Teams: Endangered species or extinct?

Preamble

This is the first in a series of short posts aimed at raising awareness of the evolving challenge of developing ‘team’ working in contemporary organisations, especially those that have distributed, interdependent, matrix structures. As an increasing proportion of organisations operate in this way, these articles are likely to be of interest to a wide audience.

The content is evidence based but I’ve tried to make it as readable as possible.

Who should read this ‘stuff’ and why?

I’m writing these articles for anyone that works in an organisation that uses teams, and who may be struggling to make sense of how to behave, coordinate activity to achieve the required objectives, and sustain performance, employee motivation, and satisfaction.

Although Google Scholar has made a difference, the problem with learning from management literature is that it is not widely accessible to many people. Equally:

·       Some articles can be very technically complex and require a high level of prior knowledge to make sense of them.

·       Management research is very high resolution. Without appropriate synthesis to put in into context, it’s like trying to visualise a large, complicated picture one pixel at a time – impossible unless you read a lot of articles on connected themes.

At the other end of the spectrum, readily available management literature is so low resolution that it is almost useless if its aim is to help people make sense of their professional world. These ‘snake-oil’ books are a bit like junk food. They’re readily available; they look appealing, taste good, are easily digested, and provide short-term satisfaction. In the long term, however, they are bad for you because they don’t provide the nutrition you need.

Why should you read this stuff?

Because organisational life is already fragmented and reliant on individuals to self-manage, without the need for leadership interventions. Do you know how to function successfully in this context?

Don’t agree? How many of you are members of multiple teams, and therefore have several bosses? Alternatively, how many of you have a boss that’s involved in multiple teams and therefore relies on you, and your team members, to take the initiative and provide direction?

The reality is there is a gap in our understanding of team practice and you need to know what to do about it. Unchecked, this leads to conflict, damages trust, compromises social cohesion, and undermines performance. This gap in understanding isn’t helped by the fact that neither management practitioners, nor specialist consultants advising them, acquire their knowledge from academic literature[1, 2].  Want to check, ask the question: where does the expertise and advice your organisation pays for come from, and is it reliable? If management consultants and HR Specialists are gaining their knowledge from academic literature, where is your people strategy coming from?

Historical Context

I suspect that most people would say they know what a team is regardless of their experience of working in one. Actually, it’s hard to think of a business term as widely used as ‘Team’, or one more over-used, misused, and misunderstood.

[Note - to avoid confusion, although the term ‘team’ has a specific definition[3], I will use the terms ‘team’ and ‘group’ interchangeably unless I state otherwise.]

Certainly team working is now so common[4] that everyone who works in an organisational setting is likely to be involved in one or more teams, both inside and outside of their professional lives. Even when there isn’t a team to be a part of, being associated with a group, even one with only a loosely defined purpose, is enough to give us that warm glow we feel by belonging to something we can identify with socially, and which helps to define who we are. Indeed, this has become so socially important that the question “what do you do” is often the second thing asked when meeting someone for the first time.

I doubt this will come as a surprise to anyone since we are social, and tribal, by nature. The formation of social groups working together on complex, challenging, tasks that couldn’t otherwise be completed, has been common to humans throughout history^[3], and is just as prevalent in the animal kingdom[5-7]. Consequently, the study of organisational groups, and teams, continues to thrive, even after a century of intensive management research^[8].

Problem #1 – in the distant past individuals formed small tribes (social groups) that had clearly defined: boundaries, leaders, and membership rules – most of which were aimed at promoting the success of the group, and avoiding conflict within and between rival groups. Back then, life choices were simple, you either conformed to the group’s rules, or you left (or were killed).

Although the survival threats have reduced fro many of us, our lives are now increasingly complex as we are simultaneously involved in multiple groups (or tribes) and so we constantly have to make compromised choices between conflicting membership rules. While some of the modern day examples of this are trivial, e.g. participating as a member of a social media forum may put you in conflict with your employer (NSA Whistle-blower, Edward Snowden, is an example) - the wider issues of social identity, group affiliation, cohesion, and pro-social trust building behaviours are not. Life is increasingly stressful because of this, and we need new knowledge if we are to learn how to cope.

Over the last fifty years in particular, organisations have tried to anticipate and exploit the wide-ranging benefits of coordinated behaviour[9, 10]. In doing so, they have replaced hierarchical structures with flat, ‘lean’, structures^[11]; and highly defined working methods, with loosely defined goals and unclear tasks requiring creative thinking and problem solving[12]. Those old enough to remember, will know this era was marked by the shift from scientific management[13], with its high conflict, ‘carrot and stick’ extrinsic motivational systems, to approaches based on job enlargement/job enrichment[14-17] , and involving intrinsic motivational systems.

The need to predict coordinated behaviour has stimulated extensive management interest, explaining how teams function and why they fail, or finding new ways to improve team performance. Today, it’s hard to find a business book or journal article on teams that doesn’t start by reporting how organisations have shifted from individual based work to self-regulating, team based working[18-24]. In his article “Suppose We Took Groups Seriously”, Roe[25] suggested that the group, rather than the individual, is now the foundation stone of the organisation. Consequently, organisations have been increasingly adopting group and team based structures ever since. For example, reporting surveys of Fortune 1000 firms, Leavitt[26] highlights a steady increase in the use of team based structures, from 20% in 1980, to over 80% by 2000. The number has been climbing ever since.

In the past, this ‘stuff’ was primarily of interest to executives and their leadership teams, HR professionals, and students of management. Today, however, most of us are affected by the changes taking place in the organisations in which we work. For example, the delayering of middle management means that it now falls on everybody else to figure out how to work effectively in an increasingly complex, rapidly changing working environment where many of the things we have previously learned about creating successful team working has become obsolete and irrelevant. Professional appeal is now being influenced by social connectedness. That’s why LinkedIn is so successful.

The ‘Team’, or at least the classical form of it[27, 28], is now so rare[29] it’s almost extinct. At the very least, teams are so drastically changed they’re unrecognisable as the same species. This means we have lost the ability to predict performance using the knowledge we currently have about traditional forms of teams[30]. It also means that our understanding about how to compose, manage, and work successfully in teams, has changed[30].

As daunting as this is in the people-centric world of work, the challenges don’t stop there:-

1.     Contemporary organisations are evolving quicker than management researchers are able to explain the variables needed to be considered to predict performance reliably, and

2.     Organisational complexity has increased to such an extent that those involved in coordinating group behaviour have to consider an impossibly complex, dynamic mosaic of variables in order to maintain acceptable levels of performance.

Therefore, understanding where we are, and how we got here is important, and this is why everybody should be interested in finding out how best to coordinate activity in the virtual, social networks[31-35] that have taken over from the teams we’ve grown up with over the last three decades.

Is this really true, what’s the evidence?

Perhaps some of you who read this post will work in organisations that still have recognisable examples of traditional forms of teams, or real-teams[27]. Perhaps you work in a collocated team within a small business based on a single site, where you all know each other and you each contribute to achieving the goal of the business.

However, if you work in a large organisation involved in some form of knowledge work, typically in the service sector, it’s unlikely you will find a real-team in your organisation[29]. The point is, as time goes by, small organisations mimic what happens in their larger counter-parts and whose behaviours becomes the norm when developing: new strategies, structures, and best practices.

These conditions are now common to a wide variety of organisational settings, causing Richter[36] to question why team working is so popular. Other authors have shared similar concerns about the ‘panacea’ of team working[3, 37-39].

Structural drivers (macro)

Organisations large and small are facing a ‘perfect storm’ of structural conditions that are challenging performance. These include: the increasing role of the knowledge economy and the demographic shift to knowledge work, increasing task uncertainty and complexity, volatile economic conditions, globalisation[40], de-layering of hierarchical structures, increasingly frequent restructuring and reorganisation, multiteam membership[41], shared leadership[42-46], self-managing teams[47-52], outsourcing of strategically non-core activities, technology development, remote virtual working, distributed ‘matrix’ structures, colliding cultures and increasing diversity (cultural and functional)[33, 53-56], pluralistic systems[57] with (often) conflicting demands[58],  on scarce resources. Individually and together, these create ambiguous boundary conditions, compromise engagement, disrupt coordination, and stimulate unproductive conflict, and performance failure.

Situational drivers (micro)

Compounding the issues above, evolving variables are impacting multiple organisational levels. For example, ‘cluster’ structures[59, 60], may better reflect recent trends in organisational work groups, especially those that adopt matrix structures, or Organisational Communities of Practice (OCoPs) [61], (sometimes referred to as Centres of Excellence). These structures are common enough to be representative of the developing ‘plural’ organisation proposed by Drucker[57].

The uncertainty and complexity of knowledge work requires intensive interaction and coordination between interdependent individuals who are often deployed in distributed, or dispersed structures[62]. As such, the structure and behaviours of a collocated group reporting to a designated leader, and the structure and individual behaviours taking place in a distributed (virtual), self-managing work-group with emergent leadership, undertaking complex work tasks, is entirely different. This has spurred a new form of team, the virtual team. These organisational forms have such fluid boundaries that participants can barely identify who else is a member of the group they belong to, i.e. nobody knows who is on the team.

Problem #2 – if you can’t identify who is on the team, it’s kind of hard to know what team you are on yourself, and who you can rely on to achieve the objectives of the team. Group identity, affiliation, cohesion, and trust become significant issues since it’s hard to know if you are all working towards the same end goal.

Virtual teams

Virtual teams are defined as: a group of people who interact through interdependent tasks guided by a common purpose that works across space, time, and organizational boundaries with links strengthened by webs of communications technologies[63].

Spatial distance is a critical feature of virtual teams since members are dispersed over a broad geographic area, sometimes spanning countries and cultures^[64]. However, it is not the specific cultural and physical distance separating team members that is important, but the way in which they interact – through technology mediated communications media, such as: video-conferencing, email, intranet, live messaging, groupware, and other enterprise applications. This contrasts starkly with traditional teams that tend to be collocated and primarily interact by face-to-face communication.

These changes have been explained to come about as a result of changes in communications technology, organisational purpose, and social dynamics which together are leading to the emergence of these new kinds of organisational teams[65]. Moving away from the traditional team model to a virtual team whose members simultaneously work on multiple teams, means that team leadership, composition, and activities such as mission analysis; goal specification, strategy formulation, and planning, are increasingly important and challenging.

Problem #3 – virtual teams tend to be very large and are comprised of highly diverse (demographic, temporal, spatial, cultural, and functional), fluid, membership that communicates asynchronously using an array of technology.

Task complexity and Interdependence

Whether or not a virtual team operates in real or distributed time is influenced by task complexity and the extent to which workflow arrangements require independent or interdependent working. Complex work tasks, where work flows back and forth between individuals and groups require a high degree of collaboration and coordination, social integration through intensive interdependencies, and synchronous, real-time communications[66].

At the other extreme, virtual teams fulfilling simple work tasks that can be completed relatively independently can communicate unidirectionally, or asynchronously.

Problem #4 – it is often the case that team members will hold multiple roles, within a team and in multiple teams. Indeed, allocating work time to multiple teams is becoming the norm as estimates suggest that 65%[67] to 95%[68] of knowledge workers participate in multiple teams simultaneously. However, as before, this is also influenced by task complexity. Multiple roles can create ambiguity, conflict, and role stress. Examples of this have been found in studies of matrix organisations, which have formal horizontal communication channels that supplement the usual vertical flow of communications. These studies suggest that the complicated decision making within matrix organisations results in role conflict, ambiguity, and negative attitudes such a job satisfaction and engagement

Problem #5 - there is a growing body of management research supporting the view that social networks may better explain how teams in organisations are evolving and interacting[20, 34, 35, 59, 69-81]. These amorphous dynamic work-group structures have significant implications for organisational performance, group composition, organisational design (OD), and the individuals working within them.

Dynamic team composition: The art of the impossible

This section brings us to the main point of this article. Selecting members of teams with a view to predicting effective performance is now so complex that the variables may actually be impossible to manage effectively. This brings into question the industry that has grown around assessing individuals, for selection, recruitment, and professional development. Put simply, coordinating the variables required to predict successful performance in virtual teams operating as social networks is like juggling a hundred balls at the same time – and the variables are increasing all of the time.

The following is a sampler relating to just a few the issues that compromise team composition and team performance.

Personality traits - a variable of team composition

Team composition is the configuration of member attributes in a team[82] and is thought to have a powerful influence on team processes and outcomes[4]. The composition of work teams is defined by the individual characteristics of team members. The rationale underlying the research on team composition is that individual characteristics of team members, i.e. their personality, demographics, etc., serve as inputs that influence team performance directly, and indirectly, through group processes and emergent states[83]. Accordingly[84], team composition research can be categorised into three dimensions: (a) characteristics of team members (e.g., number, abilities, demographics, personality traits), (b) measurement of these characteristics, and (c) the analytical perspective used to approach team composition[85].

Team literature has reported patterns of personality variables that predict both individual and group outcomes, such as performance and satisfaction[86-88]. When organisations create teams, individual differences are typically exploited to create an optimal configuration of the team member characteristics needed to yield effective performance[9, 89-91]. To this end, methods have been proposed[89] by which individuals might be seeded onto teams to yield optimal group personality composition[65].

A type of team input, team composition, has a significant influence on team effectiveness[4, 82, 92], and is of special interest to organisations since composition can be manipulated in ways that result in desirable outcomes[85]. Indeed, wide consensus on the potential value of team composition has resulted in it becoming one of the most studied team variables[10, 93]. However, despite its popularity, team composition is difficult to apply because of the lack of understanding in the area[94, 95], and the rapidly changing organisational landscape.

While team composition variables include a variety of member demographic attributes (age, gender, tenure, functional expertise, etc.), personality traits are especially important, [83, 85, 92, 96-106]. This is because personality traits are relevant to task contributions that members make to team outcomes, as well as the way that members interrelate to each other socially during the course of their work.

According to Funder[107], personality refers to structures and propensities that reflect or explain characteristic patterns of an individual’s thoughts, emotions, and behaviours, and is inherently socially derived[108].

A variety of personality inventories have been developed, including: NEO-PI-R[109], Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI)[110], the 16PR[111], the Personal Characteristics Inventory (PCI)[112], the California Personality Inventory (CPI)[113], the Big Five inventory[114], and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire[115, 116].

Research has been extensive in recent years[8, 45, 85, 89, 90, 100, 106, 117-123,  see 124, for a review, 125], advancing understanding of why some teams are more successful than others, and providing a basis for predicting performance. Consequently, few topics in organisational behaviour, work, and organisational psychology have attracted more attention in the last few decades, all the more remarkable by the fact that personality trait theory is said to be enjoying a renaissance, [126, 127].

In a comprehensive review examining the relationship between team level personality and performance, these authors[85] found that, overall, team level personality does predict team performance. However, others[120] have reported that the findings from research on the relationship between team personality and team effectiveness are problematic and difficult to decipher, an issue previously noted by Heslin[92]. Unfortunately these problems persist, making it difficult to understand how the various streams of personality and team composition research fit together.

Problem #6 – despite the popularity of personality tests (psychometric) in recruitment, selection, team composition and development, the findings of personality research are equivocal and probably irrelevant. There are so many problems that the practical usefulness of these tests is questionable. For example, although I’ll cover this in more detail in future articles, its unclear what personality traits are likely to helpful in predicting performance in virtual teams. Current team research reports extroversion and conscientiousness are common predictors of team performance. However, in distributed virtual structures, extroversion may not be appropriate at all. To the contrary, introverts may be more successful in the asynchronous communication typical of virtual team. It’s also not clear what other personality traits combine to help predict high team performance.

The list of challenges is extensive: there’s no agreement about how extrovert a team should be in aggregate, or how conscientious. Or if combinations of personality traits interact together[128]? Or if personality is even a stable measure[127]. Or what situations are required in order to activate personality traits? Or how does the trait of individualism/collectivism impact behaviour predicted by personality traits?[129-131]

What is astonishing is that psychometric assessments or personality traits are widely used in organisations despite the fact that there real-world usefulness is not understood. If you don’t believe me, ask your HR business partner to explain this and ask to see the evidence.

Questions -

How is personality assessment being used in distributed organisations to compose teams, and how should they be used?

More to come…

In future articles I’ll look more closely at some of the variables of team working that I have researched, for example:-

·       Team size

·       Dispersion

·       Virtuality

·       Impact of organisational Social networks

·       Diversity – heterogeneity of traits and variables

·       Complementary and supplementary fit

·       Personality – trait aggregation, activation and interaction

·       Emotional intelligence

·       Cognitive ability

·       Trust, bias and conflict

·       Individualism Vs collectivism

·       Power Vs distance

·       Team viability – social identity

·       Leadership – shared, emergent

·       Interdependence and task complexity

I hope this has been interesting and I welcome any comments, critical or otherwise, and shared experiences that help shine a light on these issues.

REFERENCES

1.       Rousseau, D.M., IS THERE SUCH A THING AS "EVIDENCE-BASED MANAGEMENT"? Academy of Management Review, 2006. 31(2): p. 256-269.

2.       Rynes, S.L., A.E. Colbert, and K.G. Brown, HR professionals' beliefs about effective human resource practices: Correspondence between research and practice. Human Resource Management, 2002. 41(2): p. 149-174.

3.       West, M.A., F.C. Brodbeck, and A.W. Richter, Does the 'romance of teams' exist? The effectiveness of teams in experimental and field settings. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 2004. 77(4): p. 467-473.

4.       Kozlowski, S.W.J. and B.S. Bell, Work Groups and Teams in Organizations, in Handbook of Psychology. 2003, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

5.       Chen, G., B. Guy, and L. Zhongqiu, Coordination and Synchronisation of Anti-Predation Vigilance in Two Crane Species. PLoS ONE, 2011. 6(10): p. 1-6.

6.       Moussaid, M., et al., Collective Information Processing and Pattern Formation in swarms, flocks and crowds. 2010.

7.       Péron, F., et al., Cooperative problem solving in African grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus). Animal Cognition, 2011. 14(4): p. 545-553.

8.       Mathieu, J., et al., Team Effectiveness 1997-2007: A Review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse Into the Future. Journal of Management, 2008. 34(3): p. 410-476.

9.       Campion, M.A., G.J. Medsker, and A.C. Higgs, RELATIONS BETWEEN WORK GROUP CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTIVENESS: IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGNING EFFECTIVE WORK GROUPS. Personnel Psychology, 1993. 46(4): p. 823-847.

10.    Guzzo, R.A. and M.W. Dickson, TEAMS IN ORGANIZATIONS: Recent Research on Performance and Effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 1996. 47(1): p. 307-338.

11.    Mohrman, S.A., S.G. Cohen, and A.M. Mohrman, Designing team-based organizations : new forms for knowledge work / Susan Albers Mohrman, Susan G. Cohen, Allan M. Mohrman, Jr. 1995: San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, 1995.

12.    Trimpop, R., M. West, and L. Markiewicz, Building team-based working: A practical guide to organizational transformation. European Psychologist, 2004. 9(4): p. 285-286.

13.    Taylor, F.W., The principles of scientific management / Frederick Winslow Taylor. 2001: New York ; London : W. W. Norton, 1967. 1-65.

14.    Alderfer, C.P., 2. JOB ENLARGEMENT AND THE ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT. Personnel Psychology, 1969. 22(4): p. 418-426.

15.    Hackman, J.R., et al., A new strategy for job enrichment. California Management Review, 1975. 17(4).

16.    Herzberg, F., One more time: How do you motivate employees. 1968: Harvard Business Review Boston.

17.    McClelland, D.C., Human motivation. 1987: CUP Archive.

18.    Burke, C.S., et al., What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 2006. 17(3): p. 288-307.

19.    Cohen, S.G. and D.E. Bailey, What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research From the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite. Journal of Management, 1997. 23(3): p. 239.

20.    Cummings, J.N. and R. Cross, Structural properties of work groups and their consequences for performance. Social Networks, 2003. 25(3): p. 197-210.

21.    Davison, R.B., et al., Coordinated Action in Multiteam Systems. JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2012. 97(4): p. 808-824.

22.    DeChurch, L.A. and J.R. Mesmer-Magnus, The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2010. 95(1): p. 32-53.

23.    Hollenbeck, J.R., B. Beersma, and M.E. Schouten, BEYOND TEAM TYPES AND TAXONOMIES: A DIMENSIONAL SCALING CONCEPTUALIZATION FOR TEAM DESCRIPTION. Academy of Management Review, 2012. 37(1): p. 82-106.

24.    Offermann, L.R. and R.K. Spiros, THE SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF TEAM DEVELOPMENT: IMPROVING THE LINK. Academy of Management Journal, 2001. 44(2): p. 376-392.

25.    Roe, R.A., C. Gockel, and B. Meyer, Time and change in teams: Where we are and where we are moving. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2012. 21(5): p. 629-656.

26.    Leavitt, H.J., Suppose We Took Groups Seriously. 1974.

27.    Richardson, J., AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PREVALENCE AND MEASUREMENT OF TEAMS IN ORGANISATIONS: THE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE REAL TEAM SCALE. Doctoral Thesis, 2010.

28.    West, M.A. and J. Lyubovnikova, Real Teams or Pseudo Teams? The Changing Landscape Needs a Better Map. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2012. 5(1): p. 25-28.

29.    Kirkman, B.L. and J.E. Mathieu, The dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, 2005. 31(5): p. 700-718.

30.    Tannenbaum, S.I., et al., Teams Are Changing: Are Research and Practice Evolving Fast Enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2012. 5(1): p. 2-24.

31.    Burt, R.S., The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 2000. 22(0): p. 345-423.

32.    Cole, M.S., W.S. Schaninger Jr, and S.G. Harris, The Workplace Social Exchange Network: A Multilevel, Conceptual Examination. Group & Organization Management, 2002. 27(1): p. 142.

33.    Cummings, J.N., Work Groups, Structural Diversity, and Knowledge Sharing in a Global Organization. Management Science, 2004(3): p. 352.

34.    Kilduff, M. and W. Tsai, Social networks and organizations / Martin Kilduff, Wenpin Tsai. 2003: London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif. : SAGE, 2003.

35.    Sparrowe, R.T., et al., SOCIAL NETWORKS AND THE PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS. Academy of Management Journal, 2001. 44(2): p. 316-325.

36.    Richter, A.W., J.F. Dawson, and M.A. West, The effectiveness of teams in organizations: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2011. 22(13): p. 2749-2769.

37.    Allen, N.J. and T.D. Hecht, The 'romance of teams': Toward an understanding of its psychological underpinnings and implications. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 2004. 77(4): p. 439-461.

38.    Naquin, C.E. and R.O. Tynan, The Team Halo Effect: Why Teams Are Not Blamed for Their Failures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2003. 88(2): p. 332-340.

39.    Sharma, V., I. Roychowdhury, and M. Verma, Why Do Willfully Designed Teams Fail? ICFAI Journal of Soft Skills, 2009. 3(1): p. 45-55.

40.    Wageman, R., H. Gardner, and M. Mortensen, The changing ecology of teams: New directions for teams research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2012. 33(3): p. 301-315.

41.    Maynard, M.T., et al., Something(s) old and something(s) new: Modeling drivers of global virtual team effectiveness. JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR, 2012. 33(3): p. 342-365.

42.    Carte, T., L. Chidambaram, and A. Becker, Emergent Leadership in Self-Managed Virtual Teams. Group Decision & Negotiation, 2006. 15(4): p. 323-343.

43.    Gibson, C.B. and S.G. Cohen, Virtual teams that work : creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness / Cristina B. Gibson, Susan G. Cohen, editors. The Jossey-Bass business & management series. 2003: San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, 2003.

44.    Ingvaldsen, J.A. and M. Rolfsen, Autonomous work groups and the challenge of inter-group coordination. HUMAN RELATIONS, 2012. 65(7): p. 861-881.

45.    Mathieu, J.E., et al., A Review and Integration of Team Composition Models: Moving Toward a Dynamic and Temporal Framework. Journal of Management, 2013.

46.    Pearce, C.L. and J.A. Conger, Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. 2003: Sage Publications.

47.    Davis, J.H., F.D. Schoorman, and L. Donaldson, TOWARD A STEWARDSHIP THEORY OF MANAGEMENT. Academy of Management Review, 1997. 22(1): p. 20-47.

48.    Donaldson, T. and L.E. Preston, THE STAKEHOLDER THEORY OF THE CORPORATION: CONCEPTS, EVIDENCE, AND IMPLICATIONS. Academy of Management Review, 1995. 20(1): p. 65-91.

49.    Eisenhardt, K.M., Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review. The Academy of Management Review, 1989. 14(1): p. 57-74.

50.    Hernandez, M., TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PSYCHOLOGY OF STEWARDSHIP. Academy of Management Review, 2012. 37(2): p. 172.

51.    Jensen, M.C. and W.H. Meckling, The Nature of Man. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 1994. Vol. 7(No. 2, Summer 1994): p. 4-19.

52.    Zaccaro, S.J., C. Peterson, and S. Walker, Self-Serving Attributions for Individual and Group Performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 1987. 50(3): p. 257-263.

53.    Glick, W.H., C.C. Miller, and G.P. Huber, The Impact of Upper-echelon diversity on organisational performance. In G.P. Huber & W.H. Glick (Eds.), Organizational Change and Redesign: Ideas and insights for Improving Performance, 176-214, in Organizational Change and Redesign: Ideas and insights for Improving Performance, G.P. Huber and W.H. Glick, Editors. 1995, Oxford University Press: New York. p. 176-214.

54.    Hambrick, D.C., et al., When Groups Consist of Multiple Nationalities: Towards a New Understanding of the Implications. Organization Studies (Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG.), 1998. 19(2): p. 181-205.

55.    Horwitz, S.K. and I.B. Horwitz, The Effects of Team Diversity on Team Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of Team Demography. Journal of Management, 2007. 33(6): p. 987-1015.

56.    Joshi, A., THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL DEMOGRAPHY ON THE EXTERNAL NETWORKING BEHAVIOR OF TEAMS. Academy of Management Review, 2006. 31(3): p. 583-595.

57.    Drucker, P.F., THE COMING OF THE NEW ORGANIZATION. Harvard Business Review, 1988. 66(1): p. 45-53.

58.    Kenworthy-U'Ren, A., Toward a Scholarship of Engagement: A Dialogue Between Andy Van de Ven and Edward Zlotkowski. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2005. 4(3): p. 355-362.

59.    Ahuja, M.K. and K.M. Carley, Network Structure in Virtual Organizations. Organization Science, 1999. 10(6): p. 741-757.

60.    Beyerlein, M.M. and D.A. Johnson, Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Theories of self-managing work teams, Vol. 1, ed. M.M. Beyerlein and D.A. Johnson. 1994, US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press. xxi, 289.

61.    DeChurch, L.A. and S.J. Zaccaro, Perspectives: Teams Won’t Solve This Problem. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2010. 52(2): p. 329-334.

62.    Goldman, S.L., R.N. Nagel, and K. Preiss, Agile competitors and virtual organizations : strategies for enriching the customer / Steven L. Goldman, Roger N. Nagel, Kenneth Preiss. 1995: New York ; London : Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1995.

63.    Boland Jr, R.J. and R.V. Tenkasi, Perspective Making and Perspective Taking in Communities of Knowing. Organization Science, 1995. 6(4): p. 350-372.

64.    Bell, B.S. and S.W.J. Kozlowski, A Typology of Virtual Teams: Implications for Effective Leadership. Group & Organization Management, 2002. 27(1): p. 14-49.

65.    Whelan, T.J., et al., Group Personality Composition, Satisfaction and Performance in Virtual Teams, in 24th annual conferance of the society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2009: New Orleans.

66.    Ancona, D. and C.-L. Chong, ENTRAINMENT: PACE, CYCLE, AND RHYTHM IN ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1996. 18: p. 251.

67.    Moreland, R.L., J.M. Levine, and M.L. Wingert, Creating the ideal group: Composition effects at work, in Understanding group behavior, Vol. 2: Small group processes and interpersonal relations, E.H.W.J.H. Davis, Editor. 1996, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc: Hillsdale, NJ, England. p. 11-35.

68.    Zika-Viktorsson, A., P. Sundström, and M. Engwall, Project overload: An exploratory study of work and management in multi-project settings. International Journal of Project Management, 2006. 24(5): p. 385-394.

69.    Ayoung, S., et al., The Influence of Virtuality on Social Networks Within and Across Work Groups: A Multilevel Approach. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2011. 28(1): p. 351-386.

70.    Burt, R.S., Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. 1992, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

71.    Chauvet, V., et al., The contribution of network research to managerial culture and practice. European Management Journal, 2011. 29(5): p. 321-334.

72.    Crawford, E.R. and J.A. Lepine, A CONFIGURAL THEORY OF TEAM PROCESSES: ACCOUNTING FOR THE STRUCTURE OF TASKWORK AND TEAMWORK. Academy of Management Review, 2013. 38(1): p. 32-48.

73.    Flaherty, K., et al., Social Network Theory and the Sales Manager Role: Engineering the Right Relationship Flows. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 2012. 32(1): p. 29-40.

74.    Hansen, M.T., Knowledge Networks: Explaining Effective Knowledge Sharing in Multiunit Companies. Organization Science, 2002(3): p. 232.

75.    Hansen, M.T., M.L. Mors, and B. LØVÅS, KNOWLEDGE SHARING IN ORGANIZATIONS: MULTIPLE NETWORKS, MULTIPLE PHASES. Academy of Management Journal, 2005. 48(5): p. 776-793.

76.    Oh, H., G. Labianca, and C. Myung-Ho, A MULTILEVEL MODEL OF GROUP SOCIAL CAPITAL. Academy of Management Review, 2006. 31(3): p. 569-582.

77.    Klein, K.J., et al., HOW DO THEY GET THERE? AN EXAMINATION OF THE ANTECEDENTS OF CENTRALITY IN TEAM NETWORKS. Academy of Management Journal, 2004. 47(6): p. 952-963.

78.    Magni, M., C.M. Angst, and R. Agarwal, Everybody Needs Somebody: The Influence of Team Network Structure on Information Technology Use. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2012. 29(3): p. 9-42.

79.    McDermott, R. and D. Archibald, Harnessing your staff's informal networks. Harvard business review, 2010. 88(3): p. 82-89.

80.    Murase, T., et al., Teams Are Changing: Time to “Think Networks”. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2012. 5(1): p. 41-44.

81.    Reagans, R., E. Zuckerman, and B. McEvily, How to Make the Team: Social Networks vs. Demography as Criteria for Designing Effective Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2004. 49(1): p. 101-133.

82.    Levine, J.M. and R.L. Moreland, Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 1990. 41(1): p. 585-634.

83.    O'Neill, T.A. and N.J. Allen, Personality and the Prediction of Team Performance. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY, 2011. 25(1): p. 31-42.

84.    Moreland, R.L. and J.M. Levine, The composition of small groups. Advances in group processes, 1992. 9: p. 237-280.

85.    Bell, S.T., Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2007. 92(3): p. 595-615.

86.    Antonioni, D. and H. Park, THE EFFECTS OF PERSONALITY SIMILARITY ON PEER RATINGS OF CONTEXTUAL WORK BEHAVIORS. Personnel Psychology, 2001. 54(2): p. 331-360.

87.    Barrick, M.R., et al., Relating Member Ability and Personality to Work-Team Processes and Team Effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1998. 83(3): p. 377-391.

88.    Kristof-Brown, A., M.R. Barrick, and C. Kay Stevens, When Opposites Attract: A Multi-Sample Demonstration of Complementary Person-Team Fit on Extraversion. Journal of Personality, 2005. 73(4): p. 935-958.

89.    Humphrey, S.E., et al., 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, 2007. 92(3): p. 885-892.

90.    Humphrey, S.E., et al., Personality Configurations in Self-Managed Teams: A Natural Experiment on the Effects of Maximizing and Minimizing Variance in Traits.(Report). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2011(7): p. 1701.

91.    Morgeson, F.P., M.H. Reider, and M.A. Campion, SELECTING INDIVIDUALS IN TEAM SETTINGS: THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL SKILLS, PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS, AND TEAMWORK KNOWLEDGE. Personnel Psychology, 2005. 58(3): p. 583-611.

92.    Heslin, R., Predicting group task effectiveness from member characteristics. Psychological Bulletin, 1964. 62(4): p. 248-256.

93.    Hollenbeck, J.R., D.S. DeRue, and R. Guzzo, Bridging the gap between I/O research and HR practice: Improving team composition, team training, and team task design. Human Resource Management, 2004. 43(4): p. 353-366.

94.    Foushee, H.C. and R.L. Helmreich, Group 7 Interaction and Flight Crow Performance. Human factors in aviation, 1988: p. 189.

95.    Morgan Jr, B.B. and D.L. Lassiter, Team composition and staffing, in Teams: Their training and performance, R.W.S.E. Salas, Editor. 1992, Ablex Publishing: Westport, CT, US. p. 75-100.

96.    Barrick, M.R., M.K. Mount, and T.A. Judge, Personality and Performance at the Beginning of the New Millennium: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go Next? International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 2001. 9(1/2): p. 9.

97.    Bradley, J.H. and F.J. Hebert, The effect of personality type on team performance. Journal of Management Development, 1997. 16(5): p. 337.

98.    Driskell, J.E., et al., What Makes a Good Team Player? Personality and Team Effectiveness. Group Dynamics, 2006. 10(4): p. 249-271.

99.    Driskell, J.E., R. Hogan, and E. Salas, Personality and group performance, in Group processes and intergroup relations. 1987, Sage Publications, Inc: Thousand Oaks, CA, US. p. 91-112.

100.  Hurtz, G.M. and J.J. Donovan, Personality and Job Performance: The Five Revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2000. 85(6): p. 869-879.

101.  LePine, J.A., et al., Contextual performance and teamwork: Implications for staffing. Research in personnel and human resources management, 2001. 19: p. 53-90.

102.  Mann, R.D., A review of the relationships between personality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 1959. 56(4): p. 241-270.

103.  Neal, A., et al., Predicting the form and direction of work role performance from the Big 5 model of personality traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2012. 33(2): p. 175-192.

104.  Prewett, M.S., et al., The Team Personality-Team Performance Relationship Revisited: The Impact of Criterion Choice, Pattern of Workflow, and Method of Aggregation. Human Performance, 2009. 22(4): p. 273-296.

105.  Quigley, N.R. and S.D. Gardner. TEAM PERSONALITY COMPOSITION, COLLECTIVE PERSONALITY, AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS. 2007. Academy of Management.

106.  Tett, R.P., D.N. Jackson, and M. Rothstein, PERSONALITY MEASURES AS PREDICTORS OF JOB PERFORMANCE: A META-ANALYTIC REVIEW. Personnel Psychology, 1991. 44(4): p. 703-742.

107.  Funder, D.C., PERSONALITY. Annual Review of Psychology, 2001. 52(1): p. 197-221.

108.  Cattell, R.B., The description of personality. I. Foundations of trait measurement. Psychological Review, 1943. 50(6): p. 559-594.

109.  Costa, P.T. and R.R. McCrae, Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 1992. 4(1): p. 5-13.

110.  Hogan, R., Manual for the Hogan personality inventory. Minneapolis: National Computer Systems, 1986.

111.  Conn, S.R. and M.L. Rieke, The 16PF fifth edition technical manual. 1994: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing Champaign, IL.

112.  Mount, M., et al., The personal characteristics inventory manual. Unpublished manuscript. Iowa City, IA, 1995.

113.  Gough, H. and P. Bradley, CPI manual . Palo Alto. 1996, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

114.  John, O.P. and S. Srivastava, The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L.A. Pervin & O.P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research, in Handbook of personality: Theory and research, L.A.P.O.P. John, Editor. 1999, Guilford Press: New York. p. 102-138.

115.  Dazzi, C., The Eysenck personality questionnaire – Revised (EPQ-R): A confirmation of the factorial structure in the Italian context. Personality and Individual Differences, 2011. 50(6): p. 790-794.

116.  Eysenck, H.J., Biological basis of personality. 1963.

117.  Barrick, M.R. and M.K. Mount, THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META-ANALYSIS. Personnel Psychology, 1991. 44(1): p. 1-26.

118.  Hough, L.M., The 'Big Five' Personality Variables--Construct Confusion: Description Versus Prediction. Human Performance, 1992. 5(1-2): p. 139-155.

119.  Kozlowski, S.W.J. and D.R. Ilgen, Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest (Wiley-Blackwell), 2006. 7(3): p. 77-124.

120.  LePine, J.A., et al., A review of research on personality in teams: Accounting for pathways spanning levels of theory and analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 2011. 21(4): p. 311-330.

121.  Mount, M.K., M.R. Barrick, and G.L. Stewart, Five-Factor Model of personality and Performance in Jobs Involving Interpersonal Interactions. Human Performance, 1998. 11(2-3): p. 145-165.

122.  Moynihan, L.M. and R.S. Peterson, A CONTINGENT CONFIGURATION APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN ORGANIZATIONAL GROUPS. Research in Organizational Behavior, 2001. 23: p. 327.

123.  Salgado, J.F., Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality measures. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 2003. 76(3): p. 323-346.

124.  Ilgen, D.R., et al., TEAMS IN ORGANIZATIONS: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models. Annual Review of Psychology, 2005. 56(1): p. 517-543.

125.  Peeters, M.A.G., et al., The Big Five Personality Traits and Individual Satisfaction With the Team. Small Group Research, 2006. 37(2): p. 187-211.

126.  Pervin, L.A., A Critical Analysis of Current Trait Theory. Psychological Inquiry, 1994. 5(2): p. 103.

127.  Woods, S.A., et al., Personality across working life: The longitudinal and reciprocal influences of personality on work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2013. 34: p. S7-S25.

128.  Blickle, G., et al., The interactive effects of conscientiousness, openness to experience, and political skill on job performance in complex jobs: The importance of context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2013. 34(8): p. 1145-1164.

129.  Dierdorff, E.C., S.T. Bell, and J.A. Belohlav, The power of “we”: Effects of psychological collectivism on team performance over time. Journal of applied psychology, 2011. 96(2): p. 247.

130.  Gundlach, M., S. Zivnuska, and J. Stoner, Understanding the relationship between individualism-collectivism and team performance through an integration of social identity theory and the social relations model. Human Relations, 2006. 59(12): p. 1603-1632.

131.  Wagner, J.A., et al., Individualism-collectivism and team member performance: Another look. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2012. 33(7): p. 946-963.