Capturing team processes, which are highly dynamic and quickly unfold over time, requires methods that go beyond standard self-report measures. However, quantitative observational methods are challenging when teams are observed in the wild, that is, in their full-situated context. Technologically advanced tools that enable high-resolution measurements in the wild are rare and, when they exist, expensive. The present research advances high-resolution measurement of team processes by introducing a technological application—the Communication Analysis Tool (CAT)—that captures fine-grained interactions in real workplace contexts. We introduce four core features of CAT: (a) customized coding measures, (b) session-based feedback on interrater reliability, (c) visualization and feedback options for displaying team dynamics, and (d) an export function to conduct advanced statistical analyses on effective team processes. We illustrate these core features using data from an organizational field project on multidisciplinary teams tasked with diagnosing patients with uncommon and highly complex medical conditions.
BakemanR.QueraV. (2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. Cambridge University Press.
2.
BalesR. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Addison-Wesley.
3.
BallardD. I.TschanF.WallerM. J. (2008). All in the timing: Considering time at multiple stages of group research. Small Group Research, 39, 328–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408317036
4.
BartoD.BirdC. W.HamiltonD. A.FinkB. C. (2017). The Simple Video Coder: A free tool for efficiently coding social video data. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1563–1568. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0787-0
5.
BaynamG.BroleyS.BauskisA.PachterN.McKenzieF.TownshendS.. . . SchofieldL. (2017). Initiating an undiagnosed diseases program in the Western Australian public health system. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, 12, Article 83. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-017-0619-z
6.
BaynamG.PachterN.McKenzieF.TownshendS.SleeJ.Kiraly-BorriC.. . . VerhoefH. (2016). The rare and undiagnosed diseases diagnostic service—application of massively parallel sequencing in a state-wide clinical service. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, 11, Article 77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-016-0462-7
7.
BraunerE.BoosM.KolbeM. (Eds.). (2018). The Cambridge handbook of group interaction analysis. Cambridge University Press.
8.
CicchettiD. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284
DawsonJ. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7
12.
EdmondsonA. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1419–1452. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00386
13.
EisenL. A.SavelR. H. (2009). What went right: Lessons for the intensivist from the crew of US Airways Flight 1549. Chest, 136, 910–917. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.09-0377
14.
FarhC. I.ChenG. (2018). Leadership and member voice in action teams: Test of a dynamic phase model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000256
15.
GibsonC. B. (2017). Elaboration, generalization, triangulation, and interpretation: On enhancing the value of mixed method research. Organizational Research Methods, 20, 193–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116639133
16.
GlüerM. (2018). Software for coding and analysing interaction processes. In BraunerE.BoosM.KolbeM. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of group interaction analysis (pp. 245–273). Cambridge University Press.
17.
HåkonssonD. D.EskildsenJ. K.ArgoteL.MønsterD.BurtonR. M.ObelB. (2016). Exploration versus exploitation: Emotions and performance as antecedents and consequences of team decisions. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 985–1001. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2380
18.
HallgrenK. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8, 23–34. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023
19.
HirstG.van KnippenbergD.ZhouQ.ZhuC. J.TsaiP. C. F. (2018). Exploitation and exploration climates’ influence on performance and creativity: Diminishing returns as function of self-efficacy. Journal of Management, 44, 870–891. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315596814
20.
HuangS.CummingsJ. N. (2011). When critical knowledge is most critical: Centralization in knowledge-intensive teams. Small Group Research, 42, 669–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496411410073
21.
HughesA. M.GregoryM. E.JosephD. L.SoneshS. C.MarlowS. L.LacerenzaC. N.. . . SalasE. (2016). Saving lives: A meta-analysis of team training in healthcare. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1266–1304. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000120
22.
JørgensenF.BeckerK. (2017). The role of HRM in facilitating team ambidexterity. Human Resource Management Journal, 27, 264–280. https://doi.org/0.1111/1748-8583.12128
23.
KankiB. G.LozitoS.FousheeH. C. (1989). Communication indices of crew coordination. Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine, 60, 56–60
24.
KauffeldS.Lehmann-WillenbrockN. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43, 130–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496411429599
25.
KennedyD. M.McCombS. A. (2014). When teams shift among processes: Insights from simulation and optimization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 784–815. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037339
26.
KeytonJ. (2018). Interaction analysis: An introduction. In BraunerE.BoosM.KolbeM. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of group interaction analysis (pp. 3–19). Cambridge University Press.
27.
KeytonJ.BeckS. J. (2009). The influential role of relational messages in group interaction. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13, 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013495
28.
KlonekF. E.GerpottF.Lehmann-WillenbrockN.ParkerS. (2019). Time to go wild: How to conceptualize and measure process dynamics in real teams with high resolution?Organizational Psychology Review, 9(4), 245–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619886674
29.
KlonekF. E.QueraV.KauffeldS. (2015). Coding interactions in motivational interviewing with computer-software: What are the advantages for process researchers?Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.034
30.
KnightA. P. (2015). Mood at the midpoint: Affect and change in exploratory search over time in teams that face a deadline. Organization Science, 26, 99–118. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0866
31.
KolbeM.BoosM. (2019). Laborious but elaborate: The benefits of really studying team dynamics. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1478. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01478
32.
KolbeM.GroteG.WallerM. J.WackerJ.GrandeB.BurtscherM. J.SpahnD. R. (2014). Monitoring and talking to the room: Autochthonous coordination patterns in team interaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1254–1267. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037877
33.
KooleT.van BurgstedenL.HarmsP.van DiemenC. C.van LangenI. M. (2017). Participation in interdisciplinary meetings on genetic diagnostics (NGS). European Journal of Human Genetics, 25, 1099–1105. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2017.111
34.
KostopoulosK. C.BozionelosN. (2011). Team exploratory and exploitative learning: Psychological safety, task conflict, and team performance. Group & Organization Management, 36, 385–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601111405985
35.
KozlowskiS. W. (2015). Advancing research on team process dynamics: Theoretical, methodological, and measurement considerations. Organizational Psychology Review, 5, 270–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386614533586
36.
KozlowskiS. W.ChaoG. T.GrandJ. A.BraunM. T.KuljaninG. (2013). Advancing multilevel research design: Capturing the dynamics of emergence. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 581–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428113493119
37.
LeendersR. T. A.ContractorN. S.DeChurchL. A. (2016). Once upon a time: Understanding team processes as relational event networks. Organizational Psychology Review, 6, 92–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386615578312
38.
Lehmann-WillenbrockN.AllenJ. A. (2018). Modeling temporal interaction dynamics in organizational settings. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33, 325–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-017-9506-9
39.
LeiZ.WallerM. J.HagenJ.KaplanS. (2016). Team adaptiveness in dynamic contexts: Contextualizing the roles of interaction patterns and in-process planning. Group & Organization Management, 41, 491–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115615246
40.
LiuY.VashdiD. R.CrossT.BambergerP.ErezA. (2019). Exploring the puzzle of civility: Whether and when team civil communication influences team members’ role performance. Human Relations, 73, 215–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719830164
41.
LucianoM. M.MathieuJ. E.ParkS.TannenbaumS. I. (2018). A fitting approach to construct and measurement alignment: The role of big data in advancing dynamic theories. Organizational Research Methods, 21, 592–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117728372
42.
MaclinO. H.MaclinM. K. (2005). Coding observational data: A software solution. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 224–231. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03192690
43.
ManserT.HowardS. K.GabaD. M. (2008). Adaptive coordination in cardiac anaesthesia: a study of situational changes in coordination patterns using a new observation system. Ergonomics, 51(8), 1153–1178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130801961919
44.
MarchJ. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
45.
MarksM. A.MathieuJ. E.ZaccaroS. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376. https://doi.org/10.2307/259182
46.
McGrawK. O.WongS. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.1.1.30
47.
MeineckeA. L.KlonekF. E.KauffeldS. (2016). Using observational research methods to study voice and silence in organizations. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 30, 195–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397002216649862
48.
National Transportation Safety Board. (2010). Loss of thrust in both engines after encountering a flock of birds and subsequent ditching on the Hudson river, US Airways Flight 1549, Airbus A320-214, N106US, Weehawken, New Jersey, January 15, 2009 (Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-10/03). National Transportation Safety Board Website. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1003.pdf
49.
NemanichL. A.VeraD. (2009). Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the context of an acquisition. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.11.002
50.
NoldusL. P. J. J.TrienesR. J. H.HendriksenA. H. M.JansenH.JansenR. G. (2000). The Observer Video-Pro: New software for the collection, management, and presentation of time-structured data from videotapes and digital media files. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 197–206. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03200802
51.
ObornE.DawsonS. (2010). Knowledge and practice in multidisciplinary teams: Struggle, accommodation and privilege. Human Relations, 63, 1835–1857. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726710371237
52.
PennebakerJ. W.BoydR. L.JordanK.BlackburnK. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. University of Texas at Austin.
53.
RiedlC.WoolleyA. W. (2017). Teams vs. crowds: A field test of the relative contribution of incentives, member ability, and emergent collaboration to crowd-based problem solving performance. Academy of Management Discoveries, 3, 382–403. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2015.0097
54.
RoeR. A.GockelC.MeyerB. (2012). Time and change in teams: Where we are and where we are moving. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 629–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.729821
55.
SalasE.CookeN. J.RosenM. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors, 50, 540–547. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288457
56.
SchecterA.PilnyA.LeungA.PooleM. S.ContractorN. (2017). Step by step: Capturing the dynamics of work team process through relational event sequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 1163–1181. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2247
57.
SchermulyC. C.SchollW. (2012). The Discussion Coding System (DCS)—A new instrument for analyzing communication processes. Communication Methods and Measures, 6, 12–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2011.651346
58.
SchmutzJ. B.HoffmannF.HeimbergE.ManserT. (2015). Effective coordination in medical emergency teams: The moderating role of task type. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 761–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1018184
59.
SchmutzJ. B.LeiZ.EppichW. J.ManserT. (2018). Reflection in the heat of the moment: The role of in-action team reflexivity in health care emergency teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 3, 749–765. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2299
60.
SeelandtJ. C. (2018). Quality control: Assessing reliability and validity. In BraunerE.BoosM.KolbeM. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of group interaction analysis (pp. 227–244). Cambridge University Press.
61.
SeelandtJ. C.GrandeB.KriechS.KolbeM. (2018). DE-CODE: A coding scheme for assessing debriefing interactions. BMJ Simulation and Technology Enhanced Learning, 4(2), 51–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjstel-2017-000233
62.
ShufflerM. L.Diaz GranadosD.SalasE. (2011). There’s a science for that: Team development interventions in organizations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411422054
63.
StachowskiA. A.KaplanS. A.WallerM. J. (2009). The benefits of flexible team interaction during crises. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1536–1543. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016903
64.
UitdewilligenS.RicoR.WallerM. J. (2018). Fluid and stable: Dynamics of team action patterns and adaptive outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 1113–1128. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2267
65.
UitdewilligenS.WallerM. J. (2018). Information sharing and decision-making in multidisciplinary crisis management teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 731–748. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2301
66.
van OortmerssenL. A.van WoerkumC. M.AartsN. (2015). When interaction flows: An exploration of collective creative processes on a collaborative governance board. Group & Organization Management, 40, 500–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114560586
67.
WalkerC. E.MahedeT.DavisG.MillerL. J.GirschikJ.BrameldK.. . . WeeramanthriT. S. (2017). The collective impact of rare diseases in Western Australia: An estimate using a population-based cohort. Genetics in Medicine, 19(5), 546–552.
68.
WallerM. J. (1999). The timing of adaptive group responses to nonroutine events. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.07.001
69.
WallerM. J.GuptaN.GiambatistaR. C. (2004). Effects of adaptive behaviors and shared mental models on control crew performance. Management Science, 50, 1534–1544. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0210
70.
WallerM. J.KaplanS. A. (2018). Systematic behavioral observation for emergent team phenomena: Key considerations for quantitative video-based approaches. Organizational Research Methods, 21, 500–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116647785
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.
