Abstract
In this review, we provide a deeper understanding of the team emergent states (TES) literature by building upon Marks et al.’s cognitive, affective, motivational categories, to suggest that TES may also be amalgams (i.e., a blend of two or more categories). In doing so, we review the literature accumulating between 2000 and 2020, focusing on the eight most-researched TES. We highlight numerous gaps within the TES literature and offer promising future research directions. We envision this work as laying the foundation upon which TES research can continue to emerge in the coming decades.
Marks et al. (2001) seminal article distinguished team processes from team emergent states (TES). TES are cognitive, affective, and motivational states of teams that are “dynamic in nature and vary as function of team context, inputs, processes, and outcomes” (Marks et al., 2001, p. 357) and are key variables in team effectiveness models (Mathieu et al., 2008, 2019). For decades, scholars have sought to understand TES antecedents and outcomes, and how they are linked. The TES literature builds upon Kozlowski and Klein’s (2000, p. 55) premise that a “phenomenon is emergent when it originates in the cognitive, affect, behaviors, or other characteristics of individuals, is amplified by their interactions and manifests as a higher level, collective phenomenon.”
While TES have garnered increased attention in the literature, several additional factors suggest an integrative review of the literature is needed. First, TES research is currently fragmented with scholars continuously introducing new constructs. The literature has progressed in a silo-like fashion, with little effort to synthesize insights. Second, there appears to be some disagreement about the underlying nature of TES constructs. For example, Fulmer and Ostroff (2016) organized emergent team properties into five content-based categories: attitude, affect, perception, cognition, and learning. Others, following Marks et al. (2001), suggest TES can be cognitive, affective, and motivational (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010; Kozlowski et al., 2013; Mathieu et al., 2017). Further, disagreement exists regarding the underlying nature of TES constructs. For example, scholars have described team climates as being cognitive (Kozlowski et al., 2013), non-cognitive (Coultas et al., 2014), and affective (Mathieu et al., 2017). Accordingly, the classification of TES constructs remains uncertain, resulting in a lack of clarity regarding the underlying nature of TES constructs and their distinctiveness. Finally, little consensus exists regarding the state, or future needs, of the TES literature.
There have been prior literature reviews addressing TES. Past reviews of the teams literature have tended to focus on relationships between TES and team effectiveness outcomes (e.g., Mathieu et al., 2008, 2019), whereas others review specific TES such as team empowerment (Maynard et al., 2012) and shared mental models (Mohammed et al., 2010). Several recent reviews address targeted issues. For example, Coultas et al. (2014) examined TES measurement, Waller et al. (2016) chronicled how characteristics of emergent phenomena (global, coherent, ostensive, and radically novel) are reflected in the TES literature, and Fulmer and Ostroff (2016) reviewed the factors (structure, leadership, social processes, homogeneity of individual attributes) that drive convergence and emergence processes in TES. While valuable, none provided an overarching review of the TES literature, which may be constraining the advancement of the literature.
In response, we review the TES literature over two decades, extending the trajectory provided by past reviews, and make three primary contributions. First, we introduce order to the literature, using subject matter expert (SME) guidance, to classify constructs into a TES taxonomy. The taxonomy builds upon Marks et al.’s (2001) cognitive, affective, motivational categories, which offers a parsimonious perspective of TES that numerous scholars have leveraged (Coultas et al., 2014; DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010; Fulmer & Ostroff, 2016; Kozlowski et al., 2013). Through this TES Taxonomy, we provide additional scaffolding for this literature and open the door for further considerations of its structure. Our framework suggests some TES may be cognitive, affective, and motivational amalgamations. Although scholars have argued some constructs (e.g., team learning, transactive memory systems) represent hybrids of TES and team processes (Mathieu et al., 2008; Waller et al., 2016), they have not yet considered whether the underlying nature of TES constructs may reflect cognitive, affective, and motivational amalgamations. Thus, we provide insights into the nature of TES constructs, which has not been systematically addressed. Second, to synthesize the research, we review the eight most-researched TES constructs over the past two decades and offer a comprehensive review of the nomological network of these constructs. 1 Finally, we summarize key observations and future research opportunities.
Literature Review Methodology
We reviewed empirical, peer-reviewed TES articles published between 2000 and 2020. First, we compiled a list of over 50 TES constructs and conducted a Scopus database search using an extensive list of terms (e.g., emergent states, psychological states) and their variants (team, group, collective) within 50 journals representing various disciplines (e.g., management, psychology, human factors, human resources, communications, management information systems) publishing team research. 2 This allowed us to identify the eight most-researched TES constructs since 2000 (see Figure 1) highlighted in this review. Second, we searched two additional databases (Web of Science, Business Source) using the same terms to identify articles in discipline-specific journals (e.g., education, marketing). We eliminated articles that did not operationalize constructs as TES and that did not focus on organizational contexts.
Team emergent state taxonomy.
TES Taxonomy
Our Team Emergent State Taxonomy (Figure 1) extends Marks et al.’s (2001) work, which conceptualized TES as cognitive, affective, and motivational in nature. The cognitive category concerns members’ beliefs regarding a specific factor, the affective category concerns members’ feelings, attitudes, and emotions, and the motivational category concerns members’ intensity, direction, and regulation of effort toward task accomplishment. Because some constructs represent two or more of these categories, we build upon Marks et al. (2001), suggesting TES may also be amalgams.
Because little attention has explored which categories TES fit into, we solicited subject matter experts (SMEs), to categorize over 50 TES constructs into these categories: (1) cognitive, (2) affective, (3) motivational, (4) cognitive/affective, (5) cognitive/motivational, (6) affective/motivational, and (7) cognitive/affective/motivational. We distributed a web-based survey to 76 SMEs and received 33 responses (43% response rate). Table 1 depicts the percentage of SMEs that classified each TES into each of the seven categories. It also provides weighted percentage agreement and Gwet’s AC1 (Gwet, 2014), which provides an interrater reliability index representing the extent of agreement across multiple raters using a categorical rating system, with higher (lower) values indicating more (less) agreement among raters about the underlying nature of a TES construct (e.g., cognitive, affective, etc.). As Table 1 shows, SMEs characterized some TES as cognitive (i.e., climate, cognition, trust), affective (i.e., cohesion, psychological safety), and motivational (i.e., confidence), and others as amalgams of cognitive, affective, and motivational elements, suggesting some TES constructs may not cleanly fit into Marks et al. (2001)’s categories. For example, SME’s categorized team identification as a cognitive/affective amalgam, which echoes theoretical (Tajfel, 1978) and empirical insights (Dimmock et al., 2005). Not all TES have received such scrutiny, however, which may partly explain why SMEs exhibited less agreement on the nature of some TES, evidenced by lower interrater reliability.
Team Emergent State Classifications by Subject Matter Experts.
Note. C = cognitive; A = affective; M = motivational; CA = cognitive/affective; CM = cognitive/motivational; AM = affective/motivational; CAM = cognitive/affective/motivational.
SME insights offer a starting point for scholars to develop a deeper understanding of the nature of TES constructs, and introduces many questions. For example, is there value to be gained from the myriad of cognitive TES constructs (Table 1), what makes each distinct, and would the literature be better served by synthesizing the cognitive TES literature? Recognizing SMEs equally categorized team goal orientation as motivational and cognitive/motivational, is there work to be done to better articulate the underlying nature of the construct and its measurement? Across TES constructs, opportunities exist to develop a deeper understanding of their underlying nature.
Most-Researched TES Constructs
We review literature focusing on the eight TES garnering the most research attention in the past two decades. Figure 2 depicts their research trends during this period.
Trends in TES research: Number of articles published from 2000 to 2020.
Cognitive TES
Cognitive TES concern member beliefs or thoughts and represents the most researched of the three primary categories (Table 1). We focus on three most researched cognitive TES: team cognition, team trust, and team climates.
Team cognition
Team cognition is the manner in which knowledge for team functioning is mentally organized, represented, and distributed within a team (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010). Although scholars have advanced over 50 team cognition constructs (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010), we focus on the most-researched: shared mental models (SMM; knowledge held in common) and transactive memory systems (TMS; knowledge distributed among members). SMM has been operationalized with a variety of shared, dispersion, and configural-based approaches (Coultas et al., 2014; Mathieu & Luciano, 2019; Waller et al., 2016), while TMS is typically measured configurally (Coultas et al., 2014).
Meta-analytic evidence indicates team cognition positively predicts outcomes including team performance as well as team behavioral and motivational processes (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010). Mohammed et al.’s (2010) review notes SMMs positively predict other TES (e.g., team efficacy), processes (e.g., back-up behavior, coordination, communication), and team effectiveness. Similarly, Ren and Argote’s (2011) review notes TMS predicts performance outcomes (e.g., work quality, efficiency, customer service), member satisfaction, and has been tied to organizational outcomes (e.g., ambidexterity, performance; Heavey & Simsek, 2017).
The effects of team cognition are subject to moderators. DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus (2010) found task interdependence moderated relationships between team cognition and team processes and performance, with moderation differing for SMM and TMS, as well as team type. SMM and TMS scholars have examined different moderators. For example, TMS scholars report functional diversity amplifies the TMS-ambidextrous orientation relationship (Heavey & Simsek, 2017), while the SMM-performance relationship is stronger in novel (vs. routine) contexts (Marks et al., 2000).
Team cognition research has also focused on team-level antecedents including team design, team composition, and team leadership, paying less attention to team processes and other TES. Antecedents examined vary across team cognition constructs but focus on team design factors, finding geographic distance (O’Leary & Mortensen, 2010) and interdependence (Zhang et al., 2007) positively influence, while role stressors deter (Pearsall et al., 2009), TMS. Also, familiarity (Lewis, 2004) and expertise (Bunderson, 2003) facilitate, while negative affectivity (Hood et al., 2016), discourages TMS. Team design (e.g., virtuality and role differentiation; Levesque et al., 2001; McComb et al., 2010) fosters SMMs. Team leadership (e.g., participative; Dionne et al., 2010), processes (e.g., team debriefing; Smith-Jentsch et al., 2008), composition (e.g., cognitive ability; Resick et al., 2010) and TES (e.g., team learning orientation; Pearsall & Venkataramani, 2015) also positively influence SMMs. Also, there is some evidence that contextual factors can influence SMM (organizational support; Druskat & Pescosolido, 2002) and TMS (high commitment work systems, IT support; Choi et al., 2010), as well as some evidence that SMMs influence individual-level outcomes (Chou et al., 2008).
Team trust
Team trust reflects members’ beliefs in the “dependability and trustworthiness of team members” (Tsai et al., 2012, p. 639). Scholars have examined team trust generally, as well as its specific dimensions (e.g., intra-team and competence-based trust). Team trust is commonly measured as shared member perceptions, although research has explored configural and network-based operationalizations (Coultas et al., 2014). Research has focused on team trust antecedents. Team composition factors positively influencing team trust include member ability, integrity (Colquitt et al., 2007) and emotional intelligence (EI; Chang et al., 2012), while factors including demographic dissimilarity (Krebs et al., 2006) negatively impact team trust. Leadership factors including authentic (Hirst et al., 2016) and shared leadership (Guenter et al., 2017), and leader EI (Chang et al., 2012) also encourage team trust. Although less researched, there is evidence that team processes can both positively (e.g., social interaction; Wu & Lee, 2016) and negatively (e.g., team conflict; Langfred, 2007) impact team trust.
Research consistently shows team trust positively impacts team-level outcomes, including team attitudes (i.e., satisfaction, commitment), information processing (i.e., knowledge sharing, team learning), other TES (e.g., cohesion), and performance (Breuer et al., 2016; De Jong et al., 2016). While several factors mediate the relationship between team trust and performance (e.g., effort, De Jong & Elfring, 2010; monitoring, Langfred, 2004), team trust also mediates relationships between antecedent factors (e.g., shared leadership, Guenter et al., 2017) and team performance. Meta-analyses also consider moderators between team trust and performance such as task interdependence, authority differentiation (De Jong et al., 2016), and EI (Chang et al., 2012).
Team climates
Team climates reflect member perceptions of norms, attitudes, and expectations perceived to operate within a specific context (Schneider, 1990), and are typically indexed as shared perceptions (Coultas et al., 2014). Scholars have shifted focus from general, to specific facets of climate. Numerous studies report facet-specific team climates impact team-level performance, behavioral, and cognitive outcomes (Cole et al., 2013). For example, team climates emphasizing psychological safety and justice facilitate outcomes including team performance (Koopmann et al., 2016) and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs; Cole et al., 2013). Abusive supervision team climate dampens team identification and efficacy, and ultimately, cooperation and performance (Priesemuth et al., 2014). There is also evidence that team climates influence individual-level outcomes. For example, climates focused on innovation (Chen et al., 2013) and empowerment (Chen et al., 2007) engender individual innovation and empowerment.
Research on team climate antecedents predominantly focus on leadership. For example, transformational leadership supports an innovation climate (Chen et al., 2013), while leader-team value congruence encourages a team justice climate (Cole et al., 2013). Cobb and Lau (2015) show high/low Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) differentially affect interactional, procedural, and distributive justice climates. There is also some evidence that team climates act as moderators. For example, service team climate amplifies the OCB-servant leadership relationship (Walumbwa et al., 2010), and voice team climate bolsters identification’s positive effect on voice (Morrison et al., 2011). Recently, Kukenberger and D’Innocenzo (2020) found cooperative team climate moderated relationships between functional diversity, gender diversity, and shared leadership.
Affective TES
Affective TES includes psychological states relating to feelings, attitudes, and emotions (see Figure 1). We review the two most-researched—team cohesion and psychological safety.
Team cohesion
Team cohesion, which reflects the total set of forces that encourage members to remain in the team (Festinger et al., 1950), is commonly indexed as shared member perceptions (Coultas et al., 2014). Scholars highlight many team-level antecedents. Team design predictors include acute stressors (Sharma & Pearsall, 2016), ambient sexual harassment (Raver & Gelfand, 2005), and negative relationships (i.e., disliking among members; de Jong et al., 2014). Team composition predictors include faultlines (Molleman, 2005) interaction anxiety (Naber et al., 2015), and diversity-related factors (e.g., functional diversity; Zhang, 2016). Team leadership predictors have also been widely examined, including shared (Mathieu et al., 2015), servant, and ethical leadership (Zheng et al., 2015), and LMX differentiation (Chiniara & Bentein, 2016). Team processes (e.g., relationship conflict, Manata, 2016) and TES including team efficacy (Hirschfeld & Bernerth, 2008) and task commitment (Beal et al., 2003) also influence team cohesion.
Meta-analytic evidence (Beal et al., 2003; Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009) outlines team cohesion outcomes, including team performance (Gully et al., 2012), emotional exhaustion (Zheng et al., 2015), decision outcomes (Manata, 2016), creativity (Zhang, 2016), and team processes (Lavy et al., 2015). Given debate over its relationship with performance, Mathieu et al. (2015) found cohesion positively impacts team performance with increasing magnitude over time, and its reciprocal relationship has a positive, consistent relationship. There is limited evidence that cohesion influences individual outcomes, including creativity (Chang et al., 2014) and social loafing (Høigaard et al., 2006). Although few studies examine mediators of team cohesion-outcome relationships, Rodríguez-Sánchez et al. (2017) found team task engagement mediated the cohesion-creative performance relationship. A lack of consensus regarding the cohesion-performance relationship led scholars to examine moderators (Beal et al., 2003), finding that factors including team type (Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009), team setting (Castaño et al., 2013), and interdependence (Gully et al., 2012) influenced the nature of that relationship.
Team psychological safety
Team psychological safety concerns beliefs that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking (Edmondson & Lei, 2014), and has predominantly been indexed as shared member perceptions (Coultas et al., 2014). Extensive psychological safety research examines antecedents, the most common being team leadership and composition. Frazier et al.’s (2017) meta-analysis indicated positive leader relations support team psychological safety. Edmondson and Lei’s (2014) review indicates team leadership (e.g., servant), team design (structure), team processes (boundary work, task conflict), TES (trust, identification), and supportive contexts encourage team psychological safety. Team composition factors (e.g., expertise diversity, faultlines; Lau & Murnighan, 2005; Martins et al., 2013) also serve as antecedents.
Frazier et al.’s (2017) meta-analysis indicated team psychological safety engenders desirable outcomes including performance, behavioral (learning, information sharing), and affective team outcomes (engagement, satisfaction). Scholars have begun incorporating a multilevel perspective, finding psychological safety positively influences individual-level outcomes (e.g., creativity; Jiang & Gu, 2016). Efforts to identify mechanisms that mediate psychological safety-outcome relationships have focused on learning, knowledge creation, and information sharing (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). Many studies (Liu et al., 2014) depict psychological safety as mediating relationships between leadership, composition, design factors, and outcomes. Although scholars have largely assumed psychological safety is universally beneficial across contexts, Sanner and Bunderson (2015) found it more strongly predicts learning and performance in knowledge-intensive contexts. Others have explored boundary conditions of psychological safety-outcome relationships (e.g., task conflict; Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011).
Motivational TES
Motivational TES constructs reflect team beliefs relating to the intensity, direction, and effort regulation toward team task accomplishment. Although SMEs categorized several constructs as motivational (Table 1), we review the one receiving the most research attention—team confidence.
Team confidence
Despite the proliferation of team confidence-related constructs (Gully et al., 2002), team potency (beliefs regarding general team ability) and team efficacy (beliefs about task-specific team ability) are the most researched. Team confidence is often indexed as a shared belief among members, yet there are examples of additive and dispersion-based operationalizations (Coultas et al., 2014). This robust literature (Figure 1) is partly attributable to the consistent relationship these constructs exhibit with team performance outcomes (Gully et al., 2002) across cultures (Hu & Judge, 2017). Scholars have also examined its mediating role, including how potency carries the effects of team climate and team leader empowerment to ultimately influence team performance (Ahearne et al., 2010).
Researchers have also investigated team confidence antecedents including organizational support (Kennedy et al., 2009) and formalization (Hempel et al., 2012), team composition (e.g., member experience, cognitive styles; Akgun et al., 2007; Miron-Spektor et al., 2011), and team leadership factors including shared (Nicolaides et al., 2014), empowering (Srivastava et al., 2006), and transformational leadership (Wang & Howell, 2012). Finally, team confidence is positively impacted by TES including team trust and empowerment (Akgun et al., 2007).
Amalgam TES
While the above sections reviewed the prominent constructs within the traditional cognitive, affective, and motivational TES Taxonomy categories, SMEs acknowledged that some constructs are amalgams of these categories. We review the most prominent amalgams below.
Team identification (cognitive/affective amalgam TES)
Team identification reflects “members’ shared sense of identification with a work group” (Carmeli & Shteigman, 2010, p. 321). Although typically indexed as shared member beliefs, team identification is sometimes measured as the average of individual identifications (e.g., Kim & Glomb, 2014). Considerable research examines team-level antecedents including team leadership behaviors (e.g., role modeling; Huettermann et al., 2014) and styles (e.g., paternalistic; Cheng & Wang, 2015). Some team composition factors facilitate (e.g., TMT prestige; Carmeli & Shteigman, 2010), while others suppress (e.g., informational dissimilarity; Van der Vegt et al., 2003), team identification.
Research highlights team identification outcomes, including creative performance (Hirst et al., 2009), behaviors (e.g., learning, intergroup relations, OCBs; Luan et al., 2016), and other TES (e.g., collective efficacy, Wu et al., 2010; TMS, Liao et al., 2015). Some research indicates team identification affects individual-level outcomes (e.g., effectiveness; Janssen & Xu, 2008). Also, there is some evidence that the effects of team identification can change over time (Cuijpers et al., 2016). Extensive research depicts team identification as mediating relationships involving team performance (e.g., Kearney et al., 2009), OCBs (e.g., Van der Vegt et al., 2003), and other TES (e.g., team efficacy, Wang & Howell, 2012). Many studies highlight team identification as a moderator that interacts with team composition (e.g., team goal orientation; Pearsall & Venkataramani, 2015) and design factors (e.g., interdependence, Somech et al., 2009). Some moderating relationships are complex. For example, team identification differentially interacts with team goal orientation to influence individual and team performance, such that a performance-prove goal orientation motivates team (individual) performance more in teams characterized by high (low) team identification (Dietz et al., 2015). Research has also explored factors moderating team identification relationships, such as Kearney et al.’s (2009) finding that age and education diversity positively impacted team identification when team need for cognition was high.
Team empowerment (cognitive/motivational amalgam TES)
Team (psychological) empowerment reflects member beliefs regarding their authority and responsibility for their work (Maynard et al., 2012). Although commonly indexed as shared perceptions about the team, some studies utilize an additive approach, averaging individual empowerment to represent team empowerment (Maynard et al., 2012). Maynard et al.’s (2012) review chronicled antecedents (e.g., team design, composition, leadership, contextual factors) and outcomes of team empowerment (e.g., performance, team process improvement, affective team outcomes). Since that review, scholars have demonstrated that team empowerment positively affects additional outcomes including knowledge sharing, flexibility, and satisfaction (He et al., 2014; Luciano et al., 2014; Zhou et al., 2012). Team empowerment research continues to be multi-level examining cross-level relationships, including how team empowerment impacts individual empowerment (Zhou et al., 2012) and moderates individual-level relationships (e.g., Si & Wei, 2012). Scholars have also incorporated research on interventions. Stewart et al. (2017) reported that a team empowerment intervention was more challenging for higher-status leaders. Similarly, Kukenberger et al. (2015) found team empowerment increased individual learning and commitment, and increased team empowerment following a team empowerment intervention.
Leadership remains central to team empowerment antecedents (Zhou et al., 2012). For example, Rapp et al. (2016) found team coaches impacted team empowerment while external team leaders did not. Chen et al. (2019) recently examined how empowering leadership crosses team boundaries when members are on multiple teams simultaneously. Further, scholars have begun to examine how different forms of diversity affect team empowerment relationships (He et al., 2014), such as Avery et al.’s (2013) finding that team sex dissimilarity attenuated the positive effect of team empowerment on individual empowerment.
Synthesis of TES Literature Review
Next, we provide a synthesis of the TES literature by widening our scope beyond the eight constructs reviewed to consider all TES, thus providing perspective on the current state of the TES literature. To start, cognitive TES have received the most research over the past two decades (see Figure 1), although there are affective, motivational, and amalgam constructs that have received significant attention as well. We provide overarching observations of the TES literature, explaining where consistency and divergence exist across the TES Taxonomy in terms of antecedents, outcomes, and moderators.
Antecedents
Considering antecedents, team compositional variables have been examined extensively across the cognitive, affective, and motivational TES literatures. The affective TES literature has particularly emphasized diversity including surface- (e.g., gender and age; Liang et al., 2015) and deep-level diversity (e.g., personality diversity, Liang et al., 2015), with most studies finding diversity negatively impacts affective TES (Hentschel et al., 2013). However, some studies report nonsignificant relationships between diversity and TES constructs, such as social integration (Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007). Beyond traditional considerations of diversity, researchers have started to examine other aspects of team diversity, such as faultlines. Future research may want to consider how diverse teams can still develop TES.
Team leadership is another antecedent consistently examined across TES Taxonomy dimensions. Given the various types of leadership, it is unsurprising the same variability exists within the TES literature. However, some leadership concepts receive more attention across TES categories, such as transformational (Wang & Howell, 2012), shared (Mathieu et al., 2015), participative (Dionne et al., 2010), and LMX (Chiniara & Bentein, 2016). In contrast, there are examples of other leadership concepts considered within specific TES: abusive leadership within the cognitive TES literature (Jiang & Gu, 2016); leader inclusiveness within the affective TES literature (Edmondson & Lei, 2014); servant leadership within the affective and motivational TES literature (Sousa & Van Dierendonck, 2016), and empowering leadership within the amalgam TES literature (Chen et al., 2019).
Considering antecedents studied across the TES spectrum highlights gaps future researchers may explore. For instance, while some have examined virtuality as a moderator (Breuer et al., 2016), team virtuality has also been examined as an antecedent variable primarily within the cognitive and affective TES literatures, and specifically within the trust, cognition, and cohesion literatures (McComb et al., 2010). Recognizing virtual interactions have become the norm for teams during the COVID-19 pandemic and may continue for the foreseeable future, researchers should explore the impact of virtuality on TES within all categories. This will allow research to clarify whether virtuality differentially impacts different categories of TES.
Outcomes
Across TES Taxonomy categories, a majority of work examines the effect of TES constructs on team performance (Gully et al., 2002; Martins et al., 2013). In part, this may be the result of scholars’ interest in understanding factors shaping team performance, and because TES are typically conceptualized as mediating mechanisms. There are additional outcome variables that have been examined within the TES literature. Studies in every TES Taxonomy category have considered affective outcomes such as team satisfaction (Ren & Argote, 2011). Some studies examine how antecedents and team processes shape TES constructs (Manata, 2016; Mathieu et al., 2015). Interestingly, creativity has been examined as the ultimate outcome of TES studies, at both the individual (Shin et al., 2012) and team (Tsai et al., 2012) levels of analysis.
Moderators
The literature has also examined various constructs moderating TES relationships. In particular, research has examined how cultural dimensions (e.g., power distance and collectivism) moderate focal relationships among motivational TES constructs such as team cognition (Hu & Judge, 2017; Schaubroeck et al., 2007). Task interdependence is also examined across TES Taxonomy categories (Stajkovic et al., 2009). While we contend there could be more attention, there have been studies looking at TES constructs as moderators. Psychological safety has received notable attention as a moderator within the cognitive TES literature (Pearsall & Ellis, 2011) and there are a few studies examining interactions among TES (Tanghe et al., 2010).
Observations Across TES Categories
It is clear from this synthesis that the literature has more often considered team processes as antecedents of TES (Clark & Maggitti, 2012). Studies featuring TES as antecedents of team processes are less prevalent (see Ayoko & Chua, 2014 as an exception). Thus, there remains opportunity for researchers to explore potential reciprocal relationships that exist between team processes and TES. Ayoko and Chua’s (2014) study is also notable because it includes two different types of TES in a single study.
Studies examining multiple TES typically include several TES from one TES Taxonomy category. For example, Collins and Parker (2010) investigated the impact of team potency, team outcome efficacy, and team process efficacy—all motivational TES. This study is a noteworthy example because including multiple TES showed differential predictive validity on team performance. We call for future research to include multiple TES within a single study and incorporate constructs from different TES Taxonomy categories. This will contribute to our understanding of whether and how TES constructs interact with each other, and whether TES from different TES Taxonomy categories have synergistic or substitutional effects.
Moreover, across TES Taxonomy categories, relationships examined between various antecedents, outcomes, and moderators of TES relationships have predominantly considered linear effects. There are notable opportunities for TES scholars to consider curvilinear relationships, such as Rapp et al.’s (2014) study, which examined curvilinear relationships between team efficacy and team performance criteria.
A final overarching observation from our synthesis of the entire TES literature is the variability in work incorporating multi-level considerations. In particular, amalgam TES constructs include consideration of multi-level effects, with several studies examining the impact team empowerment has on individual-level outcomes (Kukenberger et al., 2015; Zhou et al., 2012). We hope the more traditional cognitive, affective, and motivational categories leverage this thinking and further examine multi-level relationships within other TES Taxonomy categories.
Team Emergent State Future Research Directions
The TES literature accumulating over the past two decades is impressive and has substantively advanced our understanding of TES’ role in team effectiveness models. Above, we highlighted general themes evident in the eight most researched TES, detailing insights about antecedents, outcomes, mediators, and moderators emerging over the review period. In Table 2, we outline where more work is needed in the eight TES we reviewed. In what follows, we offer summary observations and recommendations for future TES research.
TES Future Research Directions.
Future Research Needs: Summary Observations
Five broad summary observations about future research needs emerged. First, we join other scholars in emphasizing the underrepresentation of temporal themes; notably, the emergence and dynamic nature of TES. These topics have witnessed a surge of theoretical interest (Fulmer & Ostroff, 2016; Kozlowski & Chao, 2012; Kozlowski et al., 2013; Waller et al., 2016). Despite exceptions (Carter et al., 2018; D’Innocenzo et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2014; Lewis, 2004), empirical examinations of TES emergence, development, and trajectories are rare, but needed to advance our understanding of the fundamental temporal nature of TES. A second observation from our review is that despite theoretical interest in the multilevel (i.e., bottom-up, top-down) processes underlying TES emergence (cf. Humphrey & Aime, 2014; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Waller et al., 2016), there are limited empirical applications of a multilevel perspective. Because the predominant focus has been on team-level factors, the TES literature would benefit from Hackman’s (2003) bracketing approach by incorporating factors residing at higher (i.e., contextual and organizational) and lower (i.e., individual) levels of analysis. A third broad observation concerns TES measurement. We join others calling for research to move beyond shared perceptions and consider more complex operationalization of TES constructs (Coultas et al., 2014; Waller et al., 2016), and to explore non self-report measures by leveraging different measurement methods, such as ethnographic observations (Metiu & Rothbard, 2013). Work by Stevens et al. (2012) and Nislin et al. (2016) are exemplars in this regard, using neural activity and stress regulation markers to measure TES. Lastly, there is a need to consider curvilinear relationships associated with TES (cf. Hirst et al, 2016; Rapp et al., 2014), and potential downsides of TES (cf. Maynard et al., 2015; Pearsall & Ellis, 2011).
Future Research Needs: Cognitive, Affective, Motivational
Beyond the broad future research needs above, further consideration of the cognitive, affective, and motivational nature of TES offers promising avenues for future research, including the application of theoretical perspectives, temporal patterns, and team interventions.
Theoretical perspectives
A promising avenue is to leverage existing theories addressing cognitive, affective, and motivational phenomena to better understand the development, functioning, and nomological network of TES constructs. The cognitive TES literature, for example, may benefit from social network theories which posit, “a network is a set of social system members connected by links or ties that indicate the relationships. . .between them” (Roberson & Colquitt, 2005, p. 596). Therefore, social networks focus on individual network members (nodes) and interactions between network members (ties). Since cognitive TES focus on members’ thoughts and beliefs, examining differences in member beliefs and interactions between members may yield an enriched understanding of cognitive TES.
The affective TES literature may benefit from affect-centric theories, such as affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), which depicts how workplace events stimulate individuals’ positive/negative affectivity and subsequent work attitudes. For example, it revealed conflict expressions can help individuals acquire information yielding positive emotions, and thus, job satisfaction (Todorova et al., 2014). Recognizing affective TES concern members’ feelings, attitudes, and emotions, applying affective events theory may cultivate a more comprehensive understanding of its development over time.
Research on motivational TES may be advanced by leveraging Chen and Kanfer’s (2006) systems theory of motivated behavior in teams to better understand top-down and bottom-up processes contributing to motivational TES development, and how motivational TES influence individual goal generation, striving, and performance. It also highlights opportunities to consider how ambient, team-level inputs (e.g., team norms and feedback) can cultivate motivational TES, and how discretionary, individual-level inputs (e.g., individual motivational traits, feedback, and experience) exert bottom-up influences on motivational TES.
Altogether, there are fruitful opportunities to explore whether applying other cognitive (e.g., social capital, social exchange), affective (e.g., appraisal), and motivational theories (e.g., goal-setting, expectancy) can contribute to a richer understanding of each TES.
Temporal patterns
We see opportunities to explore whether the different TES categories exhibit unique temporal patterns. Affective TES may exhibit a common emergence pattern, whereby members quickly form shared perceptions about cohesion or psychological safety, based upon the tone set during first impressions (Kozlowski & Chao, 2012), which calibrate over time as teammates accumulate information from continued interactions (Carter et al., 2018). Cognitive TES might develop more gradually, as their development requires information sharing. Is it possible for different TES categories to develop episodically, akin to team processes (Marks et al., 2001), such that one TES category emerges first to subsequently influence the development of TES in other categories? Could affective TES “set the stage” for cognitive TES development? One might speculate low team cohesion could dampen a team’s ability to develop cognitive TES with the lack of social attraction and commitment preventing teammates from communicating as openly as they would in cohesive teams. We join others (Fulmer & Ostroff, 2016; Kozlowski et al., 2013) in highlighting opportunities exist to better understand temporal patterns of TES and suggest more may be learned by considering the temporality characterizing cognitive, affective, and motivational TES.
Team interventions
Organizations invest significantly in team interventions (e.g., team building, team coaching, team training) to improve team functioning, capabilities, and performance, and can aid in developing TES, such as SMMs and cohesion (Shuffler et al., 2018). We also see opportunities to explore whether specific interventions can be employed to develop cognitive, affective, or motivational TES. Meta-analytic evidence (Klein et al., 2009) suggests team building interventions may be more effective for improving affective, rather than cognitive, outcomes. However, Mohammed et al. (2010) observed planning and reflexivity-focused interventions facilitate SMMs—a cognitive TES. We encourage scholars to leverage the TES Taxonomy to determine whether specific interventions can cultivate cognitive, affective, or motivational TES.
Conclusion
Our intent in this TES review is to provide a deeper understanding of how work in this area has developed over two decades. We proposed TES may be cognitive, affective, motivational, or amalgam in nature and offered a TES Taxonomy based on SME insights. Although these SME insights are preliminary, they provide a starting point for researchers to further examine, both theoretically and empirically, the underlying nature of TES constructs, and thus to develop a richer understanding of TES. We also reviewed the literature, focusing on the eight most-researched TES and highlighted gaps within the TES literature, as well as future directions. We envision this work as laying the foundation upon which TES research can continue to emerge in the coming decades.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
