In this essay, I argue for expanding our definitions of team effectiveness. I highlight how the same dynamics that support coordination and team performance can also enable collective harm, and I suggest that more fully capturing the moral consequences of teamwork will help us maximize the potential of teams in an increasingly complex, technology-mediated world.
CarpenterN. C.WhitmanD. S.AmrheinR. (2021). Unit-level counterproductive work behavior (CWB): A conceptual review and quantitative summary. Journal of Management, 47(6), 1498–1527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320978812
2.
DevineD. J.PhilipsJ. L. (2001). Do smarter teams do better: A meta-analysis of cognitive ability and team performance. Small Group Research, 32(5), 507–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640103200501
3.
HannahS. T.AvolioB. J.MayD. R. (2011). Moral maturation and moral conation: A capacity approach to explaining moral thought and action. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 663–685. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0128
4.
HildrethJ. A. D.GinoF.BazermanM. (2016). Blind loyalty? When group loyalty makes us see evil or engage in it. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 132, 16–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.10.001
5.
KeatingD. J.Cullen-LesterK. L.MeuserJ. D. (2024). Virtual work conditions impact negative work behaviors via ambiguity, anonymity, and (un) accountability: An integrative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 109(2), 169–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001126
MathieuJ. E.HollenbeckJ. R.van KnippenbergD.IlgenD. R. (2017). A century of work teams in theJournal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 452–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000128
PearsallM. J.EllisA. P. (2011). Thick as thieves: the effects of ethical orientation and psychological safety on unethical team behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021503
10.
SpoelmaT. M.ChauhanT. (2023). Expanding the dimensionality of team deviance: An organizing framework and review. Small Group Research, 54(1), 77–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964221127982
