Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Real teams or pseudo teams? The changing landsc...
View graph of relations

Real teams or pseudo teams? The changing landscape needs a better map

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Real teams or pseudo teams? The changing landscape needs a better map. / West, Michael; Lyubovnikova, J.R.

In: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2012, p. 25-28.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

West, M & Lyubovnikova, JR 2012, 'Real teams or pseudo teams? The changing landscape needs a better map', Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 25-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01397.x

APA

West, M., & Lyubovnikova, J. R. (2012). Real teams or pseudo teams? The changing landscape needs a better map. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 25-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01397.x

Vancouver

Author

West, Michael ; Lyubovnikova, J.R. / Real teams or pseudo teams? The changing landscape needs a better map. In: Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2012 ; Vol. 5, No. 1. pp. 25-28.

Bibtex

@article{71598903873c4c1ebde5ed63b865b92d,
title = "Real teams or pseudo teams? The changing landscape needs a better map",
abstract = "At the outset, Tannenbaum et al. provide two well-cited definitions of “team” from the literature and conclude that most teams in research studies share a few key characteristics in common. However, a number of other equally valid and well-recognized definitions exist (e.g., Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Devine, Clayton, Phillips, Dunford, & Melner, 1999; Hackman, 2002; Salas, Stagl, Burke, & Goodwin, 2007; West, 2012) and include subtle yet theoretically meaningful differences (e.g., in relation to boundedness of team membership). The problem of unclear or contested definitions raises crucial questions: What characteristics distinguish an authentic or real organizational team from a loose group of individuals perhaps co-acting in close physical or virtual proximity? Which individuals constitute team members and which individuals are simply other organizational members who interact more or less closely with the team? How can we ensure that there is conceptual precision when accumulating and synthesizing research findings across studies on teams in organizations? Without greater precision about what characterizes a team, we cannot identify the types of collectives that warrant inclusion in our studies.",
author = "Michael West and J.R Lyubovnikova",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01397.x",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
pages = "25--28",
journal = "Industrial and Organizational Psychology",
issn = "1754-9426",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons Inc.",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Real teams or pseudo teams? The changing landscape needs a better map

AU - West, Michael

AU - Lyubovnikova, J.R

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - At the outset, Tannenbaum et al. provide two well-cited definitions of “team” from the literature and conclude that most teams in research studies share a few key characteristics in common. However, a number of other equally valid and well-recognized definitions exist (e.g., Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Devine, Clayton, Phillips, Dunford, & Melner, 1999; Hackman, 2002; Salas, Stagl, Burke, & Goodwin, 2007; West, 2012) and include subtle yet theoretically meaningful differences (e.g., in relation to boundedness of team membership). The problem of unclear or contested definitions raises crucial questions: What characteristics distinguish an authentic or real organizational team from a loose group of individuals perhaps co-acting in close physical or virtual proximity? Which individuals constitute team members and which individuals are simply other organizational members who interact more or less closely with the team? How can we ensure that there is conceptual precision when accumulating and synthesizing research findings across studies on teams in organizations? Without greater precision about what characterizes a team, we cannot identify the types of collectives that warrant inclusion in our studies.

AB - At the outset, Tannenbaum et al. provide two well-cited definitions of “team” from the literature and conclude that most teams in research studies share a few key characteristics in common. However, a number of other equally valid and well-recognized definitions exist (e.g., Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Devine, Clayton, Phillips, Dunford, & Melner, 1999; Hackman, 2002; Salas, Stagl, Burke, & Goodwin, 2007; West, 2012) and include subtle yet theoretically meaningful differences (e.g., in relation to boundedness of team membership). The problem of unclear or contested definitions raises crucial questions: What characteristics distinguish an authentic or real organizational team from a loose group of individuals perhaps co-acting in close physical or virtual proximity? Which individuals constitute team members and which individuals are simply other organizational members who interact more or less closely with the team? How can we ensure that there is conceptual precision when accumulating and synthesizing research findings across studies on teams in organizations? Without greater precision about what characterizes a team, we cannot identify the types of collectives that warrant inclusion in our studies.

U2 - 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01397.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01397.x

M3 - Journal article

VL - 5

SP - 25

EP - 28

JO - Industrial and Organizational Psychology

JF - Industrial and Organizational Psychology

SN - 1754-9426

IS - 1

ER -