In this essay, I highlight the liminality of teams research – where new discoveries can be made by embracing things “in-between.” One liminal space is that between individuals and groups – the patterns of intra- and interpersonal relationships that represent the microdynamics of teams. Another liminal space is that between past and future research philosophies, questions, and methods that will help us discover those patterns. Liminal spaces are transitional and challenging, but they are the very threshold of exciting change.
AcevesP.EvansJ. A. (2024). Mobilizing conceptual spaces: How word embedding models can inform measurement and theory within organization science. Organization Science, 35(3), 788–814. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2023.1686
2.
CohenS. K.CazaB. B.JonesC. (2025). From puzzling to plausible: The role of abduction in organizational research. Academy of Management Discoveries, 11(4), 469–478.
3.
De DreuC. K. W.WeingartL. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
4.
de WitF. R. C.GreerL.JehnK. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024844
5.
EmichK. J.LuL.FergusonA. J.PetersonR. S.McCourtM. (2022). Team composition revisited: A team member attribute alignment approach. Organizational Research Methods, 25(4), 642–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281211042388
6.
EmichK. J.LuL.FergusonA. J.PetersonR. S.McCourtM.MartinS.McCleanE.WoodruffC. T. (2024). Better together: Member proactivity is better for team performance when aligned with conscientiousness. Academy of Management Discoveries, 10(2), 250–272. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2021.0208
7.
EmichK. J.McCourtM.LuL.FergusonA.PetersonR. (2023). Team composition revisited: expanding the team member attribute alignment approach to consider patterns of more than two attributes. Organizational Research Methods, 27(2), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281231166656
8.
GarrettL. E.GardnerJ. E.SciarappaS. L. (2023). Moving beyond team structure: Musings about a psychological sense of team. Group & Organization Management, 51, 510–525.
9.
HarrisonJ. R.LinZ.CarrollG. R.CarleyK. M. (2007). Simulation modeling in organizational and management research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1229–1245. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586485
10.
HofmannD. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23(6), 723–744.
11.
HumphreyS. E.AimeF. (2014). Team microdynamics: Toward an organizing approach to teamwork. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 443–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.904140
12.
HumphreyS. E.AimeF.CushenberyL.HillA. D.FairchildJ. (2017). Team conflict dynamics: Implications of a dyadic view of conflict for team performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 142, 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.08.002
13.
JohnsG. (2001). In praise of context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 31–42.
14.
KennyD. A.La VoieL. (1984). The social relations model. Advances in experimental social psychology, 18, 141–182.
15.
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.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). Jossey-Bass.
16.
LeBretonJ. M.SenterJ. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642
17.
MorgesonF. P.HofmannD. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. The Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 249–265. http://www.jstor.org/stable/259081
18.
O’NeillT. A.McLarnonM. J.HoffartG. C.WoodleyH. J.AllenN. J. (2018). The structure and function of team conflict state profiles. Journal of Management, 44(2), 811–836. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315581662
19.
ParkS.MathieuJ.GrosserT. J. (2020). A network conceptualization of team conflict. Academy of Management Review, 45(2), 352–375. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0472
20.
ShahP.PetersonR.JonesS. L.FergusonA. J. (2021). Things are not always what they seem: The origin and evolution of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(2), 426–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839220965186
21.
StraussA. L.CorbinJ. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
22.
ThielC. E.HarveyJ.CourtrightS.BradleyB. (2017). What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger: How teams rebound from early-stage relationship conflict. Journal of Management, 45(4), 1623–1659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317729026
23.
VancouverJ. B.WeinhardtJ. M. (2012). Modeling the mind and the milieu: Computational modeling for micro-level organizational researchers. Organizational Research Methods, 15(4), 602–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112449655
24.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.
25.
YuanZ.YinJ.SunJ. (2025). The paradox of team conflict revisited: An updated meta-analysis of the team conflict–team performance relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001315
