Team processes are interdependent activities among team members that transform inputs into outputs, vary over time, and are critical for team effectiveness. Understanding the temporal dynamics of team processes and related team phenomena with a high-resolution lens (i.e., methods with high sampling rates) is particularly challenging when going “into the wild” (i.e., studying teams operating in their full situated context). We review quantitative field studies using high-resolution methods (e.g., video, chat/text data, archival, wearables) and map out the various temporal lenses for studying team dynamics. We synthesize these different lenses and present an integrated temporal framework that is of help in theorizing about team dynamics. We also provide readers with a “how to” guide that summarizes four essential steps along with analytical methods (e.g., sequential and pattern analyses, mixed-methods research, abductive reasoning) that are applicable to the broad scope of high-resolution methods.
AllenN. J.O’NeillT. A. (2015). The trajectory of emergence of shared group-level constructs. Small Group Research, 46, 352–390. doi:10.1177/1046496415584973
2.
BakemanR.QueraV. (2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139017343
3.
BallardD. I.TschanF.WallerM. J. (2008). All in the timing: Considering time at multiple stages of group research. Small Group Research, 39, 328–351. doi:10.1177/1046496408317036
4.
BambergerP.AngS. (2016). The quantitative discovery: What is it and how to get it published. Academy of Management Discoveries, 2, 1–6. doi:10.5465/amd.2015.0060
5.
BanksG. C.WoznyjH. M.WesslenR. S.RossR. L. (2018). A review of best practicerecommendations for text analysis in R (and a user-friendly app). Journal of Business and Psychology, 33, 445–459. doi:10.1007/s10869-017-9528-3
6.
BarsadeS. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644–675. doi:10.2307/3094912
7.
BehfarK.OkhuysenG. A. (2018). Perspective—discovery within validation logic: Deliberately surfacing, complementing, and substituting abductive reasoning in hypothetico-deductive inquiry. Organization Science, 29, 323–340. doi:10.1287/orsc.2017.1193
8.
BellS. T.FisherD. M.BrownS. G.MannK. E. (2018). An approach for conducting actionable research with extreme teams. Journal of Management, 44, 2740–2765. doi:10.1177/0149206316653805
9.
BernsteinE. S.TurbanS. (2018). The impact of the ‘open’ workspace on human collaboration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373, 20170239.
10.
BiemannT.DattaD. K. (2014). Analyzing sequence data: Optimal matching in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 17, 51–76. doi:10.1177/1094428113499408
11.
BiemannT.WolfJ. (2009). Career patterns of top management team members in five countries: An optimal matching analysis. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 975–991. doi:10.1080/09585190902850190
12.
BonitoJ.KeytonJ. (2018). Introduction to machine learning. In BraunerE.BoosM.KolbeM. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of group interaction analysis (pp. 387–404). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316286302.020
13.
BowersC. A.JentschF.SalasE.BraunC. C. (1998). Analyzing communication sequences for team training needs assessment. Human Factors, 40, 672–679.
14.
BraunM. T.KuljaninG.DeShonR. P. (2018). Special considerations for the acquisition and wrangling of big data. Organizational Research Methods, 21, 633–659. doi:10.1177/1094428117690235
15.
BraunerE.BoosM.KolbeM. (Eds.). (2018). The Cambridge handbook of group interaction analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
16.
BüngelerC.KlonekF.Lehmann-WillenbrockN.MorencyL. P.PoppeR. (2017). Killer apps: Developing novel applications that enhance team coordination, communication, and effectiveness. Small group research, 48, 591–620. doi:10.1177/1046496417721745
17.
CarterN. T.CarterD. R.DeChurchL. A. (2018). Implications of observability for the theory and measurement of emergent team phenomena. Journal of Management, 44, 1398–1425. doi:10.1177/0149206315609402
18.
ChaffinD.HeidlR.HollenbeckJ. R.HoweM.YuA.VoorheesC.CalantoneR. (2017). The promise and perils of wearable sensors in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 20, 3–31. doi:10.1177/1094428115617004
19.
CollinsC. G.GibsonC. B.QuigleyN. R.ParkerS. K. (2016). Unpacking team dynamics with growth modeling: An approach to test, refine, and integrate theory. Organizational Psychology Review, 6, 63–91. doi:10.1177/2041386614561249
20.
CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (1986). The causal assumptions of quasi-experimental practice. Synthese, 68, 141–180.
21.
CroninM. A.WeingartL. R.TodorovaG. (2011). Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet?Academy of Management Annals, 5, 571–612. doi:10.1080/19416520.2011.590297
22.
CummingsT. G. (1978). Self-regulating work groups: A socio-technical synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 3, 625–634. doi:10.5465/AMR.1978.4305900
23.
DavidL. Z.SchraagenJ. M. (2018). Analysing communication dynamics at the transaction level: The case of Air France Flight 447. Cognition, Technology & Work, 20, 637–649. doi:10.1007/s10111-018-0506-y
24.
DeliceF.RousseauM.FeitosaJ. (2019). Advancing teams research: What, when, and how to measure team dynamics over time. Frontiers in psychology, 10.
25.
DimbergU.ThunbergM. (1998). Rapid facial reactions to emotional facial expressions. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 39, 39–45. doi:10.1111/1467-9450.00054
26.
DriskellT.DriskellJ. E.SalasE. (2017). Lexicon as a predictor of team dynamics. In SalasE.VesseyW. B.LandonL. B. (Eds.), Team dynamics over time (pp. 231–257). Bingley, West Yorkshire: Emerald.
27.
FarhC. I.ChenG. (2018). Leadership and member voice in action teams: Test of a dynamic phase model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 97–110. doi:10.1037/apl0000256
28.
GersickC. J. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9–41. doi:10.5465/256496
29.
GibsonC. B. (2017). Elaboration, generalization, triangulation, and interpretation: On enhancing the value of mixed method research. Organizational Research Methods, 20, 193–223. doi:10.1177/1094428116639133
30.
GibsonD. C. (2018). Unobtrusive observation of team learning attributes in digital learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 834.
31.
GonzalesA. L.HancockJ. T.PennebakerJ. W. (2010). Language style matching as a predictor of social dynamics in small groups. Communication Research, 37, 3–19. doi:10.1177/0093650209351468
32.
González-MoralesM. G.PeiróJ. M.RodríguezI.BlieseP. D. (2012). Perceived collective burnout: A multilevel explanation of burnout. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 25, 43–61. doi:10.1080/10615806.2010.542808
33.
GrijalvaE.MaynesT. D.BaduraK. L.WhitingS. W. W. (2019). Examining the “I” in team: A longitudinal investigation of the influence of team narcissism composition on team outcomes in the NBA. Academy of Management Journal. Advanced online publication. doi:10.5465/amj.2017.0218
34.
HalevyN.ChouE. Y.GalinskyA. D.MurnighanJ. K. (2012). When hierarchy wins: Evidence from the National Basketball Association. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 398–406. doi:10.1177/1948550611424225
35.
HedeckerD.GibbonsR. D. (2006). Longitudinal data analysis. New York, NY: Wiley.
36.
HerndonB.LewisK. (2015). Applying sequence methods to the study of team temporal dynamics. Organizational Psychology Review, 5, 318–332. doi:10.1177/2041386614538276
37.
HillA. D.WhiteM. A.WallaceJ. C. (2014). Unobtrusive measurement of psychological constructs in organizational research. Organizational Psychology Review, 4, 148–174. doi:10.1177/2041386613505613
38.
HollenbeckJ. R.IlgenD. R.TuttleD. B.SegoD. J. (1995). Team performance on monitoring tasks: An examination of decision errors in contexts requiring sustained attention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 685–696. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.6.685
39.
HoogeboomM. A.WilderomC. P. (2019). A complex adaptive systems approach to real-life team interaction patterns, task context, information sharing, and effectiveness. Group & Organization Management. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/1059601119854927
40.
HumphreyS. E.AimeF. (2014). Team microdynamics: Toward an organizing approach to teamwork. The Academy of Management Annals, 8, 443–503. doi:10.1080/19416520.2014.904140
41.
IshakA. W.BallardD. I. (2012). Time to re-group: A typology and nested phase model for action teams. Small Group Research, 43, 3–29. doi:10.1177/1046496411425250
42.
JohnsG. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386–408. doi:10.5465/amr.2006.20208687
43.
KankiB. G.FolkV. G.IrwinC. M. (1991). Communication variations and aircrew performance. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1, 149–162. doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0102_5
44.
KauffeldS.Lehmann-WillenbrockN. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43, 130–158. doi:10.1177/1046496411429599
45.
KhawajaM. A.ChenF.MarcusN. (2012). Analysis of collaborative communication for linguistic cues of cognitive load. Human Factors, 54, 518–529. doi:10.1177/0018720811431258
46.
KimT.McFeeE.OlguinD. O.WaberB.PentlandA. S. (2012). Sociometric badges: Using sensor technology to capture new forms of collaboration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 412–427. doi:10.1002/job.1776
47.
KleinK. J.DansereauF.HallR. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195–229. doi:10.2307/258703
48.
KlonekF. E.QueraV.BurbaM.KauffeldS. (2016). Group interactions and time: Using sequential analysis to study group dynamics in project meetings. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20, 209–222. doi:10.1037/gdn0000052
49.
KlonekF. E.MeineckeA.HayG.ParkerS. (in press). Capturing team dynamics in the wild: The communication analysis tool. Small Group Research.
50.
KnightA. P. (2013). Mood at the midpoint: Affect and change in exploratory search over time in teams that face a deadline. Organization Science, 26, 99–118. doi:10.1287/orsc.2013.0866
51.
KolbeM.BoosM. (2019). Laborious but elaborate: The benefits of really studying team dynamics. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1478. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01478
52.
KolbeM.GroteG.WallerM. J.WackerJ.GrandeB.BurtscherM. J.SpahnD. R. (2014). Monitoring and talking to the room: Autochthonous coordination patterns in team interaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1254–1267. doi:10.1037/a0037877
53.
KozlowskiS. W. (2015). Advancing research on team process dynamics: Theoretical, methodological, and measurement considerations. Organizational Psychology Review, 5, 270–299. doi:10.1177/2041386614533586
54.
KozlowskiS. W. J.GullyS. M.NasonE. R.SmithE. M. (1999). Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. In IlgenD. R.PulakosE. D. (Eds.), The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, personnel actions, and development (pp. 240–292). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
55.
KozlowskiS. W. J.KleinK. J. (2000). Multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations—Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In KleinK. J.KozlowskiS. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
56.
KozlowskiS. W.ChaoG. T.GrandJ. A.BraunM. T.KuljaninG. (2013). Advancing multilevel research design: Capturing the dynamics of emergence. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 581–615. doi:10.1177/1094428113493119
57.
LeendersR. T. A.ContractorN. S.DeChurchL. A. (2016). Once upon a time: Understanding team processes as relational event networks. Organizational Psychology Review, 6, 92–115. doi:10.1177/2041386615578312
58.
Lehmann-WillenbrockN.MeyersR. A.KauffeldS.NeiningerA.HenschelA. (2011). Verbal interaction sequences and group mood: Exploring the role of team planning communication. Small Group Research, 42, 639–668.
59.
Lehmann-WillenbrockN.AllenJ. A. (2018). Modeling temporal interaction dynamics in organizational settings. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33, 325–344. doi:10.1007/s10869-017-9506-9
60.
Lehmann-WillenbrockN.ChiuM. M.LeiZ.KauffeldS. (2017). Understanding positivity within dynamic team interactions: A statistical discourse analysis. Group &Organization Management, 42, 39–78. doi:10.1177/1059601116628720
61.
Lehmann-WillenbrockN.HungH.KeytonJ. (2017). New frontiers in analyzing dynamic group interactions: Bridging social and computer science. Small Group Research, 48, 519–531. doi:10.1177/1046496417718941
62.
LeiZ.WallerM. J.HagenJ.KaplanS. (2016). Team adaptiveness in dynamic contexts: Contextualizing the roles of interaction patterns and in-process planning. Group & Organization Management, 41, 491–525. doi:10.1177/1059601115615246
63.
LePineJ. A.PiccoloR. F.JacksonC. L.MathieuJ. E.SaulJ. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273–307. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00114.x
64.
LiuY.VashdiD. R.CrossT.BambergerP.ErezA. (2019). Exploring the puzzle of civility: Whether and when team civil communication influences team members’ role performance. Human Relations, 1–28. doi:10.1177/0018726719830164
65.
LucianoM. M.MathieuJ. E.ParkS.TannenbaumS. I. (2018). A fitting approach to construct and measurement alignment: The role of big data in advancing dynamic theories. Organizational Research Methods, 21, 592–632. doi:10.1177/1094428117728372
66.
MagnussonM. (2018). Temporal Patterns in Interactions. In BraunerE.BoosM.KolbeM. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, pp. 323–353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781316286302.017
67.
MagnussonM. S. (2000). Discovering hidden time patterns in behavior: T-patterns and their detection. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 93–110. doi:10.3758/bf03200792
68.
ManserT.HowardS. K.GabaD. M. (2008). Adaptive coordination in cardiac anaesthesia: A study of situational changes in coordination patterns using a new observation system. Ergonomics, 51, 1153–1178. doi:10.1080/00140130801961919
69.
MarksM. A.MathieuJ. E.ZaccaroS. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376. doi:10.2307/259182
70.
MarlowS. L.LacerenzaC. N.PaolettiJ.BurkeC. S.SalasE. (2018). Does team communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach? A meta-analysis of team communication and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 144, 145–170. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.08.001
71.
MathieuJ. E.LucianoM. M. (2019). Multilevel emergence in work collectives. In HumphreyS. E.LeBretonJ. M. (Eds.), The handbook of multilevel theory, measurement, and analysis (pp. 163–186). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
72.
MathieuJ.MaynardM. T.RappT.GilsonL. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–476. doi:10.1177/0149206308316061
73.
MaynardM. T.MathieuJ. E.RappT. L.GilsonL. L. (2012). Something(s) old and something(s) new: Modeling drivers of global virtual team effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 342–365. doi:10.1002/job.1772
74.
McGrathJ. E.TschanF. (2004). Dynamics in groups and teams. In PooleM.Vande VenA. H. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change and innovation (pp. 50–72). New York, NY: Oxford.
75.
MeineckeA. L.KlonekF. E.KauffeldS. (2016). Using observational research methods to study voice and silence in organizations. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 30, 195–224. doi:10.1177/2397002216649862
76.
MitchellT. R.JamesL. R. (2001). Building better theory: Time and the specification of when things happen. Academy of Management Review, 26, 530–547. doi:10.2307/3560240
77.
PaletzS. B.ChanJ.SchunnC. D. (2016). Uncovering uncertainty through disagreement. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 387–400. doi:10.1002/acp.3213
78.
PaulsenH. F. K.KlonekF. E.SchneiderK.KauffeldS. (2016). Group affective tone and team performance: A week-level study in project teams. Frontiers in Communication, 1, 7. doi:10.3389/fcomm.2016.00007
79.
PilnyA.SchecterA.PooleM. S.ContractorN. (2016). An illustration of the relational event model to analyze group interaction processes. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20, 181–195. doi:10.1037/gdn0000042
80.
QuigleyN. R.CollinsC. G.GibsonC. B.ParkerS. K. (2018). Team performance archetypes: Toward a new conceptualization of team performance over time. Group & Organization Management, 43, 787–824. doi:10.1177/1046496415584973
81.
QuintaneE.ConaldiG.TonellatoM.LomiA. (2014). Modeling relational events: A case study on an open source software project. Organizational Research Methods, 17, 23–50. doi:10.1177/1094428113517007
82.
RiedlC.WoolleyA. W. (2017). Teams vs. crowds: A field test of the relative contribution of incentives, member ability, and emergent collaboration to crowd-based problem solving performance. Academy of Management Discoveries, 3, 382–403.
83.
RoeR. A.GockelC.MeyerB. (2012). Time and change in teams: Where we are and where we are moving. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 629–656. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.729821
84.
RousseauV.AubéC.SavoieA. (2006). Teamwork behaviors: A review and an integration of frameworks. Small Group Research, 37, 540–570. doi:10.1177/1046496406293125
85.
SaavedraS.HagertyK.UzziB. (2011). Synchronicity, instant messaging, and performance among financial traders. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 5296–5301. doi:10.1073/pnas.1018462108
86.
SalasE.CookeN. J.RosenM. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors, 50, 540–547. doi:10.1518/001872008X288457
87.
SantoroJ. M.DixonA. J.ChangC. H.KozlowskiS. W. (2015). Measuring and monitoring the dynamics of team cohesion: Methods, emerging tools, and advanced technologies. In SalasE.Vessey, &W.EstradaA. (Eds.), Team cohesion: Advances in psychological theory, methods and practice (pp. 115–145). Bingley, England: Emerald.
88.
SchadJ.LewisM. W.RaischS.SmithW. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 10, 5–64. doi:10.1080/19416520.2016.1162422
89.
SchecterA.PilnyA.LeungA.PooleM. S.ContractorN. (2017). Step by step: Capturing the dynamics of work team process through relational event sequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 1163–1181. doi:10.1002/job.2247
90.
SchmutzJ. B.LeiZ.EppichW. J.ManserT. (2018). Reflection in the heat of the moment: The role of in-action team reflexivity in health care emergency teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 749–765. doi:10.1002/job.2299
91.
SchmutzJ.HoffmannF.HeimbergE.ManserT. (2015). Effective coordination in medical emergency teams: The moderating role of task type. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 761–776. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2015.1018184
92.
ShortJ. C.McKennyA. F.ReidS. W. (2018). More than words? Computer-aided text analysis in organizational behavior and psychology research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 415–435. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104622
93.
StachowskiA. A.KaplanS. A.WallerM. J. (2009). The benefits of flexible team interaction during crises. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1536–1543. doi:10.1037/a0016903
94.
StuartH. C.MooreC. (2017). Shady characters: The implications of illicit organizational roles for resilient team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 1963–1985. doi:10.5465/amj.2014.0512
95.
SwaabR. I.SchaererM.AnicichE. M.RonayR.GalinskyA. D. (2014). The too-much-talent effect: Team interdependence determines when more talent is too much or not enough. Psychological Science, 25, 1581–1591.
96.
TiferesJ.BisantzA. M. (2018). The impact of team characteristics and context on team communication: An integrative literature review. Applied Ergonomics, 68, 146–159. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2017.10.020
97.
TuckmanB. W.JensenM. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2, 419–427. doi:10.1177/105960117700200404
98.
UitdewilligenS.WallerM. J. (2018). Information sharing and decision-making in multidisciplinary crisis management teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 731–748. doi:10.1002/job.2301
99.
van MaanenJ.SørensenJ. B.MitchellT. R. (2007). The interplay between theory and method. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1145–1154. doi:10.5465/amr.2007.26586080
100.
VantilborghT.HofmansJ.JudgeT. A. (2018). The time has come to study dynamics at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 1045–1049. doi:10.1002/job.2327
101.
WagemanR.GardnerH.MortensenM. (2012). The changing ecology of teams: New directions for teams research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 301–315. doi:10.1002/job.1775
102.
WallerM. J. (1999). The timing of adaptive group responses to nonroutine events. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 127–137. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2003.07.001
103.
WallerM. J.GuptaN.GiambatistaR. C. (2004). Effects of adaptive behaviors and shared mental models on control crew performance. Management Science, 50, 1534–1544. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1040.0210
104.
WallerM. J.KaplanS. A. (2018). Systematic behavioral observation for emergent team phenomena: Key considerations for quantitative video-based approaches. Organizational Research Methods, 21, 500–515. doi:10.1177/1094428116647785
105.
WangL.DoucetL.WallerM.SandersK.PhillipsS. (2016). A laughing matter: Patterns of laughter and the effectiveness of working dyads. Organization Science, 27, 1142–1160. doi:10.1287/orsc.2016.1082
106.
WundersitzD. W.JosmanC.GuptaR.NettoK. J.GastinP. B.RobertsonS. (2015). Classification of team sport activities using a single wearable tracking device. Journal of Biomechanics, 48, 3975–3981. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.09.015
107.
ZijlstraF. R.WallerM. J.PhillipsS. I. (2012). Setting the tone: Early interaction patterns in swift-starting teams as a predictor of effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 749–777. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.690399
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
