Team adaptability is just beginning to be understood by researchers. Team training, team effectiveness, and adaptability have provided researchers with a pool of evidence that can be leveraged into meaningful team adaptability research. However, team adaptability is different from individual adaptability. Teams have processes that individuals do not. Furthermore, team adaptability refers to more than just effective performance. The following paper identifies 2 team processes that past literature indicates is important to adaptability (feedback and shared mental models). Theoretical issues and practical training issues are examined to help determine their role in adaptive teams.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrittT. W.AdlerA. B. (1999). Stress and health during medical humanitarian Assistance missions. Military Medicine, 164, 275–279.
2.
Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE. (1990). Cognitive Psychology and Team Training: Training Shared Mental Models. Paper presented at the 5th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psyhology, Miami, FL.
3.
Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE. (1997). A framework for developing team performance measures in training. In BrannickM. T.SalasE.PrinceC. (Eds.), Team Performance and Measurement: Theory, Methods, and Applications. (pp. 45–62). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4.
ConverseS. A.KahlerS. E. (1992, August). Shared Mental Models, Team Performance, and Knowledge Acquisition. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychology Association, Washington, D. C.
5.
DriskellJ. E.SalasE. (1992). Collective behavior and team performance. Human Factors, 34, 277–288.
6.
EntinE. E.SerfatyD. (1999). Adaptive team coordination. Human Factors, 41, 312–325.
7.
FielderF. E.PotterE. H.ZaisM. M.KnowltonW. A. (1979). Organizational stress and the use and misuse of managerial intelligence and experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 635–647.
8.
FowlkesJ. E.SalasE.BakerD. P.Cannon-BowersJ. A.StoutR. J. (2000). The utility of event-based knowledge elicitation. Human Factors, 42(1), 24–35.
9.
GersickC. J.HackmanJ. R. (1990). Habitual routines in taskperformance groups. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 47(1), 65–97.
10.
HancockP. A.WarmJ. S. (1989). A dynamic model of stress and sustained attention. Human Factors, 31(5), 519–537.
11.
HeskethB.NealA. (1999). Technology and performance. In IlgenD. R.PulaskosE. D. (Eds.), The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 21–55). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
12.
IlgenD. R.PulakosE. D. (1999). Employee performance in today's organizations. In IlgenD. R.PulaskosE. D. (Eds.), The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 1–20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
KleinG.PierceL. (2001). Adaptive teams. (Draft Report Contract DAAD17-00-A-5002 for Link Simulation and Training Division). Fairborn, OH: Klein Associates Inc.
14.
KlimoskiR.MohammadS. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor?Journal of Management, 20(2), 403–437.
15.
LePineJ. A.ColquittJ. A.ErezA. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel Psychology, 53, 563–595.
16.
LondonM.MoneE. M. (1999). Continuous learning. In IlgenD. R.PulaskosE. D. (Eds.), The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 119–153). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
MurphyP. R.JacksonS. E. (1999). Managing work role performance: Challenges for Twenty-first century organizations and their employees. In IlgenD. R.PulaskosE. D. (Eds.), The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 21–55). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
18.
PulakosE. D.AradS.DonovanM. A.PlamondonK. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 612–624.
19.
ReisbergD. (2001). Cognition: Exploring the Science of the Mind.New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
20.
RouseW. B.MorrisN. M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 349–363.
21.
SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ. A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 471–499.
22.
SalasE.DickinsonT. L.ConverseS. A.TannenbaumS. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In SwezeyR.SalasE. (Eds.), Teams: Their Training and Performance (3–29). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
23.
SalasE.DriskellJ.E.HughesS. (1996). Introduction: The study of stress and human performance. In DriskellJ. E.SalasE. (Eds), Stress and Human Performance (pp. 1–45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
SalasE.FowlkesJ. E.StoutR. J.MilanovichD. M.PrinceC. (1999). Does CRM training improve teamwork skills in the cockpit?Human Factors, 41, 326–343.
25.
SchlechterT. R.ZaccaroS. L.BurkeC. S. (1998). Toward an understanding of the shared mental models associated with proficient team performance. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington, D.C.: APS.
26.
SelyeH. A. (1956). The Stress of Life.New York: McGraw Hill.
27.
SerfatyD.EntinE. E.VolpeC. (1993). Team adaptation and stress in decision making and coordination. In Proceeding of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
28.
WickensC. D. (1984). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance.Columbus, OH: Merrill.
