. A.SalterJ. A. (1963). Relation between the leader’s behavior and his empathy toward subordinates. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 1, 79-84.
56.
FloresG. M. (2016). Discovering a hidden privilege: Ethnography in multiracial organizations as an outsider. Ethnography, 17, 190-212. doi:10.1177/1466138115575660
57.
FordJ. B. (2016). Cost vs credibility: The student sample trap in business research. European Business Review, 28, 652-656. doi:10.1108/EBR-08-2016-0100
58.
FriedY.FerrisG. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287-322. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00605.x
59.
FrinkD. D.RobinsonR. K.ReithelB.ArthurM. M.AmmeterA. P.FerrisG. R.. . . MorrisetteH. S. (2003). Gender demography and organization performance: A two-study investigation with convergence. Group & Organization Management, 28, 127-147. doi:10.1177/1059601102250025
60.
FungH.-P. (2015). Moderating effects of project management experience, project team size, project duration and project value size on the relationship between project manager’s leadership roles and project team effectiveness in Malaysia. Journal of Empirical Studies, 2(1), 17-33. doi:10.18488/journal.66/2015.2.1/66.1.17.33
61.
*GajendranR. S.JoshiA. (2012). Innovation in globally distributed teams: The role of LMX, communication frequency, and member influence on team decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1252-1261. doi:10.1037/a0028958
62.
GeldhofG. J.PreacherK. J.ZyphurM. J. (2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19, 72-91. doi:10.1037/a0032138
63.
*GibsonC. B.CooperC. D.CongerJ. A. (2009). Do you see what we see? The complex effects of perceptual distance between leaders and teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 62-76. doi:10.1037/a0013073
64.
GinsbergA. (1990). Connecting diversification to performance: A sociocognitive approach. Academy of Management Review, 15, 514-535. doi:10.5465/AMR.1990.4309115
65.
*Gonzalez-MuléE.CourtrightS. H.DeGeestD.SeongJ.-Y.HongD.-S. (2016). Channeled autonomy: The joint effects of autonomy and feedback on team performance through organizational goal clarity. Journal of Management, 42, 2018-2033. doi:10.1177/0149206314535443
66.
Gonzalez-MuléE.DeGeestD. S.McCormickB. W.SeongJ. Y.BrownK. G. (2014). Can we get some cooperation around here? The mediating role of group norms on the relationship between team personality and individual helping behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 988-999. doi:10.1037/a0037278
67.
GraenG. B.Uhl-BienM. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
68.
GreerL. L.de JongB. A.SchoutenM. E.DannalsJ. E. (2018). Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 591-613. doi:10.1037/apl0000291
69.
*GrovesK. S.FeyerhermA. E. (2011). Leader cultural intelligence in context: Testing the moderating effect of team cultural diversity on leader and team performance. Group & Organization Management, 36, 535-566. doi:10.1177/1059601111415664
70.
*GuenterH.van EmmerikH.SchreursB.KuypersT.van ItersonA.NotelaersG. (2016). When task conflict becomes personal: The impact of perceived team performance. Small Group Research, 47, 569-604. doi:10.1177/1046496416667816
71.
HackmanJ. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In LorschJ. (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
72.
HackmanJ. R.OldhamG. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
73.
*HalfhillT. R.NielsenT. M.SundstromE. (2008). The ASA framework: A field study of group personality composition and group performance in military action teams. Small Group Research, 39, 616-635. doi:10.1177/1046496408320418
74.
HalpinA. W. (1957). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, The Ohio State University.
75.
HannahS. T.WalumbwaF. O.FryL. W. (2011). Leadership in action teams: Team leader and members’ authenticity, authenticity strength, and team outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 64, 771-802. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01225.x
76.
HarawayD. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14, 575-599. doi:10.2307/3178066
77.
HarrisonD. A.MohammedS.McGrathJ. E.FloreyA. T.VanderstoepS. W. (2003). Time matters in team performance: Effects of member familiarity, entertainment and task discontinuity on speed and quality. Personnel Psychology, 56, 633-669. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00753.x
78.
*HindsP. J.MortensenM. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16, 290-307. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0122
79.
HittM. A.TylerB. B. (1991). Strategic decision models: Integrating different perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 327-351. doi:10.1002/smj.4250120502
80.
HornseyM. J.DwyerL.OeiT. P. (2007). Beyond cohesiveness: Reconceptualizing the link between group processes and outcomes in group psychotherapy. Small Group Research, 38, 567-592. doi:10.1177/1046496407304336
81.
*HuJ.LidenR. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 851-862. doi:10.1037/a0022465
82.
*HuangR.KahaiS.JesticeR. (2010). The contingent effects of leadership on team collaboration in virtual teams. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1098-1110. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.014
83.
*HuangS.CummingsJ. N. (2011). When critical knowledge is most critical: Centralization in knowledge-intensive teams. Small Group Research, 42, 669-699. doi:10.1177/1046496411410073
84.
HülshegerU. R.AndersonN.SalgadoJ. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1128-1145. doi:10.1037/a0015978
85.
*HumphreyS. E.MorgesonF. P.MannorM. J. (2009). Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: A role composition model of team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 48-61. doi:10.1037/a0012997
86.
HumphreyS. E.NahrgangJ. D.MorgesonF. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332-1356. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332
87.
HunterJ. E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge, and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 340-362. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(86)90013-8
88.
*JacksonM.MorelandR. L. (2009). Transactive memory in the classroom. Small Group Research, 40, 508-534. doi:10.1177/1046496409340703
89.
JacksonS. E.SchulerR. S. (1995). Understanding human resource management in the context of organizations and their environments. In SpenceJ. T.DarleyJ. M.FossJ. (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 46, pp. 237-264). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
90.
*JehnK. A.BezrukovaK. (2010). The faultline activation process and the effects of activated faultlines on coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112, 24-42. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.008
91.
*JiangY.JacksonS. E.ShawJ. B.ChungY. (2012). The consequences of educational specialty and nationality faultlines for project teams. Small Group Research, 43, 613-644. doi:10.1177/1046496412453943
92.
JinL.MadisonK.KraiczyN. D.KellermannsF. W.CrookT. R.XiJ. (2017). Entrepreneurial team composition characteristics and new venture performance: A Meta-analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41, 743-771. doi:10.1111/etap.12232
93.
JohnsonM. D.HollenbeckJ. R.HumphreyS. E.IlgenD. R.JundtD.MeyerC. J. (2006). Cutthroat cooperation: Asymmetrical adaptation to changes in team reward structures. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 103-119. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.20785533
94.
*JooB.-K. B.SongJ. H.LimD. H.YoonS. W. (2012). Team creativity: The effects of perceived learning culture, developmental feedback and team cohesion. International Journal of Training and Development, 16, 77-91. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00395.x
95.
JoshiA.RohH. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 599-627. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.41331491
96.
KahnW. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724. doi:10.5465/256287
*KearneyE.GebertD.VoelpelS. C. (2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members’ need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 581-598. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.41331431
99.
*KimS.SeoK.KangS.ChoS. (2013). Organizational tenure diversity as predictors of combat performance in ROK army. Military Psychology, 25, 345-353. doi:10.1037/mil0000004
100.
KirkmanB. L.MathieuJ. E. (2005). The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management, 31, 700-718. doi:10.1177/0149206305279113
101.
KoC.MaJ.BartnikR.HaneyM. H.KangM. (2018). Ethical leadership: An integrative review and future research agenda. Ethics & Behavior, 28, 104-132. doi:10.1080/10508422.2017.1318069
102.
KozlowskiS. W. J.KleinK. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In KleinK. J.KozlowskiS. W. J. (Eds.), Mutilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
103.
*KunzeF.BruchH. (2010). Age-based faultlines and perceived productive energy: The moderation of transformational leadership. Small Group Research, 41, 593-620. doi:10.1177/1046496410366307
104.
LandersR. N.BehrendT. S. (2015). An inconvenient truth: Arbitrary distinctions between organizational, Mechanical Turk, and other convenience samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 142-164. doi:10.1017/iop.2015.13
105.
LeiboldM.VoelpelS. C. (2007). Managing the aging workforce: Challenges and solutions. Erlangen, Germany: John Wiley.
106.
*LewisK. (2004). Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: A longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management Science, 50, 1519-1533. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1040.0257
107.
LiN.ZhaoH. H.WalterS. L.ZhangX. A.YuJ. (2015). Achieving more with less: Extra milers’ behavioral influences in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1025-1039. doi:10.1037/apl0000010
108.
LidenR. C.WayneS. J.ZhaoH.HendersonD. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161-177. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006
109.
*LiuM.-L.LiuN.-T.DingC. G.LinC.-P. (2015). Exploring team performance in high-tech industries: Future trends of building up teamwork. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 91, 295-310. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2014.03.014
110.
LordR. G.DayD. V.ZaccaroS. J.AvolioB. J.EaglyA. H. (2017). Leadership in applied psychology: Three waves of theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 434-451. doi:10.1037/apl0000089
111.
*LuanK.LingC.-D.XieX.-Y. (2016). The nonlinear effects of educational diversity on team creativity. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 54, 465-480. doi:10.1111/1744-7941.12078
112.
MarlowS.BisbeyT.LacerenzaC.SalasE. (2018). Performance measures for health care teams: A review. Small Group Research, 49, 306-356. doi:10.1177/1046496417748196
113.
*MartinsL. L.SchilpzandM. C.KirkmanB. L.IvanajS.IvanajV. (2013). A contingency view of the effects of cognitive diversity on team performance: The moderating roles of team psychological safety and relationship conflict. Small Group Research, 44, 96-126. doi:10.1177/1046496412466921
114.
MathieuJ. E.TannenbaumS. I.DonsbachJ. S.AlligerG. M. (2014). A review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40, 130-160. doi:10.1177/0149206313503014
115.
*MeschnigG.KaufmanL. (2015). Consensus on supplier selection objectives in cross-functional sourcing teams: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 45, 774-793. doi:10.1108/IJPDLM-06-2014-0129
116.
MeyerB.GlenzA.AntinoM.RicoR.González-RomaV. (2014). Faultlines and subgroups: A meta-review and measurement guide. Small Group Research, 45, 633-670. doi:10.1177/1046496414552195
117.
MorgesonF. P.DeRueD. S.KaramE. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36, 5-39. doi:10.1177/0149206309347376
118.
MorgesonF. P.HumphreyS. E. (2008). Job and team design: Toward a more integrative conceptualization of work design. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 27, 39-91. doi:10.1016/S0742-7301(08)27002-7
119.
MortensenM.HindsP. J. (2001). Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 212-238. doi:10.1108/eb022856
120.
NgT. W. H.FeldmanD. C. (2010). Organizational tenure and job performance. Journal of Management, 36, 1220-1250. doi:10.1177/0149206309359809
121.
O’LearyM. B.CummingsJ. N. (2007). The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly, 31, 433-452. doi:10.2307/25148802
122.
PaletzS. B. F.PengK.ErezM.MaslachC. (2004). Ethnic composition and its differential impact on group processes in diverse teams. Small Group Research, 35, 128-157. doi:10.1177/1046496403258793
123.
*ParkW.-W.KimM. S.GullyS. M. (2017). Effect of cohesion on the curvilinear relationship between team efficacy and performance. Small Group Research, 48, 455-481. doi:10.1177/1046496417709933
124.
ParkerS. K.MorgesonF. P.JohnsG. (2017). One hundred years of work design research: Looking back and looking forward. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 403-420. doi:10.1037/apl0000106
125.
*PassosA. M.CaetanoA. (2005). Exploring the effects of intragroup conflict and past performance feedback on team effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 231-244. doi:10.1108/02683940510589028
126.
*PeetersM. A. G.RutteC. G.van TuijlH. F. J. M.ReymenI. M. M. K. (2008). Designing in teams: Does personality matter?Small Group Research, 39, 438-467. doi:10.1177/1046496408319810
127.
PeetersM. A. G.van TuijlH. F. J. M.RutteC. G.ReymenI. M. M. J. (2006). Personality and team performance: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 20, 377-396. doi:10.1002/per.588
128.
PhillipsR. L.OrmsbyR. (2016). Industry classification schemes: A review and analysis. Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship, 21, 1-25. doi:10.1080/08963568.2015.1110229
129.
*PriesemuthM.SchminkeM.AmbroseM.FolgerR. (2014). Abusive supervision climate: A multiple-mediation model of its impact on group outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1513-1534. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0237
130.
*RappA.AhearneM.MathieuJ.RappT. (2010). Managing sales teams in a virtual environment. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 213-224. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.02.003
131.
*RenY.ChenJ.RiedlJ. (2016). The impact and evolution of group diversity in online open collaboration. Management Science, 62, 1668-1686. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2178
132.
*ResickC. J.DicksonM. W.MitchelsonJ. K.AllisonL. K.ClarkM. A. (2010). Group composition, cognition, and effectiveness: Examining mental model similarity and accuracy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14, 174-191. doi:10.1037/a0018444
133.
*RicoR.MollemanE.Sánchez-ManzanaresM.van der VegtG. (2007). The effects of diversity faultlines and team task autonomy on decision quality and social integration. Journal of Management, 33, 111-132. doi:10.1177/0149206306295307
134.
*RicoR.Sánchez-ManzanaresM.AntinoM.LauD. (2012). Bridging team faultlines by combining task role assignment and goal structure strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 407-420. doi:10.1037/a0025231
135.
RodriguezJ. K.HolvinoE.FletcherJ. K.NkomoS. M. (2016). The theory and praxis of intersectionality in work and organisations: Where do we go from here?Gender, Work & Organization, 23, 201-222. doi:10.1111/gwao.12131
136.
*RousseauV.AubéC. (2013). Collective autonomy and absenteeism within work teams: A team motivation approach. The Journal of Psychology, 147, 153-175. doi:10.1080/00223980.2012.678413
137.
RousseauV.AubéC. (2018). When leaders stifle innovation in work teams: The role of abusive supervision. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 651-664. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3258-8
138.
SchmidtF. L.HunterJ. E. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 162-173. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.162
139.
SchmidtF. L.HunterJ. E. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
140.
*ShinJ. S.ZhouJ. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1709-1721. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1709
141.
*SlotegraafR. J.Atuahene-GimaK. (2011). Product development team stability and new product advantage: The role of decision-making processes. Journal of Marketing, 75, 96-108. doi:10.1509/jmkg.75.1.96
142.
*SodaG.BizziL. (2012). Think different? An investigation of network antecedents and performance consequences of creativity as deviation. Strategic Organization, 10, 99-127. doi:10.1177/1476127012442852
143.
SolimeoS. L.OnoS. S.LampmanM. A.PaezM. B.StewartG. L. (2015). The empowerment paradox as a central challenge to patient centered medical home implementation in the veteran’s health administration. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 29, 26-33. doi:10.3109/13561820.2014.937480
144.
*SomechA. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management, 32, 132-157. doi:10.1177/0149206305277799
145.
StasserG.TitusW. (1985). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467-1478. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467
146.
SteinerI. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York, NY: Academic Press.
147.
StewartG. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design feature and team performance. Journal of Management, 32, 29-55. doi:10.1177/0149206305277792
148.
*StockR. M. (2006). Interorganizational teams as boundary spanners between supplier and customer companies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 588-599. doi:10.1177/0092070306288765
149.
StogdillR. M. (1950). Leadership, membership and organization. Psychological Bulletin, 47, 1-14. doi:10.1037/h0053857
150.
StogdillR. M. (1963). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire-Form XII: An experimental revision. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, The Ohio State University.
151.
SundstromE.de MeuseK. P.FutrellD. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120-133. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.120
152.
*TarakciM.GreerL. L.GroenenP. J. (2016). When does power disparity help or hurt group performance?Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 415-429. doi:10.1037/apl0000056
153.
TepperB. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178-190. doi:10.2307/1556375
154.
TepperB. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research. Journal of Management, 33, 261-289. doi:10.1177/0149206307300812
155.
TepperB. J.DuffyM. K.HenleC. A.LambertL. S. (2006). Procedural injustice, victim precipitation, and abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 59, 101-123. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00725.x
156.
Uhl-BienM.GraenG. B. (1998). Individual self-management: Analysis of professionals’ self-managing activities in functional and cross-functional teams. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 340-350. doi:10.5465/256912
157.
VancouverJ. B. (2005). The depth of history and explanation as benefit and bane for psychological control theories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 38-52. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.38
158.
*van der HaarS.SegersM.JehnK.van den BosscheP. (2015). Investigating the relation between team learning and the team situation model. Small Group Research, 46, 50-82. doi:10.1177/1046496414558840
159.
*van der VegtG. S.BundersonS.KuipersB. (2010). Why turnover matters in self-managing work teams: Learning, social integration, and task flexibility. Journal of Management, 36, 1168-1191. doi:10.1177/0149206309344117
160.
*van der VegtG. S.van de VliertE. (2005). The effects of perceived skill dissimilarity and task interdependence on helping in work teams. Journal of Management, 31, 73-89. doi:10.1177/0149206304271382
161.
van DijkH.MeyerB.van EngenM.LoydD. L. (2017). Microdynamics in diverse teams: A review and integration of the diversity and stereotyping literatures. Academy of Management Annals, 11, 517-557. doi:10.5465/annals.2014.0046
162.
van DijkH.van EngenM. L.van KnippenbergD. (2012). Defying conventional wisdom: A meta-analytic examination of the differences between demographic and job-related diversity relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119, 38-53. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.003
163.
van KnippenbergD.De DreuC. K.HomanA. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008-1022. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008
164.
van KnippenbergD.SitkinS. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic—Transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board?Academy of Management Annals, 7, 1-60. doi:10.1080/19416520.2013.759433
165.
van MierloH.VermuntJ. K.RutteC. G. (2009). Composing group-level constructs from individual-level survey data. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 368-392. doi:10.1177/1094428107309322
166.
*VarelaO. E.BurkeM. J.LandisR. S. (2008). A model of emergence and dysfunctional effects of emotional conflict in groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12, 112-126. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.12.2.112
167.
WangD.WaldmanD. A.ZhangZ. (2014). A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 181-198. doi:10.1037/a0034531
168.
WangG.OhI.-S.CourtrightS. H.ColbertA. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management, 36, 223-270. doi:10.1177/1059601111401017
169.
WeaverK.CrayneM. P.JonesK. S. (2016). I-O at a crossroad: The value of an intersectional research approach. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9, 197-206. doi:10.1017/iop.2015.136
170.
*WebberS. S. (2008). Development of cognitive and affective trust in teams: A longitudinal study. Small Group Research, 39, 746-769. doi:10.1177/1046496408323569
171.
WinemanJ. D.KaboF. W.DavisG. F. (2009). Spatial and social networks in organizational innovation. Environment & Behavior, 41, 427-442. doi:10.1177/0013916508314854
172.
WoodW. (1987). Meta-analytic review of sex differences in group performance. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 53-71. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.102.1.53
173.
YehY.-J.ChouH.-W. (2005). Team composition and learning behaviors in cross-functional teams. Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 391-402. doi:10.2224/sbp.2005.33.4.391
174.
*Young-HymanT. (2017). Cooperating without co-laboring: How formal organizational power moderates cross-functional interaction in project teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62, 179-214. doi:10.1177/0001839216655090
175.
YuA.MattaF. K.CornfieldB. L. (2018). Is LMX differentiation beneficial or detrimental for group effectiveness? A meta-analytic investigation and theoretical integration. Academy of Management Journal, 61, 1158-1188. doi:10.5465/amj.2016.1212
176.
YuklG. A. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
177.
*ZhangY. (2016). Functional diversity and group creativity: The role of group longevity. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52, 97-123. doi:10.1177/0021886315591364
178.
*ZhangZ.WaldmanD. A.WangZ. (2012). A multilevel investigation of leader-member exchange, informal leader emergence, and individual and team performance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 49-78. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01238.x
179.
*ZhengY.DevaughnM. L.Zellmer-BruhnM. (2016). Shared and shared alike? Founders’ prior shared experience and performance of newly founded banks. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 2503-2520. doi:10.1002/smj.2467
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
