Case study

Team Development Interventions: Evidence-Based Approaches for Improving Teamwork

Christina N. Lacerenza University of Colorado Boulder

Shannon L. Marlow Rice University

Scott I. Tannenbaum The Group for Organizational Effectiveness, Inc.,

Albany, New York

Eduardo Salas Rice University

The rate of teamwork and collaboration within the workforce has burgeoned over the years, and the use of teams is projected to continue increasing. With the rise of teamwork comes the need for interventions designed to enhance teamwork effectiveness. Successful teams pro- duce desired outcomes; however, it is critical that team members demonstrate effective processes to achieve these outcomes. Team development interventions (TDIs) increase effective team competencies and processes, thereby leading to improvements in proximal and distal outcomes. The effectiveness of TDIs is evident across domains (e.g., education, health care, military, aviation), and they are applicable in a wide range of settings. To stimulate the adoption and effective use of TDIs, the current article provides a review of four types of evidence-based TDIs including team training, leadership training, team building, and team debriefing. In doing so, we aim to provide psychologists with an understanding of the scientific principles underlying TDIs and their impact on team dynamics. Moreover, we provide evidence-based recommendations regarding how to increase the effectiveness of TDIs as well as a discussion on future research needed within this domain.

Keywords: teams, team training, team debriefing, leadership training, team building

According to a recent survey conducted by Deloitte across 130 countries and over 7,000 participants, the num- ber one global workforce trend is teamwork (Kaplan, Dol- lar, Melian, Van Durme, & Wong, 2016). Employees are expected to work more collaboratively than ever before, and according to Cross, Rebele, and Grant (2016), “collabora-

tion is taking over the workplace” (p. 4), with employees and managers reporting at least a 50% increase in the amount of time spent on team-related tasks. Specifically, organizations are implementing networks of teams, whereby projects are assigned to groups of individuals who work inter- dependently, employ high levels of empowerment, communi- cate freely, and either disband following project completion or continue collaborating. The rise of teamwork spans industries, including health care, science, engineering, and technology (e.g.,Wuchty, Jones, & Uzzi, 2007). Teamwork is even critical for successful space exploration as is evidenced by the recent push for teamwork research to support a future Mars mission (Salas, Tannenbaum, Kozlowski, Miller, Mathieu, & Vessey, 2015).

Effective teamwork allows teams to produce outcomes greater than the sum of individual members’ contributions (Stagl, Shawn Burke, & Pierce, 2006) and is driven by team processes (i.e., “interdependent acts that convert inputs to outcomes through cognitive, verbal, and behavioral activi- ties directed toward organizing taskwork to achieve collec- tive goals”; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001, p. 357) and emergent states (i.e., dynamic properties of the team that vary depending upon various factors), both of which require

Editor’s note. This article is part of a special issue, “The Science of Teamwork,” published in the May–June 2018 issue of American Psychol- ogist. Susan H. McDaniel and Eduardo Salas served as guest editors of the special issue, with Anne E. Kazak as advisory editor.

Authors’ note. Christina N. Lacerenza, Leeds School of Business, Uni- versity of Colorado Boulder; Shannon L. Marlow, Department of Psychology, Rice University; Scott I. Tannenbaum, The Group for Organizational Effective- ness, Inc., Albany, New York; Eduardo Salas, Department of Psychology, Rice University.

This work was supported in part by contract 80NSSC18K0092 with the Na- tional Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to the Group for Organi- zational Effectiveness, contracts NNX16AP96G and NNX16AB08G with NASA to Rice University, and research grants from the Ann and John Doerr Institute for New Leaders at Rice University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eduardo Salas, Department of Psychology, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, TX 77005. E-mail: [email protected]

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

American Psychologist © 2018 American Psychological Association 2018, Vol. 73, No. 4, 517–531 0003-066X/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000295

517

task and team competencies. While taskwork competencies are the knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs) necessary to achieve individual task performance, team competencies are those KSAs critical for team members to interdependently interact with one another effectively and in such a way that leads to positive team-based outcomes (Salas, Rosen, Burke, & Goodwin, 2009). Thus, in addition to exhibiting individual-level expertise (i.e., taskwork competencies), team members must also display expertise in teamwork (i.e., team competencies). A vast domain of team competencies exists, with organizational scientists from both industry and academia identifying those that are most critical to team

effectiveness. For example, for teams at Google, those most critical include psychological safety and dependability (among others; Rozovsky, 2015), while Salas and col- leagues (2009) provide a general list of competencies rele- vant to teams across domains (see Figure 1 for a subset of these competencies), which can be classified into three broad categories (i.e., attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions).

Despite the increased expectations to work collabora- tively and the benefits associated with effective teamwork, companies continue to report a lack of team competencies among their employees. According to a recent study con- ducted by PayScale, 36% of recent graduates have deficient team and interpersonal competencies (Dishman, 2016). Re- latedly, companies also demonstrate the inability to manage and arrange teams because only 21% of executives believe their company holds expertise in designing cross-functional teams (Kaplan et al., 2016). As such, there is a compelling need to deploy psychologically sound, empirically tested ways to boost effective teamwork, and, more specifically, team competencies (e.g., adaptability, team orientation; Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005), team processes (e.g., mission anal- ysis, team monitoring, and backup behavior; Marks et al., 2001), interpersonal processes (e.g., conflict resolution, trust development; Shuffler, DiazGranados, & Salas, 2011), and leadership capabilities (e.g., intrapersonal skills, busi- ness skills; Hogan & Warrenfeltz, 2003).

One way to improve teamwork is through the implemen- tation of team development interventions (TDIs; Shuffler et al., 2011). We define a TDI as a systematic activity aimed at improving requisite team competencies, processes, and overall effectiveness. There are multiple types of TDIs that are used in organizations across industries. Although TDIs may differ in terms of content focus, the intent of each is similar, to improve team effectiveness in order to enhance

Christina N. Lacerenza

Figure 1. Team competencies: Attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions. This figure provides a subset of evidence- based team competencies.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

518 LACERENZA, MARLOW, TANNENBAUM, AND SALAS

results—and meta-analytic and empirical evidence suggest they do so successfully across proximal (e.g., team perfor- mance; Salas, Nichols, & Driskell, 2007) and distal (e.g., reduction in patient deaths; Hughes et al., 2016) outcomes.

In the current article, we identify four major types of TDIs and synthesize scientific evidence supporting the use of each intervention type. In doing so, we aim to provide psychologists with an understanding of the scientific principles and evidence underlying TDIs. The four types of TDIs presented are (1) team training, (2) leadership training, (3) team building, and (4) team debriefing. We selected these TDIs because each has ample theoretical and empirical evidence in support of its efficacy and because each intervention serves a distinct pur- pose. Although previous reviews have focused on one (e.g., team building; Klein et al., 2009) or two (e.g., team building and team training; Shuffler et al., 2011) types of TDIs, we include the aforementioned four to provide readers with an understanding of the range of interventions and how and why they work.1 All four can be effective, but they serve different purposes and are designed differently (as identified in Figure 2). We note there to be two main categories of TDIs, training interventions and process interventions. These TDIs can be further distinguished by identifying who is attending the train- ing program, either a leader (i.e., individual), or team members belonging to a team that is either intact (i.e., a team with fairly stable membership and shared work experience with each other) or ad hoc (i.e., a team with individuals lacking a history of working together). Generally, process interventions are de- signed for intact teams, while training interventions can be for leaders, ad hoc, or intact teams. As such, it is not our intention to promote the use of one TDI over the other; rather, our goal is to identify the conditions under which each strategy is most

effective and to highlight the main goal of each.2 In the following sections, we define each TDI, highlight evidence in support of their success, and synthesize scientific findings regarding boundary conditions and influences on their effec- tiveness. We also describe four scenarios to provide the reader with a sense of the way in which each TDI tends to work in practice. These scenarios are based, in part, on the authors’ experiences.

Improving Team Competencies: Team Training

Team training is a formalized, structured learning experience with preset objectives and curriculum that target specific team competencies. Furthermore, this intervention improves team processes by improving these competencies and is argued to foster enhanced teamwork by promoting improvement in spe- cific teamwork skills linked to team performance (Salas et al., 2008). Team training has been implemented across industries (e.g., engineering, education, health care; Salas et al., 2008) as science suggests its effectiveness across various outcomes (e.g., team communication, patient deaths; Hughes et al., 2016). Because of the strong empirical support for team train- ing, we are seeing a rise in the implementation of these pro- grams across health care settings nationwide to reduce the amount of medical errors caused by teamwork failures (e.g., Weaver, Dy, & Rosen, 2014). For example, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ, which is housed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) invested in the development and dissemination of Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety (Team- STEPPS; AHRQ, 2017), which is a team training program consisting of case studies and web-based tools. This program has been used across health care institutions and is customiz- able (as evidenced by Lisbon et al. [2016], who implemented a version that entailed video vignettes, group discussion, and informational modules). In addition to health care, team train- ing has also been circulated within the education domain; for example, CATME (the Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness) was developed to assist student engi- neering teams with their team effectiveness and consists of web-based tools, teamwork evaluation metrics, and other re- lated instruments (see info.catme.org for more information). These examples represent a few of many approaches to team training. Many team training programs have been created, there are many different tools available to facilitate them, and there is ample evidence supporting their effectiveness across

1 Although the current framework is nested within the teams literature, it is important to note that it is not necessarily comprehensive and other modes of organizing the team development intervention literature may exist.

2 Although these four TDIs can be used for multiple purposes (e.g., team training can include interpersonal content), the current paper focuses on the primary purpose of each TDI type for sake of parsimony.

Shannon L. Marlow

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

519TEAM DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS

affective, cognitive, and performance-based outcomes at all levels (i.e., individual, team, organization; Delise, Allen Gor- man, Brooks, Rentsch, & Steele-Johnson, 2010; Hughes et al., 2016; Salas et al., 2007; 2008).

Scenario 1: Team Training for Surgical Teams

A hospital has an active, high-volume surgical center. Sur- geries are performed by teams (e.g., surgeon, anesthesiologist,

nurse, tech) that must coordinate to provide safe, effective care. They discover that teamwork breakdowns are a primary cause of surgical errors. Because team membership changes from surgery to surgery, it is very difficult to intervene at the intact team level, so they decide to conduct team training that focuses on transportable competencies that individuals can deploy during any surgery. They conduct a training needs analysis and discover that the most critical competencies are related to communication and mutual monitoring skills, including being alert for potential mis- takes, speaking up regardless of seniority, communicating us- ing standard language, and ensuring messages are accurately received (“closed-loop” communication). Using good instruc- tional design principles, they develop learning objectives and a training curriculum that includes exercises (role-plays and sim- ulated surgery) that allow the participants to practice and receive feedback on their communication and mutual monitor- ing skills. Follow-up shows that participants have acquired competencies they can apply during any surgery.

Improving Leader Capabilities: Leadership Training

Heredity explains roughly 30% of the variance in leader- ship, while diverse experiences, training, and other factors are responsible for the remaining 70% (Arvey, Rotundo, Johnson, Zhang, & McGue, 2006). This suggests that indi- vidual leadership capabilities can be improved, particularly with well-designed leadership training programs, and meta- analytic evidence supports this claim (Lacerenza, Reyes, Marlow, Joseph, & Salas, 2017). Because leaders are an essential element to teams (Salas, Priest, & DeRouin, 2005), leadership training is an important TDI to discuss. Leader-

Scott I. Tannenbaum

Figure 2. Team development interventions. This figure illustrates the four methods of team development interventions.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

520 LACERENZA, MARLOW, TANNENBAUM, AND SALAS

ship training refers to interventions systematically designed to enhance leader knowledge, skills, abilities, and other components. The intent of these programs is to ensure participants are able to act effectively in formally appointed leadership roles and engage in successful leadership behav- iors, which support effective team processing (Day, 2001).

While leadership training has been criticized by some (Morgan, 2015; Myatt, 2012; Nelson, 2016), recent meta- analytic evidence suggests that it improves learning, trans- fer, and organizational outcomes by up to 29% (Lacerenza et al., 2017). Thus, not only do these programs affect leaders participating in the programs (i.e., by increasing learning and their ability to utilize concepts on the job, which is known as transfer), but they also influence desired subor- dinate outcomes as well (e.g., subordinate job satisfac- tion, turnover; Lacerenza et al., 2017). Furthermore, they increase leadership capabilities which enhance team per- formance (e.g., transformational and empowering leader- ship; Stewart, 2006), thereby also leading to increases in team performance and other desired team level outcomes. For example, in the context of occupational safety, we see that leadership training (and more specifically safety leadership and transformational leadership training) en- hances safety climate, safety compliance, and safety be- haviors (e.g., von Thiele Schwarz, Hasson, & Tafvelin, 2016).

Scenario 2: Leadership Training for High-Tech Leaders

A high-tech company is growing rapidly. They deploy teams extensively, from software development to customer

service. They need more team leaders who are prepared to promote team effectiveness, but it is hard to keep up with growth demands. As is true with many organizations, they have been promoting technically strong individuals into team leader positions. These leaders understand taskwork requirements, but are often ill-equipped to address team- work demands. The company decides to develop a team leader training program. As with any good training pro- gram, they assess the learning needs of their team leaders, and establish learning objectives and a training curriculum. The program focuses on a variety of team leadership com- petencies, including for example, how to provide construc- tive feedback and how to handle team member conflict. Leaders are asked to complete two online modules to ac- quire foundational knowledge. They then attend live train- ing in cohorts of 16, where they engage in role-play exer- cises to practice new skills and receive feedback, have the opportunity to reflect on their leadership practices, and develop personal action plans for applying their new skills when they return to their team.

Team and Leadership Training: What Works, According to Science

The science of training is a line of research that is quite established and has led to the development of several con- clusions regarding how to maximize training effectiveness (Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger, & Smith-Jentsch, 2012). Al- though team and leadership training represent distinct types of training, there are several underlying concepts which translate to both domains (and mostly all training types; Arthur, Bennett, Edens, & Bell, 2003). As such, we first discuss those generalizable training features, and then out- line characteristics that may be unique to team and leader- ship training, respectively. First and foremost, it is impor- tant to note that merely providing training does not guarantee desired outcomes will be achieved. Furthermore, it is also important to clarify that regardless of the size of the investment in the training program, following evidence- based recommendations is the key to ensure outcomes (Brown & Sitzmann, 2011). As Wakefield and colleagues stated, “. . . simply spending money on leadership programs is unlikely to be enough. . . . [they] must be targeted at what works” (Wakefield, Abbatiello, Agarwal, Pastakia, & van Berkel, 2016). When delivering training programs, it is critical that salient theory and evidence are referenced to provide the most effective training. Theoretical frameworks of transfer (i.e., the extent to which trained behaviors are implemented on-the-job after training has ended), usually the primary goal of training, have been introduced and refined such that there now exists empirically supported frameworks to guide the design, delivery, and evaluation of training. One of the seminal frameworks of transfer was introduced by Baldwin and Ford (1988), who proposed that

Eduardo Salas

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

521TEAM DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS

the extent to which learning transfers into on-the-job behav- iors is influenced by: training design features (e.g., training content), trainee characteristics (e.g., motivation), and char- acteristics of the work environment (e.g., organizational support). There is meta-analytic evidence to support Bald- win and Ford’s (1988) model of transfer (Blume, Ford, Baldwin, & Huang, 2010) and this model applies to the context of team (e.g., Hughes et al., 2016) and leadership training (Lacerenza et al., 2017).

An important step to be taken during the initial stages of training development is that of a needs analysis. A needs analysis reflects the “process of gathering data to determine what training needs exist so that training can be developed to help the organization accomplish its objectives” (Brown, 2002, p. 569). During this analysis, you identify elements such as the teams that require training, the KSAs necessary for effectively completing team tasks, organizational goals and other elements of the environment that will affect training success, and the KSAs required for effective team- work (Brown, 2002). A needs analysis boosts training ef- fectiveness via identifying gaps between the existing and required skills and tailoring the training to address those gaps (Brown, 2002). It also provides insight into whether the organization will support training transfer. As an exam- ple, House (2001) first conducted a thorough needs analysis, including interviews and focus groups with stakeholders (e.g., experienced managers) and a review of competitors’ leadership training procedures, before developing the lead- ership training program. This process also provides an op- portunity to ensure that the goals of training align with both the needed skills of the trainees and the stakeholders’ ex- pectations of training.

Delivery methods are another well-known element that influences outcomes, and they can be categorized into three overarching dimensions: information (e.g., lecture), demon- stration (e.g., video), and practice (e.g., role play). Although benefits exist for all three categories, research suggests the most effective programs tend to include a mix of the three (Salas et al., 2012). For example, in House’s (2001) lead- ership training program for employees of a high technology company, the program included lectures, discussion, role play, case studies, and other exercises; the program ulti- mately proved to be successful at improving key manage- ment skills following training. Similarly, House and Tosi (1963) implemented information- (i.e., discussions, lec- tures, reading materials) and practice-based (i.e., on-the-job training exercises) delivery methods in a leadership training program with engineering managers that ultimately led to transfer 18 months following training. By incorporating multiple delivery methods, various learning methods can be used (e.g., individuals are provided with opportunities to practice leadership skills in addition to being exposed to the underlying information as this enables them to actively participate, reflect, and grow; McCauley & Van Velsor,

2004), and both passive and active learning benefits can be achieved (Hughes et al., 2016; Zapp, 2001).

In addition to information, demonstration, and practice- based delivery methods, research also supports the use of feedback in both leadership and team training. When pos- sible, trainees should receive diagnostic feedback as part of their learning experience, whether it be following a role play exercise, on-the-job training, or a related experience (e.g., Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996). Feedback can improve an individual’s awareness of strengths and weaknesses, and provide him/her with information on how to self-correct undesirable behavior (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Lab- and field-based research supports the effectiveness of feedback (Engelbrecht & Fisher, 1995; Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully, & Salas, 1998), and it is a commonly used design feature in leadership (e.g., Abrell, Rowold, Weibler, & Moenninghoff, 2011) and team training programs (Hughes et al., 2016). For example, Engelbrecht and Fischer (1995) provided managers with a feedback report including strengths, weaknesses, and a developmental action plan during their leadership training program; training participants were rated higher than a control on various leadership skills (e.g., problem resolution, managing information) a few months following the training program. When imple- menting feedback for developmental purposes, however, it is important to frame the information as diagnostic rather than evaluative (e.g., Kluger & DeNisi, 1996), to help reduce reactance and increase acceptance.

Leadership Training

In addition to the aforementioned general guidelines, there are several design and delivery characteristics specific to leadership training. In particular, research suggests that leadership training developers should pay close attention to the desired outcome (e.g., organizational results, transfer, learning) because leadership training programs may be more effective for some than others. While leadership train- ing typically shows positive results for affective learning and affective transfer, they tend to be even stronger for cognitive learning, cognitive transfer, skill-based learn- ing, and skill-based transfer (Avolio, Reichard, Hannah, Walumbwa, & Chan, 2009; Lacerenza et al., 2017). As such, when designing a leadership training program, it might be more beneficial to include (and evaluate) cog- nitive and/or skill-based content. Relatedly, stakeholder expectations should be managed to reflect these potential differences (e.g., make them aware that effects might not be as large for affective outcomes compared with skill- based).

The desired outcome(s) should also be identified early on during training development because the training design should align with the coveted outcome. Specifically, content included in the program (e.g., the skills trained) should

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

522 LACERENZA, MARLOW, TANNENBAUM, AND SALAS

consist of that which is proven to influence the desired outcome. For instance, if team level outcomes are desired (e.g., cohesion, team satisfaction), the training should in- corporate skills which support these outcomes. For instance, research suggests that transformational leaders engender team cohesion, potency, and performance; as such, if an organization wishes to increase these outcomes, we suggest to implement a program incorporating transformational leadership skills, such as charisma, risk-taking, and mentor- ing (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Furthermore, because research suggests a strong impact of certain leadership styles (i.e., transformational leadership, empowering leadership; Lim & Ployhart, 2004) on team-based outcomes, we recommend the adoption of programs incorporating related skills if team outcomes are desired. Research has also shown that team leadership training programs that build skills related to initiating structure (a well-known facet of leadership; Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004) produce team level effects following training.

Team Training

As with leadership training, there are additional recom- mendations specific to team training. As the goal of team training is to foster improved teamwork, the training should be tailored such that it is at the team level. In other words, training goals should be set at the team level and outcomes should be evaluated at the team level (Salas et al., 2015). Similarly, researchers note that both team processes (e.g., team communication) and outcomes (e.g., performance) should be measured to evaluate team effectiveness post- training (Smith-Jentsch, Sierra, & Wiese, 2013). As an example of an outcome measure, Siassakos and colleagues (2009) evaluated the effectiveness of a health care team training program with a measure of patient outcomes (e.g., rate of admission to neonatal intensive care unit). As an example of a process measure, Sonesh et al. (2015) imple- mented a self-report measure of perceived teamwork fol- lowing a team training intervention. Data on team outcomes indicate how well the team is performing while data on team processes provide insight into why a certain level of per- formance is being observed. For example, a measure of team process could reveal that team communication is a major challenge.

Another recommendation specific to team training is to foster psychological safety during training. Psychological safety is a mutual belief among team members that the team can take interpersonal risks and that a “sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject, or punish someone for speaking up” (Edmondson, 1999, p. 354) exists. Psy- chological safety provides team members the comfort needed to openly discuss errors without fear of punishment (Edmondson, 1999). This is especially critical during team training, as learning from errors has been shown to facilitate

enhanced performance in lab-based settings (Bell & Koz- lowski, 2008). If psychological safety is established, team members will be more likely to openly discuss errors and how to address them in the future (Edmondson, 1999). If psychological safety is not in place, such a discussion may not occur.

Improving Team Dynamics: Team Building

Team building has been defined as an intervention de- signed to foster improvement within a team, providing individuals closely involved with the task with the strategies and information needed to solve their own problems (Tan- nenbaum, Beard, & Salas, 1992). Researchers suggest there are four primary components to team building which can be implemented alone or in some combination: (a) goal setting, (b) interpersonal-relationship management, (c) role clarifi- cation, and (d) problem solving (Beer, 1976; Dyer, 1977). Locke, Shaw, Saari, and Latham (1981) suggested that setting difficult yet specific goals can improve performance. As an example of a difficult yet specific goal, a team might set the goal of meeting twice a week. Support for setting difficult yet specific goals has received ample empirical support (e.g., Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987). In a team building context, the goal-setting component often includes the establishment of goals at both the individual and team- level. The interpersonal-relationship management compo- nent to team building focuses on developing trust and re- solving conflict, whereas the role clarification component entails uncovering role ambiguities and conflicts and then establishing clear roles within the team (Beer, 1976). Fi- nally, Buller and Bell (1986) describe the problem solving component as helping team members identify and solve task-related problems as well as identifying effective decision- making processes.

A meta-analysis conducted by Klein and colleagues (2009), based on 60 effect sizes, supports the utility of team building for several outcomes. Their results indicate significant positive increases in several cognitive, affec- tive (e.g., trust), and process (e.g., coordination) out- comes as a function of team building interventions. How- ever, they did not find a significant direct effect of team-building on team performance although perfor- mance may be enhanced via improvements in the cogni- tive, affective, and process outcomes discussed. Their results further indicate that all four components generally associated with team building interventions significantly improved some outcomes but goal setting and role clar- ification were the most effective. Goal setting and role clarification components build shared understandings of the task and team (i.e., shared mental models) that, in turn, may foster changes in team processes.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

523TEAM DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS

Team Building: What Works, According to Science

Each of the components of team building are founded on theories that have been experimentally supported. Organi- zations should clarify the needs of the teams to determine the most appropriate team building components. Locke and Latham (2002) suggest that goal setting improves perfor- mance through four specific mechanisms, by: (1) directing attention and effort toward identified goals, (2) energizing, (3) affecting persistence, and (4) affecting action through the discovery and/or use of knowledge pertinent to the task. Goals set at the team level are intended to be relevant to all team members and to focus on team outcomes (Mills, 1984). Interpersonal-relationship management is a compo- nent that fosters trust and provides team members with ways to manage team conflict effectively (Argyris, 1962). This typically involves a facilitator fostering open conversations among team members to address any issues, resolve any existing conflicts, and subsequently improve trust among team members through these discussions (Salas et al., 2005). Providing individuals the opportunity to self-discover concerns through these discussions or other means can lead to awareness of specific teamwork weaknesses.

Trust enables team members to overcome uncertainty and accept vulnerability toward teammates, enabling better team coordination and performance; this is a robust finding meta- analytically demonstrated across both field and lab samples (De Jong, Dirks, & Gillespie, 2016). Virtually all teams experience conflict at times, so conflict management is also important for effective team functioning. Top performing MBA teams were found to engage in effective conflict resolution techniques, including: (a) targeting content, rather than interpersonal interactions, (b) discussing the rationale for work assignments, and (c) assigning work based on expertise (Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, & Trochim, 2008). Team building can help a team develop constructive conflict management techniques and avoid behaviors such as blaming and with- holding information (Edelmann, 1993). Behfar et al. (2008) note that such behaviors can result in a decreased willing- ness to contribute to the team in a proactive manner (Jehn, 1997). Role clarification serves a similarly important func- tion in increasing team effectiveness. Research in field settings indicates that through establishing clearer delinea- tion of roles and responsibilities, team members attain a better understanding of their own and the teammates’ re- sponsibilities (Salas, Rozell, Mullen, & Driskell, 1999). A similar finding with real-world teams indicates that role clarity can decrease confusion during task performance, facilitate backup behavior, and yield more effective outcomes (Eys & Carron, 2001).

Role clarity does not assume role rigidity. Rather, it implies a common understanding among team members about the way roles should be performed. There can be role

clarity in teams that require team flexibility. For example, if team members have a common understanding about how different people should fill different roles based on specific work demands, they have role clarity without role rigidity. Role clarity is important in almost any team, but may be particularly so in teams that need to be adaptive. During a team building intervention, team members may discuss and determine the situations and task characteristics that require individuals to assume other team members’ roles. Research in field settings has shown that this type of role flexibility can lead to enhanced team performance (Campion, Med- sker, & Higgs, 1993) although the necessity of role flexi- bility is contingent upon team type and associated demands. Finally, problem solving helps team members identify task- related problems, and implement solutions accordingly. Dyer (1977) suggests that this component enhances team effectiveness because it provides a structure for teams to work together, pooling individual resources, to address key team problems. Shuffler et al. (2011) further argues this can develop enhanced decision-making skills, which has also been linked to more effective team performance (Kerr & Tindale, 2004).

Taken as a whole, each of the components of team building serves an integral purpose in furthering team effectiveness, and when using any of these approaches, it is critical that teams delineate tangible action plans or agreements to ensure there is no confusion about what needs to be done. It is also important to follow up on these plans to maintain accountability (Tannenbaum et al., 1992). The aforementioned information reflects evidence-based components of team building programs. Oftentimes, organizations respond to teamwork issues by scheduling team activities that are seemingly light- hearted, fun, and increase time spent between team mem- bers (e.g., a ropes course, icebreaker). Although these exercises may work in the short-term, there is limited evidence suggesting that team building activities lacking scientifically based components are effective (Shuffler, Burke, Kramer, & Salas, 2013). As such, it is recom- mended to incorporate only scientifically derived team building interventions to ensure benefits are achieved.

Scenario 3: Team Building in an Insurance Claims Team

Insurance claims teams need to coordinate and commu- nicate effectively to respond to customer needs, making prompt, smart decisions that benefit both the customer and the company. In one organization, a number of disruptive changes were introduced, including a change in technology and an organizational restructuring that resulted in a change of leaders and responsibilities. As a result, one of the teams was struggling. After talking with several team members, the team leader recognizes that there is a great deal of

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

524 LACERENZA, MARLOW, TANNENBAUM, AND SALAS

ambiguity about roles and sense of direction. She decides to conduct a facilitated team building session to address the concerns. As part of this process intervention, the facilitator leads the team through a series of semistructured discus- sions and exercises. For example, they reestablish their mission statement (why the team exists), conduct a role clarification exercise to clarify responsibilities and who needs to be consulted before and informed after decisions are made, and agree to a few “rules of engagement” in terms of how they want to interact with one another. As part of the role clarification exercise, they identify a few tasks that will require role flexibility, allowing them to quickly fill in for one another to address customer needs. They commit to a monthly follow-up for the next few months to assess prog- ress and make adjustments.

Improving Team Processes: Team Debriefing

Team debriefing represents “. . . one of the most prom- ising methods for accelerating learning from experience” (Eddy, Tannenbaum, & Mathieu, 2013, p. 976), and targets team processes. During a team debrief, team members re- flect on a performance episode or experience. They discuss what happened during the event, uncover problems and improvement areas, confirm successes, and develop a plan for future performance periods (Tannenbaum, Beard, & Cerasoli, 2013). Team debriefs are designed to improve teamwork processes by engaging team members in active learning throughout the learning cycle (Kolb, 1984), which helps team members become more open to novel or oppos- ing ideas and exhibit heightened levels of insight.

An effective debrief can lead to a shared understanding among team members about roles and responsibilities and about the team’s priorities, strengths, and shortcomings. In other words, team debriefs help a team build shared mental models (i.e., collective knowledge structures encompassing task and team relevant knowledge) which have been shown to increase team effectiveness (DeChurch & Mesmer- Magnus, 2010). Researchers have developed several types of debriefs; however, the underlying purpose is consistent across specific debriefing techniques: to enhance team ef- fectiveness by leveraging active learning. For example, af- teraction reviews (AARs) represent a team debriefing tech- nique that originated in the U.S Army (Darling, Parry, & Moore, 2005). This technique represents a typical team debrief such that team members discuss teamwork related issues following a performance episode. Another specific type of team debriefing used in the military is guided team self-correction (Smith-Jentsch, Cannon-Bowers, Tannen- baum, & Salas, 2008). This technique incorporates a trained facilitator who focuses the team’s discussion, creates and sustains a positive learning environment, encourages equal participation, demonstrates proper feedback practices, and coaches team members.

Team debriefs have been implemented across a variety of team types, in both high-stakes environments where mis- takes may potentially cause catastrophic error (e.g., health care, Gaba, Howard, Fish, Smith, & Sowb, 2001; aviation, Dismukes & Smith, 2000; first-responders, Scott, Allen, Bonilla, Baran, & Murphy, 2013) and additional settings (e.g., virtual teams, Roebuck, Brock, & Moodie, 2004). Meta-analytic evidence suggests that team debriefs increase team performance by an average of 20% to 25% (Tannen- baum & Cerasoli, 2013), and despite their relatively short nature (average debrief time across 46 samples in a meta- analytic investigation was approximately 18 min; Tannen- baum & Cerasoli, 2013), their capacity for improving team effectiveness is powerful. In fact, Couper, Salman, Soar, Finn, and Perkins (2013) conducted a meta-analytic inves- tigation of team debriefing among intensive care medicine clinicians and found that it improved patient outcomes (e.g., the return of spontaneous circulation during a cardiac arrest) in addition to boosting learning, nontechnical, and technical performance. Furthermore, Chen, Bamberger, Song, and Vashdi (2017) found team debriefs led to improvements in employee burnout over time. As with other TDIs, while on average, team debriefs are quite effective, their efficacy is influenced by several factors.

Team Debriefs: What Works, According to Science

As mentioned previously, research shows team debriefing works across a variety of team types, and it works across team types because certain elements can be tailored and the content discussed during a team debrief is specific to the team at hand. For instance, although team debriefs are typically conducted following a work shift or performance episode, they can be implemented during any point of an ongoing project (Gómez & Ballard, 2011). However, cer- tain fundamental elements influence team debrief efficacy, which are discussed below.

Team climate plays an important role in determining the success of a debrief, because this TDI often involves surfacing constructive criticism of the team and individ- ual team members (Arafeh, Hansen, & Nichols, 2010). As such, team members should be informed how to provide appropriate feedback, such as focusing on task- related information instead of person-oriented factors (Flanagan, 2008). In addition, it is important for the team to exhibit a psychologically safe team climate as dis- cussed within the team training section. This type of team climate is important for team debriefs because it reduces the onset of interpersonal conflict, enabling team mem- bers to contribute constructively to team discussions. Similarly, while teams can conduct self-led debriefs if structured properly (Eddy et al., 2013), research supports

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

525TEAM DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS

the use of a trained facilitator when feasible (Fanning & Gaba, 2007; Halamek, 2008). Whether facilitator or team-led, the person guiding the debrief should encour- age participation among all team members, ask open- ended questions targeting both team and task relevant KSAs, and encourage discussion of inhibiting team be- haviors (Arafeh et al., 2010; Fanning & Gaba, 2007; Halamek, 2008). In addition, effective debrief leaders explain the debriefing process but do not lecture or dominate the discussion (Dismukes & Smith, 2000). Sat- isfaction with the debrief is heightened when team mem- bers feel included in the discussion and believe they can disagree with the leader and each other (Scott et al., 2013).

Debriefs are more effective when they are structured and follow a logical process rather than a free-form discussion. Research suggests that team debriefs struc- tured by performance related or teamwork related cate- gories are more effective than those structured chrono- logically (Smith-Jentsch et al., 2008). In the context of SBT, rather than following a strict chronological recap of what happened, it can be helpful to guide the team to consider specific factors such as how they communi- cated, made decisions, or provided each other with

backup behavior (Eddy et al., 2013; Smith-Jentsch, Zeisig, Acton, & McPherson, 1998). Effective debriefs include a discussion of positive and negative behaviors as this fosters learning, furthers the development of accurate shared mental models, and provides targets for action plans to improve performance (Ellis & Davidi, 2005; Taylor, Russ-Eft, & Chan, 2005). Following the team debrief, conclusions and agreements should be docu- mented and revisited to facilitate follow-up on commit- ments and promote accountability (Salas et al., 2008).

In sum, the aforementioned interventions represent four primary TDIs; because teamwork is multifaceted (consist- ing of processes and emergent states; Marks et al., 2001) there is not an all-encompassing TDI that targets each teamwork facet. Leadership training represents the method by which leader capabilities are improved, team training targets team competencies, team building enhances inter- personal competencies, and team debriefs enhance team processes (again, see Figure 2 for a model depicting these relationships). To achieve the most out of each intervention, evidence-based practices should be followed. We have re- viewed these practices above, and key conclusions from the science in support of each method are briefly outlined in Table 1.

Table 1 Evidence-Based Recommendations for Designing, Delivering, and Implementing Team Development Interventions (TDIs)

General training • Use multiple and effective training methods (information, demonstration, practice, feedback) • Conduct a needs analysis • Provide diagnostic feedback • Ensure stakeholders’ expectations align with the goals of the training

Leadership training • Target soft skills (i.e., interpersonal, intrapersonal, and leadership skills) to enhance subordinate teamwork • Provide training on leadership styles related to teamwork (e.g., transformational leadership, empowering leadership) • Target skills related to initiating structure (e.g., managing team workload) • Evaluate cognitive and/or skill-based content

Team training • Set training goals at the team level • Evaluate team processes (e.g., communication) and outcomes (e.g., performance) to assess training • Foster psychological safety during training

Team building • Clarify needs of the teams to identify which components (i.e., problem-solving, interpersonal relationship management, goal setting, or role

clarification) are most needed for team improvement • Incorporate discussions and exercises that enable the team to self-discover concerns that can hurt their effectiveness • Guide the team to develop tangible action plans/agreements • Follow up on plans/agreements to maintain accountability

Team debriefing • Ensure a psychologically safe team climate exists • If possible, use a trained facilitator, regardless provide ample structure to the debrief • Focus on performance- and teamwork-related categories, rather than reviewing events chronologically • Discuss positive and negative examples of behavior • Document conclusions and agreements reached

Note. Selected citations: Abrell, Rowold, Weibler, & Moenninghoff, 2011; Arafeh, Hansen, & Nichols, 2010; Arthur, Bennett, Edens, & Bell, 2003; Avolio, Reichard, Hannah, Walumbwa, & Chan, 2009; Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996; Brown, 2002; Dyer, 1977; Eddy, Tannenbaum, & Mathieu, 2013; Ellis & Davidi, 2005; Engelbrecht & Fischer, 1995; Fanning & Gaba, 2007; Flanagan, 2008; Ford, Smith, Weissbein, Gully, & Salas, 1998; Halamek, 2008; House, 2001; Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004; Kerr & Tindale, 2004; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Lacerenza et al., 2016; Lim & Ployhart, 2004; Locke & Latham, 2002; McCauley & Van Velsor, 2004; Mills, 1984; Piaget, 1952; Salas, Rozell, Mullen, & Driskell, 1999; Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger, & Smith-Jentsch, 2012; Shuffler, DiazGranados, & Salas, 2011; Smith-Jentsch, Zeisig, Acton, & McPherson, 1998; Smith-Jentsch, Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, & Salas, 2008; Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, 2013; Taylor, Russ-Eft, & Chan, 2005; Zapp, 2001.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

526 LACERENZA, MARLOW, TANNENBAUM, AND SALAS

Scenario 4: Team Debriefing With a Senior Leadership Team

In a financial services organization, the senior leadership team (SLT) of one of their largest business units was facing a number of significant challenges. As with most senior leadership teams, their team members come from different parts of the business (e.g., finance, marketing, human re- sources, operations) and often interact with different cus- tomers (e.g., Region A vs. B). Each team member is also the leader of their own, more homogenous, team. When work- ing on the SLT, they are expected to represent the overall enterprise, but they often default to representing their own areas during SLT meetings. They acknowledge that this is adversely affecting their ability to work as a team and to make effective decisions, so they decide to conduct a series of team debriefs and bring in a facilitator for assistance. During the first debrief they reflect on their most recent team meeting. They identify where they worked well to- gether and where there were disconnects. For example, they uncover where one team member was simply intending to update the team about his area, but the other team members thought they were there to make a collective decision. They reach a few tangible agreements about how they intend to work together during future meetings. During subsequent debriefs they assess progress on prior agreements, and dis- cuss other performance events; for example, how they worked together during a recent change initiative.

Areas for Future Research and Practice

The information presented described the large body of research surrounding TDIs; however, more remains to be discovered, particularly in regards to environmental influ- ences. A variety of team types exist and they differ in regards to tasks, purpose, and level of interdependence (e.g., Sundstrom, McIntyre, Halfhill, & Richards, 2000). It is possible that certain team types may benefit more from any specific TDI, rather than each TDI being universal. Further- more, because environmental factors (e.g., globalization, technological improvements) lead to alterations in the na- ture of work (e.g., knowledge-based work, collaboration), we argue that some team types will be used more frequently, and could benefit from targeted TDIs. Specifically, three such types of teams include virtual teams, software devel- opment teams, and teams with nonhierarchical leadership structures; all of which are discussed below.

Virtual teams are becoming increasingly common (SHRM [Society for Human Resource Management], 2012) because they offer many potential advantages. Some common char- acteristics of virtual teams identified within the literature include communication via virtual tools, geographical dis- tribution, group membership in multiple organizations, and coordination across multiple time zones (Schweitzer & Duxbury, 2010). Although virtual teams may experience

different challenges because of the variety of possible team characteristics, (for example, telecommunicating programs allow some team members to work remotely, although they may be within the same time zone, while other individuals on the team continue to work in the office [Bloom, 2014]) some core challenges remain the same as a function of the widely used virtual communication tools. In particular, both the richness and the timeliness of team communication may be impacted by the tools used to communicate (Daft, Len- gel, & Trevino, 1987), warranting the use of TDIs designed specifically for these concerns. For instance, misunder- standings may arise from a lack of nonverbal cues (e.g., facial expressions; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986). As a conse- quence of these communication limitations, researchers have suggested that teams communicating solely via virtual tools will experience limited social presence or a lack of social and psychological connection with other team mem- bers (Biocca, Harms, & Burgoon, 2003). Because of limited social presence and a lack of face-to-face contact, team members may struggle to form interpersonal relationships and develop trust (Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). Other mis- understandings may arise because virtual teams often in- clude team members from multiple organizations; each or- ganization may have unique norms and approaches to works. Taken as a whole, these potential challenges high- light the need to develop future TDIs specifically suited to target these challenges (Schweitzer & Duxbury, 2010). Vir- tual teams may be better suited for a team training program that provides feedback in real-time (e.g., as you go team training) or from wearable technology (e.g., sociometric badges). For example, wearable sensors provide information regarding social interactions among team members, and a real-time TDI could be programmed to alert virtual team members if repeated interactions have yet to occur between certain team members, triggering interpersonal team devel- opment.

Software development teams represent another opportu- nity for additional TDIs. These teams are often virtual and consequently face many of the challenges outlined above. Moreover, software development teams often form for a new project, and disband upon completion, so they lack team history (Faraj & Sproull, 2000). Teams with short lifespans require team members to trust one another quickly in order to complete task requirements, and often have insufficient time to build strong interpersonal relationships. Action, such as a well-developed TDI, that helps these teams build trust swiftly is critical, as early trust has been found to predict team performance (Crisp & Jarvenpaa, 2013). Moreover, such teams are increasingly using agile programming approaches, which call for ongoing coordina- tion, continual adjustments, and a high degree of team adaptation (Larman, 2004; Nerur, Mahapatra, & Man- galaraj, 2005). Another possibility for conflict or misunder- standings arises because software development teams are

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

527TEAM DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS

typically self-organized and self-managed, with fluid roles (Nerur et al., 2005). Conflicts and confusion may arise because of this lack of clearly structured roles (Moe, Ding- søyr, & Dybå, 2009). As a consequence, there is a clear need to adapt TDIs so they target the specific team compe- tencies required to supplement existing IT techniques. For example, IT teams are increasingly using a “scrum” tech- nique, in which they organize their work into 2-week cycles called sprints. In this approach, after projects are identified, sprints are structured around the requirements. Each sprint has its own list of deliverables. Regular meetings are con- ducted to ensure team members are meeting targets and the team is expected to make adjustments, as needed, along the way. It is easy to see how TDIs, such as team debriefs, can be tailored to supplement the scrum technique. Relatedly, a team building TDI could enable team members to address interpersonal problems that may arise with trying to meet a series of short deadlines, and team training that involves a simulated scrum assignment could assist with the develop- ment of team adaptability, and related team competencies necessary for this context.

Last, the movement from hierarchical, top-down leader- ship to decentralized, team-led leadership is prevalent (Tan- nenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cohen, 2012) as organizations continue to adopt the use of self-managed teams, across industries (e.g., military, health care, technology). In these teams, some leadership functions are distributed or shared among team members, or they organically emerge over time. As a result, these teams experience different dynamics that may require specially targeted TDIs. Because of the inherent differences between shared and hierarchical lead- ership (i.e., leadership is distributed throughout team mem- bers instead of a single individual; Ensley, Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006), we argue that different leadership capabili- ties are needed for an individual to flourish within this structure. For instance, competencies required for effective shared leadership may include team competencies (e.g., developing and sustaining psychological safety; Edmond- son, 1999), while effective traditional leadership warrants individual competencies (e.g., self-efficacy). As such, shared leadership training programs may include team competencies in addition to individual competencies; however, future re- search is needed to discern whether this holds true.

Conclusion

Teams are found everywhere, saving lives in hospitals, operating planes, executing military orders, solving societal issues, and inventing the next piece of life-changing tech- nology. The issues faced by organizations today are com- plex and dynamic, requiring responsive, quick, adaptive, and diverse groups of individuals (Tannenbaum et al., 2012). Although individual-based work continues to evolve into team-based work, the solution is not as simple as

replacing a team for an individual. The solution requires an effective team, equipped with the KSAs, both at the individual and team level, that is capable of high-quality team processes and can adjust to meet evolving performance demands. This does not happen by chance and we cannot assume assembling a group of highly skilled individuals will result in an expert team. In addition to being technically able to perform their assignments, team members must also demonstrate teamwork competencies and leader capabilities, and the team as a whole must engage in effective interpersonal and team processing. To achieve these aims, teams should participate in psychologically sound, evidence-based TDIs as ample evidence exists high- lighting that when designed and implemented properly, they can boost a team’s capabilities and performance. Unfortu- nately, we have seen many organizations use other team inter- ventions with the false hope that simply giving a team the chance to spend time together or perform some fun activity together will make them into a better team. We are not against teams having fun, but it is important to differentiate between research-tested, evidence-based TDIs like the ones described above and those that are simply a pleasant, fun diversion that might boost team affect for a few days. When the need for collaboration is real and consequences of poor teamwork are significant, the choice of an evidence-based TDI is a sound one.

References

Abrell, C., Rowold, J., Weibler, J., & Moenninghoff, M. (2011). Evalua- tion of a long-term transformational leadership development program. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 205–224. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/239700221102500307

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). (2017). Team- STEPPS® 2.0. Retrieved from https://www.ahrq.gov/teamstepps/ instructor/index.html

Arafeh, J. M., Hansen, S. S., & Nichols, A. (2010). Debriefing in simulated-based learning: Facilitating a reflective discussion. The Jour- nal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing, 24, 302–309. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1097/JPN.0b013e3181f6b5ec

Argyris, C. (1962). Interpersonal competence and organizational behav- ior. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Arthur, W., Jr., Bennett, W., Jr., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 234 –245. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.234

Arvey, R., Rotundo, M., Johnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue, M. (2006). The determinants of leadership role occupancy. The Leadership Quar- terly, 17, 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.10.009

Avolio, B. J., Reichard, R. J., Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2009). A meta-analytic review of leadership impact research: Ex- perimental and quasi-experimental studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 764 –784. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.006

Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63–105. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00632.x

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transforma- tional leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 827– 832. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021- 9010.81.6.827

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

528 LACERENZA, MARLOW, TANNENBAUM, AND SALAS

Beer, M. (1976). The technology of organization development. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 937–994). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

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 out- comes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 170 –188. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.170

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2008). Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes, learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 296 –316. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.296

Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence (Cambridge, Mass.), 12, 456 – 480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/ 105474603322761270

Bloom, N. (2014, January). To raise productivity, let more employees work from home. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/ 2014/01/to-raise-productivity-let-more-employees-work-from-home

Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36, 1065– 1105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352880

Brown, J. (2002). Training needs assessment: A must for developing an effective training program. Public Personnel Management, 31, 569 – 578. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009102600203100412

Brown, K. G., & Sitzmann, T. (2011). Training and employee development for improved performance. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of indus- trial and organizational psychology, Vol 2: Selecting and developing members for the organization (pp. 469 –503). http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 12170-016

Buller, P. F., & Bell, C. H. (1986). Effects of team building and goal setting on productivity: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 305–328. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256190

Campion, M. A., Medsker, G., & Higgs, C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823– 847. http://dx .doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb01571.x

Chen, J., Bamberger, P. A., Song, Y., & Vashdi, D. R. (2017). The effects of team reflexivity on psychological well-being in manufacturing teams. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/apl0000279

Couper, K., Salman, B., Soar, J., Finn, J., & Perkins, G. D. (2013). Debriefing to improve outcomes from critical illness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Medicine, 39, 1513–1523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-013-2951-7

Crisp, C. B., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2013). Swift trust in global virtual teams: Trusting beliefs and normative actions. Journal of Personnel Psychol- ogy, 12, 45–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000075

Cross, R., Rebele, R., & Grant, A. (2016). Collaborative overload. Harvard Business Review, 94, 74 –79.

Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. (1987). Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: Implications for information systems. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 11, 355–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/248682

Darling, M., Parry, C., & Moore, J. (2005). Learning in the thick of it. Harvard Business Review, 83, 84 –92.

Day, D. V. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581– 613. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048- 9843(00)00061-8

DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive under- pinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 32–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017328

De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-analysis of main effects, moderators, and covari-

ates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1134 –1150. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/apl0000110

Delise, L. A., Allen Gorman, C., Brooks, A. M., Rentsch, J. R., & Steele-Johnson, D. (2010). The effects of team training on team out- comes: A meta-analysis. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 22, 53– 80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/piq.20068

Dishman, L. (May, 2016). These are the biggest skills that new graduates lack. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/3059940/the- future-of-work/these-are-the-biggest-skills-that-new-graduates-lack

Dismukes, K. & Smith, G. M. (Eds.). (2000). Facilitation and debriefing in aviation training and operations (pp. 1–12). Aldershot, United King- dom: Ashgate.

Dyer, W. G. (1977). Team building: Issues and alternatives. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Eddy, E. R., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Mathieu, J. E. (2013). Helping teams to help themselves: Comparing two team-led debriefing methods. Person- nel Psychology, 66, 975–1008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/peps.12041

Edelmann, R. (1993). Interpersonal conflicts at work. Exeter, United Kingdom: British Psychological Society.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350 –383. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2307/2666999

Ellis, S., & Davidi, I. (2005). After-event reviews: Drawing lessons from successful and failed experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 857– 871. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.857

Engelbrecht, A. S., & Fischer, A. H. (1995). The managerial performance implications of a developmental assessment center process. Human Relations, 48, 387– 404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00187267950 4800405

Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 217–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.002

Eys, M., & Carron, A. V. (2001). Role ambiguity, task cohesion, and task self-efficacy. Small Group Research, 32, 356 –373. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1177/104649640103200305

Fanning, R. M., & Gaba, D. M. (2007). The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simulation in Healthcare, 2, 115–125. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e3180315539

Faraj, S., & Sproull, L. (2000). Coordinating expertise in software devel- opment teams. Management Science, 46, 1554 –1568. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1287/mnsc.46.12.1554.12072

Flanagan, B. (2008). Debriefing: Theory and techniques. In R. H. Riley (Eds.), Manual of simulation in healthcare (155–170). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ford, J. K., Smith, E. M., Weissbein, D. A., Gully, S. M., & Salas, E. (1998). Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. Journal of Ap- plied Psychology, 83, 218 –233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83 .2.218

Gaba, D. M., Howard, S. K., Fish, K. J., Smith, B. E., & Sowb, Y. A. (2001). Simulation-based training in anesthesia crisis resource manage- ment (ACRM): A decade of experience. Simulation & Gaming, 32, 175–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104687810103200206

Gómez, L., & Ballard, D. I. (2011). Communication for change: Transac- tive memory systems as dynamic capabilities. In Research in organiza- tional change and development (pp. 91–115). Bingley, England: Emer- ald Group Publishing Limited .

Halamek, L. P. (2008, December). The simulated delivery-room environ- ment as the future modality for acquiring and maintaining skills in fetal and neonatal resuscitation. Seminars in Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, 13, 448 – 453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2008.04.015

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

529TEAM DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS

Hogan, R., & Warrenfeltz, R. (2003). Educating the modern manager. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2, 74 – 84. http://dx .doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2003.9324043

House, D. A. (2001). Evaluating a new manager management training program (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1403972).

House, R. J., & Tosi, H. (1963). An experimental evaluation of a manage- ment training program. Academy of Management Journal, 6, 303–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/255156

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, 1266 –1304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000120

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3, 791– 815.

Jehn, K. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530 –557. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393737

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010 .89.5.755

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36 –51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-9010.89.1.36

Kaplan, M., Dollar, B., Melian, V., Van Durme, Y., & Wong, J. (2016). Human capital trends 2016 survey. Oakland, CA: Deloitte University Press. Retrieved from deloitte.com/us/en/pages/human-capital/articles/ introduction-human-capital-trends.html

Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623– 655. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142009

Klein, C., DiazGranados, D., Salas, E., Le, H., Burke, C. S., Lyons, R., & Goodwin, G. F. (2009). Does team building work? Small Group Re- search, 40, 181–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496408328821

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254 –284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254

Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning as the science of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lacerenza, C. N., Reyes, D. L., Marlow, S. L., Joseph, D. L., & Salas, E. (2017). Leadership training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 1686 –1718. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000241

Lacerenza, C. N., & Sonesh, S. C. (2016). What Makes an Expert Team? A Decade of Research. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2016, 17915. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2016.17915abstract

Lacerenza, C. N., & Sonesh, S. C. (2016, January). What makes an expert team? A decade of research. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2016, No. 1, p. 17915). Anaheim, CA: Academy of Management.

Larman, C. (2004). Agile and iterative development: A manager’s guide. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley Professional.

Lim, B. C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Transformational leadership: Rela- tions to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 610 – 621. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.610

Lisbon, D., Allin, D., Cleek, C., Roop, L., Brimacombe, M., Downes, C., & Pingleton, S. K. (2016). Improved knowledge, attitudes, and behav- iors after implementation of TeamSTEPPS training in an academic emergency department: A pilot report. American Journal of Medical Quality, 31, 86 –90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1062860614545123

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9 .705

Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969 –1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.90.1.125

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4845785

McCauley, C. D. & Van Velsor, E. (Eds.). (2004). The center for creative leadership handbook of leadership development (Vol. 29). San Fran- cisco, CA: Wiley.

Mento, A. J., Steel, R. P., & Karren, R. J. (1987). A meta-analytic study of the effects of goal setting on task performance: 1966 –1984. Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 52– 83. http://dx .doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(87)90045-8

Mills, T. (1984). The sociology of small groups (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Moe, N. B., Dingsøyr, T., & Dybå, T. (2009). Overcoming barriers to self-management in software teams. IEEE Software, 26, 20 –26. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1109/MS.2009.182

Morgan, J. (2015, October). Why giving managers leadership training is a waste of time. Forbes Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/ sites/jacobmorgan/2015/10/01/why-giving-managers-leadership- training-is-a-waste-of-time/#441d1e0141a5

Myatt, M. (2012, December). The # 1 reason leadership development fails. Forbes Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/ 2012/12/19/the-1-reason-leadership-development-fails/#546bde6234ce

Nelson, C. (2016, April). Ditch your corporate leadership training program: Launch a Shakespeare Book Club instead. Forbes Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/christophernelson/2016/04/06/ditch- your-corporate-leadership-training-program-launch-a-shakespeare-book- club-instead/#1946b8f539d6

Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R., & Mangalaraj, G. (2005). Challenges of migrat- ing to agile methodologies. Communications of the ACM, 48, 72–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1060710.1060712

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (Vol. 8, pp. 18 –1952). New York, NY: International Universities Press.

Roebuck, D. B., Brock, S. J., & Moodie, D. R. (2004). Using a simulation to explore the challenges of communicating in a virtual team. Business Communication Quarterly, 67, 359 –367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1080 569904268083

Rozovsky, J. (2015). The five keys to a successful Google team. Retrieved from https://rework.withgoogle.com/blog/five-keys-to-a-successful- google-team/

Salas, E., Benishek, L., Coultas, C., Dietz, A., Grossman, R., Lazzara, E., & Oglesby, J. (2015). Team training essentials: A research-based guide. New York, NY: Routledge.

Salas, E., DiazGranados, D., Klein, C., Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Good- win, G. F., & Halpin, S. M. (2008). Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 50, 903–933. http://dx .doi.org/10.1518/001872008X375009

Salas, E., Nichols, D. R., & Driskell, J. E. (2007). Testing three team training strategies in intact teams a meta-analysis. Small Group Re- search, 38, 471– 488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496407304332

Salas, E., Priest, H. A., & DeRouin, R. E. (2005). Team building. In N. Stanton, H. Hendrick, S. Konz, K. Parsons, & E. Salas (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods (pp. 48 –1, 48 –5). London, England: Taylor & Francis.

Salas, E., Rosen, M., Burke, C. S., & Goodwin, G. F. (2009). The wisdom of collectives in organizations: An update of the teamwork competen-

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

530 LACERENZA, MARLOW, TANNENBAUM, AND SALAS

cies. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effective- ness in complex organizations (pp. 39 –79) New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104649649903000303

Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36, 555–599. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1177/1046496405277134

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963 721414566448

Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of training and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 74 –101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436661

Schweitzer, L., & Duxbury, L. (2010). Conceptualizing and measuring the virtuality of teams. Information Systems Journal, 20, 267–295. http://dx .doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2009.00326.x

Scott, C., Allen, J. A., Bonilla, D. L., Baran, B. E., & Murphy, D. (2013). Ambiguity and freedom of dissent in post-incident discussion. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 50, 383– 402.

SHRM (Society for Human Resource Management). (2012). Virtual Teams. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/research/surveyfindings/ articles/pages/virtualteams.aspx

Shuffler, M. L., Burke, C. S., Kramer, W. S., & Salas, E. (2013). Leading teams: Past, present, and future perspectives. In M. Rumsey (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership (pp. 144 –166). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Shuffler, M. L., DiazGranados, D., & Salas, E. (2011). There’s a science for that: Team development interventions in organizations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 365–372. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1177/0963721411422054

Siassakos, D., Hasafa, Z., Sibanda, T., Fox, R., Donald, F., Winter, C., & Draycott, T. (2009). Retrospective cohort study of diagnosis-delivery interval with umbilical cord prolapse: The effect of team training. BJOG, 116, 1089 –1096. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02179.x

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, 303–327. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496408317794

Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Sierra, M. J., & Wiese, C. W. (2013). How, when, and why you should measure team performance. In E. Salas, S. I. Tannenbaum, D. Cohen, & G. Latham (Eds.), Developing and enhanc- ing teamwork in organizations (pp. 552–580). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Zeisig, R. L., Acton, B., & McPherson, J. A. (1998). Team dimensional training: A strategy for guided team self-correction. In J. A. Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training (pp. 271–297). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/10278-010

Sonesh, S. C., Gregory, M. E., Hughes, A. M., Feitosa, J., Benishek, L. E., Verhoeven, D., . . . Salas, E. (2015). Team training in obstetrics: A multi-level evaluation. Families, Systems & Health, 33, 250 –261. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/fsh0000148

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues. Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492– 1512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1492

Stagl, K. C., Burke, C. S., Salas, E., & Pierce, L. (2006). Team adaptation: Realizing team synergy. In C. S. Burke, L. G. Pierce, & E. Salas (Eds.), Understanding adaptability: A prerequisite for effective performance within complex environments (pp. 117–141). Amsterdam, the Nether- lands: Elsevier.

Stewart, J. (2006). Transformational leadership: An evolving concept ex- amined through the works of Burns, Bass, Avolio, and Leithwood. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 54, 1–29.

Sundstrom, E., McIntyre, M., Halfhill, T., & Richards, H. (2000). Work groups: From the Hawthorne studies to work teams of the 1990s and beyond. Group Dynamics, 4, 44 – 67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089- 2699.4.1.44

Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Conducting team debriefs that work: Lessons from research and practice. In E. Salas, S. I. Tannenbaum, D. Cohen, & G. Latham (Eds.) Developing and enhancing teamwork in organizations: Evidence-based best practices and guidelines (pp. 488 –519). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

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. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62601-1

Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55, 231–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018720812448394

Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 2–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01396.x

Taylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Chan, D. W. (2005). A meta-analytic review of behavior modeling training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 692–709. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.692

von Thiele Schwarz, U., Hasson, H., & Tafvelin, S. (2016). Leadership training as an occupational health intervention: Improved safety and sustained productivity. Safety Science, 81, 35– 45. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1016/j.ssci.2015.07.020

Wakefield, N., Abbatiello, A., Agarwal, D., Pastakia, K., & van Berkel, A. (2016). Leadership awakened: Generations, teams, science. Oakland, CA: Deloitte University Press. Retrieved from http://dupress.com/articles/ identifying-future-business-leaders-leadership/

Weaver, S. J., Dy, S. M., & Rosen, M. A. (2014). Team-training in healthcare: A narrative synthesis of the literature. British Medical Jour- nal Quality & Safety, 23, 359 –372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs- 2013-001848

Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316, 1036 –1039. http://dx .doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099

Zapp, L. (2001). Use of multiple teaching strategies in the staff develop- ment setting. Journal for Nurses in Staff Development, 17, 206 –212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00124645-200107000-00011

Received February 02, 2017 Revision received December 20, 2017

Accepted December 20, 2017 �

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

y.

531TEAM DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS