The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Teamwork Behaviors: A Review and an Integration of Frameworks
Abstract
The existing body of literature on teamwork behaviors is substantial and offers many different conceptualizations. However, there is a lack of consensus concerning the conceptual structure of teamwork behaviors. Many researchers pursue their own work without any attempt to build on and integrate the work of others. This article reviews the frameworks of teamwork behaviors in the literature on work teams and provides a way of integrating these frameworks. The behavioral dimensions included in this integrative framework are conceptually distinguished and arranged in a hierarchical conceptual structure based on theoretical approaches. Moreover, they are framed from the perspective of the timing of teamwork behaviors to clarify when these behaviors are most likely to have their intended effects. The proposed framework is then connected to the task conditions under which teamwork behaviors are most likely to facilitate collective task accomplishment. Finally, future directions for research regarding teamwork behaviors are discussed.
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
Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310 · Cited by 18,093
Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.57.9.705 · Cited by 7,766
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
What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639702300303 · Cited by 3,526
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
Determinants of Coordination Modes within Organizations
Ven, A. H. V. D., Delbecq, A. L., & Koenig, R. (1976) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2094477 · Cited by 1,979
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
Task complexity: Definition of the construct
Wood, R. E. (1986) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90044-0 · Cited by 1,393
Cited by
Teamwork and patient safety in dynamic domains of healthcare: A review of the literature
MANSER, T. (2009) · Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/j.1399-6576.2008.01717.x · Cited by 1,322
Collaboration Through Open Superposition: A Theory of the Open Source Way1
Howison, J., & Crowston, K. (2014) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2014/38.1.02 · Cited by 175
Choi, O.-K., & Cho, E. (2019) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.032 · Cited by 136
Peñarroja, V., Orengo, V., Zornoza, A., & Hernández, A. (2013) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.020 · Cited by 89
McGuier, E. A., Kolko, D. J., Stadnick, N. A., Brookman-Frazee, L., Wolk, C. B., Yuan, C. T., Burke, C. S., & Aarons, G. A. (2023) · Implementation Research and Practice · doi:10.1177/26334895231190855 · Cited by 34
Metadata
- Authors
- Rousseau, V., Aubé, C., & Savoie, A.
- Venue
- Small Group Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-10
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 540-570
- ISSN
- 1046-4964 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8278
- OpenAlex
- W2169708689
- Cited by
- 388
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 16.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
