Team performance is a complex and illusive phenomena that has not yet been fully understood. Teams rely on certain underlying processes to shape their performance. These underlying processes (i.e., “the black box”) have been investigated over the last few years. However, a significant amount of the research has relied on command-and-control teams. The current study focuses on the differentiation of teams based on interdependence, performance arrangement and shared awareness to test the relationship between performance and teamwork behaviors. In addition, the effects of stress, operationalized as workload using a secondary task was also tested. Results showed some support for different communication patterns in different team types. No effects of workload were found. These results should be further investigated and applied to future team research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BowersC. A.JentschF.SalasE.BraunC. C. (1998). Analyzing communication sequences for team training needs assessment. Human Factors, 40(4), 672–679.
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 Psychology, Miami, FL.
3.
CohenS. G.BaileyD. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290.
4.
DriskellJ. E.SalasE. (1992). Collective behavior and team performance. Human Factors, 34, 277–288.
5.
FiedlerF.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(6), 635–647.
6.
GriffithJ. (1997). Test of a model incorporating stress, strain, and disintegration in the cohesion-performance relation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(17), 1489–1526.
7.
HancockP. A.WarmJ. S. (1989). A dynamic model of stress and sustained attention. Human Factors, 31(5), 519–537.
8.
HollenbeckJ.R.SegoD.J.IlgenD.R.MajorD.A.HedlundJ.PhillipsJ. (1997). Team decision making accuracy under difficult conditions: Construct validation of potential manipulations and measures using the TIDE2 simulation. In BrannickM.SalasE.PrinceC. (eds.), New Directions in Team Measurement, pp. 111–136. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
9.
KleinmanD.PattipatiK.LuhP.SerfatyD. (1992). Mathematical models of team performance: A distributed decision-making approach. In SwezeyR.SalasE., (Eds.).
10.
KozlowskiSwj (1996, March). TEAMS / TANDEM: An experimental platform for examining skill acquisition, adaptability, and effectiveness at individual and team levels of analysis. Presented at the Personnel Human Resource Research Group, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
11.
MathieuJ. E.HeffnerT. S.GoodwinG. F.SalasE. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273–283.
12.
MilgramN.A.OrensteinR.ZafrirE. (1989). Stressors, personal resources, and social supports in military performance during wartime. Military Psychology, 1(4), 185–199.
13.
MinionisD. P. (1994). Enhancing team performance in adverse conditions: The role of shared mental models and team training on an interdependent task. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
SaavedraR.EarleyP. C.Van DyneL. (1993). Complex interdependence in task performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 61–72.
16.
SalasE.BurkeC. S.Cannon-BowersJ. A. (2000). Teamwork: Emerging principles. International Journal Review, 2(4), 339–356.
17.
SandersonP.M.FisherC.1994Exploratory Sequential Data Analysis: Foundations. Human-Computer Interaction, 9, 251–317.
18.
SmitI.SchabracqM. (1997). Stress, performance, and organizational cultures. International Journal of Stress Management, 4(4), 275–289.
19.
Smith-JentschK. A.ZeisigR. L.ActonB.McPhersonJ. A. (1998). Team dimensional training: A strategy for guided team self-correction. In Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE. (Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training (pp. 271–297). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
20.
Smith-JentschK.A.PayneS.C.JohnstonJ.H. (1996). Guided team selfcorrection: A methodology for enhancing experiential team training. In Smith-JentschK.A.Chair, When, how, and why does practice make perfect? Paper presented at the 11th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
21.
SundstromE. D. (1999). Supporting work team effectiveness: Best management practices for fostering high performance.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
22.
SundstromE.McIntyreM.HalfhillT.RichardsH. (2000). Work groups: From the Hawthorne studies to work teams of the 1990s and beyond. Group Dynamics, 4(1), 41–67.
23.
ThorntonR. C. (1992). The effects of automation and task difficulty on crew coordination, workload, and performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA.
24.
TravillianK. K.VolpeC. E.Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE. (1993). Cross-training highly interdependent teams: Effects on team process and team performance. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Conference (1243-1247).Santa Monica, CA: HFES Press.
25.
WeaverJ. L.BowersC.SalasE. (2001). Stress and teams: Performance effects and interventions. In HancockP A.DesmondP. A. (Eds.), Stress, workload, and fatigue (pp. 83–106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26.
ZaccaroS.ParkerC.MarksM.BurkeC. S.HigginsJ. M.PerezR. (1997, April). Team efficacy, communication, and performance: Implications for collective regulatory processes. In KlimoskiR. J.Chair, Thinking and feeling while doing: Modeling team self-regulation. Symposium conducted at the 12th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MI.
