Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Teams are pervasive in workplaces as high-level goals are often beyond the capabilities of individuals. Despite this team pervasiveness, the dimensions along which teams can be characterized remain opaque. While prior work introduced the multidimensional concept of “teamness,” this work aims to identify its underlying dimensions. In this study, quantitative methodologies (content analysis and factor analysis) based on empirical data were used to identify the underlying dimensions of teamness from academic and non-academic perspectives. Our analysis uncovered ten distinct dimensions in the academic and non-academic domains. Five dimensions were the same in both domains (synergy, goal orientation, heterogeneity, hierarchy, and individualism), but key differences exist in the other dimensions. These findings provide an evidence-based and quantitative framework for researchers to characterize teams and enable more advanced teaming research. Future research will further explore the differences in teamness dimensions between the two domains.

Keywords

communication concepts/methods systems/processes teams/collaboration/organizations testing and evaluation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cattell

R. B.

(1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276.

Chen

(2021, January 21). Five factors for team success. Weekly Wisdom Blog. https://www.weeklywisdomblog.com/post/five-factors-for-team-success

Cooke

N. J.

Cohen

M. C.

Fazio

W. C.

Inderberg

L. H.

Johnson

C. J.

Lematta

G. J.

Peel

Teo

(2024). From teams to teamness: Future directions in the science of team cognition. Human Factors, 66(6), 1669–1680.

Cohen

M. C.

Cooke

N. J.

Gorman

J. C.

Fiore

S. M.

Gray

Banerjee

Hirshfield

Nguyen

(2024). Future of team research: On teamness and dimensions of variability in teams. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 68(1), 423–426.

Driskell

J. E.

Burke

C. S.

Salas

(2017). Team roles: A review and integration. Small Group Research, 48(4), 482–511.

Drisko

J. W.

Maschi

(2016). Content analysis. Oxford University Press.

Freethink. (2020, March 26). The key to good teamwork. [Video] YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzo98wwGWMM

Guo

Yang

X. J.

(2021). Modeling and predicting trust dynamics in human–robot teaming: A Bayesian inference approach. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(8), 1899–1909.

Hollenbeck

J. R.

Beersma

Schouten

M. E.

(2012). Beyond team types and taxonomies: A dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 82–106.

10.

Kline

(2014). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge.

11.

Lasota

P. A.

Shah

J. A.

(2015). Analyzing the effects of human-aware motion planning on close-proximity human–robot collaboration. Human Factors, 57(1), 21–33.

12.

Lucey

Bialkowski

Carr

Morgan

Matthews

Sheikh

(2013). Representing and discovering adversarial team behaviors using player roles [Conference session]. Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, Portland, OR, USA, pp. 2706–2713.

13.

Murphy

R. R.

(2004). Human-robot interaction in rescue robotics. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 34(2), 138–153.

14.

O’Leary

(2024). The eight dimensions of high-performing teams. Cantoo. https://blog.cantoo.us/eight-dimensions-of-high-performing-teams

15.

Salas

Dickinson

T. L.

Converse

S. A.

Tannenbaum

S. I.

(1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In Swezey

R. W.

Salas

(Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 3–29). Ablex Publishing.

16.

Saucier

Goldberg

L. R.

(2001). Lexical studies of indigenous personality factors: Premises, products, and prospects. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 847–879.

17.

Saunders

Sim

Kingstone

Baker

Waterfield

Bartlam

Burroughs

Jinks

(2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52, 1893–1907.

18.

Sundstrom

De Meuse

K. P.

Futrell

(1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45(2), 120.

19.

Trost

(2020, April 1). Dimensions of leadership and organization [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiBvTZXXRTw

20.

Unhelkar

V. V.

Siu

H. C.

Shah

J. A.

(2014). Comparative performance of human and mobile robotic assistants in collaborative fetch-and-deliver tasks [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction, Bielefeld, Germany, pp. 82–89.

21.

VERBI Software. (2024). MAXQDA Plus 24 (Version 24.7.0) [Computer Software]. https://www.maxqda.com/qualitative-data-analysis-software

22.

White

(2019, April 15). 3 ways to create a work culture that brings out the best in employees | Chris White | TEDxAtlanta. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y8SA6cLUys

23.

Widmann

Messmann

Mulder

R. H.

(2016). The impact of team learning behaviors on team innovative work behavior: A systematic review. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 429–458.

A Quantitative and Empirical Study of the Dimensions of Teamness

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References