Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Work Teams Research

Recent Findings and Future Trends

  • Chapter
Work Teams: Past, Present and Future

Part of the book series: Social Indicators Research Series ((SINS,volume 6))

Abstract

Research relevant to work teams conducted since 1985 is reviewed with specific reference to whether or not it has addressed five key boundary conditions. These boundary conditions include sampling strategies, team contextual effects, organizational contextual effects, task and technology, and temporal influences. It is determined that strong progress in several areas of theory and research on work teams is being made but some areas still require increased attention. Directions for future theory and research are suggested.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Alderfer, C.P, (1987). An intergroup perspective on group dynamics. In J.W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anacona, D. G. (1987). Groups in organizations: Extending laboratory models. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Annual review of personality and social psychology: Group processes and intergroup relations (pp. 207–230). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anacona, D.G., & Caldwell, D.F. (1988). Beyond task and maintenance: Defining external functions in groups. Group and Organization Studies, 13, 468–494. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., & McGrath, J. E. (1993). Group processes in organizations: Continuity and change. In C. L. Cooper and I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333–389). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrick, M. R., & Alexander, R. A. (1987). A review of quality circle efficacy and the existence of positive-findings bias. Personnel Psychology, 40, 579–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991). Five years of group research: What we have learned and what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17, 345–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyerlein, M, Johnson, D. A., & Beyerlein, S. (1994–1998). Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brannick, M. T., & Prince, C. (1997). An overview of team performance measurement. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, and C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement (pp. 3–16). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brannick, M. T., Salas, E., & Prince, C. (Eds.). (1997). Team performance assessment and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Oser, R., & Flanagan, D. L. (1992). Work teams in industry: A selected review and proposed framework. In R. W. Swezey and E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 355–378). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. G., Chang, L., & Ledford, G. E., Jr. (1997). A hierarchical construct of self-management leadership and its relationship to quality of work life and perceived work group effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 50, 275–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J. J. (1977). A study of potential contributions of small group behavior research to team training technology. (Contract No. N0014–76-C-1076). Alexandria, VA: Essex Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comstock, D. E., & Scott, W. R. (1977). Technology and the structure of subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 177–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coovert, M. D., & McNelis, K. (1992). Team decision making and performance: A review and proposed modeling approach employing petri nets. In R. W. Swezey and E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 247–280). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crown, D. F., & Rosse, J. G. (1995). Yours, mine, and ours: Facilitating group productivity through the integration of individual and group goals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 138–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H. (1992). Some compelling intuitions about group consensus decisions, theoretical and empirical research, and interpersonal aggregation phenomena: Selected examples, 1950–1990. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 3–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H., & Kerr, N. L. (1986). Thought experiments and the problem of sparse data in small-group research. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 305–349). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A. R., & Valacich, J. S. (1993). Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 531–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1992). Can you study real teams in contrived settings? The value of small group research to understanding teams. In R. W. Swezey and E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 101–124). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedlander, F. (1987). The ecology of work groups. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 301–314). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallupe, R. B., Bastianutti, L. M., & Cooper, W. H. (1991). Unblocking brainstorms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 137–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallupe, R. B., Cooper, W. H., Grise, M. L., & Bastianutti, L. M. (1994). Blocking electronic brainstorms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 77–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 15, 107–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, J. M., & James, L. R. (1993). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups revisited: A comment on aggregation, levels of analysis, and a recent application of within and between analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 798–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 9–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gersick, C. J. G. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 274–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gersick, C. J. G., & Hackman, J. R. (1990). Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 65–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginnett, R. C. (1990). Airline cockpit crew. In J. R. Hackman (Ed.), Groups that work (and those that don’t) (pp. 427–448). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gladstein, D. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, P. S. (1986) The impact of task and technology on group performance. In P. Goodman and Associates (Eds.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 120–167). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, P. S., & Garber, S. (1988). Absenteeism and accidents in a dangerous environment: Empirical analysis of underground coal mines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(1), 81–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, P. S., & Leyden, D. P. (1991). Familiarity and group productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 578–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, P. S., Ravlin, E., & Schminke, M. (1987). Understanding groups in organizations. In B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 121–173). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregorich, S. E., Helmreich, R. L., & Wilhelm, J. A. (1990). The structure of cockpit management attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 682–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gully, S. M. (1994, April). Repeated measures regression analyses: A clarification with illustrative examples. Paper presented at the Ninth Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of levels of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26(4), 497–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, R. A., Salas, E., and Associates. Editors. (1995). Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (Eds.,), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 269–313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 199–267). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herold, D. M. (1978). Improving the performance effectiveness of groups through a task-contingent selection of intervention strategies. Academy of Management Review, 3, 315–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Sego, D. J. (1994). Repeated measures regression and mediational tests: Enhancing the power of leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyatt, D. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (1997). An examination of the relationship between work group characteristics and performance: Once more into the breech. Personnel Psychology, 50, 553–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D. R., Major, D. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Sego, D. J. (1993). Team research in the 1990s. In M. M. Chemers and R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research (pp. 245–270). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. E., & Ruderman, M. N. (Eds.). (1995). Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: A systems view. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 23–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keck, S. L., & Tushman, M. L. (1993). Environmental and organizational context and executive team structure. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1314–1344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, R. T. (1994). Technology-information processing fit and the performance of R&D project groups: A test of contingency theory. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 167–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1985). Effects of time limits and task types on task performance and interaction of four-person groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 395–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 96–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 185–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, D. L., Luh, P. B., Pattipati, K. R., & Serfaty, D. (1992). Mathematical models of team performance: A distributed decision-making approach. In R. W. Swezey and E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 177–217). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodny, H., & Kiggundu, M. N. (1980). Towards the development of a socio-technical systems model in woodland mechanical harvesting. Human Relations, 33, 623–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., McHugh, P., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). A dynamic theory of leadership and team effectiveness: Developmental and task contingent leader roles. To appear in G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 14, pp. 253–305). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., & Smith, E. M. (forthcoming). Team compilation: Development, performance, and effectiveness across levels and time. To appear in D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of work and performance: Implications for staffing, personnel actions, and development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Team leadership and development: Theory, principles, and guidelines for training leaders and teams. To appear in M. Beyerlein (Ed.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Team leadership (Vol. 3, 253–291). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, R. L., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41,585–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (1995). Efficacy-performance spirals: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 20, 645–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manz, C. C, & Sims, H. P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J. E., & Day, D. V. (1997). Assessing processes within and between organizational teams: A nuclear power plant example. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement (pp. 173–195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsui, T., Kakuyama, T., & Onglatco, M. L. U. (1987). Effects of goals and feedback on performance in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 407–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E. (1986). Studying groups at work: Ten critical needs for theory and practice. In P. Goodman and Associates (Eds.), Designing effective work groups (pp. 362–391). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E. (1990). Time matters in groups. In J. Galegher, R. E. Kraut, & C. Egido (Eds.), Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, J. E. (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small Group Research, 22, 147–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, T. R., & Silver, W. S. (1990). Individual and group goals when workers are interdependent: Effects on task strategies and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 15, 185–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38, 379–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1988). Group dynamics over time: Development and socialization in small groups. In J. E. McGrath (Ed.), The social psychology of time: New perspectives (pp. 151–181). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1989). Newcomers and oldtimers in groups. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 143–186). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1992). The composition of small groups. In E. E. Lawler, III., B. Markovsky, C. Ridgeway, & H. Walker (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 9, pp. 237–280). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, B. B., Jr., Glickman, A. S., Woodard, E. A., Blaiwes, A. S. & Salas, E. (1986). Measurement of team behaviors in Navy environment (Technical Report NTSC TR-86–014). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Martocchio, J. J., & Frink, D. D. (1994). A review of the influence of group goals on group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1285–1301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orasanu, J., & Salas, E. (1993). Team decision making in complex environments. In G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, and C. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 327–345). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Passmore, W. A. (1988). Designing effective organizations: The Socio-technical perspective. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review, 32, 194–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, R. D., Jones, S. D., Roth, P. L., Stuebing, K. K., & Ekeberg, S. E. (1988). Effects of group feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 337–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, K. H., Hulin, C. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1978). Developing an interdisciplinary science of organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. In B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 1–37). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L, Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In R. W. Swezey and E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sashkin, M., & Sashkin, M. G. (1994). The new teamwork: Developing and using cross-function teams. New York: AMA Membership Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 118–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987a). Groups as human resources. In K. M. Rowland and G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 5, pp. 323–356). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987b). Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review, 28, 35–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus, S. G., & McGrath, J. E. (1994). Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swezey, R. W., & Salas, E., (Eds.). (1992). Teams: Their training and performance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., & Salas, E. (1992). Team building and its influence on team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Advances in psychology: Issues, theory, and research in industrial/organizational psychology (Vol. 82, pp. 117–153). New York: North-Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L. L., Mannix, E. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (1988). Group negotiation: Effects of decision rule, agenda, and aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 86–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting. Human Relations, 4, 3–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tziner, A., & Eden, D. (1985). Effects of crew composition on crew performance: Does the whole equal the sum of its parts? Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 85–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. L., & Koenig, R. (1976). Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 41, 322–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelson, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogenous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, L. R. (1992). Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and planning on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 11, 682–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, L. R., & Weldon, E. (1991). Processes the mediate the relationship between a group goal and group member performance. Human Performance, 4, 33–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaccaro, S. J. (1991). Nonequivalent associations between forms of cohesiveness and group-related outcomes: Evidence for multidimensionality. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131,387–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaccaro, S., & Lowe, C. (1988). Cohesiveness and performance on an additive task: Evidence for multidimensionality. Journal of Social Psychology, 128(4), 547–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaccaro, S., & McCoy, M. C. (1988). The effects of task and interpersonal cohesiveness on performance of a disjunctive group task. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(10), 837–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA

    Stanley Gully

Authors
  1. Stanley Gully
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for the Study of Work Teams, Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, USA

    Michael M. Beyerlein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gully, S. (2000). Work Teams Research. In: Beyerlein, M.M. (eds) Work Teams: Past, Present and Future. Social Indicators Research Series, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9492-9_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9492-9_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5609-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9492-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation