A New Multiteam System (MTS) Effectiveness Model
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Method
3. Team Effectiveness
- Creating a real team (rather than a team in name only);
- Specifying a compelling direction or purpose for the team;
- Putting the right number of the right types of people on the team;
- Specifying clear norms of conduct for team behavior;
- Providing a supportive organizational context;
- Making competent, team-focused coaching available to the team [17] (p. 49).
- The productive output of the team (that is, its product, service, or decision making) meets or exceeds the standards of quantity, quality, and timeliness of the team’s clients—that is, of the people who receive, review, and/or use the output;
- The social processes the team uses in carrying out the work enhance members’ capability to work together interdependently in the future;
- The group experience, overall, contributes positively to the learning and professional development of individual team members [17] (pp. 37–39).
3.1. Team Effectiveness Process-Type Models
- Mediational factors, which intervene and transmit the influence of inputs to outcomes, are not processes;
- The I–P–O framework limits research by implying a single-cycle linear path from inputs to outcomes;
- The I–P–O framework tends to suggest a linear progression of main effect influences, proceeding from one category (I, P, or O) to the next [8] (p. 520).
Emergent States
3.2. Common Team-Based Models
3.2.1. Ilgen et al. (2005)
3.2.2. Marlow et al. (2018)—MTSs in Healthcare
3.2.3. Magpili and Pazos (2018)—SMT
3.2.4. Zaccaro and Shuffler—MTS Effectiveness
3.2.5. Shuffler et al. (2015)—MTS Intra- and Inter-Team Processes and Outcomes
3.2.6. Marks (2011)—Taxonomy of Team Processes
4. MTS Team Effectiveness
We adopt a more contemporary perspective that has evolved over the last decade, which conceptualizes the team as embedded in a multilevel system that has individual, team, and organizational-level aspects; which focuses centrally on task-relevant processes; which incorporates temporal dynamics encompassing episodic tasks and developmental progression; and which views team processes and effectiveness as emergent phenomena unfolding in a proximal task- or social context that teams in part enact while also being embedded in a larger organization system or environmental context.(p. 80)
Team Effectiveness Formula
5. MTS Effectiveness Model
5.1. Transition Processes
5.2. Action Processes
5.3. Interpersonal Processes
5.4. The MTS Effectiveness Model
5.5. MTS Team Effectiveness Formula
6. Discussion
6.1. Team Training—TeamSTEPPS
- Program Sponsor: the program sponsor should be an executive who is well respected, senior in the organization, and aligned with the benefits that the MTS could yield, both professionally and personally, for the executive. Their role is to be a spokesperson and clear hurdles for the implementation team;
- Executive Leadership: the Executive Leadership is responsible for the strategic direction in times of “ambiguity, complexity, and information overload” [39] (p. 516) and for strategic leadership. The Executive Leadership must also be capable of “identify[ing] strategic and tactical goals while monitoring team outcomes and the environment” [40] (p. 747) and for instrumental leadership. Lastly, Executive Leadership must also be capable of developing a global mindset for leaders, teams, and followers [41] (p. 121) and for global leadership. Executive Leadership must operate within a hybrid leadership model, utilizing components from strategic, instrumental, and global leadership models that have been shown to work well in complexity and with teams;
- MTS Boundary Spanners: the selection of the MTS boundary spanner is necessary for organizations to achieve high levels of MTS effectiveness. Boundary spanners are unique individuals who “relate the internal organization to the external environment” [42] (p. 512). The boundary spanner implements the scaffolding role for the MTS and the component teams by being “an active agent who provides support for organizational members while knowledge practices and relationships are transferred to and transformed within an organization” [43] (p. 512);
- Component Team Members: self-leadership, self-efficacy, and project management skills should begin the training at an individual level. This would then transition into shared leadership at a team level. Shared leadership training covers training in areas of transactional and transformational leadership, directive leadership, and empowering leadership [43]. The general idea is that leadership will vary as the context and environment changes, i.e., leadership is contextual. For example, transactional leadership has been shown to be more effective in stable environments where innovation is only incremental. In contrast, transformational leadership aids in improving innovation and effectiveness [43].
- As Is Assessment: the team should review the strategic vision and goals (organizational, distal and proximal), as well as perform surveys and interviews at all levels of the organization to gain an understanding of the situation in the organization. This will also lead to the development of the key metrics that need to be measured for the success of the program. The exercise will help the team define key success factors in order to ensure that the MTS implementation is successful, which then need to be reviewed with the sponsor for executive support;
- Executive Leadership: with the support of the executive sponsor, the key business reasons for implementing the MTS model should be reviewed with the executive leadership team. They should also understand the fundamentals of the MTS model, with clear expectations from the team, as well as their role in making the transformation successful;
- MTS Boundary Spanners (Champions): the MTS Boundary Spanners’ role spans executives, component teams and engages with other boundary spanners. It is very important that they are the true champions of the MTS model and they should go through an extensive training program together, as a team. By taking the training together, they will not only understand the MTS, accounting for the temporal processes of transition, action and interpersonal processes, but also building a relationship that allows them to work with each other to share experiences and success stories and to overcome hurdles together as a team while implementing the MTS model;
- Staff Training: this training for component teams should be conducted by MTS Boundary Spanners, with a focus on Transition, Action and Interpersonal processes to enhance the skills of the team;
- Continuous Measurement: the MTS model is based on the premise of continuous improvement, which is aligned with the key metrics that the organization is working to achieve. The training process should review the key metrics on a quarterly and biannual basis to gauge current results, while establishing future goals in collaboration with the team;
- Training Support: a support structure should be put into place that allows for the initial support of the MTS Boundary Spanners. Development of the boundary spanner leadership role must involve training of the roles and responsibilities in addition to the initial deployment of the leadership role before the MTS can be assimiliated into the culture of the organization.
6.2. Team Evaluation
6.3. Aids for Future Research Efforts
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Guzzo, R.A.; Dickson, M.W.; Teams in organizations. Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1996, 47, 307–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kozlowski, S.W.J.; Ilgen, D.R. Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychol. Sci. Work Groups Teams 2006, 7, 77–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Driskell, J.E.; Salas, E.; Driskell, T. Foundations of teamwork and collaboration. Am. Psychol. 2018, 73, 334–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, S.G.; Bailey, D.E. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. J. Manag. 1997, 23, 239–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathieu, J.E.; Gallagher, P.T.; Domingo, M.A.; Klock, E.A. Embracing complexity: Reviewing the past decade of team effectiveness research. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2019, 6, 17–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salas, E.; Sims, D.E.; Burke, S.C. Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group Res. 2005, 36, 555–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamphuis, W.; Essens, P.J.M.D.; Houttuin, K.; Gaillard, A.W.K. PLATT: A flexible platform for experimental research on team performance in complex environments. Behav. Res. Methods 2010, 42, 739–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ilgen, D.R.; Hollenbeck, J.R.; Johnson, M.; Jundt, D. Teams in organizations: From Input-Process-Output to IMOI models. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2005, 56, 517–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zaccaro, S.J.; Marks, M.A.; Dechurch, L.A. Multiteam systems: An introduction. In Multiteam Systems: Am Organization form for Dynamic and Complex Environments; Zaccaro, S.J., Marks, M.A., Dechurch, L.A., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 3–32. [Google Scholar]
- DeChurch, L.A.; Marks, M.A. Leadership in multiteam systems. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 311–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- DeChurch, L.A.; Burke, C.S.; Shuffler, M.L.; Lyons, R.; Doty, D.; Salas, E. A historiometric analysis of leadership in mission critical multiteam environments. Leadersh. Q. 2011, 22, 152–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shuffler, M.L.; Jimenez-Rodriguez, M.; Kramer, W.S. The science of multiteam systems: A review and future research agenda. Small Group Res. 2015, 46, 659–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gladstein, D.L. Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Adm. Sci. Q. 1984, 29, 499–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, S.T.; Brown, S.G.; Outland, N.B.; Abben, D.R. Critical Team Composition Issues for Long-Distance and Long-Duration Space Exploration: A Literature Review, and Operational Assessment and Recommendations for Practice and Research; NASA: Houston, TX, USA, 2015.
- Christodoulou, I.; Babalis, D.; Gymnopoulos. Building teamwork in hospitals: Detecting the situation in an example from Greece. Int. J. Health Sci. 2008, 1, 74–77. [Google Scholar]
- Mathieu, J.E.; Maynard, T.M.; Rapp, T.; Gilson, L. Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. J. Manag. 2008, 34, 410–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hackman, J.R. Collaborative Intelligence: Using Teams to Solve Hard Problems; Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Marks, M.A.; Mathieu, J.E.; Zaccaro, S.J. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2001, 26, 356–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Martins, L.L.; Gilson, L.L.; Maynard, T.M. Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? J. Manag. 2004, 30, 805–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, J.R.; Baker, R. Team emergence leadership development and evaluation: A theoretical model using complexity theory. J. Inf. Knowl. Manag. 2017, 16, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lichtenstein, B.B.; Uhl-Bien, M.; Marion, R.; Seers, A.; Orton, J.D.; Schreiber, C. Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive systems. Emerg. Complex. Org. 2006, 8, 2–12. [Google Scholar]
- Magpili, N.C.; Pazos, P. Self-managing team performance: A systematic review of multilevel input factors. Small Group Res. 2018, 49, 3–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dihn, J.V.; Salas, E. Factors that influence teamwork. In The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Team Working and Collaborative Processes; Salas, E., Rico, R., Passmore, J., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Malsen, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 15–41. [Google Scholar]
- Mathieu, J.E.; Marks, M.A.; Zaccaro, S.J. Multi-team systems. In The Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology; Anderson, N., Ones, D.S., Sinangil, H.K., Viswesvaran, C., Eds.; SAGE: London, UK, 2001; Volume 2, pp. 289–313. [Google Scholar]
- Marlow, S.; Bisbey, T.; Lacerenza, C.; Salas, E. Performance measures for health care teams: A review. Small Group Res. 2018, 49, 306–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kozlowski, S.W.J.; Grand, J.A.; Baard, S.K.; Pearce, M. Teams, teamwork, and team effectiveness: Implications for human system integration. In The Handbook of Human Systems Integration; Boehm-Davis, D., Durso, F., Lee, J., Eds.; APA: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Salas, E.; Cooke, N.J.; Rosen, M.A. On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Hum. Factors 2008, 50, 540–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Marks, M.A.; DeChurch, L.A.; Mathieu, J.E.; Panzer, F.J.; Alonso, A. Teamwork in multiteam systems. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 964–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- McGrath, J.E.; Arrow, H.; Berdahl, J.L. The study of groups: Past, present, and future. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2000, 4, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weaver, S.J.; Feitosa, J.; Salas, E.; Seddon, R.; Vozenilek, J.A. The theoretical drivers and models of team performance and effectiveness for patient safety. In Improving Patient Safety Through Teamwork and Team Training; Salas, E., Frush, K., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 3–26. [Google Scholar]
- Salas, E.; Rosen, M.A.; Burke, C.S.; Goodwin, G.F. The wisdom of collectives in organizations: An update of the teamwork competencies. In Team Effectiveness in Complex Organizations; Salas, E., Goodwin, G.F., Burke, C.S., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 39–79. [Google Scholar]
- Devine, D.J. A review and integration of classification systems relevant to teams in organizations. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 2002, 6, 291–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rico, R.; Sanchez-Manzanares, M.; Gil, F.; Gibson, C. Team implicit coordination processes: A team knowledge-based approach. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2008, 33, 163–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodwin, G.F.; Essens, P.J.M.D.; Smith, D. Multiteam systems in the public sector. In Multiteam Systems: An Organization form for Dynamic and Complex Environments; Zaccaro, S.J., Marks, M.A., Dechurch, L.A., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 53–78. [Google Scholar]
- Edmondson, A.C.; Harvey, J.-F. Extreme Teaming: Lessons in Complex, Cross-Sector Leadership; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Connaughton, S.; Shuffler, M.; Goodwin, G.F. Leading distributed teams: The communicative constitution of leadership. Milit. Psychol. 2011, 23, 502–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, K.J.; Skinner, A.; Venema, D.; Crowe, J.; High, R.; Kennel, V.; Allen, J.; Reiter-Palmon, R. Evaluating the use of multiteam systems to manage the complexity of inpatient falls in rural hospitals. Health Serv. Res. 2019, 54, 994–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alonso, A.; Baker, D.P.; Holtzman, A.; Day, R.; King, H.; Toomey, L.; Salas, E. Reducing medical error in the military health system: How can team training help? Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2006, 16, 396–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boal, K.B.; Hooijberg, R. Strategic leadership research: Moving on. Leadersh. Q. 2000, 11, 515–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antonakis, J.; House, R.J. Instrumental leadership: Measurement and extension of transformational–transactional leadership theory. Leadersh. Q. 2014, 25, 746–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bird, A.; Mendenhall, M.E. From cross-cultural management to global leadership: Evolution and adaptation. J. World Bus. 2016, 51, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberts, M.J.D.; Beamish, P.W. The scaffolding activities of international returnee executives: A learning based perspective of global boundary spanning. J. Manag. Stud. 2017, 54, 511–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cox, J.F.; Pearce, C.L.; Perry, M.L. Toward a model of shared leadership and distributed influence in the innovation process: How shared leadership can enhance new product development team dynamics and effectiveness. In Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership; Pearce, C.L., Conger, J.A., Eds.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003; pp. 48–76. [Google Scholar]
- Kurtmollaiev, S.; Pedersen, P.E.; JFjuk, A.; Kvale, K. Developing managerial dynamic capabilities: A quasi-experimental field study of the effects of design thinking training. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2018, 17, 184–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coultas, C.W.; Driskell, T.; Burke, S.C.; Salas, E. A conceptual review of emergent state measurement: Current problems, future solutions. Small Group Res. 2014, 45, 371–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgeson, F.P.; Mitchell, T.R.; Liu, D. Event system theory: An event–oriented approach to the organizational sciences. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2015, 40, 515–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schecter, A.; Pilny, A.; Leung, A.; Poole, M.S.; Contractor, N. Step by step: Capturing the dynamics of work team process through relational event sequences. J. Organ. Behav. 2017, 38, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moynihan, D.P. From Forest Fires to Hurricane Katrina: Case Studies of Incident Command Systems; IBM Center for the Business of Government: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
(TW + IP) | TK(TP + AP) | PF | CV |
---|---|---|---|
Teamwork | Taskwork (transition phase processes and action phase processes) | Performance | Customer value (internal, external, or both) |
Team composition [9,12,23] | Orientation [6,22] | Quality [12] | Feedback [18,22] |
Cooperation [2,23,30] | Resource coordination [9,12,18,22] | Quantity [9,12] | Satisfaction [3,5] |
Goal commitment [22,25,31] | Timing [9,12,22,25,31] | Time [9,12] | Exceeds expectations [22] |
Checking-in [23] | Response coordination [8] | Task completion [6] | Satisfaction of team members [8,12,22] |
Psychological safety [8,12,25,31] | Motivation [18,22] | Team member commitment [8,9,12,18,22] | |
Trust [6,8,12,25,31] | Systems monitoring [8,12] | ||
Cohesion [12,18,25,31] | Procedures maintenance [32] | ||
Conflict [12,18] | Transition Phase Processes | ||
Cognition conflict [18] | Mission analysis [9,12,18,22,25,31] | ||
Process conflict [18] | Goal specification [8,9,12,18,22] | ||
Status conflict [9,12] | Strategy formulation and planning [8,12,18,22] | ||
Task conflict [18] | Deliberate planning [8,12,18] | ||
Coordination [9,12,18,25,31] | Contingent planning [8,12,18] | ||
Explicit [23,33] | Reactive strategy adjustment/adaptability [6,8,18] | ||
Implicit [33] | Action Phase Processes | ||
Communication [6,8,9,12,22,25,31] | Monitoring progress toward goals [6,8,18,22] | ||
Coaching [18] | Systems monitoring [18] | ||
Cognition [12,25,31] | Internal systems monitoring [18,22] | ||
Shared cognition [8,25,31] | Environmental monitoring [8,18,22] | ||
Transactive memory system [8,12,25,31] | Team monitoring and backup responses [6,8,18,22,25,31] | ||
Shared mental memory [6,8,12] | Coordination activities [6,9,12,18,22,25,31] | ||
Task-related features [6,22,25,31] | |||
Team-related aspects [6,22,25,31] | |||
Culture [8,9,12,22,23] | |||
Context [23] | |||
Leadership structure [6,12,22,25,31] | |||
Interpersonal phase processes | |||
Conflict management [18,25,31] | |||
Preemptive conflict management [18] | |||
Reactive conflict management [18] | |||
Motivating/confidence building [18,22,25,31] | |||
Effect management [8,12,18,22] |
MTS Team Processes | MTS (Boundary Spanner) | Team (Component Team) | Individual |
---|---|---|---|
Transition | |||
Mission analysis formulation and planning | X | X | |
Goal specification | X | X | |
Strategy formation | X | X | |
Action | |||
Monitoring progress toward goals | X | X | |
Systems monitoring | X | X | |
Team monitoring and backup responses | X | X | |
Coordination activities | X | X | |
Interpersonal | |||
Conflict management | X | ||
Motivation and confidence building | X | ||
Effect management | X | X |
Temporal Process | MTS (Boundary Spanner) | Team (Component Team) | Individual |
---|---|---|---|
Transition | |||
Mission analysis formulation and planning | Closed-loop communication, duration, genesis, hierarchical arrangement, network, organizational structure | Mission analysis, planning, team mission | |
Goal specification | National culture, organizational culture, organizational diversity, organizational goals | Accurate problem models, task characteristics, team goal commitment | |
Strategy formation | Collaboration with interagency partners, communication structure, functional diversity, geographically dispersion of teams, mode of communication, organizational diversity, organizational policies, power distribution, stage of development, temporal orientation, training, transformation of development | Developing strategy, finishing | |
Action | |||
Monitoring progress toward goals | Cue strategy associations, helping, mutual performance monitoring, problem detection, workload sharing | Leadership (shared), task-related assertiveness | |
Systems monitoring | Resources | Gathering information | |
Teams monitoring and backup responses | Adapting, backup supporting behavior, helping, learning from team’s best member, team orientation, workload sharing | Openness to change | |
Coordination activities | Coordination horizontal, implicit coordination strategies, interdependence, planning, team autonomy | Individual roles, planning, self-management skills, work experience | |
Interpersonal | |||
Conflict management | Conflict resolution | ||
Motivation and confidence building | Motivation of others, rewards | ||
Effect management | Mutual trust, peer control, shared mental models (MTS), social identity, team cohesion, team empowerment, team learning orientation, team potency, team psychological safety, team satisfaction | Individual autonomy, general skills, trust |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Turner, J.; Baker, R.; Ali, Z.; Thurlow, N. A New Multiteam System (MTS) Effectiveness Model. Systems 2020, 8, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems8020012
Turner J, Baker R, Ali Z, Thurlow N. A New Multiteam System (MTS) Effectiveness Model. Systems. 2020; 8(2):12. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems8020012
Chicago/Turabian StyleTurner, John, Rose Baker, Zain Ali, and Nigel Thurlow. 2020. "A New Multiteam System (MTS) Effectiveness Model" Systems 8, no. 2: 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems8020012