4.5 Article

Teams of Psychologists Helping Teams: The Evolution of the Science of Team Training

Journal

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST
Volume 74, Issue 3, Pages 278-289

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/amp0000419

Keywords

team training; teamwork; team performance; team development; multidisciplinary research

Funding

  1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NNX16AP96G, NNX16AB08G]
  2. National Science Foundation [DGE 1450681]
  3. Ann and John Doerr Institute for New Leaders at Rice University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Team training contributes to improved performance, reduced errors, and even saving lives-and it exists today because psychologists collaborated across domains to contribute their expertise. Our objective was to highlight the salient role of multidisciplinary collaboration in the success of team training, an area driven by psychologists responding to real-world problems. In this article, we deliver (a) a historical account of team training research, acknowledging critical turning points that shaped the science; (b) a synthesis of major contributions from subdisciplines of psychology: and (c) a collection of lessons learned in the science and practice of team training. We begin with the history of problems that created a need for solutions and the psychologists across domains who worked together to develop a science to improve teamwork. We give poignant examples of fatal mistakes that incited action and enabled scientific breakthroughs through research partnerships. Next. we detail the theoretical drivers behind the science and the hands-on approach of investigating how we turn a team of experts into an expert team. We discuss the spectrum of team training research throughout time, including major influences that shifted dominant paradigms of thought, while emphasizing its multidisciplinary nature and the contributions of psychologists. Finally, we provide a list of lessons learned from a half-century of multidisciplinary research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available