Foundations of Teamwork and Collaboration

Abstract

The term teamwork has graced countless motivational posters and office walls. However, although teamwork is often easy to observe, it is somewhat more difficult to describe and yet more difficult to produce. At a broad level, teamwork is the process through which team members collaborate to achieve task goals. Teamwork refers to the activities through which team inputs translate into team outputs such as team effectiveness and satisfaction. In this article, we describe foundational research underlying current research on teamwork. We examine the evolution of team process models and outline primary teamwork dimensions. We discuss selection, training, and design approaches to enhancing teamwork, and note current applications of teamwork research in real-world settings.

Full text

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 1
Foundations of Teamwork and Collaboration
James E. Driskell
Florida Maxima Corporation
Eduardo Salas
Rice University
Tripp Driskell
Florida Maxima Corporation
Author Note
This research was supported by funding from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (Grant NNX09AK48G) and the National Science Biomedical Research Institute
(NCC-9-58).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to James Driskell, Florida
Maxima Corporation, 6415 Turtlemound Road, New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169.
Contact: jdriskell@rollins.edu

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 1
Abstract
The term teamwork has graced countless motivational posters and office walls. However,
although teamwork is often easy to observe, it is somewhat more difficult to describe and yet
more difficult to produce. At a broad level, teamwork is the process through which team
members collaborate to achieve task goals. Teamwork refers to the activities through which
team inputs translate into team outputs such as team effectiveness and satisfaction. In this
article, we describe foundational research underlying current research on teamwork. We examine
the evolution of team process models and outline primary teamwork dimensions. We discuss
selection, training, and design approaches to enhancing teamwork, and note current applications
of teamwork research in real-world settings.
Keywords: teams, groups, teamwork

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 2
Foundations of Teamwork and Collaboration
In battle, you may draw a small circle [of people] around a soldier…These [persons]
primarily will determine whether he rallies or fails, advances or falls back.
-US. Army Col. S.L.A. Marshall (1947; p. 154).
Probably the most important thing I've learned up here is the importance of teamwork.
-NASA Astronaut Douglas Wheelock (2007; p. 1)
Although these statements are separated by some 70 years, they both allude to the importance
of teams in achieving important goals. Moreover, these statements point to past accomplishments
on the battlefields of World War II and to future challenges in the exploration of space. We
study teams and teamwork for several reasons. First, teams are viewed as central building blocks
to accomplish tasks in a wide variety of applied contexts—the military (Dalenberg, Vogelaar, &
Beersma, 2009), spaceflight (Salas et al., 2015), healthcare (Hughes et al., 2016), aviation
(Littlepage, Hein, Moffett, Craig, & Georgiou, 2016), sports (McEwan & Beauchamp, 2014),
and other domains. As Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro (2001) noted: “Much of the work in
organizations is completed through teamwork” (p. 356).
In a classic text on Group Dynamics, Cartwright and Zander (1953) cited four reasons that
teamwork is an important focus of scientific interest: (1) teams are ubiquitous, (2) they mobilize
powerful forces that produce effects of importance, (3) these forces can result in both positive
and negative consequences, and (4) understanding team dynamics permits the possibility that
positive consequences can be deliberately enhanced. This rationale is as apt today.
Finally, the study of teams and teamwork is a primary and flourishing topic in the field of
psychology. Mathieu, Hollenbeck, van Knippenberg, and Ilgen (2017) reviewed the growth of
research on work teams over the past decades within the Journal of Applied Psychology, and

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 3
chronicled a “marked upward curve” (p. 453) in the prevalence of this research. This observation
is supported by bibliographic analyses of teamwork topics conducted by Weiss and Hoegl
(2015), who found that topics related to teamwork have demonstrated a steadily increasing
trajectory both in scholarly outlets and also in the broader cultural literature, resulting in what the
authors term a growing diffusion of teamwork throughout society. Thus, the notion that
teamwork is a growing interest has a sound basis.
On the other hand, team researchers have argued that this growth has been stunted to some
extent because teamwork processes have not been clearly defined or adequately specified (see
Coultas, Driskell, Burke, & Salas, 2014; LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul, 2008;
Marks et al., 2001). In this article, we describe foundational research underlying current
perspectives on teamwork. After a brief discussion of team effectiveness in general from an
input–process–output perspective, we focus specifically on teamwork processes. We examine
the development of teamwork process models, and then outline primary teamwork dimensions.
Finally, we examine selection, training, and design approaches to enhancing teamwork, and note
current applications of teamwork research in real-world settings.
Teamwork and Collaboration
We are social beings. In a very meaningful sense, teamwork is part of our nature. As
Newcomb (1949) stated, “Humans are so thoroughly socialized that virtually all their problems
must be met by coming to terms with other people” (p. 283). In fact, a number of authors have
proposed that humans have a basic need to form relationships. For example, Baumeister and
Leary (1995) argue that the need to belong is a fundamental human motive. However, as Leary
(2010) has noted, affiliation alone can only get you so far. We believe the capacity to band
together to solve problems is one of the primary characteristics of homo sapiens. Thus, the basic

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 4
need to form relationships may encompass both primarily interpersonal bonds as well as
primarily instrumental bonds formed to achieve shared goals.
The challenges of survival propelled individuals to organize into interdependent, cooperative
groups. However, our rich vocabulary indicates that this propensity is not limited to humans--
geese flock, porpoises school, cattle herd, and so on. In fact, some have argued that human
cooperation likely emerged in small, related hominid groups, and that banding together had clear
survival benefits. That is, individuals in groups can share labor, hunt more effectively, and
defend themselves against bands of enemies. Moreover, there are not only direct benefits in that
cooperative groups may have been more successful, but cooperation led to reciprocity from
others, supporting the emergence of social norms of interaction (Nowak, 2006; Rand & Nowak,
2013; West, El Mouden, & Gardner, 2011). Thus, if I help you, you are likely to help me in the
future (direct reciprocity), or if I help you, I will develop a reputation of being helpful and thus
more likely to receive help from others in the future (indirect reciprocity). West et al. (2011)
argue that we are not the only species that cooperates--so do ants, wasps, and a variety of plant
species--but we are unique in developing elaborate and complex decision rules for negotiating
cooperation.
What is teamwork? In brief, teamwork refers to the enactment of teamwork processes that
support effective team performance (Salas, Rosen, Burke, & Goodwin, 2009). Or, more
precisely, teamwork has been termed “the integration of individuals’ efforts toward the
accomplishment of a shared goal” (Mathieu et al., 2017; p. 458). Teamwork is often viewed
within the framework of an input-process-output (IPO) model of team effectiveness (Mathieu,
Maynard, Rapp & Gilson, 2008). In an IPO model, inputs, such as team member characteristics,
team-level factors, and organizational or contextual factors influence team output or

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 5
effectiveness through the operation of team interaction processes. According to Hackman
(2012), “The core idea of the model is that input states affect group outcomes via the interaction
that takes place among members” (p. 431). In this manner, team processes are a fundamental
element of team functioning and effectiveness. Team processes are the means through which
team resources are directed to achieve desired team outcomes, or in other words, team processes
define how team inputs are transformed into outputs. Team outputs include important and valued
outcomes such as quality or accuracy of performance, satisfaction, and commitment. In the
following, we describe the evolution of teamwork models that embody this basic framework.
Teamwork Models
Early scientific research on group phenomena can be traced to scholars in the early part of
the last century, and included work on primary groups (Cooley, 1909), work groups
(Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939), mobs (Le Bon, 1985/1960), and wide variety of other topics.
This research flourished in the 1950s and 1960s, spurred by the practical requirements and
investment of resources stemming from the war efforts of WWII (Driskell & Olmstead, 1989).
This research is exemplified by the work of Stouffer and colleagues (Stouffer et al., 1949), who
conducted a landmark program of social psychological research on group dynamics on the
battlefield.
The research activity spurred by the demands of the War years eventually abated, and in
1975, Hackman and Morris lamented that “we still know very little about why some groups are
more effective than others” (p. 2). However, there was a resurgence of research on team
performance in the 1980s, driven, not surprisingly, again by applied research interests (Driskell,
King, & Driskell, 2014). It is further interesting to note that, during this time period, there was a
shift in the academic disciplines in which this team research was carried out. In the 1950’s and

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 6
1960s, most small groups research was conducted within the domains of sociology and social
psychology (Mathieu et al., 2017). Much of this work was concerned with conducting empirical
research to test theory on group processes and dynamics. Laudable examples include seminal
research on group status relations (Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1966), patterns of group
interaction (Bales, 1950), and intergroup conflict and cooperation (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood,
& Sherif, 1961). Beginning in the 1980s, group research was eagerly adopted by
industrial/organizational psychologists who emphasized team outcomes, and conducted theory-
driven research to examine applied outcomes such as team effectiveness and productivity. These
researchers lamented that whereas we have a considerable understanding of who team members
are, how they interact, and what they do to accomplish the task, we have less of an understanding
of how this contributes to team performance (Ilgen, 1999; Mathieu et al., 2008). Thus, we have
witnessed what Mathieu et al. (2017) termed “a major reorientation of group research from social
psychology to organizational settings” (p. 460). The difference between these two traditions is
nuanced, but team research has proliferated under this new regime and subsequent research has
focused on team effectiveness, and specifically, on the teamwork processes that drive team
effectiveness.
During the late 1980s, two of the pioneering efforts to characterize teamwork dimensions
were related to the study of Army teams (Nieva, Fleishman, & Rieck, 1985) and Navy teams
(Morgan, Glickman, Woodard, Blaiwes, & Salas, 1986). In one of the earliest attempts to
identify teamwork dimensions, Nieva et al. (1985) examined “dimensions of group process that
are directly relevant to performance” (p. 61). They proposed four major categories of team
performance functions, described as what a team does to get work done. These include (a) team
orientation functions such as eliciting and communicating information regarding the task and

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 7
developing an integrated model of the environment, (b) organizational functions such as
coordination, (c) adaptation functions such as cooperation and mutual adjustment among team
members, and (d) motivational functions such as energizing task efforts and resolving conflicts.
Morgan et al. (1986) further addressed the problem of understanding the development of
teamwork as a determinant of team effectiveness. They cited Hackman and Morris (1975) as
stating that "something important happens in group interaction which can effect performance
outcomes” (p. 49), but lamented there was little agreement about what that "something" was.
They adopted a critical incident technique to query Naval instructors on effective and ineffective
behaviors observed in teams. A content analysis of responses revealed seven teamwork
dimensions, including communication, adaptability, cooperation, team morale, coordination,
giving suggestions, and accepting criticism. Glickman et al. (1987) collected data on intact
Naval teams, and found that effective teams exhibited more positive teamwork behaviors within
the identified dimensions. Moreover, a subsequent factor analysis resulted in the identification of
both a taskwork factor and a teamwork factor underlying team performance.
Other early foundational research on teamwork processes occurred in the context of aviation.
Siskel and Flexman (1962) described aircrew skills as including the ability to work together, to
anticipate others’ needs and actions, to inspire confidence and mutual encouragement, and to
communicate effectively. Subsequent research on aircrew coordination skills resulted in the
concept of Crew Resource Management (CRM) (Helmreich et al., 1990; Salas, Bowers, &
Edens, 2001). This program of research generated such an impact that in 1990, the FAA required
US air carriers to provide CRM training to all commercial flight crews, and this model has been
adopted by other industries such as healthcare (Alonso et al., 2006).

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 8
Finally, there are several modern iterations of teamwork models. Extending the work
initiated by Morgan et al. (1986), Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, and Volpe (1995)
identified eight central or core teamwork dimensions, including adaptability, shared
understanding of the situation, performance monitoring and feedback, leadership, interpersonal
relations, coordination, communication, and decision making. Moreover, they further elaborated
the distinction between taskwork, or the task-specific behaviors related to performing the task at
hand, and teamwork, or the set of behaviors that facilitate the coordinated functioning of the
team itself.
Perhaps the most cited and most accepted model of team processes has been presented by
Marks et al. (2001). The authors describe this model as a comprehensive effort to integrate
previous teamwork models and that builds on the work of Morgan et al. (1986), Nieva et al.
(1978) and others. However, this approach is unique in that it offered a multi-phase (or recurring
phase) perspective within a hierarchical structure of team process dimensions. That is, specific
team processes are viewed as nested within separate temporal phases (see Table 1). Action phase
processes refer to activities that are engaged in during action sequences of goal-directed activity.
Transition phase processes occur between action episodes, during which the team is evaluating,
planning, or adjusting task performance strategies. Interpersonal processes focus on the
management of interpersonal relationships and are expected to occur throughout both action and
transition phases.
Specific to action phase processes are the teamwork dimensions of monitoring progress
towards goals, systems monitoring, team monitoring and backup, and coordination. Specific to
transition phase processes are the dimensions of mission analysis, goal specification, and strategy
formulation and planning. Specific to interpersonal processes are the dimensions of conflict

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 9
management, motivating and confidence building, and affect management. Note that this
formulation is not rigid—specific teamwork processes can occur at any time in the team’s
lifespan, but are proposed to be more prevalent in the specified phases.
Support for this model has been provided in a meta-analysis of teamwork processes reported
by LePine et al. (2008). The results of this research provide support for the hierarchical nature of
this model, with the 10 teamwork dimensions loading onto three higher-order dimensions
corresponding to transition, action, and interpersonal processes), which were themselves
reflective of an overarching teamwork factor. Moreover, in keeping with the IPO perspective,
team processes were shown to have a positive effect on team outcomes: the results indicated that
the 10 teamwork dimensions were positively associated with team performance and team
member satisfaction. In the following, we provide a brief overview of these teamwork processes.
Teamwork Processes
We note two qualifications regarding the teamwork processes described below. First,
researchers have noted that there are a large number and variety of teamwork dimensions
described in the overall research literature, which can lead to conceptual confusion and
ambiguity (LePine et al., 2008). The Marks et al. (2001) teamwork model is an attempt to reduce
this ambiguity. This model reduces this problem but does not eliminate it--different authors still
apply different labels to different teamwork dimensions (see Rosseau, Aube, & Savoie, 2006).
Second, these 10 teamwork dimensions should not be viewed as inerrant or final. They were
selected by the authors to achieve a balance between generalizability (e.g., the 10 dimensions are
broad enough to be applicable to various types of teams) and parsimony (e.g., the 10 dimensions
are specific enough to be manageable).

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 10
Transition Processes
Mission analysis, formulation and planning. Mission analysis, formulation, and planning,
refers to the process of analyzing the team’s goal(s) and identifying constraints and resources to
achieve task success (Marks et al., 2001). One critical task, planning, is often overlooked in
teams (Hackman & Morris, 1978), although research has clearly demonstrated the value of
planning and pre-task briefings to team performance (Janicik & Bartel, 2003). Other activities
include identifying and prioritizing goals and paths to achieve those goals, and the development
of alternative courses of action for goal attainment (Marks et al., 2001). Dalenberg et al. (2009)
found that members of military teams who engaged in a brief strategy discussion prior to mission
engagement exhibited greater coordination and better overall performance. Mathieu and Rapp
(2009) found that teams that produced high quality teamwork plans (regarding how the team will
work together) and taskwork plans (regarding performance strategies for the task) early in their
performance achieved higher performance. Fisher (2014) further elaborated the distinction
between taskwork and teamwork planning, and found that the two forms of planning produced
distinct effects on teamwork processes. Specifically, taskwork planning impacted coordination,
whereas teamwork planning impacted interpersonal processes, and both exhibited an indirect
relationship to team performance.
Goal Specification. Goal specification refers to the identification of goals and subgoals
leading to accomplishment of the task. Defining attainable goals allows team resources to be
aligned with activities required for task completion, and supports a shared understanding of the
team’s objectives (Marks et al., 2001). In a meta-analysis of the effects of goal setting on group
performance, Kleingeld, van Mierlo, and Arends (2011) found a large overall positive effect for
goal setting on group performance (Cohen’s d = .56), that specific, difficult goals were more

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 11
effective than nonspecific goals, and that individually-focused goals had a negative effect on
group performance whereas group goals had a positive effect.
Strategy formulation. Strategy formulation refers to the development of alternative courses
of action for task accomplishment. Often, teams engage in an initial strategy for task
accomplishment that may require adjustment based on dynamic and changing task contingencies
or conditions. The term adaptability refers to adjustment of task strategies or team behaviors in
response to changes in the team or task environment. Hackman and Morris (1978) have noted
that adaptability is one of the few universally effective group strategies. Burke, Stagl, Salas,
Pierce, and Kendall (2006) define team adaptation as “a change in team performance, in response
to a salient cue…that leads to a functional outcome for the entire team” (p. 1190). They further
note that adaptability includes stages of (a) situational assessment, or recognition of the need for
change, (b) plan formulation, (c) plan execution, and (d) team learning, or incorporation of these
adjustments into knowledge to guide future behavior
Action Processes
Monitoring progress toward goals. Monitoring progress toward goals refers to activities
such as tracking progress towards task accomplishment, determining deficiencies and shortfalls,
and providing performance feedback to the team members (Marks et al., 2001). These activities
allow the team to assess discrepancies between goals and goal achievement as a means of self-
regulation. Rapp, Bachrach, Rapp, and Mullins (2014) found that team goal monitoring mediated
the relationship between team efficacy and performance, such that for teams that engaged in high
levels of team goal monitoring, there was a strong positive relationship between team efficacy
and team performance. However, for teams engaged in a low level of team goal monitoring,
performance was greater at intermediate levels of efficacy (suggesting that over-confident teams

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 12
may suffer from lack of team goal monitoring). Other research indicates that performance
feedback is central to self-regulatory processes and team performance (Kozlowski & Ilgen,
2006). Geister, Konradt, and Hertel (2006) found that process feedback (which included
feedback on taskwork behaviors and teamwork behaviors) increased performance of virtual
teams, and increased motivation and satisfaction, but only for less motivated team members.
Systems monitoring. Systems monitoring includes tracking and monitoring the internal
environment (e.g., personnel, tools, and equipment) and the external environment (e.g., external
stressors, and task-relevant changes to the external context in which the team works). This is
especially important for teams that operate in dynamic environments, as well as in multi-team
systems in which teams must synchronize joint actions (Mathieu, Marks, & Zaccaro, 2001). In
fact, Marks, DeChurch, Mathieu, Panzer, and Alsonso, (2005) found that the most effective
multi-team systems (MTSs) were those who were able to shift attention from within-team
activities to cross-team activities as external circumstances required.
Team monitoring and backup behavior. Team monitoring and feedback behaviors include
monitoring other team member’s actions, identifying errors, providing constructive feedback,
and offering advice for performance improvement (McIntyre & Salas, 1995). Backup behavior
refers to the provision of task support to assist another team member who may be overloaded or
experiencing difficulty (Porter et al., 2003). Backup behavior is important because, as Marks et
al. (2001) stated, “if teammates are not looking out for, or willing to help out, each other, the
team will fail when any one member fails” (p. 367). Porter et al. (2003) found that when teams
were under high workload, backup behavior had positive effects on team performance. However,
Barnes et al. (2008) found that there were costs as well as benefits to providing backup behavior
in teams. When workload is unevenly distributed among team members, providing backup

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 13
behavior may lead a team member to overlook their own taskwork, and those who receive high
amounts of backup behavior may lower their efforts on subsequent tasks.
Coordination. Coordination refers to the “process of orchestrating the sequence and timing
of independent actions” (Marks et al., 2001, pp. 367-368). Behaviors that support effective
coordination include matching team member resources to task requirements, regulating the pace
of team activities, and coordinating the response and sequencing of team member activities
(Fleishman & Zaccaro, 1992). A related term, collaboration, has been defined as the process by
which two or more persons engage in a joint activity to achieve a shared goal (Bedwell et al.,
2012). Coordination requires effective communication or exchange of information among team
members. Effective communication behaviors include exchanging information in a timely
manner, acknowledgement of information, double-checking that the intent of messages was
received (closed-loop communication), clarifying ambiguity, and the appropriate use of verbal
and nonverbal cues (Salas et al., 2009). In a meta-analysis of information sharing and team
performance, Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch (2009) found that, overall, information sharing
was positively related to team performance and that sharing uniquely-held information was more
predictive of team performance than simply sharing a greater amount of information, although
teams did tend to spend more time discussing commonly-held information than uniquely-held
information.
Interpersonal Processes
Conflict management. To maintain positive interpersonal relations, real or perceived
disagreements or incompatibilities among team members must be resolved. Broadly speaking,
team conflict can be task-based (disagreements over ideas and opinions related to the task),
relationship-based (interpersonal disagreements), or process-based (disagreements over

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 14
responsibilities and how to get the task done) (Jehn, 1977; Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, &
Trochim, 2008). Further, Behfar et al. found that poorly performing teams tended to take an ad
hoc approach to managing conflict, rarely correcting the root causes of conflict; whereas highly
performing teams tended to develop conflict management strategies that promoted
understanding, provided equitable treatment of all parties, and emphasized the concern with
managing both task accomplishment and the interests of individual team members. Moreover,
Shaw et al. (2011) found that when relationship conflict was high, there was a negative linear
relationship between task conflict and team performance, whereas when relationship conflict was
low, there was a curvilinear relationship such that moderate effects of task conflict was
associated with better team performance. These results underscore the importance of conflict
management in teams, especially at the interpersonal level.
Motivation and confidence building. Bales (2001) argued that one functional problem that
all groups must solve is the development and maintenance of positive relations, both to foster
pleasing interpersonal interactions and to ensure the continuance of the group. Team members
may optimize interpersonal relations by preemptive conflict management (Marks et al., 2001),
encouraging cooperative behavior, and building team morale. These are primarily
socioemotional behaviors oriented toward ensuring smooth interpersonal relations.
(Huffmeier & Hertel, 2011; Huffmeier et al., 2014). Huffmeier and Hertel developed a model
for how social support may trigger motivational gains within teams. According to this model,
social support is viewed as team member attempts to provide psychological or emotional support
to other team members, and may be of two types: affective and task-related. Affective support
includes statements of social recognition or statements of social encouragement that are oriented
towards providing emotional support. In contrast, task-related social support consists of

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 15
instrumental information provided to a team member regarding the task itself. This may include
information-related support that conveys advice on task procedures or strategies. Huffmeier and
Hertel (2011) further argue that affective support primarily functions to enhance group member
motivation, whereas task-related support primarily promotes gains in coordination within teams.
Affect management. Affect management refers to the regulation of team member emotions
during task interaction. As defined by LePine et al. (2008) affect management “represents those
activities that foster emotional balance, togetherness, and effective coping with stressful
demands and frustration” (p. 277). Moreover, they noted that the primary hallmark of affect
management activities is that they focus on emotional issues, versus task or process issues.
Structured activities like team building (Salas, Rozell, Mullen, & Driskell, 1999), after-action
reviews or debriefs (Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, 2013), or informal activities like “bull sessions”
may offer the opportunity to air emotional concerns. Meta-analytic results reported in LePine et
al. indicated that affect management activities were positively related to both team performance
and satisfaction. Given the likelihood of negative mood spreading throughout the team (Barsade,
2002), it is important that emotional issues be dealt with in a timely fashion, rather than allowing
prolonged and possible escalating negative affect.
Interventions
Consistent with the IPO perspective, and with Cartwright and Zander’s (1953) missive,
understanding teamwork processes should facilitate deliberate attempts to vary input factors and
reap the benefits on enhanced teamwork and performance. For example, to the extent that we can
compose teams or select team members with specific characteristics that support teamwork
processes, team effectiveness should be enhanced. Second, to the extent that we can train certain
knowledge, skills, and abilities that support teamwork processes, team effectiveness should be

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 16
enhanced. Finally, to the extent that we can design features in the team context or environment
that support teamwork processes, team effectiveness should be enhanced. In the following, we
examine selection, training, and design approaches to support teamwork.
In describing the supporting empirical research, it is important to note that studies are fairly
rare in which the full input-process-outcome relationship is examined (LePine et al., 2011). That
is, studies that manipulate input factors, assess effects on specific teamwork processes, and
measure performance outcomes are the exception rather than the norm. Most existing studies
examine either the direct effect of a specific factor on team effectiveness, or the direct effect on
team processes.
Selection
Team composition research examines the extent to which team member attributes impact
teamwork processes and performance outcomes. Research has been conducted to examine a
variety of attributes, including personality (Bell, 2007; LePine et al., 2011), generic teamwork
skills (Salas et al., 2009), cognitive ability (Devine & Philips, 2001), task knowledge (Mathieu &
Schulze, 2006), team orientation (Driskell, Salas, & Hughes, 2010), goal orientation (LePine,
2005), resilience (West, Patera, & Carsten, 2009) and other characteristics. Mathieu,
Tannenbaum, Donsbach, and Alliger (2014) described four types of team composition models.
The first is a traditional personnel-position fit model that emphasizes the particular set of
individual knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics (KSAOs) that contribute to
successful performance in a specific position or role. Morgeson, Reider, and Campion (2005)
noted that an organization does not usually have the luxury of selecting or hiring an entire team,
but instead selects an individual to place in a team. Faced with this task, the overarching question
is “What makes a good team player?” (Driskell, Goodwin, Salas, & O’Shea, 2006). Most

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 17
existing research on this topic has examined how individual personality traits contribute to
effective team performance. In terms of the Big Five personality dimensions, there is a
reasonable consensus on broad personality factors that support effective team behavior (see Bell,
2007; Driskell & Salas, 2013; LaPine et al., 2011; Prewitt, Walvoord, Stilson, Rosi, & Brannick,
2009). Thus, individuals who are conscientious are more dependable, organized, hard-working,
and likely to be responsible and provide “back-up” or support to other team members (Porter et
al., 2003). Individuals who are agreeable are more considerate, trusting, sympathetic, helpful,
and cooperative (Mount, Barrick, & Stewart, 1998). Individuals who are extraverted (especially
those scoring high on the facet of sociability; see Driskell et al., 2006; Prewitt, Brown, Goswami,
& Christiansen, 2016) are more sociable, friendly, interested in social interaction, and
interpersonally skilled. Individuals who are emotionally stable are well-adjusted, calm, self-
confident, and less likely to experience negative affect or transmit this to other team members
(Morgeson et al., 2005). Individuals who are open to experience are likely to be more flexible,
adaptable, and able to adjust their behavior to changing interpersonal situations (Paulhus &
Martin, 1988). However, there is also the possibility of curvilinear effects, such that too much
extraversion can be detrimental, for example, because it may interfere with instrumental task
activities (see Driskell, Hogan, & Salas, 1987).
The second type of team composition model is a personnel model with teamwork
considerations model that emphasizes the role of team-generic competencies in enhancing team
effectiveness (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995). For example, Morgeson, Reider, and Campion
(2005) found that teamwork knowledge was positively related to contextual performance in
teams. Driskell et al. (2010) found that collective orientation (the preference for working in
collective or team settings) predicted performance on separate team tasks involving decision-

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 18
making, negotiation, and task execution. This research suggests that to the extent that team
members possess team-generic competencies, the team is more likely to be effective.
The third type of team composition model is a team profile model that considers team
member's attributes collectively in terms of how they are distributed in the team. For example, in
selecting a new team member to an existing team, consideration should be given to the mix of
attributes within the team. This poses more complex questions of how we match one team
member’s attributes to another team member’s attributes—that is, the question of who prefers to
work with whom and who is more effective working with whom (Tett & Murphy, 2002; Tett,
Simonet, Walser, & Brown, 2013). Moreover, research is needed to examine trait interaction
(LePine et al., 2011). For example, a person that is high on the personality trait of
conscientiousness but low on agreeableness may be a pain to work with in a team environment.
The effects of heterogeneity or diversity of team member attributes on team outcomes has
also been examined. For example, team member personality variability has been examined in
terms of supplementary traits (i.e., a trait for which similar scores among team members or
homogeneity is preferred, such as emotional stability) and complementary traits (i.e., a trait for
which greater diversity or heterogeneity is preferred, such as extraversion). For example,
Humphrey, Hollenbeck, Meyer, and Ilgen (2007) have argued that conscientiousness operates as
a supplementary trait in that high variance (with some team members working hard and some
not) can lead to other team members lowering their effort.
The fourth type of team composition model is a relative contribution model that examines
the relative or disproportional impact that some characteristics may have on team effectiveness,
such as a negative or overly critical team member (Felps, Mitchell, & Byington, 2006). For
example, minimum scores on team member attributes are informative if it is expected that a

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 19
single individual with a very low score may disproportionally impact team performance. For
example, Stewart (2003) claimed that a single team member low on emotional stability,
agreeableness, or conscientiousness could potentially impair the functioning of the entire team.
Humphrey, Morgeson, and Mannor (2009) have examined attributes of core versus peripheral
team members. They found that attributes such as task-related skill and experience were
predictive of effective team performance, but that this relationship was stronger when the
attributes were held by core team members versus non-core members.
In brief, we know a considerable amount about selecting “good team players” at a broad
level. More complex questions regarding attribute heterogeneity, diversity and interactions,
including research on faultlines or “splits” among team members on some attribute (Bezrukova,
Spell, Caldwell, & Burger, 2016) and network analyses (Pearsall & Ellis, 2006) are currently
being addressed.
Training
Team training is “a set of instructional strategies and tools aimed at enhancing teamwork
knowledge, skills, processes, and performance,” (Tannenbaum, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996,
p. 516). Team training has been shown to have a positive impact on team performance,
enhancing affective, cognitive, process, and performance outcomes (Salas, Nichols, & Driskell,
2007; Salas et al., 2008). Interventions designed to enhance teamwork include cross-training –
which focuses on providing team members with exposure to the roles and responsibilities of the
other positions on the team (Volpe, Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Spector, 1996; Blickensderfer,
Cannon-Bowers, & Salas, 1998; Marks, Sabella, Burke, & Zaccaro, 2002); team dimensional
training – which involves training in team briefings and debriefings in order to develop a shared
team vision (Smith-Jentsch, Zeisig, Acton, & McPherson, 1998; Smith-Jentsch, Cannon-Bowers,

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 20
Tannenbaum, & Salas, 2008; Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, 2013); team coordination training –
which focuses on training coordination and adaptation processes (Burke et al., 2006); and team
building – which focuses on enhancing the affective characteristics of teams (Tannenbaum,
Beard, & Salas, 1992; Salas et al., 1999; Klein et al., 2009); amongst others.
In short, team training is designed to target teamwork competencies. It is important to note
that team-generic competencies (such as collective orientation or communications skills) are
transportable to any type of team or team task (Smith-Jentsch et al., 2015). Moreover, Ellis,
Bell, Ployhart, Hollenbeck, and Ilgen (2005) found that generic teamwork skills training
enhanced overall team effectiveness, and that this training was more valuable for team members
in certain team roles than others. Gregory, Feitosa, Driskell, Salas, and Vessey (2015) have
advanced specific guidelines for the development and implementation of team training (see
Table 2). A comprehensive and holistic approach to team training, incorporating team training
tools (e.g., team task analysis), sound instructional methods (i.e., information, demonstration,
and practice), focused training content (e.g., teamwork skills), and thorough evaluation (e.g.,
feedback), should lead to more effective teamwork.
Design
Following Stewart (2006), team design features include three broadly defined categories: task
design, group composition, and organizational context. While this classification may
underspecify the entirety of team design features, it strikes a good balance between parsimony
and explanatory value.
Task design. Unsurprisingly, the nature of the task(s) that teams perform effects team
processes and performance. Task interdependence has been identified as an important moderator
of team functioning and the importance of team processes during task execution. Task

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 21
interdependence can be described as the degree to which team members must rely on each other
to complete task performance. Saavedra, Early, and Van Dyne (1993) identify four types of task
interdependence: pooled, sequential, reciprocal, and team. Highly interdependent tasks require
higher levels of teamwork. Task type can also be characterized as being either divisional or
functional (Harris & Raviv, 2002). Divisional tasks are interchangeable and can be completed
by any member of a team, whereas functional tasks require specific skills and expertise and are
less likely to be able to be completed by multiple team members. Functional tasks require higher
levels of team cognition, in that team members need to know where the expertise lies amongst
the team (i.e., transactive memory).
Team autonomy - the degree to which the team controls its own activities – has also garnered
substantial attention in relation to task design. Although this relationship has been shown to be
more nuanced than previously thought (Leach, Wall, Rogelberg, & Jackson, 2005), increased
autonomy has been positively liked to motivation, learning behaviors and negatively linked to
strain and emotional exhaustion (Leach et al., 2005; Stewart, 2006; van Mierlo, Rutte, Vermunt,
Kompier, & Doorewaard, 2007).
Hackman and Oldham (1980) deem work to be perceived as meaningful if either one or all of
the following job characteristics are met: there is skill variety, task identity, and task
significance. Skill variety is the degree to which a job affords the individual the opportunity to
use a variety of KSAs. Task identity is the degree to which a job allows individuals to produce a
complete piece of work that has a tangible outcome. And task significance is the degree to which
the task has a significant impact on the life or work of the individual or the lives or work of other
people. According to Stewart (2006), meaningful work should increase team member motivation
and in turn increase team performance. Stewart’s meta-analysis demonstrated a positive

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 22
relationship between task meaningfulness and team performance, although that relationship
varied by team type.
Team Composition.
Team composition in terms of team member attributes has already been addressed, but
Stewart (2006) also considers how teams are “composed” in terms of design features such as
group size. Whereas larger teams are more like to bring together greater resources, abilities, and
perspectives (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003), other research suggests that larger groups may suffer
coordination and socioemotional losses (Aubé, Rousseau, & Tremblay, 2011; Mullen, Symons,
Hu, & Salas, 1989).
1
Teams are also composed of specific roles. A role is an established set of behaviors that is
characteristic of an individual in a particular setting (Stewart, Fulmer, Barrick, 2005). Recent
attention has been given to team role composition as a means of enhancing team functioning
(Driskell, Driskell, Burke, & Salas, 2017). According to the team role balance hypothesis, teams
function best if they have a balanced representation of roles (see Aritzeta, Swailes, & Senior,
2007). Driskell et al. (2017) developed a model of team roles based on the primary dimensions of
dominance (role behaviors that involve directing and leading), sociability (role behaviors that
involve socio-emotional support and interpersonal relations), and task orientation (role behaviors
that involve task achievement and organization). Driskell et al. (2017) conducted a cluster
analysis of existing team role taxonomies, resulting in the identification of 13 primary team role
clusters that map onto this 3-dimensional model, and allowing role balance to be examined
across this conceptual space.
1
This brings to mind Old’s (1946) tongue-in-cheek suggestion that the optimal size for a group is
approximately 0.7 people.

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 23
Organizational context. The third design feature, organizational context, refers to team
members’ perceived level of support from the organization. Stewart (2006) notes that
“perceptions of support from the leader can be nearly synonymous with perceptions of support
from the organization” (p. 31). Results from Stewart’s meta-analysis demonstrated the efficacy
of transformational and empowering leadership on term performance. Transformational
leadership is characterized by lifting subordinate team member interests beyond that of the self
for the good of the team (Bass, 1985). Empowering leadership is characterized by giving team
members authority to make decisions and implement actions (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Moreover,
research on team leadership behaviors shows that both task- and person- focused behaviors relate
to team performance, with empowerment behaviors notably showing a strong relationship with
team performance outcomes (Burke et al., 2006).
Applications
As Vannevar Bush so eloquently stated, “Basic research leads to new knowledge…It creates
the fund from which the practical applications of knowledge must be drawn” (Bush, 1945, para.
3.3). Applications of teamwork research are many and varied. For example, Britt and Oliver
(2013) have examined the effects of enhancing morale and cohesion in building resilience in
military teams (see also Alliger, Cerasoli, Tannenbaum, & Vessey, 2015). Prewett et al. (2016)
have examined personality and teamwork behaviors in business (retail) teams. McEwan and
Beauchamp (2014) have examined teamwork in sports teams. Cooke and Hilton (2015) have
examined teamwork and scientific collaboration.
Two representative areas in which teamwork research is flourishing perhaps deserve special
mention--the value of teamwork in healthcare and in extreme environments such as spaceflight.

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 24
At the time of writing, a Google search reveals over 12 million hits for the combined search of
the terms teamwork and healthcare, and in the most recent year (2016) alone, there were
approximately 915,000 hits compared to 12,000 hits ten years prior in 2006. In the landmark
Institute of Medicine report, To Err is Human (2000), the authors estimated that at least 44,000
Americans die each year as a result of medical errors. Moreover, they noted the complexity
inherent in medical care, especially emergency medicine, and issued a recommendation to
improve teamwork to reduce errors in healthcare. In subsequent years, this call has been
embraced. In a recent meta-analysis of team training effectiveness in health care, Hughes et al.
(2015) found that team training interventions were effective at multiple levels of analysis,
including individual (e.g., individual learning), team (e.g., teamwork performance), and
organizational (e.g., safety climate) levels. As one example, Weaver et al. (2010) introduced a
training program to optimize teamwork in operating room teams, and observed significant
improvement in the quality of pre-surgery briefings and in the display of teamwork behaviors
during actual cases. They note that it is critical that healthcare providers are not only proficient
clinicians (e.g., taskwork) but also proficient team members (e.g., teamwork).
Many extreme performance environments, such as mountaineering in high-altitude settings
(Wickens, Keller, & Shaw, 2015) and military operations (Driskell, Salas, & Driskell, 2017) are
simply not attainable without team efforts. One such extreme performance environment is
spaceflight. NASA is currently preparing for the Mission to Mars, slated for the 2030s, and
research on human performance and teamwork is a central focus (Salas et al., 2015). In terms of
extreme performance conditions, this setting has it all. This mission will entail a long-duration
(approximately 3-year) journey for a crew of 4-6 persons of varying backgrounds in a confined
space in an inhospitable environment. The crew will be undertaking an unprecedented journey so

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 25
far away that earth will fade from view, and the crew will be highly autonomous as
communications between the crew and Earth at these distances will be time-delayed. There will
be periods of very high workload as well as periods of low workload and monotony. Finally, the
crew will be working in a risky and dangerous environment in which the consequences for error
may be severe. Current research efforts include research on unobtrusive approaches to tracking
the effects of stress on cognitive and socioemotional states in teams (Driskell, Burke, Driskell,
Salas, & Neuberger, 2014), team resilience (Alliger et al., 2015), the examination of behavioral
sensors or badges to capture team process dynamics over time (Kozlowski, 2015), the use of
guided debrief approaches to enhance teamwork behaviors (Eddy, Tannenbaum, & Mathieu,
2013) and the examination of changing role dynamics (Burke, Driskell, Driskell, & Salas, 2016).
Current research efforts that may support teamwork on Mars are taking place in realistic analog
environments such as NASA’s Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA), the NASA
Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) habitat, and the Antarctic.
Further Research
Researchers have noted that current teamwork perspectives have limitations, and there are a
number of things that we don’t know regarding teamwork processes. First, the traditional IPO
model is beginning to show its age. As Mathieu et al. (2008) concluded, “The IPO model and its
latter-day derivatives (e.g., IMOI) have served the field well” (p. 460), however this approach is
less suitable for modern team structures that are more dynamic, complex, and adaptive. That is,
modern teams are likely to perform multiple tasks over a period of time; perhaps in concert with
other teams; team members may come and go; the team may reconfigure as the task progresses;
and so on. Koslowski and Ilgen (2006) conclude “while the I-P-O model is a useful organizing

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 26
heuristic, treating it as a causal model encourages taking a limited and static perspective on team
effectiveness and the dynamic processes that underlie it” (p. 80).
Second, other processes, such as team creativity, do not fit as neatly into the current
teamwork model. Mathieu et al. (2008) note that creativity has been viewed as a driver of team
effectiveness, yet creative processes have been under-researched. Status processes, or patterns of
authority relations within teams, are also not clearly defined within current teamwork research.
Further research is needed on variants of traditional team structures, such as multi-team systems
(Marks, DeChurch, Mathieu, Panzer, & Alonso, 2005) and virtual teams (Driskell, Radtke, & Salas,
2003; Maynard, Mathieu, Rapp, & Gilson, 2012). Marks et al. (2001) also distinguish between
team processes and emergent states, and this distinction has become widely accepted. Whereas
team processes involve team member’s actions, emergent states are cognitive, motivational, or
affective states that emerge from interactions among team members. Emergent states such as
cohesion, team climate, and team efficacy mediate the relationship between team inputs and
outcomes (Coultas et al., 2014). Given the focus of this article on team processes, we have not
elaborated on emergent states, however further research is needed on the relationships between
inputs, team processes, emergent states, and team outcomes.
Finally, the field is replete with calls for more complex research designs, designs that capture
the entire input-process-emergent state-output relationship, designs that examine team variables
over an extended period of time, designs that incorporate multiple levels of team and
organizational systems, multi-step analytic approaches, and studies that examine a broad array of
team inputs, processes, and outcomes. These are all forward-looking and well-advised.
However, as a counterpoint, it is useful to consider what we may have lost as the study of teams
and team processes has migrated from social psychology to a more applied

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 27
industrial/organizational perspective. At the risk of igniting an age-old discussion of
experimentation and generalizability, many experimental researchers attempt to reduce
complexity in studying team phenomena. That is, there is a broad distinction between research
designed to test theory and research designed to apply theory (Driskell et al., 2014; Webster &
Sell, 2014). Basic researchers will see the primary value of their work as building theory or
expanding a body of knowledge, whereas applied researchers will see the primary value of their
work as solving a real-world problem (although there is a considerable amount of research that is
carried out between these two poles). In the shift of team research from a discipline that is more
oriented towards basic research to a discipline that is more oriented towards applied research, we
do not want to forget the value of fundamental research conducted to develop general principles.
There is no better statement than Kurt Lewin’s famous quote:
Many psychologists working in an applied field are keenly aware of the need for close
cooperation between theoretical and applied psychology. This can be accomplished in
psychology, as it has been accomplished in physics, if the theorist does not look toward
applied problems with highbrow aversion or with a fear of social problems and if the applied
psychologist realizes that there is nothing so practical as a good theory. (Lewin, 1944/1951,
p. 169).
Conclusions
It is sobering to reflect that whereas effective teamwork once enabled us to band together to
pursue bison for survival, now we are teaming together to journey to another planet. Moreover,
our understanding of teamwork has been advanced in both basic and applied research and is
informing practical issues of immediate and future concern. Although it seems that we are in a
golden age of interest and research activity related to teamwork, much of what we know is

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 28
preliminary, and points to further research. Nevertheless, the wealth and breadth of research
activities taking place now provide encouragement that these challenges (yes, even Mars) are
within reach.

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 29
References
Alliger, G. M., Cerasoli, C. P., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Vessey, W. B. (2015). Team resilience.
Organizational Dynamics, 44, 176-184.
Alonso, A., Baker, D. P., Holtzman, A., Day, R., King, H., Toomey, L., & Salas, E. (2006). Reducing
medical error in the military health system: how can team training help? Human Resource
Management Review, 16, 396-415.
Aritzeta, A., Swailes, S., & Senior, B. (2007). Belbin's team role model: Development, validity and
applications for team building. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 96-118.
Aubé, C., Rousseau, V., & Tremblay, S. (2011). Team size and quality of group experience: The more the
merrier? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15, 357-375.
Bales, R. F. (1950). A set of categories for the analysis of small group interaction. American Sociological
Review, 15, 257-263.
Bales, R. F. (2001). Social interaction systems: Theory and measurement. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Barnes, C. M., Hollenbeck, J. R., Wagner, D. T., DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., & Schwind, K. M.
(2008). Harmful help: the costs of backing-up behavior in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,
529-539.
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644-675.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a
fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529.
Bedwell, W. L., Wildman, J. L., DiazGranados, D., Salazar, M., Kramer, W. S., & Salas, E. (2012).
Collaboration at work: An integrative multilevel conceptualization. Human Resource Management
Review, 22(2), 128-145.

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 30
Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. (2008). The critical role of conflict
resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies,
and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 170-188.
Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: a meta-
analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 92, 595-615.
Berger, J., Cohen, B. P. & Zelditch, M. (1966). Status characteristics and expectation states. In J. Berger,
M. Zelditch, Jr., and B. Anderson (Eds.), Sociological Theories in Progress, Vol. 1 (pp. 29-46).
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Bezrukova, K., Spell, C. S., Caldwell, D., & Burger, J. M. (2016). A multilevel perspective on faultlines:
Differentiating the effects between group-and organizational-level faultlines. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 101, 86-107.
Blickensderfer, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1998). Cross-training and team performance. In
Cannon-Bowers & Salas (Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team
training. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Britt, T., & Oliver, K. (2013). Morale and cohesion as contributors to resilience. In R. Sinclair & T. Britt,
(Eds.). Building psychological resilience in military personnel: Theory and practice (pp. 47-65).
Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Burke, C. S., Driskell, T., Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (2016). Moving towards a better understanding of
team roles in isolated, confined environments. Presented at the 2016 Human Research Program
Investigators Workshop (NASA), Galveston, TX.
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team adaptation: A
conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1189-1207.
Bush, V. (1945). Science: The endless frontier. A Report to the President by Vannevar Bush, Director of
the Office of Scientific Research and Development. Washington DC: U. S. Government Printing
Office. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/vbush1945.htm

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 31
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining team competencies
and establishing team training requirements. In R. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and
decision making in organizations (pp. 333-380). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cartwright, D. E., & Zander, A. E. (1953). Group dynamics research and theory. Oxford,. UK: Row,
Peterson.
Cooke N. J, & Hilton M. L. (Eds.) (2015). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. National
Research Council, Committee on the Science of Team Science, National Academies Press.
Cooley, C. H. (1956). Social Organization, 1909. NY: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Coultas, C. W., Driskell, T., Burke, C. S., & Salas, E. (2014). A conceptual review of emergent
state measurement: Current problems, future solutions. Small Group Research, 45, 671-703.
Dalenberg, S., Vogelaar, A. L., & Beersma, B. (2009). The effect of a team strategy discussion on
military team performance. Military Psychology, 21(Suppl 2), S31-S36.
Devine, D. J., & Philips, J. L. (2001). Do smarter teams do better? A meta-analysis of cognitive ability
and team performance. Small Group Research, 32, 507-532.
Driskell, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & O’Shea, P. G. (2006). What makes a good team player?
Personality and team effectiveness. Group Dynamics, 10, 249-271.
Driskell, J. E., Hogan, R., & Salas, E. (1987). Personality and group performance. In C. Hendrick (Ed.),
Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 91-112). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Driskell, J. E., King, J, & Driskell, T. (2014). Conducting applied experimental research. In M. Webster
& J. Sell (Eds.), Laboratory experiments in the social sciences (pp. 451-472). San Diego, CA:
Elsevier.
Driskell, J. E., & Olmstead, B. (1989). Psychology and the military: Research applications and trends.
American Psychologist, 44, 43-54.
Driskell, J. E., Radtke, P. H., & Salas, E. (2003). Virtual teams: Effects of technological mediation on
team performance. Group Dynamics, 7, 297-323.

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 32
Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (2013). Personality and work teams. In N. Christiansen & R. Tett (Eds.),
Handbook of psychology at work (pp. 744-771). New York, NY: Routledge.
Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Hughes, S. (2010). Collective orientation and team performance: Development
of an individual differences measure. Human Factors, 52, 316-328.
Driskell, T., & Salas, E. (2014). Training teams to high performance: Efficacy and implications for
practice. In A. R. Gomez, A. Albuquerque, & R. Resende (Eds.), Positive human functioning from a
multidimensional perspective: Promoting high performance (Vol. 3) (pp. 33-58). New York, NY:
Nova Science Publishers.
Driskell, T., Burke, S., Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Neuberger, L. (2014). Steeling the team: Assessing
individual and team functioning “at a distance.” The Military Psychologist, 29, 12-18.
Driskell, T., Driskell, J. E., Burke, S., & Salas, E. (2017). Team roles: A review and integration. Small
Group Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496417711529
Driskell, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (2017). Teams in extreme environments: Alterations in team
development and teamwork. Human Resource Management Review. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.002
Eddy, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Mathieu, J. E. (2013). Helping teams to help themselves: Comparing two
team-led debriefing methods. Personnel Psychology, 66, 975–1008.
Ellis, A. P., Bell, B. S., Ployhart, R. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Ilgen, D. R. (2005). An evaluation of generic
teamwork skills training with action teams: Effects on cognitive and skill‐based outcomes. Personnel
Psychology, 58, 641-672.
Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. (2006). How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel:
Negative group members and dysfunctional groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 175-
222.
Fisher, D. M. (2014). Distinguishing between taskwork and teamwork planning in teams: Relations with
coordination and interpersonal processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 423-436.

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 33
Geister, S., Konradt, U., & Hertel, G. (2006). Effects of process feedback on motivation, satisfaction, and
performance in virtual teams. Small group research, 37, 459-489.
Glickman, A. S., Zimmer, S., Montero, R., Guerette, P., Campbell, W. Morgan, B., & Salas, E. (1987).
The evolution of teamwork skills: An empirical assessment with implications for training. (NTSC
TR87-016). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center.
Gregory, M. E., Feitosa, J., Driskell, T., Salas, E., & Vessey, W. B. (2015). Designing, delivering, and
evaluating team training in organizations: Principles that work. In E. Salas, S. I. Tannenbaum, D.
Cohen, & G. Latham (Eds.), Developing and enhancing high-performance teams: Evidence-based
practices and advice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J. R. (2012). From causes to conditions in group research. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
33, 428-444.
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance
effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8,
45-99.
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1978). Group process and group effectiveness: A reappraisal. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Group processes (pp. 47-49). New York: Academic Press.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Harris, M., & Raviv, A. (2002). Organization design. Management Science, 48(7), 852-865.
Helmreich, R., Wilhelm, J., Kello, J., Taggart, E., & Butler, R. (1990). Reinforcing and evaluating crew
resource management: Evaluator/LOS instructor manual. Austin, TX: NASA/University of
Texas/FAA Aerospace Group.
Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2011). Many cheers make light the work: How social support triggers process
gains in teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26, 185-204.

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 34
Hüffmeier, J., Wessolowski, K., Randenborgh, A., Bothin, J., Schmid‐Loertzer, N., & Hertel, G. (2014).
Social support from fellow group members triggers additional effort in groups. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 44, 287-296.
Hughes, A. M., Gregory, M. E., Joseph, D. L., Sonesh, S. C., Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., ... & Salas,
E. (2016). Saving lives: A meta-analysis of team training in healthcare. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 101(9), 1266-1304.
Humphrey, S. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., Meyer, C. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2007). Trait configurations in self-
managed teams: A conceptual examination of the use of seeding for maximizing and minimizing trait
variance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 885−892.
Humphrey, S. E., Morgeson, F. P., & Mannor, M. J. (2009). Developing a theory of the strategic core of
teams: A role composition model of team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 48-61.
Ilgen, D. R. (1999). Teams embedded in organizations: Some implications. American Psychologist, 54,
129.
Institute of Medicine (2000). To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Healthcare System. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Janicik, G. A., & Bartel, C. A. (2003). Talking about time: Effects of temporal planning and time
awareness norms on group coordination and performance. Group Dynamics, 7(2), 122-134.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 530-557.
Klein, C., DiazGranados, D., Salas, E., Le, H., Burke, C. S., Lyons, R., & Goodwin, G. F. (2009). Does
team building work?. Small Group Research, 40, 181-222.
Kleingeld, A., van Mierlo, H., & Arends, L. (2011). The effect of goal setting on group performance: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1289-1304.
Kozlowski, S. W. (2015). Advancing research on team process dynamics: Theoretical, methodological,
and measurement considerations. Organizational Psychology Review, 5, 270-299.

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 35
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D.
R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational
psychology, Vol. 12 (pp. 333-375). London: Wiley.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77-124.
Le Bon, G. (1960). The crowd. New York: The Viking Press. (Original work published 1895).
Leach, D. J., Wall, T. D., Rogelberg, S. G., & Jackson, P. R. (2005). Team autonomy, performance, and
member job strain: Uncovering the teamwork KSA link. Applied Psychology, 54(1), 1-24.
Leary, M. R. (2010). Affiliation, acceptance, and belonging. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert & G. Lindzey
(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th Ed., Vol. 2, pp. 864–897). NY: Wiley.
LePine, J. A. (2005). Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: effects of goal difficulty and
team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90, 1153-1167.
LePine, J. A., Buckman, B. R., Crawford, E. R., & Methot, J. R. (2011). A review of research on
personality in teams: Accounting for pathways spanning levels of theory and analysis. Human
Resource Management Review, 21(4), 311-330.
LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta‐analysis of
teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness
criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 273-307.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper. (Original work published in 1944).
Littlepage, G. E., Hein, M. B., Moffett III, R. G., Craig, P. A., & Georgiou, A. M. (2016). Team Training
for Dynamic Cross-Functional Teams in Aviation: Behavioral, Cognitive, and Performance
Outcomes. Human Factors, 58, 1275-1288.
Marks, M. A., DeChurch, L. A., Mathieu, J. E., Panzer, F. J., & Alonso, A. (2005). Teamwork in
multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 964-971.

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 36
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of
team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.
Marks, M. A., Sabella, M. J., Burke, C. S., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). The impact of cross-training on team
effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 3-13.
Marshall, S. L. A. (1947). Men Against fire: The problem of battle command in future war. Gloucester,
MA: Peter Smith.
Mathieu, J. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., van Knippenberg, D., & Ilgen, D. R. (2017). A century of work teams in
the Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 452-467.
Mathieu, J. E., Marks, M. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). Multi-team systems. International Handbook of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 2, 289-313.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of
recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410-476.
Mathieu, J. E., & Rapp, T. L. (2009). Laying the foundation for successful team performance trajectories:
The roles of team charters and performance strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 90-103.
Mathieu, J. E., & Schulze, W. (2006). The influence of team knowledge and formal plans on episodic
team process-performance relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 605-619.
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2014). A review and integration of
team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of
Management, 40, 130-160.
Maynard, M. T., Mathieu, J. E., Rapp, T. L., & Gilson, L. L. (2012). Something(s) old and something(s)
new: Modeling drivers of global virtual team effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33,
342-365.
McEwan, D., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2014). Teamwork in sport: a theoretical and integrative review.
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7(1), 229-250.

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 37
McIntyre, R. M., & Salas, E. (1995). Measuring and managing for team performance: Emerging
principles from complex environments. In R. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and
decision making in organizations (pp. 9-45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 535-546.
Morgan, B. B., Glickman, A. S., Woodward, E. A., Blaiwes, A. S., & Salas, E. (1986). Measurement of
team behaviors in a navy environment (NTSC TC-86-014). Orlando, FL: Naval Training System
Center.
Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H., & Campion, M. A. (2005). Selecting individuals in team settings: The
importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge. Personnel
Psychology, 58(3), 583-611.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five-factor model of personality and performance
in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11, 145-165.
Mullen, B., Symons, C., Hu, L., & Salas, E. (1989). Group size, leadership behavior, and subordinate
satisfaction. Journal of General Psychology, 116, 155-170.
Newcomb, T. M. (1950). Role behaviors in the study of individual personality and of groups. Journal of
Personality, 18(3), 273-289.
Nieva, V.F., Fleishman, E.A., & Rieck A. (1985). Team dimensions: Their identity, their measurement
and their relationships. (Technical Report AD-A149662). Alexandria, VA: US Army Research
Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314, 1560-1563.
Old, B. S. (1946). On the mathematics of committees, boards, and panels. Scientific Monthly, 63, 75–78.
Paulhus, D. L., & Martin, C. L. (1988). Functional flexibility: A new conception of interpersonal
flexibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(1), 88-101.

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 38
Pearsall, M. J., & Ellis, A. P. (2006). The effects of critical team member assertiveness on team
performance and satisfaction. Journal of Management, 32, 575-594.
Porter, C. O. L. H., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Ellis, A. P., West, B. J., & Moon, H. (2003). Backing
up behaviors in teams: The role of personality and legitimacy of need. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(3), 391-403.
Prewett, M. S., Brown, M. I., Goswami, A., & Christiansen, N. D. (2016). Effects of team personality
composition on member performance: A multilevel perspective. Group & Organization Management,
pp. 1-33.
Prewett, M. S., Walvoord, A. A., Stilson, F. R., Rossi, M. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2009). The team
personality–team performance relationship revisited: The impact of criterion choice, pattern of
workflow, and method of aggregation. Human Performance, 22(4), 273-296.
Rand, D. G., & Nowak, M. A. (2013). Human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(8), 413-425.
Rapp, T. L., Bachrach, D. G., Rapp, A. A., & Mullins, R. (2014). The role of team goal monitoring in the
curvilinear relationship between team efficacy and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
99, 976-987.
Roethlisberger F. J., and Dickson W. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Hanard
University Press.
Rousseau, V., Aubé, C., & Savoie, A. (2006). Teamwork behaviors a review and an integration of
frameworks. Small Group Research, 37(5), 540-570.
Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task performing groups.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61-72.
Salas, E., Bowers, C. A., & Edens, E. (Eds.). (2001). Improving teamwork in organizations: Applications
of resource management training. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 39
Salas, E., DiazGranados, D., Klein, C., Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Goodwin, G. F., & Halpin, S. M.
(2008). Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors: The
Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(6), 903-933.
Salas, E., Nichols, D. R., & Driskell, J. E. (2007). Testing three team training strategies in intact teams: A
meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 38(4), 471-488.
Salas, E., Rosen, M. A., Burke, C. S., & Goodwin, G. F. (2009). The wisdom of collectives in
organizations: An update of the teamwork competencies. In E. Salas, G. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke
(Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations. cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches
(pp. 39-79). NY: Psychology Press.
Salas, E., Rozell, D., Mullen, B., & Driskell, J. E. (1999). The effect of team building on performance: An
integration. Small Group Research, 30, 309-329.
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kozlowski, S. W., Miller, C. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Vessey, W. B. (2015).
Teams in space exploration: A new frontier for the science of team effectiveness. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 24, 200-207.
Shaw, J. D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shih, H. A., & Susanto, E. (2011). A contingency model
of conflict and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 391-200.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and
cooperation: The robber's cave experiment. Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.
Siskel, M., & Flexman, R. (1962). Study of effectiveness of a flight simulator for training complex
aircrew skills. Bell Aeronautics Company.
Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (2008). Guided team self-
correction: Impacts on team mental models, processes, and effectiveness. Small Group Research,
39(3), 303-327. doi:10.1177/1046496408317794
Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Zeisig, R. L., Acton, B., & McPherson, J. A. (1998). Team dimensional training: A
strategy for guided team self-correction. In Cannon-Bowers & Salas (Eds.), Making decisions under

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 40
stress: Implications for individual and team training. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Smith-Jentsch, K., Sierra, M, Weaver, S, Bedwell, W., Dietz, A…& Salas, E. (2015). Training “The right
stuff”: An assessment of team training needs for long-duration spaceflight. (NASA/TM-2015-
218589). Houston, TX: NASA Johnson Space Center.
Stewart, G. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of the multilevel role of personality in teams. In M. R.
Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in
organizations (pp. 183−204). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team
performance. Journal of Management, 32(1), 29-55.
Stewart, G. L., Fulmer, I. S., & Barrick, M. R. (2005). An exploration of member roles as a multilevel
linking mechanism for individual traits and team outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58, 343-365.
Stouffer, S.A., Lumsdaine, A. A., Lumsdaine, M. H., Williams, R. M., Smith, M. B., Janis, I. L., Star, S.
A., & Cottrell, L. S. (1949). The American soldier: Combat and its aftermath. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A
meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231-245.
Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., & Salas, E. (1992). Team building and its influence on team
effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. Advances in
Psychology, 82, 117-153.
Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Promoting team effectiveness. In M.
West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 503-529). Sussex, England: John Wiley &
Sons.
Tett, R. P., & Murphy, P. J. (2002). Personality and situations in co-worker preference: Similarity and
complementarity in worker compatibility. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(2), 223-243.

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 41
Tett, R. P., Simonet, D. V., Walser, B., & Brown, C. (2013). Trait activation theory. In N. Christiansen &
R. Tett (Eds.), Handbook of psychology at work (pp. 71-100). NY: Routledge.
van Mierlo, H. V., Rutte, C. G., Vermunt, J. K., Kompier, M. A. J., & Doorewaard, J. A. C. M. (2007). A
multi‐level mediation model of the relationships between team autonomy, individual task design and
psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(4), 647-664.
Volpe, C. E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Spector, P. E. (1996). The impact of cross-training on
team functioning: An empirical investigation. Human Factors, 38(1), 87-100.
Weaver, S. J., Lyons, R., DiazGranados, D., Rosen, M. A., Salas, E., Oglesby, J., ... & King, H. B.
(2010). The anatomy of health care team training and the state of practice: A critical review.
Academic Medicine, 85, 1746-1760.
Webster, M. & J. Sell, J. (Eds.) (2014). Laboratory experiments in the social sciences. San Diego, CA:
Elsevier.
Weiss, M., & Hoegl, M. (2015). The history of teamwork’s societal diffusion: A multi-method review.
Small Group Research, 46, 589-622.
West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & Carsten, M. K. (2009). Team level positivity: Investigating positive
psychological capacities and team level outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 249-267.
West, S. A., El Mouden, C., & Gardner, A. (2011). Sixteen common misconceptions about the evolution
of cooperation in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(4), 231-262.
Wheelock, D. (2007) Astronauts repair panels during spacewalk. Available:
https://www.army.mil/article/5932/Astronauts_Repair_Panels_During_Spacewalk
Wickens, C. D., Keller, J. W., & Shaw, C. (2015). Human factors in high-altitude mountaineering.
Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 12(1), 1.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The
influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process
engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 107-128.

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 42
Table 1
Teamwork Processes, Dimensions, and Activities
Types of Processes
Teamwork Dimensions
Representative Activities
Transition processes
Mission analysis, formulation and
planning
Analyzing the task, constraints, and
resources; planning
Goal Specification
Goal setting
Strategy formulation
Developing courses of action
Action processes
Monitoring progress toward goals
Tracking progress; identifying
shortfalls; providing feedback
Systems monitoring
Monitoring resources and constraints
internal and external to the team
Team monitoring and backup behavior
Monitoring other team members’
behavior; providing assistance
Coordination
Coordinating behavior; communicating
information
Interpersonal
processes
Conflict management
Managing conflict; resolving
disagreements
Motivation and confidence building
Promoting and maintaining positive
interpersonal relations
Affect management
Regulating team member emotions
Note: Adapted from Marks et al. (2001).

FOUNDATIONS OF TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION 43
Table 2
Elements of Team Training for Effective Teamwork
Establish a positive training climate to ensure trainee buy-in
Create conditions for successful teamwork
Conduct a team-level needs analysis
Design a measurement and evaluation plan
Focus training on teamwork skills
Incorporate appropriate instructional strategies
Provide diagnostic feedback to support positive team development
Evaluate the team training
Promote transfer of training
Reinforce and sustain training gains
Note: Adapted from Driskell and Salas (2014); Gregory et al. (2015).