The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding and Improving Teamwork in Organizations: A Scientifically Based Practical Guide
Open accessAbstract
Teams are pervasive in today's world, and rightfully so as we need them. Drawing upon the existing extensive body of research surrounding the topic of teamwork, we delineate nine “critical considerations” that serve as a practical heuristic by which HR leaders can determine what is needed when they face situations involving teamwork. Our heuristic is not intended to be the definitive set of all considerations for teamwork, but instead consolidates key findings from a vast literature to provide an integrated understanding of the underpinnings of teamwork—specifically, what should be considered when selecting, developing, and maintaining teams. This heuristic is designed to help those in practice diagnose team‐based problems by providing a clear focus on relevant aspects of teamwork. To this end, we first define teamwork and its related elements. Second, we offer a high‐level conceptualization of and justification for the nine selected considerations underlying the heuristic, which is followed by a more in‐depth synthesis of related literature as well as empirically‐driven practical guidance. Third, we conclude with a discussion regarding how this heuristic may best be used from a practical standpoint, as well as offer areas for future research regarding both teamwork and its critical considerations. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1956) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0043158 · Cited by 17,812
The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004) · Political Psychology · doi:10.4324/9780203505984-16 · Cited by 13,467 · cited 1×
“Social identity theory and social categorization (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, 1987) suggest that if individuals perceive others as similar to themselves, this similarity is associated with a set of predetermined assumptions and a sense of predictability and comfort.”
BackgroundPsychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams
Edmondson, A. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2666999 · Cited by 12,026
An integrative model of organizational trust
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258792 · Cited by 10,736
Developmental sequence in small groups.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0022100 · Cited by 5,778
A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict
Jehn, K. A. (1995) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393638 · Cited by 4,050
A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259182 · Cited by 3,659
Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741 · Cited by 3,071 · cited 3×
“De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 Meta-analysis Examined the relationships of task and relationship confl ict with team performance and member satisfaction, fi nding differential effects for these two types of cohesion.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialEnhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x · Cited by 2,623
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909 · Cited by 2,606
Teams in Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250 · Cited by 2,273
Is there a “Big Five” in Teamwork?
Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005) · Small Group Research · doi:10.1177/1046496405277134 · Cited by 1,930
Self-citationWhat Differences Make a Difference?: The Promise and Reality of Diverse Teams in Organizations
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.x · Cited by 1,276
Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0013773 · Cited by 1,273 · cited 4×
“Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009 Meta-analysis Examined the relationship between information sharing and team performance, fi nding that information sharing uniqueness and openness have different effects on team performance.”
BackgroundInfluentialGibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.51.3.451 · Cited by 1,152 · cited 1×
“In particular, these teams may have more difficulty establishing and maintaining goals (Hertel, Konradt, & Orlikowski, 2004), as well as developing personal relationships, cohesion, and trust (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006).”
BackgroundPrice, K. H., Harrison, D. A., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/3069328 · Cited by 583
Bradley, B. H., Postlethwaite, B. E., Klotz, A. C., Hamdani, M. R., & Brown, K. G. (2012) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0024200 · Cited by 454
Cited by
Thornhill-Miller, B., Camarda, A., Mercier, M., Burkhardt, J.-M., Morisseau, T., Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Vinchon, F., El Hayek, S., Augereau-Landais, M., Mourey, F., et al. (2023) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence11030054 · Cited by 768
The complexity, diversity, and science of primary care teams.
Fiscella, K., & McDaniel, S. H. (2018) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0000244 · Cited by 155
Creating high performance teamwork in organizations
O'Neill, T. A., & Salas, E. (2018) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.09.001 · Cited by 108
Self-citationA multifaceted vision of the human-AI collaboration: a comprehensive review
Puerta-Beldarrain, M., Gómez-Carmona, O., Sánchez-Corcuera, R., Casado-Mansilla, D., López-de-Ipiña, D., & Chen, L. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3536095 · Cited by 73
Akgun, M., & Toker, S. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790980 · Cited by 2
“These adaptations were informed by recent research in educational technology and human–AI collaboration [12, 18, 46, 53].”
Metadata
- Authors
- Salas, E., Shuffler, M. L., Thayer, A. L., Bedwell, W. L., & Lazzara, E. H.
- Venue
- Human Resource Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-10-29
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 599-622
- ISSN
- 0090-4848 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-050X
- OpenAlex
- W1767868569
- Cited by
- 528
- References
- 17
- FWCI
- 23.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
