Teams research has never been for those who prefer easy answers. The future of the field will belong to those willing to ask harder questions. We must reduce our reliance on comfortable simplifications and treat variability as substantive, context as fundamental, and artificial intelligence as an active participant in collaboration. The future of teams research will depend on scholars willing to embrace messiness without sacrificing rigor.
ChanD. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234
2.
EmichK. J.LuL.FergusonA. J.PetersonR. S.McCourtM. (2022). Team composition revisited: A team member attribute alignment approach. Organizational Research Methods, 25, 642–672.
3.
EmichK. J.McCourtM.LuL.FergusonA. J.PetersonR. S. (2024). Team composition revisited: Expanding the team member attribute alignment approach to consider patterns of more than two attributes. Organizational Research Methods, 27, 329–348.
4.
HackmanJ. R. (2003). Learning more by crossing levels: Evidence from airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras. In CameronK. S.DuttonJ. E.QuinnR. E. (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241–258). Berrett-Koehler.
5.
HarrisonD. A.KleinK. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586096
JohnsG. (2016). Reflections on the 2016 decade award: Incorporating context in organizational research.Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 577–595. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0044
8.
KozlowskiS. W. J.ChaoG. T.GrandJ. A.BraunM. T.KuljaninG. (2016). Capturing the multilevel dynamics of emergence: Computational modeling, simulation, and virtual experimentation. Organizational Psychology Review, 6(1), 3–33.
9.
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.
10.
LauD. C.MurnighanJ. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325–340.
11.
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(3), 592–632.
12.
MittelstadtB. D.AlloP.TaddeoM.WachterS.FloridiL. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679
13.
StarkeC.BaleisJ.KellerB.MarcinkowskiF. (2022). Fairness perceptions of algorithmic decision-making: A systematic review of the empirical literature. Big Data & Society, 9(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221115189
