An Introduction to Teamwork

by James Renlund

Welcome back to the second article in a series that

explores teams, teams research and their place within
organizations. Reemphasizing the first article - the
intention of this series is to create a thoughtful and
purposeful place for dialogue that engages the ISODC community in developing new ideas and practices
for teams research. We need your participation on the ISODC LinkedIn page in order for this series to
work. This article will take a quick look at the idea of teamwork, some historical perspectives within
ODC, and where teamwork is headed.

“That’s great teamwork!”

When you read this statement, what does it mean to you? For some it may mean “We, as a
team, have done a great job.” While others interpret it as “mission complete, let’s go have a beer!” Still
others may think, “But wait, how can that be great teamwork if we aren’t even a team?” The point is
that teamwork has become so ubiquitous in both the teams literature and workplace that it has lost any
specific meaning.

Teamwork has been studied through the various lenses of economics, business management, as
a social process, as its own science and even as a form of social control. In the teams literature
researchers can’t agree if teamwork is a psychological state, a team process or a social network. Yet, it
still remains as a significant factor of effective teams. To add to the confusion, teamwork has been used
both synonymously with, and independently against, the term team process.

So what is teamwork? Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001) define teamwork as “team
members' interdependent acts that convert inputs to outcomes through cognitive, verbal, and
behavioral activities directed toward organizing taskwork to achieve collective goals” (p. 357). To clarify
(or to confuse), the authors explain that taskwork is “what teams are doing” (physically or mentally) to
accomplish team goals and teamwork is “how they are doing it.” An easy example is a baseball game,
where the defensive team is manning the bases and pitching the ball (taskwork) while their coordinated
efforts together form the process of teamwork. Hopefully their thinking, talking and player coordination
are enough of a concerted effort to prevent the other team from scoring. This is important to
understand in an organization development and change context because we experience so many teams
that are not acting like a team, but are rather a group of individuals acting on their own agenda and
happen to occupy the same spaces.
Conversation Point 1 – does the provided definition of teamwork fit within your mental model and
experience? If not, what would you add, remove, refine or improve in this definition?

Probably one of the greatest (and also infamous) events in teamwork history is Tuckman’s
(1965/1977) forming, storming, norming, performing (and sometimes adjourning). But teamwork goes
beyond a simple cycle and is a significant team process that requires teamwork competencies. Using
Tuckman’s model as a tool is good for identifying the current status of a team, but is inadequate for
understanding the process of how teams function.

There are five different schools of thought for the composition of teamwork. The first uses
competencies or KSAs based on teamwork skills. The second includes functions or dimensions along
with supporting functions. The third conceptualizes teamwork as a sequentially phased -
multidimensional approach (fancy terms for 3 phases with many factors in each phase). Our fourth
theory is a teamwork taxonomy. The final theory envisions teamwork as a social network or clustering
function. Below is a small table that provides representative samples of each theory (with the exception
of social networks/clustering). I personally view all four as the same phenomenon, just viewed from
different angles and magnifications. The Blind Men and the Elephant analogy comes to mind.

Competencies or KSAs Dimensions and Multi-Dimensional Phases Teamwork

Functions Taxonomy
Knowledge Main Transition Processes Phase Adaptability
Dimensions
Understanding of Team leadership Mission analysis Communication
teamwork skills formulation and planning
Skills Mutual performance Goal specification Coordination
monitoring
Morale Backup behavior Strategy Decision-making
building formulation
Conflict resolution Adaptability Action Processes Phase Interpersonal
Information exchange Team orientation Monitoring Leadership
progress / goals
Task Support Systems
motivation Functions monitoring
Cooperation Shared mental modes Team monitoring
and backup behavior
Consulting Closed-loop Coordination
with others communication
Assertiveness Mutual trust Interpersonal Processes
Phase
Attitude Conflict
management
Collective orientation Motivation and
confidence building
 Importance of Affect
teamwork management
From Cannon-Bowers & From Salas, Sims, From Marks, Mathieu, & From O'Neil, Chung,
Salas (1997) & Burke (2005) Zaccaro (2001) & Brown (1997)

Conversation Point 2 – Do any of the composition models resonate with your personal experiences? If
so, which ones? If not, what would you add to the table?

What does all this mean? The practical applications for identifying, testing and changing
teamwork processes (interventions) so far have been limited. There are several ongoing efforts to
identify key teamwork KSAs in different industries (e.g., medical, aviation and information technology),
but there is a significant amount of research and applied practice left unfinished. Only three teamwork
tests have been published: (1) Stevens & Champion’s (1993, 1999) Teamwork KSA Test; (2) Hirschfeld et
al.’s (2006) Teamwork Effectiveness Test, which was only tested on U.S. Air Force Officers; and (3)
Aguado et al.’s (2014) Teamwork Competency Test (TWCT). O’Neill, Goffin, and Gellatly (2012), among
others, have found significant reliability and predictability problems with the Teamwork KSA Test. The
TWCT has not been psychometrically validated by an independent study. The area of teams and
teamwork interventions is far too vast to explore in this article. In answer to the proposed question - all
of this means that 100 years of groups and teams research, so far, still has not pierced a large enough
hole in “the black box” of team dynamics for adequate observation and measurement.

Practical Examples

Sacrifice is not mentioned in any of the teamwork definitions. Should it be included? Is it really
teamwork if one person sacrifices more, on a consistent basis, than the rest of the team?

Is it still considered teamwork if the team leader or another team member is not directly contributing
towards the team’s taskwork, but is working towards the team’s mission or goal?

How would you measure teamwork? What variables do you think are consistent with teamwork?

The last part of this article is a glimpse of the next article. With the definition of teamwork
accomplished, it would make sense to explore the concepts of team performance and team
effectiveness. What do you think are the differences between the two terms, how do they affect your
organization, and how do you get higher performing teams? Please join the conversation on the ISODC
LinkedIn page and let us know what you think so far.

References

Aguado, D., Rico, R., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., & Salas, E. (2014). Teamwork Competency Test (TWCT): A

step forward on measuring teamwork competencies. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and

Practice, 18(2), 101.

Alchian, A. A., & Demsetz, H. (1972). Production, information costs, and economic organization. The

American Economic Review, 777–795.

Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 408–437.

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1997). Teamwork competencies: The interaction of team member

knowledge, skills, and attitude. In Harold F. O’Neil (Ed.), Workforce readiness: competencies and

assessment (pp. 151–174).

Crawford, E. R. (2011). Team network multiplexity, synergy, and performance (Ph.D.). University of

Florida, United States -- Florida.

Crawford, E. R., & Lepine, J. A. (2013). A Configural Theory of Team Processes: Accounting for the

Structure of Taskwork and Teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 32–48.

Crowley, M., Payne, J. C., & Kennedy, E. (2014). Working better together? Empowerment, panopticon

and conflict approaches to teamwork. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 35(3), 483–506.

Hirschfeld, R. R., Jordan, M. H., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Armenakis, A. A. (2006). Becoming Team

Players: Team Members’ Mastery of Teamwork Knowledge as a Predictor of Team Task Proficiency

and Observed Teamwork Effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 467–474.

Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2007). The science of team success. Scientific American Mind, 18(3), 54–

61.

Kunda, G. (2009). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation. Temple

University Press.

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of

Team Processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376.

O’Neill, T. A., Goffin, R. D., & Gellatly, I. R. (2012). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for

teamwork: revisiting the Teamwork-KSA Test’s validity. International Journal of Selection and

Assessment, 20(1), 36–52.

Pentland, A. “Sandy.” (2012). The Hard Science of Teamwork. Harvard Business Review.

Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “Big Five” in Teamwork? Small Group Research,

36(5), 555–599.

Sewell, G. (n.d.). Dissolving the Conceptual Barriers to Teamwork: Reflections on the Objections of

Institutional Economics and Social Psychology (No. Number 6). Melbourne: University of Australia.

Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1993). The teamwork-KSA test. Minneapolis, MN: NCS Pearson.

Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. A. (1999). Staffing work teams: Development and validation of a selection

test for teamwork settings. Journal of Management, 25(2), 207–228.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384.

Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group &

Organization Management, 2(4), 419–427.

Wang, M.-L., Chen, W.-Y., Lin, Y.-Y., & Hsu, B.-F. (2010). Structural characteristics, process, and

effectiveness of cross-functional teams in hospitals: Testing the I–P–O model. The Journal of High

Technology Management Research, 21(1), 14–22.

James Renlund served 23 years as a military leader in various roles that include
nuclear engineer, human resources business partner, curriculum manager,
leadership development program manager and training facility director. He is
currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Organization Development at Benedictine University
while teaching business and entrepreneurship at a post-secondary vocational
school. The topic of his dissertation is a meta-analytical examination of the
crossroads between teams and Authentic Leadership. Awards include 2015
Presidential Management Fellowship finalist along with several military honors.
He is actively seeking a post-secondary teaching position with a focus on teams research.