Recent efforts to enhance team performance have been grounded in analysis of team cognition, shared mental models, communication, and teamwork skills. However, alternative lines of work in social psychology and organizational development have addressed “psychosocial” factors, e.g., team cohesion, human relations training and transformational leadership. The goal of this panel is to explore the relevance of these factors for improving team performance. Panelists will describe research advances from laboratory and operational environments (military, space, and medicine), including tools for assessing team cohesion, psychosocial training strategies, analytical methods for examining changes in team performance, and limits to psychosocial approaches.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArthurW.BennettW.EdensP. S.BellS. T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 234–245.
2.
BalesR. F.CohenS. P. (1979). SYMLOG: A system for the multiple level observation of groups. New York: The Free Press.
3.
BassB. M.AvolioB. J.JungD. I.BersonY. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207–218.
4.
BradleyJ.WhiteB. J.MenneckeB. E. (2003). Teams and tasks: A temporal framework for the effects of interpersonal interventions on team performance. Small Group Research, 34(3), 353–387.
5.
BuehlmanK.T.GottmanJ. M.KatzL. F. (1992). How a couple views their past predicts their future: Predicting divorce from an oral history interview. Journal of Family Psychology, 5, 295–318.
6.
Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE. (1998). Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training. Washington DC: APA Press.
7.
Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE.ConverseS. A. (1991). Cognitive psychology and team training: Training shared mental models of complex systems. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 33(12), 1–4.
8.
CarrèreS.GottmanJ. M. (1999). Predicting divorce among newlyweds from the first three minutes of a marital conflict discussion. Family Processes, 38 (3), 293–301.
9.
ChangA.BordiaP. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion-group performance relationship. Small Group Research, 32, 379–405.
10.
EntinE.E.SerfatyD. (1999). Adaptive team coordination. Journal of Human Factors, Vol. 41, No.2, pp. 321–325.
11.
FineG. A. (1986). Behavioral change in group space: A reintegration of Lewinian theory in small group research. Advances in Group Processes, 3, 23–50.
12.
FischerU.McDonnellL.OrasanuJ. (2007). Linguistic correlates of team performance: Toward a tool for monitoring team functioning during space missions. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 78(5), II, B86–95.
13.
FischerU.OrasanuJ. (2000). Error-challenging strategies: Their role in preventing and correcting errors. In Proceedings of the 41st Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.San Diego, CA: HFES.
14.
GinnettR. C. (1993). Crews as groups: Their formation and their leadership. In WienerE.KankiB. G.HelmreichR. L. (eds.), Cockpit resource management (pp. 71–97). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
15.
KeytonJ. (1999). Relational communication in groups. In FreyL. R. (ed.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 192–222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
16.
KleinC.SalasE.BurkeC. S.GoodwinG. F.HalpinS.GranadosDiaz D. (2006). Does team training enhance team processes, performance, and team member affective outcomes? A meta-analysis. In WeaverK. M. (Ed.), Best paper proceedings [CD-ROM], 66th annual meeting of the Academy of Management. Atlanta, GA.
17.
KraigerK.WenzelL. H. (1997). Conceptual development and empirical evaluation of measures of shared mental models as indicators of team effectiveness. In BrannickM. T.SalasE.PrinceC. (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 63–84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18.
Lagan-FoxJ.CodeS.Langfield-SmithK. (2000). Team mental models: Techniques, methods, and analytic approaches. Human Factors, 42(2), 242–271.
19.
LaucheK.Ehbets MüllerR.MbitiK. (2001). Understanding and supporting innovation in teams. In Proceedings of International Conference on Engineering Design, 395–402.
20.
MacCounR. J. (1993). Unit cohesion and military performance. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
21.
MoosR.H.HumphreyB. (1974). Group Environment Scale, Form R. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
22.
MullenB.CopperC. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210–227.
23.
ParkeB.K.HoubenH. C. (1985). An objective analysis of group types. International Journal of Small Group Research, 1(2), 131–150.
24.
ParkeB.KankiB.NordK.BianchiA. (2000). Crew climate and performance: Use of group diagrams based on behavioral ratings. Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress: Vol. 3 (pp. 149–152). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
25.
RogersL. E.FaraceR. V. (1975). Analysis of relational communication in dyads: New measurement procedures. Human Communication Research, 1, 222–239.
26.
SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ. A. (1997). Methods, tools, and strategies for team training. In QuinonesM. A.EhrensteinA. (Eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace: Applications of psychological research (pp. 249–279). Washington, DC: APA Press.
27.
SalasE.RozellD.MullenB.DriskellJ. (1999). The effect of team building on performance - An integration. Small Group Research, 30(3), 309–329.
28.
Smith-JentschK.CampbellG.MilanovichD. M.ReynoldsA. M. (2001). Measuring teamwork mental models to support training needs assessment, development, and evaluation: Two empirical studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 179–194.
29.
WoodJ.SchmidtL. L.LuggD. J.AytonJ.PhillipsT.ShepanekM. (2005). Life, survival, and behavioral health in small closed communities: 10 years of studying isolated Antarctic groups. Aviation, Space & Environmental Medicine, 76(6), B89–93.
