C. Shawn Burke

Is there a “Big Five” in Teamwork?

The study of teamwork has been fragmented through the years, and the findings are generally unable to be used practically. This article argues that it is possible to boil down what researchers know about teamwork into five core components that the authors submit as the “Big Five” in teamwork. The core components of teamwork include team leadership, mutual performance monitoring, backup behavior, adaptability, and team orientation. Furthermore, the authors examine how these core components require supporting coordinating mechanisms (e.g., shared mental modes, closed-loop communication, and mutual trust) and vary in their importance during the life of the team and the team task. Finally, the authors submit a set of propositions for future research.

Understanding team adaptation : A conceptual analysis and model

This endeavor provides a multidisciplinary, multilevel, and multiphasic conceptualization of team adaptation with theoretical roots in the cognitive, human factors, and industrial-organizational psychology literature. Team adaptation and the emergent nature of adaptive team performance are defined from a multilevel, theoretical standpoint. An input-throughput-output model is advanced to illustrate a series of phases unfolding over time that constitute the core processes and emergent states underlying adaptive team performance and contributing to team adaptation. The cross-level mixed-determinants model highlights team adaptation in a nomological network of lawful relations. Testable propositions, practical implications, and directions for further research in this area are also advanced.

The Impact of Cross-Training on Team Effectiveness

The authors examined the role of cross-training in developing shared team-interaction mental models, coordination, and performance in a 2-experiment study using computer simulation methodology (for Experiment 1, N = 45 teams; for Experiment 2, N = 49 teams). Similar findings emerged across the 2 experiments. First, cross-training enhanced the development of shared team-interaction models. Second, coordination mediated the relationship between shared mental models and team performance. However, there was some inconsistency in the findings concerning the depth of cross-training necessary for improving shared mental models. Results are discussed in terms of the impact of different levels of cross-training on team effectiveness.

Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis.

Objective: This research effort leveraged the science of training to guide a taxonomic integration and a series of meta-analyses to gauge the effectiveness and boundary conditions of team training interventions for enhancing team outcomes. Background: Disparate effect sizes across primary studies have made it difficult to determine the true strength of the relationships between team training techniques and team outcomes. Method: Several meta-analytic integrations were conducted to examine the relationships between team training interventions and team functioning. Specifically, we assessed the relative effectiveness of these interventions on team cognitive, affective, process, and performance outcomes. Training content, team membership stability, and team size were investigated as potential moderators of the relationship between team training and outcomes. In total, the database consisted of 93 effect sizes representing 2,650 teams. Results: The results suggested that moderate, positive relationships exist between team training interventions and each of the outcome types. The findings of moderator analyses indicated that training content, team membership stability, and team size moderate the effectiveness of these interventions. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that team training interventions are a viable approach organizations can take in order to enhance team outcomes. They are useful for improving cognitive outcomes, affective outcomes, teamwork processes, and performance outcomes. Moreover, results suggest that training content, team membership stability, and team size moderate the effectiveness of team training interventions. Application: Applications of the results from this research are numerous. Those who design and administer training can benefit from these findings in order to improve the effectiveness of their team training interventions.

Relationships Between Game Attributes and Learning Outcomes

Games are an effective and cost-saving method in education and training. Although much is known about games and learning in general, little is known about what components of these games (i.e., game attributes) influence learning outcomes. The purpose of this article is threefold. First, we review the literature to understand the “state of play” in the literature in regards to learning outcomes and game attributes—what is being studied. Second, we seek out what specific game attributes have an impact on learning outcomes. Finally, where gaps in the research exist, we develop a number of theoretically based proposals to guide further research in this area.

Team training in the skies: Does crew resource management (CRM) training work?

The aviation community has invested great amounts of money and effort into crew resource management (CRM) training. Using D. L. Kirkpatricks (1976) framework for evaluating training, we reviewed 58 published accounts of CRM training to determine its effectiveness within aviation. Results indicated that CRM training generally produced positive reactions, enhanced learning, and promoted desired behavioral changes. However, we cannot ascertain whether CRM has an effect on an organizations bottom line (i.e., safety). We discuss the state of the literature with regard to evaluation of CRM training programs and, as a result, call for the need to conduct systematic, multilevel evaluation efforts that will show the true effectiveness of CRM training. As many evaluations do not collect data across levels (as suggested by D. L. Kirkpatrick, 1976, and by G. M. Alliger, S. I. Tannenbaum, W. Bennett, Jr., & H. Traver, 1997), the impact of CRM cannot be truly determined; thus more and better evaluations are needed and should be demanded.

Does Crew Resource Management Training Work? An Update, an Extension, and Some Critical Needs

Objective: This review provides the state of crew resource management (CRM) training evaluations since the E. Salas, C. S. Burke, C. A. Bowers, and K. A. Wilson (2001) review and extends it to areas beyond aviation cockpits. Some critical evaluation needs in CRM training are also covered. Background: Because of the purported success of CRM training in aviation, other high-consequence domains have begun to implement CRM training for their workforces. However, the true impact of CRM training in aviation and these other domains has yet to be determined. Method: Using D. L. Kirkpatricks (1976) framework for evaluating training (i.e., reactions, learning, behavior, and organizational impact), we reviewed 28 published accounts of CRM training to determine its effectiveness within aviation, medicine, offshore oil production and maintenance, shipping/maritime, and nuclear power domains. Results: Findings indicate that CRM training generally produced positive reactions from trainees; however, the impact of training on learning and behavioral changes suggest mixed results across and within domains. Furthermore, and as was found by Salas, Burke, et al. in 2001, we cannot ascertain whether CRM has had an impact on the organizations bottom line (i.e., safety). Conclusion: Based on the results, there are several critical needs that the CRM training community must address before CRM training can have the desired impact on safety: a mandate, access to data, and resources. Application: As CRM training expands to organizations beyond aviation, it is critical that its impact be understood such that it can be improved and achieve the intended results.

Teamwork: emerging principles

Although organizations are increasingly utilizing teams to accomplish work tasks, there still remains a lack of prescriptive guidance for organizations in terms of how to capitalize on the potential synergy teams offer. Although team researchers have made many advancements in understanding the antecedents, processes and consequences of effective team performance, there remains some confusion. This confusion is in part due to the following. First, by its very nature, teamwork is a multidimensional construct that is elusive and dynamic, making it difficult to study. Secondly, it is argued that there is confusion and a lack of clarity as to the particular components that comprise team process, teamwork. Thirdly, not all teams are created equal. More specifically, there are several different types of teams (e.g. action, production, management), all of which require slightly different process requirements in order to remain effective. The current effort represents a review of work that has been conducted over several years in order to answer the question –‘What is teamwork?’. This work culminates in the delineation of several teamwork principles.

Does Team Building Work

This research reports the results of a comprehensive investigation into the effectiveness of team building. The article serves to update and extend Salas, Rozell, Mullen, and Driskells (1999) team-building meta-analysis by assessing a larger database and examining a broader set of outcomes. Our study considers the impact of four specific team-building components (goal setting, interpersonal relations, problem solving, and role clarification) on cognitive, affective, process, and performance outcomes. Results (based on 60 correlations) suggest that team building has a positive moderate effect across all team outcomes. In terms of specific outcomes, team building was most strongly related to affective and process outcomes. Results are also presented on the differential effectiveness of team building based upon the team size.

Using Simulation-Based Training to Improve Patient Safety: What Does It Take?

BACKGROUND Through simulations health care workers can learn by practicing skills taught and experiencing mistakes before interacting with an actual patient. A number of areas within the health care industry are currently using simulation-based training to help individuals and teams improve patient safety. WHAT IS SIMULATION-BASED TRAINING? The key components of simulation-based training are as follows: performance history/skill inventory, tasks/competencies, training objectives, events/exercises, measures/metrics, performance diagnosis, and feedback and debrief. WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR SIMULATION-BASED TRAINING TO BE EFFECTIVE? To be effective, simulation-based training must be implemented appropriately. The guidelines are as follows: understand the training needs and requirements; instructional features, such as performance measurement and feedback, must be embedded within the simulation; craft scenarios based on guidance from the learning outcomes; create opportunities for assessing and diagnosing individual and/or team performance within the simulation; guide the learning; focus on cognitive/psychological simulation fidelity; form a mutual partnership between subject matter experts and learning experts; and ensure that the training program worked. CONCLUSION The health care community can gain significantly from using simulation-based training to reduce errors and improve patient safety when it is designed and delivered appropriately.