research paper about teamwork

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The Effectiveness of Teamwork Training on Teamwork Behaviors and Team Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Interventions

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation School of Kinesiology, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Affiliation Departments of Kinesiology/Physical Education and Psychology, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Affiliation Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

• Desmond McEwan, 
• Geralyn R. Ruissen, 
• Mark A. Eys, 
• Bruno D. Zumbo, 
• Mark R. Beauchamp

• Published: January 13, 2017
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169604
• Reader Comments

The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of teamwork interventions that were carried out with the purpose of improving teamwork and team performance, using controlled experimental designs. A literature search returned 16,849 unique articles. The meta-analysis was ultimately conducted on 51 articles, comprising 72 ( k ) unique interventions, 194 effect sizes, and 8439 participants, using a random effects model. Positive and significant medium-sized effects were found for teamwork interventions on both teamwork and team performance. Moderator analyses were also conducted, which generally revealed positive and significant effects with respect to several sample, intervention, and measurement characteristics. Implications for effective teamwork interventions as well as considerations for future research are discussed.

Citation: McEwan D, Ruissen GR, Eys MA, Zumbo BD, Beauchamp MR (2017) The Effectiveness of Teamwork Training on Teamwork Behaviors and Team Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Interventions. PLoS ONE 12(1): e0169604. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169604

Editor: Nico W. Van Yperen, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, NETHERLANDS

Received: September 15, 2016; Accepted: December 19, 2016; Published: January 13, 2017

Copyright: © 2017 McEwan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Raw data (taken from the studies in our meta-analysis) are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

From road construction crews and professional soccer squads to political parties and special operations corps, teams have become a ubiquitous part of today’s world. Bringing a group of highly-skilled individuals together is not sufficient for teams to be effective. Rather, team members need to be able to work well together in order for the team to successfully achieve its purposes [ 1 , 2 ]. As a result, there has been a proliferation of research assessing whether, and how, teams can be improved through teamwork training. A wide range of studies have shown positive effects of teamwork interventions for improving team effectiveness across several contexts such as health care (e.g., [ 3 ]), military (e.g., [ 4 ]), aviation (e.g., [ 5 ]), and academic (e.g., [ 6 ]) settings. Similarly, improvements in teamwork have been observed as a result of training with a variety of team types including new teams (e.g., [ 7 ]), intact teams (e.g., [ 8 ]), and those created for laboratory-based experiments (e.g., [ 9 ]). In sum, the extant empirical evidence to date appears to suggest that teams can be improved via teamwork training.

What is Teamwork?

Within teams, members’ behaviors can be categorized in terms of both taskwork and teamwork processes [ 2 ]. Marks et al. [ 10 ] differentiated between the two by suggesting that “taskwork represents what it is that teams are doing, whereas teamwork describes how they are doing it with each other” (p. 357). Specifically, while taskwork involves the execution of core technical competencies within a given domain, teamwork refers to the range of interactive and interdependent behavioral processes among team members that convert team inputs (e.g., member characteristics, organizational funding, team member composition) into outcomes (e.g., team performance, team member satisfaction) [ 2 , 10 ]. Some examples of teamwork (and respective comparisons to taskwork) include: the seamless communication between a surgeon, nurse, and anaesthesiologist, rather than the technical competencies of these practitioners; the synergy between a quarterback and receiver to complete a passing play, rather than their respective skill sets related to throwing or catching a football; the collaborative adjustments a flight crew makes in response to adverse weather or system problems, rather than each individual’s aviation skills; and so forth. Research from an assortment of studies indicates that teamwork—the focus of the current paper—is positively related to important team effectiveness variables, including team performance, group cohesion, collective efficacy, and member satisfaction [ 1 ].

Teamwork has been conceptualized within several theoretical models. For example, in their review, Rousseau et al. [ 2 ] reported that 29 frameworks related to teamwork have been published. Although there is much overlap across these models, there are also some notable differences. These relate to the number of dimensions of teamwork being conceptualized as well as the specific labelling of these dimensions. One thing that is generally agreed upon, however, is that teamwork is comprised of multiple observable and measurable behaviors . For instance, two highly cited frameworks by Marks et al. [ 10 ] and Rousseau et al. [ 2 ] consist of 10 and 14 dimensions of teamwork, respectively. In general, teamwork models focus on behaviors that function to (a) regulate a team’s performance and/or (b) keep the team together. These two components coincide with the two respective processes that Kurt Lewin, the widely recognized father of group dynamics, originally proposed all groups to be involved in: locomotion and maintenance [ 11 ].

With regard to regulating team performance (i.e., locomotion), teamwork behaviors include those that occur (a) before/in preparation for team task performance, (b) during the execution of team performance, and (c) after completing the team task [ 2 ]. First, with regard to teamwork behaviors that occur before/in preparation for team task performance, these include the active process of defining the team’s overall purpose/mission, setting team goals, and formulating action plans/strategies for how goals and broader purposes will be achieved. These behaviors help ensure that all team members are clear in terms of what is required of them in order for the team to function effectively. Second, teamwork behaviors that occur during the execution of team tasks include actions that correspond to members’ communication, coordination, and cooperation with each other. At this stage, team members translate what they have previously planned (during the preparation phase) into action. Third, in terms of teamwork behaviors that occur after completing the team task (i.e., reflection), these include monitoring important situations and conducting post-task appraisals of the team’s performance and system variables (e.g., internal team resources, broader environmental conditions), solving problems that are precluding team goal attainment, making innovative adjustments to the team’s strategy, and providing/receiving verbal and behavioral assistance to/from teammates. Hence, team members determine whether their actions have moved them closer towards accomplishing the team goals and objectives, and whether any modifications are required in order to facilitate future success. In addition to these three dimensions concerned with the regulation of team performance, a fourth dimension of teamwork involves behaviors that function to keep the team together (i.e., maintenance). These behaviors focus on the team’s interpersonal dynamics , and include the management of interpersonal conflict between members and the provision of social support for members experiencing personal difficulties. Managing interpersonal dynamics is critical as it is theorized that teams cannot operate effectively when these issues are present [ 2 ].

How Can Teamwork Be Trained?

Teamwork interventions have utilized a number of training methods in order to target the regulation of team performance (i.e., preparation, execution, reflection) and management of team maintenance (i.e., interpersonal dynamics) dimensions. These intervention strategies generally fall under one of four categories. First, the most basic approach to training and developing teamwork involves providing didactic education to team members in a classroom-type setting, such as lecturing about the importance of providing social support within the team or promoting ways to manage interpersonal conflict among teammates. This type of training has been found to be useful for enhancing team effectiveness (e.g., [ 12 ]). A second category of team training involves utilizing a more interactive workshop-style format, wherein team members take part in various group activities, such as having discussions about the team’s purposes and goals (e.g., [ 13 ]) or working through case studies together (e.g. [ 14 ]). The third broad category of team training involves simulation training, wherein teams experientially enact various teamwork skills, such as interpersonal communication and coordination, in an environment that mimics upcoming team tasks (e.g., airline simulators or medical patient manikins). Although often used as a means of fostering taskwork competencies (e.g., teaching new surgeons how to perform the technical skills of a medical operation), simulation training has been found to be an efficacious approach to teamwork intervention (e.g., [ 15 ]). In addition to these three training approaches that occur outside of the team task environment (i.e., training within classroom and simulation settings), teamwork can also be fostered by incorporating team reviews in-situ (i.e., where the team actually performs its tasks), which allows teams to monitor/review their quality of teamwork on an ongoing basis. These team reviews involve some form of team briefs before (e.g., creating action plans), during (e.g., monitoring team members’ actions), and/or after (e.g., assessing the team’s performance) team task execution, and have also been shown to be efficacious in previous studies (e.g., [ 16 ]).

The effectiveness of teamwork interventions can be determined with an assortment of criteria, including team- and individually-based behaviors, cognitions, and affective states. Hackman and Katz 2010 [ 17 ] posit that team effectiveness can be determined by examining the extent to which the team has achieved its a priori objectives. Since the broad purpose of forming a team is to produce something of value, it is perhaps unsurprising that the most widely tested criterion of team effectiveness has been team performance [ 18 – 20 ]. Thus, although teams come from an array of settings and are idiosyncratic in their own ways, one question that essentially all teams address at some point during their tenure is whether they are performing well. For example, is that road construction crew fixing potholes adequately? Does the local soccer squad have a respectable winning percentage? Has an elected political party successfully completed the tasks for which they campaigned? Did a special operations corps achieve the mission it set out to accomplish? When taken in concert, questions related to team performance are often of central interest when characterizing a team’s effectiveness.

In addition to assessing the outcome variable of team performance, researchers have also been interested in whether teamwork training actually improves teamwork itself. The efficacy of these interventions can be determined with a number of objective (e.g., products produced by an industry team), self-report (e.g., questionnaires regarding perceived social support amongst team members), and third-party assessments (e.g., expert ratings of team behaviors). Both general/omnibus measures of teamwork (e.g., [ 21 ]) as well as those assessing specific dimensions of teamwork (e.g., communication [ 22 ]) have been operationalized to examine the effectiveness of these interventions. For example, do team goal setting activities actually result in members creating and pursuing effective team goals? Does simulation training improve the requisite coordination processes among aviation cockpit crews? Has a didactic lecture contributed to improved conflict management among team members? Answering these types of questions is important for determining whether an intervention is actually efficacious in changing the variable that is targeted for improvement (i.e., teamwork behaviors).

The Current Review

Prior to outlining the purposes of this systematic review, it is important to recognize that previous quantitative reviews have been conducted that addressed—to some degree—teamwork training. In preparation for this systematic review, we conducted a scoping review which revealed that eight previous meta-analyses have assessed teamwork intervention studies in some way. However, these reviews were delimited based on various sample and/or intervention characteristics. For example, some reviews included studies that were only conducted with certain team types (e.g., intact teams [ 23 ]) or within a particular context (e.g., sports [ 24 ]; medical teams [ 25 ]). Others were delimited to specific training programs/strategies that were restricted to a narrow range of teamwork strategies (e.g., [ 23 , 25 – 29 ]). Finally, studies that used a combination of teamwork and taskwork intervention components have been systematically reviewed [ 30 ]; however, these types of interventions result in a limited ability to determine the extent to which the resulting effects were due to teamwork training versus taskwork training.

It should also be noted that all but one [ 23 ] of these previous reviews pooled together studies that included a control condition (i.e., wherein teams do not receive any type of teamwork training) and those that did not (as mentioned above, that study only analyzed the effects of certain teamwork strategies). This is an important consideration, as it has been suggested that controlled and uncontrolled studies should not be combined into the same meta-analysis due to differences in study quality (which is a major source of heterogeneity) and since stronger conclusions can be derived from controlled interventions compared to uncontrolled interventions (e.g., [ 31 ]). Therefore, while previous systematic reviews have provided valuable contributions to the teamwork literature, a systematic review that assesses the effects of controlled teamwork interventions across a range of contexts, team types, and involving those that targeted diverse dimensions of teamwork appears warranted. In doing so, a more comprehensive assessment of the efficacy of these teamwork interventions is provided, while also having the capacity to look at the potential moderating effects of various sample, intervention, and measurement characteristics. Moreover, by including only controlled studies, one is able to make stronger conclusions regarding the observed effects.

The overall purpose of this study was to better understand the utility of teamwork training for enhancing team effectiveness. Specifically, a meta-analysis was conducted on controlled studies (i.e., comparing teams who have received teamwork training with those who have not) that have examined the effects of teamwork interventions on teamwork processes and/or team performance. To better disentangle the effectiveness of these studies, we also sought to assess potential moderators of these main effects; that is, to determine whether there are certain conditions under which the independent variable of teamwork training more strongly (or weakly) causally influences the dependent variables of teamwork behaviors or team performance [ 32 ]. The specific moderators that we assessed included: (a) the team context/field of study, (b) the type of teams that were trained, (c) the primary type of intervention method employed, (d) the dimensions of teamwork that were targeted in the intervention, (e) the number of dimensions targeted, (f) the types of measures used to quantify the training effects, and (g) in studies where teamwork was assessed as an outcome variable, the dimensions of teamwork that were measured. It was hypothesized that teamwork training would have a positive and significant effect on both teamwork and team performance and that these effects would be evident across a range of the aforementioned sample, intervention, and measurement characteristics/conditions.

Literature Search

Searches for potential articles were conducted in the following databases: PsycInfo , Medline , Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials , SportDiscus , and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses . Hand searches were also conducted across thirteen journals that typically publish articles on group dynamics (e.g., Group Dynamics : Theory , Research , and Practice ; Small Group Research , Journal of Applied Psychology ; Personnel Psychology , Human Factors ; Academy of Management Journal , Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology ). In each database and journal search, the following combination of search terms were used: ( team OR interprofessional OR interdisciplinary ) AND ( intervention OR training OR building OR simulation ) AND ( teamwork OR mission analysis OR goal specification OR goal setting OR planning OR strategy OR coordination OR cooperation OR communication OR information exchange OR information sharing OR monitoring OR problem solving OR backing up OR coaching OR innovation OR adaptability OR feedback OR support OR conflict management OR situation awareness OR confidence building OR affect management ). These terms were based on various models of teamwork that exist within the literature (see Rousseau et al. [ 2 ] for an overview of these models). An additional search was conducted within these databases and journals using the search terms ( TeamSTEPPS OR Crew Resource Management OR SBAR [Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation]), as several articles in the initial search used these specific training programs. We also searched the reference sections of the articles from past teamwork training review papers as well as from articles that initially met inclusion criteria to determine if any additional articles could be retrieved. The searches were conducted in September 2015 and no time limits were placed on the search strategy. Each article was first subjected to title elimination, then abstract elimination, and finally full-text elimination.

Eligibility Criteria

To be included in the meta-analysis, a study needed to examine the effects of teamwork training by comparing teams in an experimental condition (i.e., those who received teamwork training) with those in a control condition (i.e., where teams did not receive teamwork training). Cross-sectional/non-experimental studies were excluded, as were intervention studies that did not include a control condition. As this review was only concerned with teamwork interventions, studies that focused on training taskwork—whether independent of, or in addition to, a teamwork intervention—were excluded. For example, as previously mentioned, simulation-based training (SBT) has been used as a means of training individuals to perform technical skills and also to enhance teamwork. In order for a SBT intervention to be included in this meta-analysis, it had to be clear that only teamwork (not technical skills) was being targeted during training. In order to address our primary research question, the study had to provide data on at least one teamwork dimension and/or team performance. The study also needed to provide sufficient statistics to compute an effect size. In cases of insufficient data, corresponding authors were contacted for this information. The articles were delimited to those published in the English language.

Data Analysis

Articles that met the aforementioned eligibility criteria were extracted for effect sizes and coded independently with respect to seven moderators by two of the authors (DM and GR). Interrater reliability for the coding of these moderators was over 90%, kappa (SE) = 0.80 (0.01). The moderators examined were based on a scoping review (the purpose of which included identifying pertinent characteristics that were commonly reported in previous teamwork intervention research), which was conducted in preparation for this systematic review. The moderators that were examined in this review included (1) the context within which an intervention was conducted ( health care , aviation , military , academia , industry , or laboratory experiment) , (2) the type of team targeted ( intact or new ), (3) the primary training method applied to conduct the intervention ( didactic education , workshop , simulation , or team reviews ), (4) the dimension(s) of teamwork ( preparation , execution , reflection , and/or interpersonal dynamics ) targeted in the intervention as well as (5) the number of dimensions targeted (between one and four), (6) the type of measure used to derive effect sizes ( self-report , third party , or objective measures ), and—when teamwork was assessed as the criterion variable—(7) the specific dimension(s) of teamwork that were measured ( general , preparation , execution , reflection , and interpersonal dynamics ).

Once coded, data were entered into the software Comprehensive Meta-Analysis , Version 2 [ 33 ] and analyzed as a random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird approach). This type of model assumes that there is heterogeneity in the effect sizes across the included studies and is the appropriate model to use in social science research, as opposed to a fixed-effects model (which assumes that effect sizes do not vary from study to study) [ 34 , 35 ]. Where possible, effect sizes for each study were derived from means, standard deviations, and sample sizes at baseline and post-intervention [ 34 , 36 ]. If these statistics were not fully provided, they were supplemented with F -statistics, t scores, correlations, and p -values to compute the effect size. Each study was given a relative weight based on its precision, which is determined by the study’s sample size, standard error, and confidence interval (i.e., the more precise the data, the larger the relative study weight) [ 34 ].

In instances where a study provided data to calculate multiple effect sizes (such as when several measures of the criterion variable—teamwork or team performance—were examined), these effects were combined into one overall effect size statistic (i.e., a weighted average) for that study. This was done to ensure that those studies that had multiple measures of teamwork or team performance were not given greater weight compared to studies that only provided one effect size (i.e., only had one measure of performance or teamwork), which could potentially skew the overall results [ 34 ]. The exception to this was when articles reported the effects of more than one intervention (i.e., had multiple experimental conditions), each of which had a unique teamwork training protocol. In these cases, an effect size from each intervention was computed. Thus, these articles would contribute multiple effect sizes to the total number of comparisons within the meta-analysis. To correct for potential unit-of-analysis errors in these particular articles, the sample size of the control condition was divided by the number of within-study comparisons [ 31 ]. For example, if three different types of teamwork interventions were compared to one control condition (e.g., which had a sample size of 30 participants), the n of the control condition was divided by 3 (i.e., 30/3 = 10) when calculating the effect sizes of those interventions. Cohen’s d was used as the effect size metric to represent the standardized effect (i.e., the average magnitude of effectiveness) of teamwork interventions on teamwork and team performance [ 37 ]. Standard errors and 95% confidence intervals were computed to test for the accuracy of the standardized effects obtained.

To reduce heterogeneity and improve the interpretability of the results, we pooled studies into those that measured teamwork as its criterion variable and those that measured team performance. Pooling studies in this manner not only reduces heterogeneity but also allowed us to identify the extent to which teamwork interventions impact team performance and, separately, the extent to which they affect teamwork processes. Heterogeneity within the meta-analysis was also assessed by computing a Q value—which estimates the variability in the observed effect sizes across studies—and an I 2 statistic—which estimates the ratio of the true heterogeneity to the total observed variation across studies. High Q and I 2 statistics can be problematic for interpreting the results of a meta-analysis and can also indicate that the meta-analysis includes outlier studies. We also planned to identify and exclude outliers from subsequent moderator analyses in two ways. First, sensitivity analyses were carried out by removing a single intervention from the meta-analysis and noting the resulting effect size—this estimates the impact that each individual intervention has on the overall effect size of teamwork or team performance. If the resulting effect size with an intervention removed (i.e., K– 1) is substantially different than the effect size with that intervention present, this may suggest that it is an outlier and needs to be removed [ 34 ]. Second, we noted any studies that had abnormally high effect sizes and standardized residuals (above 3.0), especially when these values were accompanied by narrow confidence intervals. If heterogeneity ( Q and I 2 ) is substantially reduced upon removal of a study, this further confirms that the study is an outlier and should be omitted from subsequent subgroup/moderator analyses.

Once the two pools of studies were produced, bias within each pool was assessed. First, publication bias was examined by calculating a fail-safe N statistic, which estimates the number of unpublished studies with null findings that would have to exist to reduce the obtained effect size to zero [ 38 ]. If this number is sufficiently large—Rosenberg [ 39 ] recommends a critical value of 5 N +10—then the probability of such a number of studies existing is considered to be low. For example, if 20 studies were included in a meta-analysis, then the resulting fail-safe N should be larger than 110 (i.e., 5*20 + 10); if this value was not larger than 110, then publication bias is likely within this pool of studies. We also obtained two funnel plots (one for studies where teamwork was the outcome variable and one for team performance as the outcome) to provide a visual depiction of potential publication bias. We then conducted an Egger’s test as a measure of symmetry for these two funnel plots. If this test statistic is significant ( p < 0.05), this denotes that the distribution around the effect size is asymmetric and publication bias is likely present [ 34 ].

The literature search from the five databases returned 22,066 articles, while the hand searches of the 13 journals returned 3797 articles, vetting of studies from previous team training reviews returned 191 articles, and the ancestry search of reference lists returned 471 articles (see Fig 1 ). After removing duplicates, 16,849 articles were subject to title and abstract screening, where they were dichotomously coded as ‘potentially relevant’ or ‘clearly not relevant’. 1517 potentially relevant articles were then full-text reviewed and coded as meeting eligibility criteria or as ineligible for the following reasons: (1) not a teamwork intervention; (2) teamwork-plus-taskwork intervention; (3) insufficient statistics to compute an effect size; (4) not including a measure of teamwork or team performance; or (5) not including a control group. As a result of this eligibility coding, 51 articles were included in the meta-analysis. 13 of these studies reported results on two or more interventions, bringing the total number of comparisons ( k ) to 72 with 8439 participants (4966 experimental, 3473 control). See S1 Table for descriptions of each study with regard to study context, type of team and participants, targeted teamwork dimensions of the intervention, number of effect sizes, the criteria measured, and an overview of the intervention.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169604.g001

Summary Statistics

Results of the overall effect of teamwork interventions on teamwork processes along with summary statistics and sensitivity analyses (i.e., the final column marked ‘ES with study removed’) for this pool of studies are presented in Table 1 . This pool included a total of 39 interventions from 33 studies. The results revealed that teamwork interventions had a significant, medium-to-large effect on teamwork, d ( SE ) = 0.683 (0.13), 95% CI = 0.43–0.94, Z = 5.23, p < 0.001; Q ( df ) = 660.7 (38), I 2 = 94.2. The funnel plot for this pool of studies is shown in Fig 2 . The fail-safe N was 3598, which is sufficiently large, as it exceeds the critical value of 205 (5*39+10). The funnel plot for this pool of studies is presented in Fig 2 . Egger’s value for this funnel plot was not significant ( B = 0.364, SE = 1.30, 95% CI = -2.26–2.99, t = 0.28, p = 0.78), which also suggests that bias was not present. Two studies were identified as outliers within this pool of studies: Morey et al. [ 3 ] and Marshall et al. [ 22 ]. The resulting effect size when these studies were excluded was d (SE) = 0.550 (0.08), 95% CI = 0.39–0.71, Z = 6.73, p < 0.001; Q ( df ) = 187.53 (36), I 2 = 80.8. Subsequent moderator analyses were conducted with these two outlier studies being omitted.

Circles filled with black indicate outlier studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169604.g002

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169604.t001

Results of the overall effect of teamwork interventions on team performance as well as summary statistics and sensitivity analyses (i.e., the final column marked ‘ES with intervention removed’) for this pool of studies are presented in Table 2 . This pool of studies included a total of 50 interventions from 32 studies. It was shown that teamwork interventions had a significant, large effect on team performance— d ( SE ) = 0.919 (0.14), 95% CI = 0.65–1.19, Z = 6.72, p < 0.001; Q ( df ) = 851.3 (49), I 2 = 94.2. The funnel plot for this pool of studies is shown in Fig 3 . The fail-safe N was 6692, which is sufficiently large, as it exceeds the critical value of 260 (5*50+10). The funnel plot for this pool of studies is presented in Fig 3 . Egger’s value for this funnel plot was not significant ( B = 0.131, SE = 1.19, 95% CI = -2.26–2.54, t = 0.11, p = 0.91), which also implies that bias was not present. There were five outlier interventions (from four studies) in this pool of studies that assessed team performance: Morey et al. [ 3 ], Smith-Jentsch et al. [ 4 ], one of the interventions from Buller and Bell [ 63 ]; teambuilding condition), and both interventions from Bushe and Coetzer [ 43 ]. When these outliers were removed, the resulting effect size was d ( SE ) = 0.582 (0.06), 95% CI = 0.47–0.69, Z = 10.30, p < 0.001; Q ( df ) = 101.1 (44), I 2 = 56.5. Subsequent moderator analyses were conducted with these five interventions omitted.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169604.g003

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169604.t002

Moderator Analyses

The results of the moderator analyses are shown in Table 3 (for teamwork behaviors) and Table 4 (for team performance). With respect to sample characteristics, significant positive effects of teamwork interventions were found for enhancing teamwork across all contexts ( d s = 0.46–1.23) except for the single effect size from an industry setting ( d = 0.50). In terms of team performance, significant effects were evident across all settings ( d s = 0.40–1.76). In addition, interventions were effective for enhancing teamwork with intact teams ( d = 0.33) and newly-formed teams ( d = 0.67), with the effect size for new teams being significantly larger ( Q = 4.04, p = 0.004) than that for existing teams. Teamwork training was also effective at fostering team performance for both team types; however, in contrast to the findings on teamwork, the effect size for intact teams ( d = 0.99) was significantly larger ( Q = 6.04, p = 0.02) than that for new teams ( d = 0.54).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169604.t003

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169604.t004

Three intervention characteristics were analyzed as potential moderators. First, with regard to the intervention method utilized, significant effects on teamwork were found for workshop training ( d = 0.50), simulation-based teamwork training ( d = 0.78), and team reviews ( d = 0.64) but not for didactic education ( d = 0.19). All training methods were effective for enhancing team performance ( d s = 0.41–0.69). Second, significant effects of training on teamwork were evident when two or more dimensions of teamwork were targeted ( d s = 0.65–0.98) but not when only one dimension was targeted ( d = 0.05). Team performance, however, improved significantly as a result of teamwork training regardless of the number of teamwork dimensions that were targeted ( d s = 0.46–0.67). Third, significant effects were shown regardless of which dimension (i.e., preparation, execution, reflection, interpersonal dynamics) was targeted for both teamwork ( d s = 0.64–0.75) and team performance ( d s = 0.52–0.60).

With regard to measurement characteristics, significant improvements on teamwork emerged when either third-party ( d = 0.80) or self-report ( d = 0.38) measures of teamwork were utilized; the effect size for third-party measures was significantly larger ( Q = 6.02, p = 0.014) than the effect size for self-report measures. For team performance outcomes, significant effects were shown for both objective ( d = 0.61) and third-party measures ( d = 0.56). Finally, significant effects on teamwork were found when general/omnibus measures of teamwork were taken ( d = 0.71), as well as when a specific dimension of teamwork was measured ( d s = 0.45–0.70).

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to quantify the effects of the extant controlled experimental research of teamwork training interventions on teamwork and team performance. We found positive and significant medium-to-large sized effects for these interventions on teamwork and large effects on team performance. When outlier studies were removed, medium-sized effects were found for both criteria. Additional subgroup/moderator analyses also revealed several notable findings, each of which will be discussed in turn. The paper concludes with a discussion of the limitations associated with this meta-analysis as well as considerations for future teamwork training research.

Who Can Benefit From Teamwork Training?

With regard to sample characteristics, teamwork interventions were shown to be effective at enhancing both teamwork and team performance across a variety of team contexts, including laboratory settings as well as real-world contexts of health care, aviation, military, and academia. This highlights the efficacy of teamwork training as a means of improving teams; this is an important finding as effective teams (i.e., those that work well together and perform at a high level) are vital in many of the aforementioned contexts. For example, it has been estimated that approximately 70% of adverse events in medical settings are not due to individuals’ technical errors but, rather, as a result of breakdowns in teamwork [ 78 ]. Thus, there is a critical need to ensure that teams are effective across these settings, as these teams greatly impact (among other things) the welfare of others. The results of this meta-analysis suggest that teamwork training can indeed be a useful way of enhancing team effectiveness within these contexts.

We also examined whether there were differential effects of teamwork training for new teams compared to intact teams. It was shown that these interventions were effective for both team types. The effects of teamwork training on teamwork outcomes were significantly larger for new teams (who showed a medium-to-large effect size) compared to existing teams (who had a small-to-medium effect size). Interestingly, when we examined team performance as the criterion variable, the training effects were significantly larger for intact teams (who showed a large effect size) compared to newly-formed teams (who again showed a medium-to-large effect size). It should be noted that there were many more studies conducted with new teams compared to intact teams—thus, caution should be exercised in directly comparing these findings. Nonetheless, at this point, the existing research seems to suggest that teamwork interventions work particularly well at enhancing teamwork processes for newly established teams—and also work with existing teams—but not the same extent. It is possible that teamwork processes might be more malleable and display greater potential for improvement with new teams compared to more established teams whose teamwork processes may be more entrenched. On the other hand, it is notable that the effects of teamwork training on team performance were stronger for established teams. In line with this, it is plausible that, while intact teams may show less pronounced changes in teamwork, they might be better able to translate their teamwork training into improved team performance outcomes.

What Type of Training Works?

Three moderator variables were assessed with regard to intervention characteristics. First, with regard to the training method utilized, it was shown that all four training methods were effective for enhancing team performance. These included the provision of didactic lectures/presentations, workshops, simulation training, and review-type activities conducted in situ. Although significant effects were shown for the latter three training methods for teamwork outcomes, those interventions that targeted didactic instruction did not result in significant improvements in teamwork itself. This suggests that simply providing educational lectures wherein team members passively learn about teamwork is not an effective way of improving teamwork. When taken together these findings suggest that teamwork training should incorporate experiential activities that provide participants with more active ways of learning and practising teamwork. These may include various workshop-style exercises that involve all team members, such as working through case studies of how teams can improve teamwork, watching and critiquing video vignettes of teams displaying optimal versus suboptimal teamwork, discussing and setting teamwork-related goals and action plans, or other activities that help stimulate critical thinking and active learning of effective teamwork. Teams may also find it useful to conduct simulations of specific team tasks that the group is likely to encounter in-situ, such as aviation teams using an airplane simulator, surgical teams conducting mock-surgeries on medical manikins, military teams practising various field missions, and so on. Teamwork can be also fostered by having team members participate in team reviews/briefings before, during, and/or after the execution of team tasks that occur in-situ. In summary, simply lecturing about the importance of teamwork is not sufficient to create meaningful improvements in teamwork; rather, substantive positive effects can be derived by having team members engage in activities that require them to actively learn about and practise teamwork.

We also sought to assess how comprehensive an intervention should be—specifically, the number of teamwork dimensions that need to be targeted—in order to be effective. With regard to improving team performance, there were significant effects when one or more dimensions were targeted. However, in terms of improving teamwork behaviors, significant effects only emerged when two or more dimensions were targeted. From an applied perspective, individuals concerned with intervention (e.g., team consultants, coaches, managers, team leaders) can utilize these findings by targeting more than one dimension of teamwork within their training protocol. For instance, if the purpose of an intervention is to improve a health care team’s communication, greater effects may be derived by not merely targeting communication during the execution phase alone (e.g., with a structured communication tool), but by also incorporating strategies that target other dimensions of teamwork, such as setting goals and action plans for how communication will be improved (i.e., the preparation dimension of teamwork) as well as monitoring progress towards those goals, resolving any communication-related problems that arise, and making adjustments to action plans as necessary (i.e., the reflection dimension).

Relatedly, we sought to address whether there were differential effects of teamwork interventions on teamwork and team performance based on the dimensions of teamwork that were targeted. It was found that interventions had a significant effect on both teamwork behaviors and team performance when any dimension of teamwork was targeted. This is important as it means that if those concerned with intervention target any one of the four dimensions of teamwork, this will likely result in improvements in team functioning. While the preparation (i.e., behaviors occurring before team task performance such as setting goals and action plans), execution (i.e., intra-task behaviors such as communication and coordination), and reflection (i.e., behaviors occurring following task performance such as performance monitoring and problem solving) dimensions have each been theorized to be implicated in fostering team performance [ 2 , 79 ], is particularly noteworthy that interventions targeting the interpersonal dynamics of a team (i.e., managing interpersonal conflict and the provision of social support between members) also displayed significant effects in relation to team performance. Specifically, efforts to enhance interpersonal processes have generally been theorized to be related to supporting team maintenance more so than supporting team performance [ 2 , 79 ]. However, the results from the current review provide evidence that training teams with regard to social support and interpersonal conflict management processes may actually be a useful way to enhance team performance. While the exact reason for this effect is not immediately clear from this review, it may be that improving interpersonal dynamics has an indirect relationship with team performance. That is, teamwork training focused on improving social support and conflict management may improve the functioning of a team, which, in turn, improves the team’s performance. As Marks et al. [ 10 ] contend, these interpersonal processes “lay the foundation for the effectiveness of other processes” (p. 368). Relatedly, Rousseau et al. [ 2 ] suggest that problems related to social support and conflict management “may prevent team members from fully contributing to task accomplishment or from effectively regulating team performance” (p. 557). Further research examining this potential relationship is required as this would have implications in both research and applied teamwork settings.

Does It Matter How Criterion Variables Are Measured?

Two measurement characteristics were examined as moderators within this meta-analysis. First, significant, large- and small-to-medium sized effects were found for third party and self-report measures of teamwork, respectively. Significant medium effects were also evident for third party and objective measures of team performance. It is worth noting that significantly larger effect sizes emerged for third party assessments of teamwork compared to self-report measures. Taken together, these findings suggest that the positive effects that were found for teamwork interventions are not merely perceptive and/or due to individuals’ self-report biases (i.e., social desirability). Rather, these results indicate that the effects of these interventions on both teamwork and team performance are clearly observable with measures beyond self-report indices.

Finally, we sought to assess whether the effects of teamwork training varied based on which teamwork dimension(s) were measured. Medium-to-large effects emerged when general/omnibus measures of teamwork—that is, those that provided an overall score of teamwork as opposed to examining individual dimensions of teamwork—were taken. Measures that tapped into the specific dimensions of teamwork (e.g., those that provided individual scores on preparation, execution, reflection, and interpersonal dynamics) also yielded comparable effect sizes. Hence, teamwork interventions appear to have a somewhat similar effect on each of the components of teamwork. In summary, the results of the above two moderators (i.e., type of measure and dimension of teamwork examined) suggest that teamwork training has a positive impact on teamwork and team performance regardless of the way in which these variables are assessed.

Limitations

Despite the contributions of this meta-analytic review, it is not without limitations. First, there were additional variables that we had planned to analyze as moderators a priori including team size and length of/contact time within the intervention. However, there was an insufficient amount of reliable data across the studies on these variables to conduct these subgroup analyses appropriately. For instance, although many studies noted the total number of participants within an organization (e.g., a hospital) that took part in an intervention, information on the size of the teams within the organization (e.g., various units within the hospital) was often missing. Team composition variables such as this have been noted as important factors to take into account when examining teams (e.g., [ 30 , 80 ]). Similarly, although some studies were explicit about the total length of the intervention and the contact time between interventionists and participating teams, this information was not provided consistently. This too would have been a valuable feature to analyze in order to provide more specific recommendations about how teamwork training programs should be designed—that is, how long an intervention should last? Unfortunately, due to the paucity of information available in the included manuscripts, we were unable to determine whether these variables moderated the observed effects of teamwork training on teamwork and team performance in the current meta-analysis.

Furthermore, there was a considerable amount of variability within some of the moderator categories that were coded. For instance, with regard to intervention methods, ‘workshops’ consisted of many different types of activities including team charter sessions, strategy planning meetings, case study activities, and so on. Combining these activities into one category was done for the sake of being adequately powered to conduct moderator analyses (i.e., include a sufficient number of studies within each of the resulting categories). However, while the above examples are indeed activities that teams do together, they are of course each different in their own ways. Hence, although it is evident that workshop-type activities are effective overall, it is unclear if specific workshop activities are more effective than others. This example underscores the difficulty that can occur when trying to balance statistical power with accuracy for each moderator category when conducting subgroup analyses in a meta-analysis.

Relatedly, effect sizes were only computed with the statistics that were provided from baseline and post-intervention, even if studies provided additional data on teamwork and/or performance at some other point in between or at a follow-up point in time (although it is worth noting that relatively few studies actually did this). This was done in order to minimize heterogeneity within the meta-analysis and improve the interpretability of the results (i.e., determining the effects of teamwork training from pre- to post-intervention). However, by not taking these measurement time-points into consideration, two questions in particular are raised. First, do certain dimensions of teamwork and team performance evolve differently over time and, if so, how? For instance, do improvements in teamwork occur immediately in response to training and then plateau; or do they improve in a slower, more linear fashion from the onset of training? Second, what are the long-term implications of teamwork training? That is, does teamwork training result in sustained improvements in teamwork and team performance beyond the intervention period or do these effects eventually wane? Answers to these types of research questions would certainly be of interest to teamwork researchers and applied practitioners.

Future Directions

In addition to summarizing the previous research on teamwork interventions for improving teamwork and team performance, the findings from this systematic review also highlight several potential avenues of future research. First, with regard to sample characteristics, the majority of studies that examined the effects of teamwork interventions on team performance were conducted within laboratory settings, with relatively fewer controlled studies having been conducted in real-world settings. Thus, although significant effects on team performance (and teamwork) were found in health care, aviation, military, and academic settings, the extant literature would be strengthened by conducting further controlled intervention research within these contexts. It was also shown that teamwork training was less effective for improving teamwork for intact teams compared to new teams. Since many teams seeking teamwork training are likely to be intact, it is important that future research continue to test various training strategies that can be utilized with these types of teams. In addition, there are other contexts in which controlled interventions have not yet been conducted such as with police squads, firefighting crews, sports teams, political parties, and so on. Research in these areas is clearly ripe for future inquiry.

Further research on the ideal combination of teamwork dimensions (i.e., preparation and/or execution and/or reflection and/or interpersonal dynamics) targeted in an intervention would also enhance our current knowledge in terms of how to train teamwork most effectively and efficiently. We had originally planned to further assess this moderator by conducting a method co-occurrence analysis [ 81 ]. Specifically, since there would likely be a variety of combinations of dimensions that were targeted in the teamwork interventions (e.g., preparation only; preparation and execution; preparation, execution, reflection, and interpersonal dynamics; etc), we had hoped to examine if there would be differential effects of these combinations with regard to intervention effectiveness. Unfortunately, since there were such a large number of combinations of dimensions targeted in the included studies, there was an insufficient number of interventions that fell into each category. We were, therefore, unable to pursue this method co-occurrence analysis [ 81 ] of the various combinations of dimensions. Thus, although our findings suggest that interventions are more effective when two or more dimensions are targeted, further research that examines the effects of the ideal combinations of these dimensions would certainly enhance our current knowledge of teamwork training. For example, if the objective of teamwork training is to improve the coordination and cooperation of the team, should the training also target (in addition to targeting these execution behaviors) both the preparation and reflection dimensions of training (or simply one or the other)? Answering such complex questions will help to advance our understanding of what makes for an effective teamwork training program.

Balanced against the contributions and insights provided by the various moderator analyses conducted in this study, the overall take-home message is that teamwork training is an effective way to foster teamwork and team performance. These effects appear to be evident across a range of samples, utilizing numerous intervention methods, and when considering various measurement characteristics. Interventions appear to be particularly effective when they target multiple dimensions of teamwork and include experiential activities for team members to actively learn about, practise, and continually develop teamwork.

Supporting Information

S1 table. summaries of interventions..

Summaries of each study and intervention included in the meta-analysis is provided in the S1 Table.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169604.s001

S1 File. PRISMA Checklist.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Checklist [ 82 ] for this review is presented in the S1 File.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169604.s002

Author Contributions

• Conceptualization: DM ME BZ MB.
• Data curation: DM.
• Formal analysis: DM.
• Investigation: DM GR.
• Methodology: DM MB.
• Project administration: DM MB.
• Resources: DM MB.
• Supervision: MB.
• Validation: DM GR MB.
• Visualization: DM GR ME BZ MB.
• Writing – original draft: DM MB.
• Writing – review & editing: DM GR ME BZ MB.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 6. Padmo Putri DA. The effect of communication strategy and planning intervention on the processes and performance of course material development teams [dissertation]. Tallahassee (FL): Florida State University; 2012.
• 7. Jankouskas TS. Crisis Resource Management training: Impact on team process and team effectiveness [dissertation]. State College (PA): Pennsylvania State University; 2012
• 9. Bjornberg NH. Mutual performance monitoring in virtual teams [dissertation]. Norfolk, VA: Old Dominion University; 2014
• 11. Lewin K. A dynamic theory of personality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1935.
• 17. Hackman JR, Katz N. Group behavior and performance. In: Fiske TE, Gilbert DT, Lindzey G, editors. Handbook of social psychology (Vol 2., 5th ed.). West Sussex, UK John Wiley & Sons; 2010. pp. 1251–1280
• 18. Argote L, McGrath JE. Group processes in organizations: Continuity and change. In Cooper CL, Robertson IT, editors. International review of industrial and organizational psychology. Chichester, UK: Wiley;1993. pp. 333–389
• 31. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Vol. 5.1.0). The Cochrane Collaboration. 2008. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org .
• 33. Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Comprehensive meta-analysis (2nd Ed.). Englewood, NJ: Biostat;2005.
• 34. Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons;2009
• 41. Beck-Jones JJ. The effect of cross-training and role assignment in cooperative learning groups on task performance, knowledge of accounting concepts, teamwork behavior, and acquisition of interpositional knowledge [dissertation]. Tallahassee (FL): Florida State University; 2004
• 47. Dibble R. Collaboration for the common good: An examination of internal and external adjustment [dissertation]. Irvine (CA): University of California; 2010.
• 49. Emmert MC. Pilot test of an innovative interprofessional education assessment strategy [doctoral dissertation]. Los Angeles (CA): University of California; 2011.
• 52. Green LR. The effectiveness of tactical adaptation and coordination training on team performance in tactical scenarios. Naval Postgraduate School Monterey CA; 1994 Jun.
• 53. Kim LY. The effects of simulation-based TeamSTEPPS interprofessional communication and teamwork training on patient and provider outcomes [dissertation]. Los Angeles (CA): University of California; 2014.
• 68. Ikomi PA, Boehm-Davis DA, Holt RW, Incalcaterra KA. Jump seat observations of advanced crew resource management (ACRM) effectiveness. In Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology 1999 (Vol. 5, pp. 3–1999).
• 69. Jarrett S. The comparative effectiveness of after-action reviews in co-located and distributed team training environments [dissertation]. College Station (TX): Texas A&M University; 2012.
• 70. Kring JP. Communication modality and after action review performance in a distributed immersive virtual environment [dissertation]. Orlando (FL): University of Central Florida; 2005
• 72. Schurig IA. An investigation of the effect of after-action reviews on teams’ performance-efficacy relationships [dissertation]. College Station (TX): Texas A&M University; 2013.
• 78. The Joint Commission. Health care at the crossroads: Strategies for improving the medical liability system and preventing patient injury. 2005. Available from http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/Medical_Liability.pdf

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

The Secrets of Great Teamwork

• Martine Haas
• Mark Mortensen

Over the years, as teams have grown more diverse, dispersed, digital, and dynamic, collaboration has become more complex. But though teams face new challenges, their success still depends on a core set of fundamentals. As J. Richard Hackman, who began researching teams in the 1970s, discovered, what matters most isn’t the personalities or behavior of the team members; it’s whether a team has a compelling direction, a strong structure, and a supportive context. In their own research, Haas and Mortensen have found that teams need those three “enabling conditions” now more than ever. But their work also revealed that today’s teams are especially prone to two corrosive problems: “us versus them” thinking and incomplete information. Overcoming those pitfalls requires a new enabling condition: a shared mindset.

This article details what team leaders should do to establish the four foundations for success. For instance, to promote a shared mindset, leaders should foster a common identity and common understanding among team members, with techniques such as “structured unstructured time.” The authors also describe how to evaluate a team’s effectiveness, providing an assessment leaders can take to see what’s working and where there’s room for improvement.

Collaboration has become more complex, but success still depends on the fundamentals.

Idea in Brief

The problem.

Teams are more diverse, dispersed, digital, and dynamic than ever before. These qualities make collaboration especially challenging.

The Analysis

Mixing new insights with a focus on the fundamentals of team effectiveness identified by organizational-behavior pioneer J. Richard Hackman, managers should work to establish the conditions that will enable teams to thrive.

The Solution

The right conditions are

• a compelling direction
• a strong structure
• a supportive context, and
• a shared mindset

Weaknesses in these areas make teams vulnerable to problems.

Today’s teams are different from the teams of the past: They’re far more diverse, dispersed, digital, and dynamic (with frequent changes in membership). But while teams face new hurdles, their success still hinges on a core set of fundamentals for group collaboration.

• Martine Haas is the Lauder Chair Professor of Management at the Wharton School and Director of the Lauder Institute for Management & International Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. She holds a PhD from Harvard University. Her research focuses on collaboration and teamwork in global organizations.
• Mark Mortensen is a professor of organizational behavior at INSEAD and for over 20 years has studied and consulted on collaboration and organization design, with a focus on hybrid, virtual, and globally distributed work. Mark publishes regularly in Harvard Business Review , MIT Sloan Management Review , and INSEAD Knowledge, and is a regular fixture in popular press outlets like the BBC, the Economist , the Financial Times , and Fortune .

Partner Center

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Teamworking and organizational performance: A review of survey-based research

2008, International Journal of Management Reviews

Related Papers

Smart and Efficient Economy : Preparation for the Future Innovative Economy

Joanna Samul

Purpose of the article There has been many studies focus on the effectiveness of teamwork, the factors determining it and the impact on the results of the organization. However the variability of the nature of team caused new challenges in this field. The purpose of the article is a review of existing indicators of teamwork effectiveness and to determine the used of the teamwork measures and to test if these indicators are correlated with the applied assessment of organizational performance. Methodology/methods The study was conducted using a paper and pencil questionnaire. The final sample consisted of 161 Polish companies from the public and private sectors. The survey was conducted in 2014. Senior executives were approached to respond to a survey. Scientific aim The main aim is to carry out an evaluation in terms of use the teamwork measures in the practice of the enterprises and to determine the relation between the dimensions of team effectiveness: member behavior, team attitudes, team productivity and organizational performance like output measures and competitiveness. Findings The research results indicate the use of teamwork measures and the existence of relations between the dimensions of measuring teamwork effectiveness. In addition, the relations between the measurement of the dimensions and the measurement of organizational results are also significant, but analysis does not indicate any links between the used indicators of team effectiveness and the measures of competitive position. Conclusions The research results indicate the direction of improving the existing indiactors for team measurement, which should not be unnecessarily extended with many measures, but should focus on the most important indicators for the organization like output measures. Further studies should take into consideration the process approach to determine the relations between measuring the team effectiveness and the competitiveness.

Zubair Hassan

This research examined the impact of Teamwork on employee performance. The study adopted descriptive and explanatory research design. Further this study used a cross sectional survey methods using a survey questionnaires, containing 35 items with Likert Scale (Disagree-1 and 5 for Agree). A questionnaire was developed based on past literature and numerous tests were done to test the normality, reliability and validity of the data. The independent variables to measure effective teamwork are Effective communication, Team Cohesiveness, Accountability, Interpersonal skills, Leadership and Level of trust. The dependent variable used in this research is employee performance. The samples of 107 employees from an entertainment company in Kuala Lumpur capital of Malaysia were selected using simple random probability sampling technique. The collected data was analysed using descriptive means and regression via SPSS.20. This study found that all the chosen factors have significant relationship with teamwork. This research find Efficient Communication, Level of trust, Leadership and Accountability has a positive and significant impact on employee performance. While we found no significant influence of Intrapersonal skills and Cohesiveness on Employee Performance. Though this research included only one entertainment organisations, future studies may include larger sample by conducting the study on more organisations including manufacturing industry, Financial firms etc. to see the variation in the results. The future studies may compare differences based on socio-demographic profile and might examine the similarities and difference of motivational factors in different sectors in Malaysia.

michiya morita

This research&#39;s objectives are to propose a concept of teamwork linkage for the organizational effectiveness and to extract implications to build up teamwork competence supported by the concept. Many researches pay attention to specific teamwork like teamwork of people on the factory floor, or technical people like medical staffs and engineers when they make experimental research works on the determinants of teamwork. In this research main focus is put on various types of teamwork of the firm and their interactions to derive implications for teamwork effectiveness and build-ups. Under then New Economy, teamwork, internal and external, should be a key for success. The competence to design and implement effective teamwork will be critical for competitiveness.

International Journal of Learning and Development

Murad Hussain

M.E. Akinade

Effective teams in organizations make all the differences in the achievement of corporate value creation, growth, and attainment of the predetermined and emergent goals and objectives of any organization. This paper examines the impact of teambuilding and teamwork in organizations and their implications to managers and employees. The paper notes that team building stimulates organizational productivity, service quality and general positive performances and enhances organizational development and efficiency. It also note that team building encourages continuous growth, open and positive communication, and development of trust and leadership potentials of organizations members. It however pointed out that team building encounter serious challenges in employee resistance, lack of trust, virtual workplace and globalization. The paper concluded that team building promotes effective collaboration of all team members, and also make organizations better places of work. Additionally, the sus...

Indian J.Sci.Res.

parisa yazdanian

The structure of modern organizations is changing towards team orientation. Work groups are one of the major organizational units whose application ensures the improvement of organizational performance and efficiency. Dynamic organizations depend on groups to survive. By making teamwork the axis, achievement of organizational objectives is facilitated through the improvement of the efficiency and effectiveness of teams. Considering the various factors influencing the improvement of performance and effectiveness of teams, the present article used the review method to refer to the concept of work teams and their types and present a brief introduction of team performance and effectiveness and factors influencing the promotion of team performance. Recognition and consideration of factors such as leadership, bonus, team objectives, training, team composition and size, effectiveness and performance assessment models can have a significant effect on the realization of the desired result an...

Ada Mac-Ozigbo

This paper explored Team Building and Performance in Organizations: An Exploration of Issues. It describes team building: nature and characteristics, types of teams, stages of team development, team building objectives, building effective teams, effects of team building on performance, challenges to team building; and thus offered a number of positive results/benefits as well as the challenges which team building bequeaths/poses to organizations.

Procedia Computer Science

Hamid Tohidi

Carlos María Alcover de la Hera

Teams do not always provide the diversity of knowledge, attitudes, skills and experience required to generate an innovative response to challenges or perform according to expectations. This paper summarizes the key results of research on work teams carried out over the decade from 1999 to 2009. To this end, we set out a brief explanatory framework for the effectiveness of work teams based on a differentiated analysis of inputs, mediators and outcomes. Our approach uses the SWOT technique, which identifies strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in relation to teamwork research for the new decade. Finally, we integrate and discuss the key challenges facing the field if it is to turn threats into opportunities.

ASMARA HABIB

The teams of people working together for a common purpose have been a centerpiece of human social organization ever since our ancient ancestors first banded together to hunt game, raise families, and defend communities. Human history is generally story of individuals working together in bunches to investigate, accomplish, and overcome. The purpose of this research work is to understand the aspects effecting team effectiveness through this we come to know that how Individuals’ talents and skills are pooled. Through this Members can see the bigger picture. Members can develop their skills. Tasks can be completed more quickly. This research was based on primary data, which was collected by means of questionnaire, the questionnaire was developed by the author. After checking the reliability of questionnaire was floated to selected 130 respondents from banking and telecom sector. The received 114 accurate responses were used for regression and correlation analysis by using SPSS software....

RELATED PAPERS

Risma Astuti Astuti

IRJET Journal

IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications

Gabriel Taubin

Daniel Teodorescu

European Heart Journal

MARIO MICCOLI

Proc. 5th Reg. Sem. on Comp. Mech. & Num. Anal. in Aceh, Indonesia

Abdul Rahim

Chris Akpan

Huong Ngo Thi Thuy

Atenea (Concepción)

Israel Farias

Journal of Dhaka Medical College

Mizanur Rahman

Faria Borsha

Journal of Health and Dental Sciences

Fiona Surya

Pengaruh Kejujuran Rekan dan Penghargaan Non Moneter pada Senjangan Anggaran

Dominika Dwiyanti Zena Da Costa

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

Steven Bailey

Journal of Biological Chemistry

Jeffrey Teckman

British Journal of Nutrition

Melita Vidakovic

Journal of Management

M Irfan Septiana

Hirotaka Kosaka

Tatiana Gómez

Turkish Journal of Surgery

Osman Uzunlu

Journal of hepatology

Antonella Mosca

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

congressional memo

Ted Cruz, Better Known For Derailing Bills, Tries on a New Hat: Legislator

The Texas Republican, who made a name for himself trying to shut down the government over the Affordable Care Act, took on an unfamiliar role as a critical player in pushing through a major aviation bill.

By Kayla Guo

Reporting from the Capitol

Senator Ted Cruz is rebranding — at least for now.

The Texas Republican, whose opening salvo as a freshman senator in 2013 was leading the charge to shut down the government over the Affordable Care Act, has earned a reputation in Congress as a rabble-rousing, uncompromising conservative firebrand who tends more toward obstinance and anti-establishment tirades than bipartisanship or teamwork.

But for the first time this week, Mr. Cruz, now the senior Republican on the Commerce Committee, embraced a wholly unfamiliar role: managing a major piece of legislation on the Senate floor. It came as Mr. Cruz, who is running for re-election in November, is trying to moderate his reputation in Texas and present himself as capable of bipartisanship.

As the ranking G.O.P. member of the committee of jurisdiction, Mr. Cruz this week found himself responsible for helping to deliver the five-year, multibillion-dollar reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration to improve air travel and address passenger woes at a time of intense uncertainty about the system. That involved protecting the package from the sort of legislative and procedural bombs he has lobbed proudly throughout his career.

The irony of his turnabout was not lost on his colleagues.

“I will admit that I’ve had a couple of chuckles about it,” Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, said with a smile.

It thrust Mr. Cruz into some uncharted territory as he worked to pass the bill, which finally glided through the Senate on Thursday night just before a Friday deadline, after he worked with Democrats to bat down an array of amendments that could have complicated its path to enactment.

The Texas senator attended a G.O.P. leadership meeting on Tuesday, working with Republicans like Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, for whom he has long been a thorn in the side.

He presented the legislation to his colleagues during the weekly Republican Party luncheon at the Capitol, and implored senators who were demanding votes on their various proposals to retreat, arguing that the bill already incorporated hundreds of their priorities.

He warned that tacking on policy riders or making major changes to the bill would “unravel” months of careful negotiations and muck up the legislation’s path to passage — something Mr. Cruz knows plenty about as the author of many such proposals in the past.

And instead of snubbing reporters or dispatching them with an acerbic quip, he spoke repeatedly and at length to members of the press as he made his way around the Capitol this week providing updates on negotiations and touting the bipartisanship and compromise that built the bill.

His colleagues noted, some with thinly veiled satisfaction, that Mr. Cruz’s entreaties to fellow senators — including members of his ideological cohort who were simply following the playbook he had honed over years — sounded a lot like the ones that others have frequently tried on him.

“It is always good for senators to have the experience of managing the bill on the Senate floor,” Ms. Collins said, “because it gives them a greater appreciation for how difficult it is when senators have non-germane amendments that they want to offer to a bill that the senators work so hard to craft in a more traditional way.”

“It’s been interesting to watch him manage other senators’ expectations on this bill,” added Ms. Collins, a legislative veteran who has managed many bills and participated in many a bipartisan compromise.

The role reversal earned Mr. Cruz a bit of ribbing from his colleagues, even as they praised his handling of the aviation legislation.

“It’s been fantastic — I love it,” Senator Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, said of watching Mr. Cruz manage the bill. “He’s done a pretty good job as far as I can tell.”

He added, with a laugh: “So, you know, he may be making a run for majority leader next year.”

“We’ve had a little bit of fun with him,” Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, said. “He’s taken it in good humor.”

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said with a smile that he was “rejoicing the fact that he rose to the occasion, got the bill across the line, did a good job.”

Mr. Cruz, for his part, has said that the legislation was rigorously developed and took into account the views of every senator, even as many of them pushed for votes on amendments they had filed, slowing down the process .

A “robust amendment process,” as he has so often demanded, was proving impossible, he said, as each package of proposals that he offered for a vote faced objections from different factions.

“The process that this bill has undergone, I think, reflects how legislation should be handled in the Senate: We went through regular order,” Mr. Cruz said. “Members across the Senate care a great deal about aviation safety, about protecting consumers, about competition, about lowering prices. And I think this is a very strong bipartisan bill that came through a process that worked the way it’s supposed to.”

Mr. Cruz, who will face the Democratic Representative Colin Allred this fall, has made no secret of his desire to be seen by voters as a more constructive player in Congress, capable of working with members of the other party. He started a “Democrats for Cruz” messaging campaign to highlight his work across the political aisle in an attempt to win over left-leaning voters.

But whether his role reversal would stick on Capitol Hill remained to be seen.

Did his colleagues think this would be an enduring rebrand?

“No,” Mr. Tillis said, before breaking into laughter. “Not at all.”

Kayla Guo covers Congress for The New York Times as the 2023-24 reporting fellow based in Washington. More about Kayla Guo

A Divided Congress: Latest News and Analysis

Marjorie Taylor Greene: The hard-right congresswoman from Georgia failed spectacularly in her bid to depose Speaker Mike Johnson. But for a figure who sees her power in creating chaos, the loss was the point .

Reauthorize FAA and Improve Air Travel: The Senate passed legislation to reauthorize federal aviation programs and put in place new safety measures and consumer protections, at a moment of intense uncertainty  and disruption in the air travel system.

Mike Johnson: The House speaker easily batted down an attempt  by Greene to oust him from his post, after Democrats linked arms with most Republicans  to block the motion.

Antisemitism Hearing: A Republican-led House committee turned its attention to three of the most politically liberal school districts  in the country, accusing them of tolerating antisemitism, but the district leaders pushed back forcefully .

Legalizing Marijuana: Senate Democrats reintroduced broad legislation to legalize cannabis on the federal level, a major policy shift with wide public support , but it is unlikely to be enacted this year ahead of November’s elections and in a divided government.