Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Assessing Collaboration Within and Between Teams: A Multiteam Systems Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Innovative Assessment of Collaboration

Part of the book series: Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment ((MEMA))

Abstract

Developing assessment methods that capture an individual’s capability to collaborate can look to the team and multiteam systems literature, which identifies six critical components of collaboration. These six include team affect/motivation, team interaction processes, and team cognition, as well as corresponding constructs at the system level, multiteam affect/motivation, between-team interaction, and multiteam cognition. This chapter defines and distinguishes teams and multiteam systems and discusses the importance of that distinction for assessing individual collaborative capacity in both small stand-alone teams and larger systems of teams working toward superordinate goals. Particularly, we describe confluent and countervailing forces—the notion that what enables team functioning and effectiveness may or may not also enable the multiteam system effectiveness. Assessments of individual contributions to team and multiteam dynamics must consider the implications to functioning both within and between teams.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Austin, J. (2003). Transactive memory in organizational groups: The effects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy in group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 866–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3(1), 14–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, 91, 109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 223–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davison, R. B. (2012). Implications of regulatory mode and fit for goal commitment, identity and performance in the domain of multiteam systems. Dissertation, Michigan State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison, R. B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Barnes, C. M., Sleesman, D. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2012). Coordinated action in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 808–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, T. A., Walter, F., Van der Vegt, G. S., & Essens, P. J. (2014). Antecedents of individuals’ interteam coordination: Broad functional experiences as a mixed blessing. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1334–1359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeChurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. (2006). Leadership in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeChurch, L. A., & Mathieu, J. E. (2009). Thinking in terms of multiteam systems. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 267–292). New York: Taylor & Francis).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeChurch, L. A., Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Doty, D. (2013). Moving beyond relationship and task conflict: Toward a process-state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(4), 559–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeChurch, L. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2010). Perspectives: Teams won’t solve this problem. Human Factors, 52(2), 329–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeChurch, L. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2013). Innovation in scientific multiteam systems: Confluent & countervailing forces. Paper presented to the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Team Science. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved April 5, 2016, from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_083773.pdf

  • DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, S. W., Schmidt, A. M., Milner, K. R., & Wiechmann, D. (2004). A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1035–1056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiRosa, G. (2013). Emergent phenomena in multiteam systems: An examination of between-team cohesion. Dissertation, George Mason University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L., Schacter, S., & Back, K. W. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firth, B. M., Hollenbeck, J. R., Miles, J. E., Ilgen, D. R., & Barnes, C. M. (2015). Same page, different books: Extending representational gaps theory to enhance performance in multiteam systems. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 813–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 819–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jimenez-Rodriguez, M. (2012). Two pathways to performance: Affective and motivationally driven development in virtual multiteam systems. Dissertation, University of Central Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20(2), 403–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanaj, K., Hollenbeck, J., Ilgen, D., Barnes, C., & Harmon, S. (2013). The double-edged sword of decentralized planning in multiteam systems. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 735–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 273–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, K., Lange, D., & Gillis, L. (2005). Transactive memory systems, learning, and learning transfer. Organization Science, 16(6), 581–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, D. W., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 384–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littlepage, G. E., Hollingshead, A. B., Drake, L. R., & Littlepage, A. M. (2008). Transactive memory and performance in work groups: Specificity, communication, ability differences, and work allocation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12(3), 223–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, M. A., DeChurch, L. A., Mathieu, J. E., Panzer, F. J., & Alonso, A. (2005). Teamwork in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 964–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. The Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J. E., Marks, M. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). Multiteam systems. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 289–313). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Taylor, S. R., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M. (2007). An examination of the effects of organizational district and team contexts on team processes and performance: A meso-mediational model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(7), 891–910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 535–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, R. L. (1999). Transactive memory: Learning who knows what in work groups and organizations. In L. Thompson, J. Levine, & D. Messick, (Eds.). Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge (pp. 3–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (1996). Socially shared cognition at work: Transactive memory and group performance. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups (pp. 57–84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, B., & Cooper, C. (1994). The relationship between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murase, T., Carter, D. R., DeChurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. (2014). Mind the gap: The role of leadership in multiteam system collective cognition. Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 972–986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas E., Rosen M. A., Burke C. S., & Goodwin, G. F. (2009). The wisdom of collectives in organizations: An update of the teamwork competencies. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 39–79). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-analysis of their relationships, and a test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 814–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesluk, P., Mathieu, J. E., Zaccaro, S. J., & Marks, M. (1997). Task and aggregation issues in the analysis and assessment of team performance. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. W. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 197–224). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. Chicago: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Davier, A. A., & Halpin, P. F. (2013). Collaborative problem solving and the assessment of cognitive skills: Psychometric considerations. Research Report 41-13. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. https://www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/publications/report/2013/jrps

  • Zaccaro, S. J., Marks, M. A., & DeChurch, L. A. (2012). Multiteam systems: An introduction. In S. J. Zaccaro, M. A. Marks, & L. A. DeChurch (Eds.), Multiteam systems: An organization form for dynamic and complex environments (pp. 3–31). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank our research collaborators, especially Noshir Contractor and Steve Zaccaro, who have generously contributed to many of the ideas in this chapter through insightful discussions. The preparation of this chapter was supported by the Army Research Institute for the Social and Behavioral Sciences under contract W5J9CQ12C0017, and the Army Research Office under contract W911NF-14-1-0686. The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this report are those of the authors, and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision, unless so designated by other documents.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Purdue University, 403 W State St., West Lafayette, IN, 47901, USA

    Raquel Asencio

  2. Northwestern University, Evanston, USA

    Leslie A. DeChurch

Authors
  1. Raquel Asencio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leslie A. DeChurch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raquel Asencio .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ACT , Iowa City, Iowa, USA

    Alina A. von Davier

  2. Research and Development Division, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, USA

    Mengxiao Zhu

  3. Research and Development Division, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, USA

    Patrick C. Kyllonen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Asencio, R., DeChurch, L.A. (2017). Assessing Collaboration Within and Between Teams: A Multiteam Systems Perspective. In: von Davier, A., Zhu, M., Kyllonen, P. (eds) Innovative Assessment of Collaboration. Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33261-1_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33261-1_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-33259-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-33261-1

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation