Gerald F. Goodwin

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.

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.

What Makes a Good Team Player? Personality and Team Effectiveness

Good team players are often defined in trait terms; that is, they are described as dependable, flexible, or cooperative. Our goal is to examine the relationship between team member personality traits and team effectiveness. However, to understand the effects of personality on team performance requires greater specificity in how personality is described and in how team effectiveness is described. A hierarchical model of team member personality is presented that defines higherlevel personality traits and specific facets relevant to team performance. Next, a classification of the core teamwork dimensions underlying effective team performance is presented. Finally, predictions are derived linking team member personality facets to specific teamwork requirements.

The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance: The Making of a Dream Team: When Expert Teams Do Best

The Making of a Dream Team: When Expert Teams Do Best The original use of the phrase “Dream Team” was in reference to the US basketball team that won the gold medal at the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona. Team members included basketball greats (e.g., Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, and Larry Bird) as well as Charles Barkley and seven more NBA All-Stars. This team of twelve proficient athletes who were at the top of their game seamlessly blended their talents such that they dominated the Olympic competition, beating their eight opponents by an average of 44 points. On February 22, 1980 at the Olympic Winter Games in Lake Placid a highly skilled Russian hockey team, recognized as the best hockey team in the world, lost 4–3 to a young but skilled collegiate US hockey team. The US victory over the “undefeatable” Russian team in the semi-finals, whom they had just lost to 10–3 a week before in an exhibition match, put the US team in contention for the gold medal. The US hockey team, which had been seeded seventh in the 12-team tournament, went on to beat Finland (4–2) for the gold medal. So what distinguishes these two teams from other teams? Teamwork? Individual expertise? Both? What led the original “Dream Team” to dominate the 1992 Olympics? Conversely, what led the star Russian team to lose to a team they had dominated only a week before?

DOES TEAM TRAINING ENHANCE TEAM PROCESSES, PERFORMANCE, AND TEAM MEMBER AFFECTIVE OUTCOMES? A META-ANALYSIS.

This research integration examined the relationship between team training and team building interventions and team functioning. The results suggest a moderate, positive relationship between these i...

Distributed Team Performance: A Multi-Level Review of Distribution, Demography, and Decision Making

Distributed performance arrangements are increasingly used by organizations to structure dyadic and team interactions. Unfortunately, distributed teams are no panacea. This chapter reviews some of the advantages and disadvantages associated with the geographical and temporal distribution of team members. An extended discussion of the implications of distributed team performance for individual, team, and organizational decision making is provided, with particular attention paid to selected cultural factors. Best practices and key points are advanced for those stakeholders charged with offsetting the performance decrements in decision making that can result from distribution and culture.

Distributed Team Performance: Continuing the Dialogue

Stagl, Salas, Rosen, Priest, Burke, Goodwin, and Johnston (this volume) conducted a review of distributed team performance and discussed some of the implications of distributed, multicultural operations for individual, team, and organizational decision making. Expanding upon Stagl and colleagues’ discussion, Alutto (this volume), and Coovert and Burke (this volume) provided thought-provoking commentary on these issues. The current note briefly responds to some of the questions posed and comments made by Alutto, Coovert, and Burke and concludes by calling for a continued dialogue by all stakeholders concerned with fostering effective distributed teams.