Cited by 593Team Dynamics and PerformancePsychology Research and BibliometricsManagement Theory and Practice

A century of work teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

Open access
Mathieu, John E., Hollenbeck, John R., van Knippenberg, Daan, Ilgen, Daniel R.·2017·Journal of Applied Psychology

Abstract

Work groups are a vital link between individuals and organizations. Systematic psychological research on the nature and effects of work groups dates back at least to the Hawthorne studies of the 1920s and 1930s. Yet little to none of this work appeared in the Journal of Applied Psychology until the 1950s when groups were treated primarily as foils against which to compare the performance of individuals. From the 1990s to the present, the volume of research and the nature of topics addressing work group/teams expanded significantly. The authors review the evolution of team research over the past century with a particular focus on that which has appeared in this journal. They chronicle the shift from a focus on individuals within teams, or on individual versus team comparisons, to a focus on the team itself and larger systems of teams. They describe the major outcomes studied within this literature, and how they relate to the nature of team tasks and structures. Further, the authors consider the roles of team members' characteristics and composition, and team dynamics in terms of processes and emergent states. They close with a call for future research that models dynamic team relationships in context and as they operate in complex systems. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/apl0000128

Cites

176 of 176 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Team effectiveness outcomes are multidimensional and include performance, team viability, and the impact of the team on members' development.

    “Team effectiveness outcomes are multidimensional and include performance (i.e., productivity, efficiency, and quality of the team’s work), team viability, and the impact of the team on members’ development [12, 17–19].”

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 177 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mathieu, J. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., van Knippenberg, D., & Ilgen, D. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Connecticut (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Published
2017
Volume
102
Issue
3
Pages
452-467
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
OpenAlex
W2584772404
Cited by
593
References
177
Citations by year
2026: 76 · 2025: 75 · 2024: 81 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
58.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management Theory and Practice
Keywords
work teams, Hawthorne studies, team performance, team composition, team member characteristics, team dynamics, team system, complex systems, emergent states
MeSH terms
Group Processes, Humans, Psychology, Applied, Work, History, 20th Century, History, 21st Century

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