Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Traditional static measures often overlook the temporal complexity of coordination in high-stakes environments. Dynamical systems methods offer time-sensitive insights by capturing interaction patterns across multiple modalities. This study examined how emergent differences in team composition—such as communication style and trust—and operational context affect dynamic, multidimensional measures of team process. Twenty-eight active-duty personnel participated in high-fidelity simulated missions as remote tank platoon teams. Time series data were analyzed using geospatial metrics, communication flow measures, and physiological synchrony measures. Group and phase differences in process measures were assessed using ANCOVAs, informed by prior t-tests and ANOVAs on trust and performance. Group 1 showed more structured communication (higher recurrence and determinism), while Group 2 exhibited greater intensity, centralization, and less consistent movement pacing. Geospatial cohesion declined during defensive phases, with increased dispersion and reduced synchronization. Trust and performance also varied significantly by group and phase, respectively. Physiological synchrony showed no significant differences. Multidimensional metrics revealed meaningful variation in coordination based on both team composition and operational context. Communication and geospatial indicators were especially sensitive to task demands. Dynamic team process measures—particularly communication structure and geospatial dispersion—offer diagnostic insight into coordination and may inform real-time monitoring, adaptive training, and system design in complex environments.

Keywords

communication complex adaptive systems measures teams/collaboration/organizations training and learning

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alliger

G. M.

Cerasoli

C. P.

Tannenbaum

S. I.

Vessey

W. B.

(2015). Team resilience: How teams flourish under pressure. Organizational Dynamics, 44(3), 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.05.003

Amazeen

P. G.

(2018). From physics to social interactions: Scientific unification via dynamics. Cognitive Systems Research, 52, 640–657.

Brannick

M. T.

Prince

Salas

(1995). The measurement of team process. Human factors, 37(3), 641–651. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049372

Butchibabu

Sparano-Huiban

Sonenberg

Shah

(2016). Implicit coordination strategies for effective team communication. Human Factors, 58(4), 595–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816639712

Coco

M. I.

Dale

(2014). Cross-recurrence quantification analysis of categorical and continuous time series: An R package. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 510. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00510

Cooke

N. J.

Gorman

J. C.

Myers

C. W.

Duran

J. L.

(2013). Interactive team cognition. Cognitive Science, 37(2), 255–285.

Dunbar

T. A.

Gorman

J. C.

Grimm

D. A.

Werner

(2020). The dynamical systems approach to team cognition. In Contemporary Research Models, Methodologies, and Measures in distributed team cognition (pp. 53–74). Essay, CRC Press.

Gordon

Gilboa

Cohen

Milstein

Haimovich

Pinhasi

Siegman

(2020). Physiological and behavioral synchrony predict group cohesion and performance. Scientific Reports, 10, 8484. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65670-1

Gorman

J. C.

Cooke

N. J.

Amazeen

P. G.

(2010). Training adaptive teams. Human Factors, 52(3), 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720810371689

10.

Gorman

J. C.

Cooke

N. J.

Kiekel

P. A.

(2004). Dynamical perspectives on team cognition. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 48(3), 673-677. https://doi.org/10.1177/15419312040480038

11.

Gorman

J. C.

Grimm

D. A. P.

Robinson

F. E.

Winner

J. L.

Wiese

C. W.

Roudebush

(2025). Dynamic measures of team adaptation. Human Factors, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208251314262

12.

Grimm

D. A.

Demir

Gorman

J. C.

Cooke

N. J.

McNeese

N. J.

(2019). Layered dynamics and system effectiveness of human-autonomy teams under degraded conditions. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63(1), 165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631307

13.

Grimm

D. A.

Gorman

J. C.

Cooke

N. J.

Demir

McNeese

N. J.

(2023). Dynamical measurement of team resilience. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 17(4), 351-382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15553434231199729

14.

Hoogeboom

M. A. M. G.

Wilderom

C. P. M.

(2020). A complex adaptive systems approach to real-life team interaction patterns, task context, information sharing, and effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 45(1), 3–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601119854927

15.

Marks

M. A.

Mathieu

J. E.

Zaccaro

S. J.

(2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4845785

16.

Salas

Sims

D. E.

Burke

C. S.

(2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork?. Small Group Research, 36(5), 555–599.

17.

Sheehan

W. B.

Tribolet

Watsford

M. L.

Novak

A. R.

Rennie

Fransen

(2022). Tactical analysis of individual and team behaviour in professional Australian football: original investigation. Science and Medicine in Football, 6(2), 172–180.

18.

Stevens

Gorman

J. C.

Amazeen

Likens

Galloway

(2013). The organizational neurodynamics of teams. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 17(1), 67–86.

19.

van der Wel

van Steenbergen

(2018). Pupil dilation as an index of effort in cognitive control tasks: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(6), 2005–2015. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1432-y

20.

Wasserman

Faust

(1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO97805

Exploring Dynamic Measures of Team Process in Combat Teams

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References