teamwork in the military essay

Work Life is Atlassian’s flagship publication dedicated to unleashing the potential of every team through real-life advice, inspiring stories, and thoughtful perspectives from leaders around the world.

Contributing Writer

Work Futurist

Senior Quantitative Researcher, People Insights

Principal Writer

9 lessons on teamwork and leadership from the military

Want to build an elite team? Look to the best of the best.

Team-focused research supported or executed by the military has yielded major insights into the nature of team performance

Team allegiance features heavily in the oaths soldiers take when they swear their service to their country. Navy SEALs pledge that their “loyalty to Country and Team is beyond reproach.” US Army Rangers vow ”Never shall I fail my comrades.” Airborne Troopers promise to “cherish the sacred trust and the lives of men with whom I serve.” The obvious reason: In a military combat situation, teamwork can literally mean the difference between life and death.

In your day-to-day job, the stakes clearly aren’t as high. Collaborating with your colleagues to meet a quarterly goal or get the latest product out the door obviously doesn’t involve the same level of risk as working together to thwart an enemy.

But military teams offer valuable lessons to civilian ones. In fact, teamwork researchers often study the military to help them understand what makes other types of teams—yup, that includes business ones— effective and successful. One recent study notes that “Team-focused research supported or executed by the military has yielded major insights into the nature of team performance, advanced the methods for measuring and improving team performance, and broken new ground in understanding the assembly of effective teams.”

We asked military leaders turned C-Suite execs which lessons and experiences have made them better leaders and team members. Consider this your boot camp.

Have the tough conversations

– Jake MacDonald, former Marine and a Lead Instructor with The Program , a team building and leadership development company My units were the first conventional unit to cross the line to Iraq in 2002. It was chaos. Someone had set the oil fields on fire. We pushed for about 48 hours without any sleep in 120 degree heat, with no food, wearing full chemical suits and gas masks. We finally got an order that we were going to stop. Then a few minutes later my boss told me to take my team back out on patrol. I was incensed because I was thinking, doesn’t this guy know what it means like to take care of his people ? But I quickly realized taking care of us meant bringing us all back home to our loved ones. And that meant my platoon had to provide security so other guys could get some sleep. When you’re looking out for your team’s best interests, you have to tell people things they don’t want to hear and hold each other accountable. It’s not enjoyable. But if I have a teammate who is consistently showing up late, or who isn’t prepared for meetings, that hurts everyone’s chances of accomplishing the mission—in the business world that might be hitting our numbers so we make money to give to our families. I’m a bad teammate if I don’t say anything to him. It doesn’t have to be horribly tense. Just talk to them, one on one. “This is something that I noticed, and I just wanted to talk to you about it.”

Share the load

-Jas on Van Camp, U.S. Army Special Forces (Green Beret). Van Camp is the CEO of Mission 6 Zero , a Utah-based management consulting organization and executive director of Warrior Rising , a non-profit organization dedicated to helping veterans achieve success in business.

We all began to focus on each other, rather than on ourselves. We began to forget about our pain. Time moved faster. The log felt lighter. Jason Van Camp

One of the first exercises they do in In Green Beret training is that they put you in teams, give you a huge log, and tell you to hold it over your head for hours. Everybody’s miserable and focused on themselves. In that horrible moment, I lifted my head up. The guys around me were all suffering just as bad as, if not worse than I was. Then my friend Pat lifted his head up as well. We looked at each other and he shouted, “Let’s go Jay, you got this.” And I mustered some energy to shout some words of encouragement back at him. I noticed that more guys were lifting their heads up and looking around. We all began to focus on each other, rather than on ourselves. We began to forget about our pain. Time moved faster. The log felt lighter. The reality is that nothing changed about our situation, except our attitude.

Those situations make or break teams. When the pressure is on, and you’re on a team, it’s not about you. The secret to the elite mindset of Special Operations Force is to look up. You need to take a risk and be vulnerable. You need to expose your heart and truly reach out and get to know the other people at your work. The art of building true relationships and getting to know each other is not in the content of the team’s discussions, but in the manner in which it communicates.

Communicate the mission

– John Dillon, a former submarine officer and nuclear engineer in the U.S. Navy. Today he is the CEO of Aerospike, Inc .

Good commanders in the military share elements of the mission with the troops— we need to take that bridge, we need to take that hill or we need to be secret or we need to be radio silent, and here’s why . Because if your team is in the field and they have to rely on sending a message back to the headquarters to make a decision, they’re probably going to be killed before they get an answer. If they understand what the higher order mission is, they can make the best decisions on their own. I still use that experience today running a large tech company. I routinely hold company-wide meetings to review our strategic objectives and challenges. Sharing aspects of our sales strategy may not be relevant, say, to the engineering team or the customer support team. Yet, by understanding the high-level challenges and strategies, people can make more informed decisions that might help the company for issues that do not bubble up to a more senior level.

Recognize team members who deliver on values

– Eric Kapitulik, a former platoon leader in the Marine Corps and founder and CEO of The Program , a team building and leadership development company

As a company you need core values and standards that reinforce those values. Eric Kapitulik

As a company you need core values and standards that reinforce those values. The Marine Corps has three core values—honor, courage, and commitment—that define how every Marine behaves. As leaders, we tend to recognize performance, which is important. But we also need to recognize when team members deliver on those core values with their behavior. That’s how we communicate what’s important to us. One way the Marine Corps recognizes Marines is simply calling out Marines to the front of formations and telling everyone about how those Marines were being great Marines. In business, say one of your core values is selflessness (a core value at my company). Openly call out people who meet that standard with their behavior. Send a team email, or at the weekly meeting say, “Hey, I’d like to recognize Sarah for how selfless she was. Every day last week before she finished work, she checked in with everyone else to see if there’s anything she can do to help.”

Value diverse opinions

– Jacob Werksman, a former Navy SEAL and CEO of Victory Strategies, a consulting firm that utilizes military skills, techniques, and practices to help private sector businesses achieve success.

In a SEAL platoon, you might have an officer that’s been in for 20 years and an enlisted individual right out of high school, who’s been in for four years. Their opinions are both valued equally because they bring different perspectives. I see businesses fail to recognize this. There’s been times that C-Suite executives hire us to do strategic planning. One of our first exercises was asking the administrative assistant at the front door, ‘What do you think about this problem? What would be your solution?’ And we used exactly what she said verbatim and proposed it to the C-Suite executives. And they thought it was a brilliant idea. And I said, ‘Well, that was from your administrative assistant.’ They were just in awe. Listen to your people.

Consider culture when recruiting

– Jacob Werksman

SEALs recruiting process is so demanding and elite that we know the quality of the individual we have within our organization. Every individual that joins, joins for the same reason. The same thing is very relative when it comes to private sector organizations, yet businesses rarely recruit the individual that has a why or a purpose that’s aligned with the organization. This is a misstep. It’s very hard to change someone with a negative attitude or that doesn’t have proper alignment within their organization rather than just recruiting that person from the get-go. When you’re hiring, ask questions like: Why do you want to work here? What does this organization mean to you? Why is it aligned with who you are as both a professional and a person?”

Over-communicate

– Jake MacDonald

When I was a second lieutenant, my boss made us put a sign over our desk that had three questions on it. It said, “What do I know? Who else needs to know? And have I told them?” I had to be able to answer those three questions every single day. And I messed that up a lot of times as a young officer because I made a lot of assumptions that people knew things, so I didn’t tell them. But at the end of the day, if something didn’t happen because they didn’t know about it, it wasn’t their fault, it was mine. That’s something we push on corporations a lot. A lot of times people feel like they might insult a team member by telling them that there’s a meeting. Or thinking they must know already. But then people don’t show up because they didn’t know about it. If you don’t communicate something because you don’t want to feel awkward, you’re actually missing out on a chance to help your teammates, to help make them better.

Embrace your team’s knowledge

– John Dillon

When I was 25 years old I was on a submarine and I had enlisted men that were 40 years old working for me that were specialists. Some had been working in electronics for 20 years. Some of them had masters and PhDs. I had an enormous amount of respect for them. I learned how to ask questions that weren’t invasive, but that helped me determine whether the team knew what they were doing and how to pass the solution, or whether they were guessing. Like: What’s the path to resolution? Is this going to be fixed in time for us to go to sea? Asking this way, instead of micromanaging them, made them feel like I trusted them, that I valued them.

It’s the same in my civilian work. I run software companies, have for a long time, and I don’t know more from a programmatic standpoint, than some of the engineers who work for me. I never will. So I ask them questions like Are we going to get this done? What’s your plan X, Y or Z?

Make contingency plans

– Jacob Werksman A lot of civilians think that the SEAL teams are just a sexy concept where all these guys are just great at everything and executing these missions. What they often fail to remind themselves is that everything that could or possibly would go wrong was planned for with a contingency plan 24 hours before that mission even took place. This removes the pressure of having to think through a problem while you’re on target because you’ve already planned for it. Corporate teams need to have similar backup plans . What will you do if a team member is absent for a significant amount of time? As a team, what’s your plan B, C, and D if your subcontractor drops the ball and throws you off your deadline?

Get stories like this in your inbox

Advice, stories, and expertise about work life today.

• Cover Letters
• Jobs I've Applied To
• Saved Searches
• Subscriptions
• Marine Corps
• Coast Guard
• Space Force
• Military Podcasts
• Benefits Home
• Military Pay and Money
• Veteran Health Care
• VA eBenefits
• Veteran Job Search
• Military Skills Translator
• Upload Your Resume
• Veteran Employment Project
• Vet Friendly Employers
• Career Advice
• Military Life Home
• Military Trivia Game
• Veterans Day
• Spouse & Family
• Military History
• Discounts Home
• Featured Discounts
• Veterans Day Restaurant Discounts
• Electronics
• Join the Military Home
• Contact a Recruiter
• Military Fitness

Why Teamwork and Mental Toughness Are Critical to Military Success

The grueling nature of SEAL training -- or any military training, for that matter -- ingrains teamwork. No one makes it through training by themselves. You are always paired up with a "swim buddy," a "battle buddy" or partner, and you are always part of a boat crew or squad. Finally, you are part of a BUD/S class that typically starts out with 120-150+ students and graduates (six months later) an average of about 25-40.

Those graduates are not necessarily the biggest, fastest or strongest, but they are the ones with the highest  mental toughness and are able to mesh into the team dynamics needed to succeed each day. Sure, fitness is critical to success, and the fitter you are, the less you have to rely on mental toughness. This combination of traits can help you focus on being a good team player and a superb communicator who supports classmates with any task.

Putting everyone in a military team through the same training allows them to look at each other and know by body language what they're saying and thinking. They're able to communicate without speaking or writing. You cannot be an effective team member without stellar verbal and non-verbal communication. Effective team communication is not just about transmitting well, but having the necessary attention to detail to receive signs that are often very subtle.

What makes SEALs good communicators on land is the fact that they communicate underwater as well, sometimes at night, using hand and arm squeezes. They take non-verbal communication to another level.

Seriously. From body language and hand signals, you can convey and receive information, such as the direction to travel to a target, the number of contacts, or if someone is injured or out of air and needs help. Your awareness peaks to a high level when you successfully communicate under stressful conditions. 

The end result of military training is the ultimate teammate who is flexible with timetables and adjusts to get the job done, no matter what logistical issues arise. Members of teams are still individuals who thrive on competition and hate to be beaten in anything, but that competition makes the team better. 

Being a competitor helps you through the tough times. Thinking about winning instead of merely surviving helps the team and the individual compete on a new level when the stakes are high. So, yes, your individual fitness one day may save your or your teammate's life and help you push yourself and others harder when needed. 

Being a well-oiled machine with regard to teamwork and communication allows you to be flexible and adapt to any situation. Personal attention to detail enables strong communication (sending and receiving) throughout the team, and this can take contingency planning to a new level. Effective communications through detailed planning enables the team to anticipate when things go wrong and still be able execute flawlessly. None of these is possible by being a bad team player, and you cannot be a good team without communication skills.

Breathing and External Awareness

The best advice I ever received and still use today, especially when under time constraints, is to breathe. Not just any old breath. The goal is to take a big, deep breath (big inhale and long exhale), step back, increase your attention to detail to see the big picture, focus on what you need to do and execute.

By breathing, you increase external awareness, and this will help you be aware of your surroundings and the people in it. Notice the crowd around you, detach from the phone, make eye contact with co-workers and notice body language, as mentioned above. It is easy to see when someone needs help if you pay attention to the team.

When on a team at work, in sports or in the military, your plan nearly always goes wrong right from the start nine times out of 10. This never fails. Contingency planning requires smart planning, attention to detail and communication.

A team has to be flexible with changes. Just because things do not go as planned does not mean you have to go off course. Keep moving with a well-communicated contingency plan. A good team can make a plan and execute it. A great team can have things go wrong and still continue the mission with a contingency plan.

Any team, whether in sports, business, military or other public service, needs all of these skills to handle the complex and ever-changing nature of stressful situations. One minute is different from the previous minute, and this requires constant communication and teamwork, and that will produce the Dream Team.

This is why when teenagers ask me what they can do to prepare for the military, I always say become a better team player -- play sports, join a band, school play, student government and whatever else gets you and others thinking and moving as one.

Stew Smith is a former Navy SEAL and fitness author certified as a Strength and Conditioning Specialist (CSCS) with the National Strength and Conditioning Association. Visit his  Fitness eBook store if you're looking to start a workout program to create a healthy lifestyle. Send your fitness questions to [email protected].

Want to Learn More About Military Life?

Whether you're thinking of joining the military, looking for fitness and basic training tips, or keeping up with military life and benefits, Military.com has you covered.  Subscribe to Military.com to have military news, updates and resources delivered directly to your inbox.

Stew Smith, CSCS®

You May Also Like

From the start of your military experience, you are building your ability to become a team player and work together to...

The longer running distance and pull-ups alone are the events most people have trouble with when assessing themselves at the...

The Murph Workout -- a Memorial Day tradition that honors fallen Navy SEAL Lt. Michael Murphy -- is popular throughout the...

This workout combination will feature useful combinations of upper-body pushing and pulling exercises for an effective...

Fitness by Service

• Military Daily News
• Army Fitness
• Navy Fitness
• Air Force Fitness
• Marine Corps Fitness

Select Service

• National Guard

Get the Military Insider Newsletter

Get the scoop on discounts, pay, benefits, and our latest award-winning content. Right in your inbox.

View more newsletters on our Subscriptions page.

Verify your free subscription by following the instructions in the email sent to:

Fitness by Category

• SpecOps Fitness
• Close Quarters Combat
• Fitness Videos
• Weight Training

Weight Loss

• Family Fitness
• General Fitness
• Law Enforcement

Popular Workouts

Running and Cardio

Here is a workout I like to do to check progress, or lack thereof, in a variety of running styles and benchmark distances.

It is possible to get through your training program with running only a few days a week, but your risk future injury.

The focus is to run shorter and faster runs in the week and a long, slower run at a comfortable pace on the weekend.

Most of the time, I receive emails from people who are seeking to pass their PFT, and just as many who wish to max out their...

Most Recent in Fitness

A wide variety of grips can make your pull-up workouts more enjoyable and diversify the strain on wrists, elbows, shoulders...

The role of teamwork on team performance in extreme military environments: an empirical study

Team Performance Management

ISSN : 1352-7592

Article publication date: 16 July 2020

Issue publication date: 14 August 2020

The purpose of this study is to explore the extent to which teamwork (developed either during an initial training phase or during a subsequent deployment phase) is influenced by the nature of the team’s environment (extreme vs non-extreme) and the extent to which teamwork is one of the explaining mechanisms for team performance.

Design/methodology/approach

Data was collected from 60 teams at 2 time-points: training phase in The Netherlands or Germany and deployment phase (in locations such as Afghanistan and Bosnia-Herzegovina).

This study’s results indicate that when teams consider working in extreme environments, they develop higher levels of teamwork as compared to teams expecting to work in non-extreme environments. These differences remain stable also during the deployment phase, such that teams operating in extreme environments will continue to have higher levels of teamwork as compared to teams operating in non-extreme environments.

Originality/value

With this study, the authors contribute to the teamwork quality research stream by empirically studying how teamwork quality develops in unique military contexts such as extreme environments. Studies in such contexts are relatively rare.

• Team performance
• Extreme environment
• Military teams

Meslec, N. , Duel, J. and Soeters, J. (2020), "The role of teamwork on team performance in extreme military environments: an empirical study", Team Performance Management , Vol. 26 No. 5/6, pp. 325-339. https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-02-2020-0009

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2020, Nicoleta Meslec, Jacco Duel and Joseph Soeters.

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial & non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Teams operate in a variety of contexts, from stable, predictable environments, to extreme environments. In extreme environments, events occur or are likely to occur such that they exceed an organization’s or a team’s capacity to prevent them. At the same time, those events may result in impactful or intolerable physical, psychological or material consequences to the organizational members ( Hannah et al. , 2009 ). Teams working for disaster responses, military teams in war zones and teams working in polar expeditions are just a few examples of teams that typically deal with extreme environments.

Teamwork has been found to be an important precursor of team performance in studies that have been conducted in relatively stable, regular organizational contexts ( LePine et al. , 2008 ). We define teamwork as group member’s interactions/interdependent acts that convert inputs to outcomes through cognitive, verbal and behavioral activities that are directed toward the achievement of a common goal ( Marks et al. , 2001 ). Teamwork includes both processes (such as backup behaviors and performance monitoring) as well as emergent states (such as trust and shared mental models). However, when it comes to the study of teamwork in extreme environments, empirical evidence is rather scant, partly because of the difficulties associated with studying such teams and the lack of their immediate accessibility ( Driskell et al. , 2018 ). One exception is the special issue on teamwork in extreme environments proposed by Maynard et al. (2018) .

Understanding how teamwork unfolds in teams operating in extreme environments and how teamwork affects team performance in such situations is nevertheless highly relevant. Task achievement of teams in extreme environments is oftentimes connected with the endangering of the team members’ lives or the ones of proximal or more distant others. Poor team performance in such contexts can have severe consequences. At the same time, we cannot just assume that teams in extreme environments function just the same as teams in regular environments ( Driskell et al. , 2017 ). Understanding the role of teamwork and how it can be enhanced in extreme environments is thus essential.

To what extent teams knowing to be working in the future in extreme environments develop better levels of teamwork as opposed to teams knowing to be working in regular, non-threatening environments?

To what extent these initial teamwork differences remain stable also during the military missions in extreme vs non-extreme environments?

What is the role of teamwork (T1 and T2) in predicting team performance in extreme environments?

With this study, we aim to bring a couple of contributions to the development of teams and groups research. First, we are aiming to get a better understanding of the effects of extreme environment as an environment-level input factor on teamwork development in an in vivo setting. As it has been recently emphasized, “what we don’t know regarding teams in extreme environments far exceeds what we do know” ( Driskell et al. , 2017 ) and at the same time we must explore and understand whether teams do behave differently, depending on the type of environment they are operating in.

Second, while looking at teamwork in extreme environments vs non-extreme environments at two different time points we are also contributing to the understanding of teams as dynamic systems. Organizational teams exist over time, having “a past and an expected future that influences their present” ( Harrison et al. , 2003 , p. 634). However, teamwork has oftentimes been studied from a static, cross-sectional perspective ( Harrison et al. , 2003 ; Mathieu et al. , 2017 ). Our study comes to contribute to the study of teams as dynamic entities and responds at the same time to more recent calls for studying teams while using a multi-period framework ( Humphrey and Aime, 2014 ; Mathieu et al. , 2017 ).

Theory and hypotheses

In line with Eby et al. (1999) and also Marks et al. (2001) , we define and operationalize teamwork as a global unitary construct that consists of various facets or clusters. These facets are highly interrelated, which creates difficulties in parceling teamwork in separate sub-constructs. Previous studies identified high correlations between these subdimensions ( Campion et al. , 1993 ; Campion et al. , 1996 ) and as a consequence they were oftentimes measured and studied as a unitary construct ( Janz et al. , 1997 ).

For this study, we include four teamwork facets that have proven to be highly relevant for the coordination and execution of team tasks ( Salas et al. , 2005 ) and that exemplify the mutual or reciprocal action or influence among team members in action teams. These facets are mutual performance monitoring, backup behavior, shared mental models and mutual trust.

Mutual performance monitoring is defined as the ability of teams to “keep track of fellow team members’ work while carrying out their own to ensure that everything is running as expected and to ensure that they are following procedures correctly” ( McIntyre and Salas, 1995 , p. 23). Backup behavior represents the extent to which team members provide feedback and coaching to each other, assist each other in performing their tasks and complete tasks for members when overload is detected ( Marks et al. , 2000 ). Shared mental models are defined as collective representations of task and team-related knowledge. Team-related knowledge structures contain information on aspects such as what the team should strive for, how the team should function and how team members should behave in certain situations. Task-related knowledge structures contain information such as task procedures or procedures related to the use of tools and equipment ( Salas et al. , 2005 ). Mutual trust is “the shared perception that individuals in the team will perform particular actions important to its members and will recognize and protect the rights and interests of all the team members engaged in their joint endeavor” ( Salas et al. , 2005 ; p. 568–569).

These four facets are a good representation of the two most important dimensions of teamwork (i.e. processes and emergent states) in a military setting. Mutual performance monitoring and backup behavior represent crucial teamwork processes for coordination and execution of the task whereas shared mental models and trust represent the climate in which such processes can be rightfully enacted. Without trust, team members may regard mutual performance monitoring as spying on each other and reduce information sharing. Without shared mental models, team members would have difficulties to anticipate and predict each other’s needs and are therefore less likely to engage in backup behaviors ( Salas et al. , 2005 ).

Effects of extreme environments on teamwork over time

Both threat rigidity theory ( Staw et al. , 1981 ) and more recent adaptations of input-process-output models of teams in extreme environments ( Driskell et al. , 2017 ) discuss the potential negative effects of extreme environments on teamwork. When confronted with external threat, teams are more likely to narrow their attention to a local focus, to restrict their information processing and ignore relevant pieces of information from the environment ( Staw et al. , 1981 ; Driskell et al. , 2017 ). This has been described as a “freeze,” non-adaptive reaction with negative consequences on team processes and emergent states. In an experimental study with ad-hoc teams, Kamphuis et al. (2011) showed that physical threat leads to a decrease of team discussions, coordination and supporting behavior. When teams are faced with threat, they reduce their focus on the team and narrow their attentional capacity related to social cues ( Kamphuis et al. , 2011 ). Although proponents of threat-rigidity theory acknowledge that a shared team history might influence the extent to which this “freezing” reaction emerges (e.g. previous successful episodes might enhance teamwork and reduce the “freezing” effect), no specific claims have been advanced. We build further on threat rigidity theory to empirically test two connected claims.

Teams training for a military mission in an extreme environment will develop higher levels of teamwork than teams training for a military mission in a non-extreme environment.

During the deployment phase, teams will maintain the same level of teamwork as the one developed during the training phase such that teams operating in extreme environments will display higher levels of teamwork in comparison with teams operating in non-extreme environments.

Mediating role of teamwork

Teamwork (both at the training phase and while being deployed) will positively mediate the relation between extreme environments and team performance while being deployed.

Context of the study

This study was conducted among military teams of the Royal Netherlands Army that were prepared for (T1) and deployed to Afghanistan or Bosnia-Herzegovina (T2) in 2006 or 2007. The training phase included intensive preparation in The Netherlands or Germany. This phase lasted several months and included activities such as training team-level skills and drills necessary for the tasks to be completed during deployment. During the training phase, the teams knew that they were going to be deployed either to an extreme environment context or to a regular, non-threatening context (i.e. in Bosnia that had calmed after the peak of hostilities in 1995). The composition of the teams remained the same in both phases, with some exceptions. Also teams in extreme as well as non-extreme environment received the same training.

Military teams were deployed to Afghanistan (extreme environment for most teams) or Bosnia-Herzegovina (regular, non-war environment for all teams). The troops in Afghanistan aimed to contribute to a safe, stable and democratic nation-state. The teams provided security for the population, trained the police and the Afghan army and combated forces that opposed the legal government. Moreover, the troops contributed to the development of the country by executing several reconstruction projects, such as building schools or repairing the infrastructure. The teams in Afghanistan varied in the tasks they had to perform. A large part of the teams in this study conducted (long range) patrols, escorted provincial reconstruction teams, manned strongholds and outposts and were engaged in combat operations. Most teams in Afghanistan operated under dangerous circumstances, as testified by a number of casualties that occurred during the mission. Besides combat actions, the main threats against the teams were bomb attacks with improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks. Several attacks wounded or killed soldiers and civilians. For the teams in Afghanistan, the deployment lasted four months.

The troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina mainly assisted the government in combating (organized) crime, providing for border control against smuggling and disarming the population. In addition, they monitored the democratic and economic development of the country, and assisted the government with these developments. The teams that participated in this study in Bosnia-Herzegovina operated under relatively safe circumstances. Most teams conducted “policing activities” such as searching houses for illegal weapons, and preventing illegal logging in forests. Other teams provided for logistical support. There were no casualties during this mission period. For the teams in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the deployment lasted six months.

Data regarding teamwork and team performance were collected at two time-points. Time 1 data were collected at the end of an extensive training period two to four months before the start of the deployment. Time 2 data were collected two months after the start of the deployment for the troops in Afghanistan and, three months after the start of the deployment for the troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Team performance at T2 was used as the dependent variable for our study while team performance at T1 was used as a control variable for two of our models. To avoid common method bias, we used multiple sources for our data collection ( Podsakoff et al. , 2003 ). First, we asked the team members to provide information about teamwork. Second, we asked the commanders of the immediate command level above the team (mostly the platoon commanders and their deputies) to provide information on the performance of the teams under their command. Most operations in Afghanistan and Bosnia-Herzegovina were conducted with platoons, without other hierarchical levels present. So, the platoon commander and their deputy were the only parties external to the team to have a reliable, first-hand view on team performance.

At both measurement moments, the units to which the teams belonged were dispersed, with teams training at several training locations (T1) or operating at outposts (T2). Also, at T1 and to a lesser degree at T2, team members were not always available. At T1, a number of soldiers were absent because of the individual training courses they were following in various training centers. At T2, not all team members were able to answer the questionnaires as they could be absent because of sickness or leave for a special occasion or a temporarily re-assignment. These situations account for the different response rates and numbers of teams in the study. Moreover, these situations made the coordination and execution of data collection difficult. Specific personnel belonging to the military units to which the teams belonged were asked to hand out the questionnaires. The questionnaires were collected at times that were most convenient for each unit within a timeframe of about two weeks at both T1 and T2. Because of this procedure, it is not exactly clear how many soldiers were asked to participate in the study.

At T1, 1,498 respondents participated, and at T2, there were 1,360 respondents. After eliminating the teams with one respondent only and the ones missing identification numbers, the final sample consisted of 301 teams that provided teamwork data at T1 and 258 teams that provided teamwork data at T2. The average team size (of respondents) was 5.8 at T1 (standard deviation [SD] = 4.8) and 3.8 at T2 (SD = 2.4). Performance ratings were available for 86 teams at T1 and 109 teams at T2. When matching the data from T1 and T2 for all variables, the sample size equaled 60 teams that provided information on teamwork and for which performance ratings from platoon commanders were available. To maximize the power of the data gathered, we used all data we had to test various hypotheses. This resulted in different sample sizes for the testing of various hypotheses. Information about the sample sizes can be found in the results tables ( Table 3 ).

Teamwork was measured with a self-rating scale containing 27 items that was administered to the respondents of this study. Teamwork facets included mutual performance monitoring, backup behavior, shared mental models and trust. The scale was developed by a small team of (military) teamwork experts in line with the definitions of these teamwork facets as provided by Salas et al. (2005) and other studies that adapted scales for specific settings ( Schaubroeck et al. , 2012 ). See Table 1 for the items and response options. The overall teamwork scale indicates good reliability; Cronbach’s alpha at T1 is 0.95 and 0.96 at T2. We conducted a factor analysis to check if the items pertain to one overall teamwork factor. Principles axes extraction with oblique rotation was used because we assumed that the measured variables were a linear function of one latent variable (teamwork). Results were similar for both teamwork T1 and T2. Here, we report the results for teamwork at T1; more details about the factor loadings for T1 and T2 can be found in Table 1 . In the initial extraction, four factors emerged with eigenvalues higher than 1. However, in line with our conceptualization, the scree plot suggested one general factor explaining the majority of variance. The first factor accounted for 47.6% of the total variance (the other factors explained 9%, 6.5% and 4.4% of the variance). This provides sufficient evidence to use teamwork as an overall construct.

Team performance was measured with a nine-item scale. The questions were developed by a team of (military) teamwork experts in line with previously developed team performance scales ( Rousseau and Aubé, 2010 ). The Cronbach’s alpha at T1 is 0.90 and at T2 is 0.91, indicating good reliability. We ran an exploratory factor analysis to check for the unidimensionality of the construct. One factor emerged accounting for 57.3% of the total variance at T1 and 59.1% of the total variance at T2. Factor loadings and items can be found in Table 2 .

Extreme environment was coded in a dichotomous way (0 = not extreme; 1 = extreme). Commanders of the units to which the teams belonged provided information regarding the teams operating in extreme environments. In general, teams deployed to Afghanistan were assessed as operating in extreme environments if they operated oftentimes outside the forward operating base. This means these teams had to perform their tasks in dangerous and demanding circumstances. The teams were confronted with serious threats to military personnel, such as the risk and the actual occurrence of (suicide) attacks, or attacks by improvised explosive devices, leading to military personnel getting wounded and killed. This is a very salient aspect of extreme environments in military missions ( Van den Berg, 2009 ). Teams that were deployed to Afghanistan, but performed their tasks in the forward operating base (so they were mostly able to work and live under protective circumstances), and teams that were deployed to Bosnia-Herzegovina were assessed to perform their tasks in (relatively) safe environments (i.e. not extreme).

Aggregation to team level constructs

Given that teamwork is a team-level variable and data were gathered from individual team members, an inter-rater agreement index that justifies aggregation is required. We computed an r wG(J) index for teamwork ratings in line with the recommendation given by LeBreton and Senter (2008) and James et al. (1984) . The values for the r wG(J) index are higher than 0.80 for both T1 and T2. In line with Bliese (2000) , we also computed interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (1) and ICC (2). The average ICC (1) for all items was 0.1 while for ICC (2) was 0.35.Overall these scores suggest that there is agreement among the members within each team and aggregation of scores at a team level is justified ( LeBreton and Senter, 2008 ; James, 1982 ).

To test H1 and H2 , we ran two independent samples t -test for teamwork at T1 and T2, respectively. In addition, we ran a generalized linear model (GLM) repeated measures analysis with teamwork as a within factor and extreme environment as a between factor. To test H3 , we ran two mediation models (see Models 1 and 3 in Table 4 ) while using the nonparametric resampling procedure of bootstrapping developed by Hayes (2012) . This method has been proved powerful and valid for testing intervening variable effects ( Hayes, 2009 ; MacKinnon et al. , 2004 ; Williams and MacKinnon, 2008 ). In Models 2 and 4, we ran the same two mediation models but this time we controlled for previous levels of performance and teamwork.

Descriptive statistics and correlations of the team level measures are displayed in Table 3 . Teamwork at T1 is positively correlated with teamwork at T2 ( r = 0.29, p < 0.01), extreme environment variable correlates positively with both teamwork at T1 ( r = 0.18, p < 0.01) and teamwork at T2 ( r = 0.29, p < 0.01) and team performance at T2 correlates with both teamwork at T1 ( r = 0.22, p < 0.01) and team performance at T1 ( r = 0.63, p < 0.01). The results of our test of H1 indicate that teams knowing to work in extreme environments displayed higher levels of teamwork at T1 (M = 3.91, SD = 0.32) as opposed to teams anticipating to work in non-extreme environments (M = 3.77, SD = 0.41), with t = 2.35, p = 0.03 and d = 0.38. To test H2 , we first ran an independent sample t -test to check whether teamwork differences remain stable at T2. Our results indicate that teams working in extreme environments (M = 3.92, SD = 0.37) at T2 displayed higher levels of teamwork as opposed to teams working in non-extreme environment (M = 3.66, SD = 0.45), with t = 4.35, p = 0.000 and d = 0.63. We also checked the robustness of our results with an additional GLM repeated measures analysis, with teamwork as a within factor (T1 and T2) and extreme environment as a between factor. The within subjects effect of teamwork was not significant with Wilks’ λ = 0.99, F (1,164) = 0.64 and p = 0.42. Also there was no significant effect for the interaction between teamwork and extreme environment, with Wilks’ λ = 0.99, F (1,164) = 0.66 and p = 0.41. This indicates that teams did not change the level of their teamwork from T1 to T2, irrespective of the environment in which they operated (extreme vs non-extreme). The between effect was significant with F (1, 164) = 12.42 and p = 0.001. This indicates that teamwork differed between extreme and non-extreme environment context such that teams in extreme environment displayed higher levels of teamwork. This is illustrated also in Figure 1 .

The results of our mediation analysis (see Models 1 and 3 in Table 4 ) indicate that extreme environment has a negative effect on team performance T2 ( coeff = −0.47, p < 0.001 for teamwork T1 as a mediator and coeff = −0.35, p < 0.001 for teamwork T2 as a mediator). Teamwork T1 ( coeff = 0.46, p < 0.001) as well as teamwork T2 ( coeff = 0.50, p < 0.001) have a positive direct effect on team performance T2 and at the same time mediate the relation between extreme environment and team performance T2 [ coeff = 0.11 CI (0.004; 0.32) for teamwork T1 and 0.12 CI (0.02; 0.31) for teamwork T2]. In Models 2 and 4, we ran the same two mediation models but this time we controlled for previous levels of performance (T1) and teamwork. We wanted to explore the extent to which both teamwork at T1 and teamwork at T2 are equally relevant in predicting team performance at T2. At the same time, we wanted to explore if teamwork has a predictive power beyond and above the predictive power of team performance displayed at T1. Our results indicate that in the case of teamwork T1 as a mediator, when controlling for previous performance (performance T1) and teamwork T2, the results remain unchanged. Extreme environment continues to have a negative effect on team performance ( coeff = −0.58, p < 0.001). Teamwork T1 continues to have a positive effect on performance T2 ( coeff = 0.41, p < 0.05) and to mediate the relation between extreme environment and performance T2 [ coeff = 0.09, CI (0.003; 0.25)]. In the case of teamwork T2 as a mediator however, the results change. When controlling for the effects of teamwork T1 and performance T1, the effect of teamwork T2 on team performance T2 disappears ( coeff = 0.19, p > 0.05) while the effect of teamwork T1 as a control variable is significant and positive ( coeff = 0.41, p < 0.05). The effect of extreme environment on teamwork T2 is also no longer significant ( coeff = 0.005, p > 0.05), while the effect of extreme environment on team performance T2 remains significant ( coeff = −0.58, p < 0.001). The indirect effect also disappears, coeff = 0.009 CI (−0.01; 0.10). This means that the mediation effect of teamwork T2 on team performance is qualified by the effect of teamwork T1, indicating the relevance of previously developed teamwork episodes for later performance.

Discussions

The purpose of our study was to explore the extent to which teamwork (developed either during the training phase or during deployment phase) is influenced by the nature of the team’s environment (extreme vs non-extreme) and the extent to which teamwork is one of the explaining mechanisms for team performance. In line with H1 and H2 , our results indicate that when teams consider working in extreme environments, they develop higher levels of teamwork as compared to teams expecting to work in non-extreme environments. Furthermore, these differences remain stable also during the deployment phase, such that teams operating in extreme environments will continue to have higher levels of teamwork as compared to teams operating in non-extreme environments. Teamwork reflects a climate of the team where team members trust, help, monitor and coordinate with each other in an effective manner. Development of such a climate can be seen as an adaptation mechanism through which teams attempt to better cope with the idea of confronting dangerous situations in the future. Given that teams have been specifically trained for the situations they would encounter during the training phase, they are able to maintain their level of teamwork also during the deployment phase. With these findings, we contribute to the threat-rigidity theory ( Staw et al. , 1981 ) by showing that teams operating in extreme environments do not always experience the “freezing” reaction, described as a decrease in the quality of interpersonal interactions in the presence of threat. In our study, we found evidence that when teams develop their teamwork prior to the extreme environment missions they are more likely to maintain it also during these missions. Thus, having a shared history matters for the maintenance of teamwork.

In H3 , we advanced the idea that teamwork developed during the training phase, as well as teamwork developed during the deployment phase will mediate the relation between extreme environments and team performance at T2. Our results indicate that extreme environments hamper team performance. This effect has been shown in theoretical treatises and experimental work before. In this study, the effect is replicated in real-life circumstances. However, this negative effect is attenuated by the quality of interpersonal interactions developed within teams. Our results show that teamwork developed early in a team’s life (during the training phase in this case) can have long-lasting effects for team performance (during the deployment phase). This effect remains robust even when we control for previous team performance episodes and teamwork displayed during the deployment phase. Not the same can be concluded about the mediation effect of teamwork T2 and thus H3 is only partially supported. When controlling for previous teamwork and performance episodes, the mediation effect of teamwork T2 disappears. Teams are dynamic systems, where time plays an important role ( Marks et al. , 2001 ). McGrath et al. (1993) found for example that performance losses generated by virtual interaction disappear after three or four weeks of interaction. If one would measure the impact of virtual interaction on performance after five weeks, he/she would wrongly conclude that there is no effect. Similarly, our study shows that if one would only measure teamwork at T2, he/she would wrongly conclude that this teamwork episode is crucial for performance in extreme environments. This would be a wrong conclusion because the effect disappears if one controls for previous teamwork and performance episodes. Longitudinal research designs are inevitable to determine the dynamics in teamwork and performance. Overall, with this finding we contribute to a better understanding of team performance in extreme environments.

Overall our findings have implications for practice. Managers and trainers working with teams operating in extreme environments should be aware of the crucial role teamwork plays for performance. Early stimulation of teamwork quality is highly important and thus managers and trainers should consider developing specific trainings and teambuilding activities at the very early phases of team development.

Strengths, limitations and directions for future research

One notable strength of our study is the combination between the setting in which this study was conducted and the design used. In this regard, our study has important methodological contributions. Studies in military operational conditions are hard to find, even though there are famous exceptions such as Schaubroeck et al. (2012) . Collecting data at two different time points, while using multiple sources, further increases the complexities associated with such data collection. As a result, we could not incorporate a very large number of teams with teamwork and team performance ratings at both measurement moments which is a limitation of this study. We embraced this approach, however, because of the limits associated with cross-sectional designs, such as type 1 and 2 errors ( Harrison et al. , 2003 ). Although studying teams “in the wild” has a high ecological validity, it comes also with drawbacks. Given that the teams were not randomly assigned to the two conditions (extreme vs non-extreme environment), other intervening variables might explain also the differences found especially for H1 and H2 . Future studies could try to replicate these results in a controlled experimental setting. Also, we were only able to collect data at two different timepoints. It would be interesting to explore how teamwork evolves also across a longer period of time. Team research in general lacks empirical evidence concerning the dynamics of team processes and emergent states over time.

All in all our study shows that teams knowing to be working in the future in extreme environments develop higher levels of teamwork in comparison with teams that expect to work in regular environments and at the same time they are able to maintain these levels of teamwork also in later phases. Initial teamwork is the main mechanism through which the negative direct effects of extreme environments on team performance are diminished. These findings have implications for practice. Managers, commanders, instructors and trainers working with teams that prepare themselves to operate in extreme environments should facilitate the development of such teamwork at very early stages of team development. Teamwork may provide teams with the necessary abilities to successfully adapt to threatening situations in the foreseeable future.

Teamwork development from training to deployment phase

Teamwork facets and factor loadings

For Model 1, N = 84; for Model 3, N = 82; for Models 2 and 4, N = 60; Team perf = team performance; T1 = time 1; T2 = time 2; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01

Austin , J.R. ( 1997 ), “ A cognitive framework for understanding demographic influences in groups ”, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis , Vol. 5 No. 4 , pp. 342 - 359 , doi: 10.1108/eb028873 .

Bliese , P.D. ( 2000 ), “ Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: implications for data aggregation and analysis ”, in Klein , K.J. and Kozlowski , S.W.J. (Eds),  Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions , Jossey-Bass , pp. 349 - 381 .

Campion , M.A. , Medsker , G.J. and Higgs , A.C. ( 1993 ), “ Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups ”, Personnel Psychology , Vol. 46 No. 4 , pp. 823 - 850 , doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01806.x .

Campion , M.A. , Papper , E.M. and Medsker , G.J. ( 1996 ), “ Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: a replication and extension ”, Personnel Psychology , Vol. 49 No. 2 , pp. 429 - 452 , doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01806.x .

Chen , G. , Thomas , B. and Wallace , J.C. ( 2005 ), “ A multilevel examination of the relationships among training outcomes, mediating regulatory processes, and adaptive performance ”, Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 90 No. 5 , pp. 827 - 841 , doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.827 .

Driskell , T. , Driskell , J.E. , Burke , C.S. and Salas , E. ( 2017 ), “ Team roles: a review and integration ”, Small Group Research , Vol. 48 No. 4 , pp. 482 - 511 , doi: 10.1177/1046496417711529 .

Driskell , T. , Salas , E. and Driskell , J.E. ( 2018 ), “ Teams in extreme environments: alterations in team development and teamwork ”, Human Resource Management Review , Vol. 28 No. 4 , pp. 434 - 449 .

Eby , L.T. , Meade , A.W. , Parisi , A.G. and Douthitt , S.S. ( 1999 ), “ The development of an individual-level teamwork expectations measure and the application of a within-group agreement statistic to assess shared expectations for teamwork ”, Organizational Research Methods , Vol. 2 No. 4 , pp. 366 - 394 , doi: 10.1177/109442819924003 .

Friedman , V.J. and Lipshitz , R. ( 1992 ), “ Teaching people to shift cognitive gears: overcoming resistance on the road to model II ”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science , Vol. 28 No. 1 , pp. 118 - 136 , doi: 10.1177/0021886392281010 .

Hannah , S.T. , Uhl-Bien , M. , Avolio , B.J. and Cavarretta , F.L. ( 2009 ), “ A framework for examining leadership in extreme contexts ”, The Leadership Quarterly , Vol. 20 No. 6 , pp. 897 - 919 , doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.006 .

Harrison , D.A. , Mohammed , S. , McGrath , J.E. , Florey , A.T. and Vanderstoep , S.W. ( 2003 ), “ Time matters in team performance: effects of member familiarity, entrainment, and task discontinuity on speed and quality ”, Personnel Psychology , Vol. 56 No. 3 , pp. 633 - 669 , doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00753.x .

Hayes , A.F. ( 2009 ), “ Beyond Baron and Kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium ”, Communication Monographs , Vol. 76 No. 4 , pp. 408 - 420 , doi: 10.1080/03637750903310360 .

Hayes , A.F. ( 2012 ), “ PROCESS: a versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling ”, available at: www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf

Humphrey , S.E. and Aime , F. ( 2014 ), “ Team microdynamics: toward an organizing approach to teamwork ”, The Academy of Management Annals , Vol. 8 No. 1 , pp. 443 - 503 , doi: 10.1080/19416520.2014.904140 .

James , L.R. ( 1982 ), “ Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement ”, Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 67 No. 2 , pp. 219 - 229 .

James , L.R. , Demaree , R.G. and Wolf , G. ( 1984 ), “ Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias ”, Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 69 No. 1 , pp. 85 - 98 , doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 .

Janz , B.D. , Colquitt , J.A. and Noe , R.A. ( 1997 ), “ Knowledge worker team effectiveness: the role of autonomy, interdependence, team development, and contextual support variables ”, Personnel Psychology , Vol. 50 No. 4 , pp. 877 - 904 , doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb01486.x .

Kamphuis , W. , Gaillard , A.W. and Vogelaar , A.L. ( 2011 ), “ The effects of physical threat on team processes during complex task performance ”, Small Group Research , Vol. 42 No. 6 , pp. 700 - 729 , doi: 10.1177/1046496411407522 .

Kozlowski , S.W.J. and Ilgen , D.R. ( 2006 ), “ Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams ”, Psychological Science in the Public Interest , Vol. 7 No. 3 , pp. 77 - 124 , doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x .

LeBreton , J.M. and Senter , J.L. ( 2008 ), “ Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement ”, Organizational Research Methods , Vol. 11 No. 4 , pp. 815 - 852 , doi: 10.1177/1094428106296642 .

LePine , J.A. , Piccolo , R.F. , Jackson , C.L. , Mathieu , J.E. and Saul , J.R. ( 2008 ), “ A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: test of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria ”, Personnel Psychology , Vol. 61 No. 2 , pp. 273 - 307 , doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00114.x .

McGrath , J.E. , Arrow , H. , Gruenfeld , D.H. , Hollingshead , A.B. and O'Connor , K.M. ( 1993 ), “ Groups, tasks, and technology the effects of experience and change ”, Small Group Research , Vol. 24 No. 3 , pp. 406 - 420 , doi: 10.1177/1046496493243007 .

McIntyre , R.M. and Salas , E. ( 1995 ), “ Measuring and managing for team performance: lessons from complex environments ”, in Guzzo , R.A. , Salas , E. and Associates (Eds), Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco , pp. 9 - 45 .

MacKinnon , D.P. , Lockwood , C.M. and Williams , J. ( 2004 ), “ Confidence limits for the indirect effect: distribution of the product and resampling methods ”, Multivariate Behavioral Research , Vol. 39 No. 1 , pp. 99 - 128 , doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4 .

Marks , M.A. , Mathieu , J.E. and Zaccaro , S.J. ( 2001 ), “ A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes ”, The Academy of Management Review , Vol. 26 No. 3 , pp. 356 - 376 , doi: 10.2307/259182 .

Marks , M.A. , Zaccaro , S.J. and Mathieu , J.E. ( 2000 ), “ Performance implications of leader briefings and team- interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments ”, Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 85 No. 6 , pp. 971 - 986 , doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.971 .

Mathieu , J.E. , Hollenbeck , J.R. , van Knippenberg , D. and Ilgen , D.R. ( 2017 ), “ A century of work teams in the ”, Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 102 No. 3 , pp. 452 - 467 , doi: 10.1037/apl0000128 .

Maynard , M.T. , Kennedy , D.M. and Resick , C.J. ( 2018 ), “ Teamwork in extreme environments: lessons, challenges, and opportunities ”, Journal of Organizational Behavior , Vol. 39 No. 6 , pp. 695 - 700 .

Podsakoff , P.M. , MacKenzie , S.B. , Lee , J.Y. and Podsakoff , N.P. ( 2003 ), “ Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies ”, Journal of Applied Psychology , Vol. 88 No. 5 , pp. 879 - 903 , doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 .

Rasmussen , T.H. and Jeppesen , H.J. ( 2006 ), “ Teamwork and associated psychological factors: a review ”, Work and Stress , Vol. 20 No. 2 , pp. 105 - 128 , doi: 10.1080/02678370600920262 .

Rousseau , V. and Aubé , C. ( 2010 ), “ Team self-managing behaviors and team effectiveness: the moderating effect of task routineness ”, Group and Organization Management , Vol. 35 No. 6 , pp. 751 - 781 , doi: 10.1177/1059601110390835 .

Salas , E. , Burke , C.S. and Cannon-Bowers , J.A. ( 2000 ), “ Teamwork: emerging principles ”, International Journal of Management Reviews , Vol. 2 No. 4 , pp. 339 - 356 , doi: 10.1111/1468-2370.00046 .

Salas , E. , Sims , D.E. and Burke , C.S. ( 2005 ), “ Is there a “big five” in teamwork? ”, Small Group Research , Vol. 36 No. 5 , pp. 555 - 599 , doi: 10.1177/1046496405277134 .

Schaubroeck , J.M. , Hannah , S.T. , Avolio , B.J. , Kozlowski , S.W. , Lord , R.G. , Treviño , Dimotakis , N. and Peng , A.C. , ( 2012 ), “ Embedding ethical leadership within and across organization levels ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 55 No. 5 , pp. 1053 - 1078 , doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0064 .

Schein , E.H. ( 1969 ), “ The mechanisms of change ”, The Planning of Change , Vol. 2 , pp. 98 - 107 .

Staw , B.M. , Sandelands , L.E. and Dutton , J.E. ( 1981 ), “ Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: a multilevel analysis ”, Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol. 26 No. 4 , pp. 501 - 524 , doi: 10.2307/2392337 .

Tuckman , B.W. ( 1965 ), “ Developmental sequence in small groups ”, Psychological Bulletin , Vol. 63 No. 6 , pp. 384 - 399 , doi: 10.1037/h0022100 .

Van den Berg , C.E. ( 2009 ), “ Soldiers under threat: an exploration of the effects of real threat on soldiers’ perceptions, attitudes and morale ”, Doctoral dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen , the Netherlands .

Williams , J. and MacKinnon , D.P. ( 2008 ), “ Resampling and distribution of the product methods for testing indirect effects in complex models ”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal , Vol. 15 No. 1 , pp. 23 - 51 , doi: 10.1080/10705510701758166 .

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to commemorate the contribution of Ad Vogelaar, who passed away after the field work and primary analyses had been conducted.

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

21 Teams in the Military: A Review and Emerging Challenges

Marissa L. Shuffler, Institute for Simulation and Training, Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL

Davin Pavlas, Department of Psychology and Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central Florida

Eduardo Salas, Department of Psychological Sciences, Rice University

• Published: 18 September 2012
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Teams have long been considered critical to the organizational structure of the military. The complex nature of military missions requires knowledge, skills, and abilities beyond those of a single individual, thus requiring the use of teams. Furthermore, the study of teams in the military environment is constantly evolving as the needs of the military and its missions change and adapt to new global circumstances. Psychology as a discipline has been particularly influential in addressing these needs, developing what is known regarding teams, their processes, training, and success in the military. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to review the science of teams and their effectiveness, extrapolate critical lessons learned, and highlight several future challenges critical for military psychology to address in order to prepare future military teams for success.

Teams have long been considered critical to the organizational structure of the military (Salas, Bowers, & Cannon-Bowers, 1995 ). The complex nature of military missions requires knowledge, skills, and abilities beyond that of a single individual, thus requiring the use of collective action to achieve goals (Goodwin & Halpin, 2006 ). The growing use of teams in the military is in part due to the idea that teams provide specific advantages over individuals working alone. For example, the Army is increasingly relying on small units to accomplish missions, as such units provide flexibility as well as the combined skills and expertise required to operate in complex environments (Bois & Howell, 2009 ).

Because of their importance, the study of teams in military environments is constantly evolving to suit ever-changing demands. Just as teams provide capabilities beyond those of individuals, they also are an order of magnitude more complex. Thus, extensive research has been conducted over the past several decades to understand how teams function and how to maximize teams to achieve the performance advantages they offer. Psychology as a discipline has been particularly influential in addressing these needs, by developing the knowledge base of team processes, training, and successes in the military (Salas, Goodwin, & Burke, 2009 ). Because of the exponential growth of team science, it can be difficult to track the advances that have occurred.

To provide a broader view of the state of team science for the military, the purpose of this chapter is to review the science of teams and team effectiveness, extrapolate critical lessons learned, and highlight challenges critical to future military team success that must be researched. We first begin by defining what a team is and how team effectiveness is conceptualized, followed by a review of some of the key factors that influence team effectiveness. We then turn to the development of effective teams, outlining the critical components to successful team training and highlighting current research in team training. Next, we review team performance measurement, a critical component to gauging military team performance success as well as developmental needs. Finally, we conclude with a set of future challenges and research directions necessary for advancing the science of military teams.

Defining Military Team Effectiveness

Team and group research has provided a strong foundation for understanding this phenomenon in the military context (Prince & Salas, 1999 ), yet much has changed in team performance research in the past few decades (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996 ). These advances in teamwork, team process, and team competencies have enabled a richer understanding of their significance in military team performance. In the following section, we will outline constructs from team research relevant to military team performance and highlight some of the most significant advancements in understanding team processes.

To understand military team performance, it is important to first define what is meant by team . A team is defined as “a set of two or more individuals that adaptively and dynamically interact through specified roles as they work toward shared and valued goals” (Salas et al., 2009 , p. 40). Teams are not successful simply by virtue of their existence. Indeed, research points to process losses in teams, such as the reduction of creativity due to decreased psychological safety (Edmondson & Rollof, 2009 ), the introduction of “groupthink” (Janis, 1982 ), and development of conflict among team members when attempting to achieve their goals (Jehn, 1995 ; Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999 ). However, teams do have advantages compared to a set of individuals working on the same task simultaneously. Teams are more innovative because of the combined efforts of their diverse members, are better at storing and retrieving knowledge through the use of shared mental models and transactive memory systems, and are better able to quickly respond to changing tasks and market requirements (van Dick et al., 2009 ; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001 ). Thus, teams have become a particularly critical part of the military, as achieving goals in complex operating environments increasingly requires the combined efforts of a collective.

For teams to be effective, they must successfully perform both teamwork and taskwork (Salas, Kosarzycki, Tannenbaum, & Carnegie, 2004 ). Teamwork is defined as a set of behaviors, cognitions, and attitudes that are enacted to achieve mutual goals and meet the demands of the outside environment (Salas et al., 2007 ). Taskwork involves the skills necessary for team members to perform tasks, whereas teamwork skills focus primarily on the behaviors and attitudes necessary for teams to function and accomplish these tasks (Salas et al., 2007 ). Both of these skill sets are viewed as equally important, although many recognize that taskwork skills should be trained before teamwork to ensure team members first have an understanding of the skills necessary to perform their individual tasks (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001 ). Additionally, several researchers argue that the relationship between taskwork and team effectiveness is mediated by teamwork skills (Hackman & Morris, 1975 ; Bass, 1996 ; Burke, Wilson, & Salas, 2003 ).

Taskwork and teamwork can further be broken down into generic and specific skills. Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, and Volpe ( 1995 ) delineated a 2 x 2 framework (see Figure 21.1 ) that could be used to organize these team and taskwork skills. This framework depicts that these skills can vary along two axes with respect to the degree to which they are team-generic or team-specific (first axis) and task-specific or task-generic (second axis). By combining these axes, four categories of competencies are produced (i.e., context-driven, team-contingent, task-contingent, and transportable).

From a training perspective, the situational and environmental context drives the determination of which skills will be the most appropriate to train. For example, context-driven skills are those driven by the particular task and team involved. Conversely, team-contingent competencies are those that are team-specific, but are applicable across a wide variety of tasks. The third box in the matrix, task-contingent competencies, are those that are task-specific, but transportable across teams (i.e., not dependent on the particular makeup of the team). Finally, transportable competencies are those that are team- and task-generic (i.e., they apply across a wide range of teams and collective tasks). The skills and competencies that fall within this category are those that tend to be trained within highly dynamic environments where task and team member requirements change frequently.

Types of team competencies (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ).

In the military, teams are expected to perform both teamwork and taskwork simultaneously. While being able to efficiently and effectively perform the task at hand is critical to all types of military teams, teamwork skills are also crucial for effective coordination and communication among the members. Merket and colleagues ( 1999 ) found that breakdowns in team performance skills were found to play a significant role in making errors. Specifically, they found that deficiencies in aircrew coordination skills (e.g., situational awareness, decision making, leadership, adaptability) contributed to 68% of the mishaps examined in the study. Certainly, understanding the role of teamwork skills beyond just taskwork is important to team effectiveness and accident prevention.

Team Competencies

As the understanding of teamwork has grown, so has the knowledge of the specific skills and competencies necessary to successfully perform teamwork. Over the past few decades, researchers have worked to identify the core competencies that are necessary for teamwork to occur, including knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ). After collecting and synthesizing prior teamwork research, Cannon-Bowers and colleagues ( 1995 ) identified a set of eight major teamwork skills, including: (1) adaptability, (2) communication, (3) coordination, (4) decision making, (5) interpersonal relations, (6) leadership/team management, (7) performance monitoring/feedback, and (8) shared situational awareness. Drawing upon theoretical and empirical advances in team research, this list of competencies has been further refined by Salas and colleagues ( 2007 ), who grouped them into three larger categories of attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions, while also expanding the number of teamwork skills included within each of these groups. Table 21.1 presents a summary of these expanded competencies.

Although identifying these competencies has led to great advances in understanding what impacts teamwork, most recently the work of Marks et al. ( 2001 ) and Salas et al. ( 2007 ) have further contributed to our understanding of the dynamic interdependencies among the components of teamwork. Focusing on the temporal nature of teams, Marks and colleagues identified a framework of team processes in addition to interpersonal processes. Salas and colleagues built upon this framework to advance a “big five” of teamwork, highlighting five core components of teamwork: (1) team leadership, (2) mutual performance monitoring, (3) backup behavior, (4) adaptability, and (5) team orientation. Furthermore, they examined how these core competencies require the support of several coordinating mechanisms, including shared mental models, closed-loop communication, and mutual trust; as well as how these competencies may vary in importance over the lifespan of the team. These competencies certainly have implications for the military community, as all are critical in the demanding and complex situations occurring for military teams at any given moment.

Understanding Team Effectiveness through I-P-O and IMOI Frameworks

There are many frameworks and models of team effectiveness that have emerged from the literature. Traditionally, teamwork and team effectiveness have been studied using an input-process-output (I-P-O) framework (see Figure 21.2 ), as originally advanced by McGrath (1984). From this perspective, inputs involve antecedent factors that enable and constrain the interactions of team members (Mathieu et al., 2008 ). Inputs can involve individual characteristics, team-level factors, and organizational-level factors. These factors combine to drive team processes, or the interactions of members that are directed to accomplishing the team task at hand. Processes are a very important piece to this framework, as they provide the mechanism by which team inputs are transformed into team outcomes. Outcomes are described as results and byproducts of these team processes, and can include factors such as team performance as well as affective reactions (Mathieu et al., 2000 ).

This model of team effectiveness has been well utilized over the years, with adjustments and modifications being made to some degree in order to better understand team issues (Cohen & Bailey, 1997 ; Mathieu et al., 2008 ). For example, some researchers have examined the temporal nature of the model (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001 ), while others have looked at the inherently multilevel nature of the individual, team, and organizational inputs that affect processes and outcomes (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000 ). Most recently, Ilgen and colleagues ( 2005 ) have advanced a new form of the model, which focuses on the cyclical nature of team functioning: the input, mediator, output, input IMOI model (see Figure 21.3 ).

(Adapted from Salas, et al., 2007 )

The IMOI model of team effectiveness adds to the original I-P-O framework by addressing the increased complexity that teams are facing today. Substituting “M,” or mediator, for “P” illustrates the broader range of variables that influence teams, their processes, and their outcomes (Ilgen et al., 2005 ). Additionally, the inclusion of another “I” illustrates the fact that the framework is cyclical, with feedback occurring to inform the next iteration. Finally, the removal of hyphens represents that the model is not linear or additive, but is in fact nonlinear or conditional.

Reprinted from Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson ( 2008 ).

For the military community, understanding the role of the IMOI framework in relation to teams is important to successful operation and team performance, in that it delineates how inputs and mediators influence team outcomes. In the following sections, we detail specific inputs and mediators that have been shown to influence team outcomes relevant to military performance. Furthermore, we will highlight current research in team training designed to improve the effectiveness of teams, primarily through influencing the effectiveness of team processes. Certainly, the effectiveness of teams cannot be viewed as the outcome of a single, linear process, but instead as resulting dynamically from numerous inputs, mediators, and processes that arise throughout task performance. Therefore, utilizing models such as those presented here can provide us with a more accurate understanding of the interplay of these team performance variables.

In sum, team dynamics research has advanced over the past several decades, which has several implications for understanding military team performance. Many models and frameworks have been developed to explain, not only the development of teams, but also to understand the factors that influence their performance and effectiveness. The growth of knowledge regarding the competencies necessary for team functioning has implications for military team training, as does the conceptual shift from an I-P-O framework to an IMOI model that places greater emphasis on the wide range of factors that may impact team performance and effectiveness. The cyclical nature and iterative feedback that is now incorporated into the framework better captures the complexity of team processes. Overall, it is clear from this brief review of team constructs and frameworks that there are many factors that can influence team performance and success, especially for military teams. In the following section, we highlight some of the most important factors that can impact military team performance and are identified in current research.

What Factors Influence Military Team Effectiveness?

There are many factors that can influence the effectiveness of military teams. Given the previous discussion of the input-process/mediator-output approach to understanding teams, we follow a similar framework in terms of highlighting specific factors that can influence military team performance. To do so, we draw upon the framework of the conditions and processes of team performance developed by Salas and colleagues ( 2007 ; see Figure 21.4 ). First, we review several key team inputs that may influence team performance, including individual characteristics, team characteristics, and task characteristics. Next, we highlight some critical team processes and emergent states, including team adaptability, transition and action behaviors, shared mental models, and team cohesion. We also briefly discuss the role of leadership in teams. Finally, we conclude by examining some of the situational and contextual factors that may influence team performance.

The conditions and processes of team performance.

Team Inputs

There are many factors considered to be “inputs” that can influence team processes and performance. Team members themselves bring their own personalities, backgrounds, and experiences, which can influence how the team subsequently functions as a whole. In addition, the team as a whole can be influenced by its size, how it is structured, and how interdependent the team is. Finally, characteristics of the task can also serve as an input to influence the team and its ability to function. The following section is a discussion of each of these factors and how they may be particularly important to understanding military teams.

Team member characteristics

Individuals entering teams bring in their own unique individual characteristics, which can then influence team performance. This may include diversity in cultural or national backgrounds (Earley & Mosakwoski, 2000 ), functional background (Bunderson, 2003 ), personality traits (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007 ), collective orientation (Driskell et al., 2006 ), and motivation (Neal & Griffin, 2006 ). All of these individual inputs can combine to subsequently influence team performance. For example, Koman and Wolff ( 2008 ) found that emotional intelligence (the awareness of and ability to regulate emotions) in military aircrew teams can influence the development of team norms, which subsequently influences team performance. Therefore, it is important to consider individual characteristics in team composition when selecting and developing teams, especially military teams that may require differing degrees of experience, personality traits, and abilities in order to effectively perform in highly stressful and complex operations.

Team characteristics

In addition to individual factors, there are also team-level characteristics that can be considered inputs that influence subsequent team processes and outcomes (Shuffler et al., 2010 ). This can involve structural factors such as the size of the team, and the interdependence of team members in terms of goals, tasks, and feedback (Saavedra et al., 1993 ), the degree of autonomy in terms of how much control team members have over the team design, structure, and accomplishment of work (Sundstrom et al., 1990 ), and the communication structure by which communication occurs among team members (Dyer, 1984 ). All of these factors have been found to have a significant impact on the performance of teams (Mathieu et al., 2008 ). Furthermore, as will be discussed in a later section, the degree to which teams are trained can also positively affect both team processes and outcomes (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001 ). Overall, team characteristics can have a strong impact on the success of teams, and continued research in this area is merited.

Task characteristics

The team task is defined in terms of the nature of work performed by the team, but not the manner in which the team performs that work (McGrath, 1962 ). In other words, the team task focuses on the kind of work done rather than how it is done. Task characteristics can include factors such as team task type, task interdependency, and task complexity. Each of these facets can have a strong influence on team processes and outcomes, especially in terms of moderating relationships among inputs, processes, and outputs.

For example, a complex task is one in which high cognitive demands are placed on the task-doer (Campbell, 1988 , p. 43; Jehn, 1995 ; Kankanhalli et al., 2006 ). This dimension of team task has been mentioned in prior taxonomic literature (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002 ) as well as the general team literature as having a significant impact on team functioning. Jehn ( 1995 ) found that task conflict is sometimes beneficial in complex tasks, but it is always detrimental in routine tasks. Furthermore, the complexity of the task can influence several other critical aspects of team performance, such as the processes necessary to complete the task, the level of interdependence, or the type of training needed.

Team Processes and Emergent States

These initial inputs into teams influence subsequent team processes and emergent states (Marks et al., 2001 ). Over the past decade, increasing attention has been paid to these processes and states that can be used to explain why and how team inputs influence team effectiveness and outcomes (Ilgen et al., 2005 ). In this section, we define and discuss both team processes and team emergent states, highlighting different types of each and describing their role as a mediator connecting team inputs and outcomes.

Team processes

Team process , as previously discussed in relation to the IMOI model, refers to the functions performed by team members to accomplish team goals (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001 ). While traditionally team process was simply divided into taskwork and teamwork, Marks and colleagues ( 2001 ) advanced this view by developing a taxonomy of processes that includes three higher-order categories: transition, action, and interpersonal (see Table 21.2 ). The following provides a brief discussion of these three categories and the types of variables within each that have been found to influence team outcomes.

First, the transition phase of team process involves a focus upon activities that prepare the team for engaging in action at a later time (Mathieu et al., 2008 ). This includes processes such as mission analysis, planning, goal specification, and formulating strategies. While transition processes are important as they provide a foundation for future actions, this type of process has received the least amount of attention in the research. Of the studies that do exist, these transition variables have been linked to team performance. Mathieu and Schulze ( 2006 ) found that dynamic planning was positively related to team performance. Furthermore, Hiller and colleagues ( 2006 ) found that the enactment of collective leadership, operationalized by planning and organizing, was also positively related to team performance. However, further research is necessary to more clearly delineate the relationship of different types of transition processes to team outcomes.

The second phase of team process is the action phase, which has received a significant amount of attention in the literature (Mathieu et al., 2008 ). Action processes involve team members working on accomplishing tasks, monitoring and adjusting behaviors, coordinating with team members, and monitoring and backing up one another. Critical action processes that have been found to influence team performance include communication and coordination (LePine et al., 2008 ). Additionally, Porter ( 2005 ) showed the importance of backup behaviors in decision-making performance.

Finally, interpersonal processes involve the interpersonal functioning of team members across both transition and action phases of team process. Interpersonal processes can include conflict, motivation, confidence building, and affect (Mathieu et al., 2008 ). Research has been conducted on all of these factors, finding that they can each differentially influence the success of teams. For example, De Dreu and Weingart ( 2003 ) found that conflict, both relationship and task, has a strongly negative correlation with team performance as well as team member satisfaction. Furthermore, research has demonstrated the positive impact of feedback on team motivation, interpersonal trust, and subsequent performance in virtual teams (Geister, Konradt, & Hertel, 2006 ). In sum, each of these three types of processes can significantly affect team outcomes and should be important to understanding the functioning of military teams.

Team emergent states

Within the team literature, emergent states have been defined as “properties of the team that are typically dynamic in nature and vary as a function of team context, inputs, processes, and outcomes” (Marks et al., 2001 , p. 357). These are cognitive, motivational, and affective states that emerge from the processes of team interaction and have been conceptualized as either moderators of team performance processes (e.g., Ilgen et al., 2005 ) or as proximal inputs and outputs for team processes (i.e., team interaction produces an emergent state that subsequently influences future team processes; see Burke et al., 2006 ; Marks et al., 2001 ). Much like team process, emergent states have also become an increasing focus of teams research, with attention specifically being paid to team confidence, team climate, cohesion, and trust (Mathieu et al., 2008 ). As a full review of the motivational, affective, and cognitive emergent states is beyond the scope of the current chapter, we highlight below a critical cognitively based emergent state that is especially influential in military teams: shared mental models.

Shared mental models are defined as “organized knowledge structures that allow individuals to interact with their environment” (Mathieu et al., 2005 ). Shared metal models help explain how teams are able to effectively cope with difficult and challenging task conditions (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994 ). Salas, Prince, Baker, and Shrestha ( 1995 ) state that shared mental models are broken into several classifications: understanding of equipment or technology; shared task or job models; shared concepts of how the team interacts; and shared knowledge of the team members’ knowledge, skills, abilities, and other traits.

There is an extensive literature on the development of shared mental models and the effects they have on team outcomes. Mathieu and colleagues ( 2000 ) examined both team and task mental models in dyads performing a flight simulation task, and found that similarity in both team and task mental models was predictive of team performance, supporting this notion of the mental model theory. Edwards and colleagues ( 2006 ) also provided evidence linking shared mental models to team performance in a laboratory setting. However, Mathieu and colleagues ( 2000 ) found that the similarity of the team and task mental models did not converge over time as expected. This calls into question the assumption that mental models converge over time, though the short-term nature of the study may not have allowed enough time for the convergence to occur. Therefore, further research is needed to examine this issue.

Team Leadership

Team leadership is a unique component of teams that can be considered either an input or a mediator, and it plays quite a significant role, especially for military teams who typically have some form of leadership structure. Leadership is a well-studied topic, with many reviews available (see Barling et al., 2010 , for a recent review). Leadership is especially critical for the military, given that military teams must often face dangerous situations in which a leader’s ability to direct team members is essential (e.g., in extremis leadership, Kolditz, 2007 ; Baran & Scott, 2010 ; Yammarino et al., 2010 ). Therefore, the purpose of this section is not to explore the vast amount of leadership literature, but instead to highlight some of the key issues relevant to military teams.

There is general agreement that leadership can substantially influence team outcomes (e.g., Bass 1996 ; House, 1977 ; Yukl, 2006 ), yet researchers have been criticized regarding the lack of attention to team leadership (Komaki, Desselles, & Bowman, 1989 ; Marks, Zaccaro, & Mathieu, 2000 ). The purpose of leadership in any given team is to establish goals and set a direction that will lead to the accomplishment of these goals (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001 ). Team goals typically require that a collective action be taken, which increases the demands upon the leader, particularly in terms of helping organize the knowledge and thoughts of team members (Zaccaro et al., 2004 ). Several key leadership responsibilities for team leaders have been identified in recent research. Specifically, Zaccaro and colleagues ( 2009 ) provide a summary of the functions of team leadership that should be fulfilled in order for teams to be successful. This includes setting the direction for the team, managing team operations, and developing the team’s leadership capacity. Morgeson and colleagues ( 2010 ) further elaborate on this framework by separating out the leadership behaviors necessary for the transition and action phases of team processes. This is an important contribution to the team leadership literature, in that it provides more specific guidance in terms of which leadership behaviors are needed when, which can aid in improving team leadership development and training.

Given the number of behaviors that are required for effective team leadership, it is also possible that teams may in fact share leadership among team members (Pearce & Conger, 2003 ). While the idea of collective or shared leadership has existed for quite some time in the literature, it has gained significant focus in recent research, especially as demands upon teams consistently increase. Yammarino and colleagues ( 2010 ) have developed a model of collective leadership specifically for dangerous military contexts. This model highlights the constructs and multiple levels of analysis that are involved in the formation of military teams, which in turn influence the leadership and team dynamics. According to this model, based upon the individual inputs, team leadership may function in terms of its structure and who enacts which leadership behaviors. While future research is needed to further explore this framework’s validity, it provides a step in the right direction in terms of understanding leadership dynamics in military teams, particularly for dangerous military contexts.

Contextual Factors

Teams do not perform in a vacuum. Indeed, much of what influences team inputs, processes, and outcomes is the context in which teams operate (Goodwin & Halpin., 2006 ). This may be driven by the environment in which the teams are operating, especially for military teams that may operate in highly volatile and constantly changing environments (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003 ), facets of time and temporality that impact team processes (Marks et al., 2001 ), and the structure of the team (Dyer, 1984 ). While there are multiple factors that can be explored in each of these areas, we provide a high-level overview of these three components to encourage future thinking regarding each facet.

Environmental characteristics

Beyond knowing the type of task a team performs, it is necessary to understand the environment in which this task is performed. For example, a team making decisions under no time constraints or other externally imposed stressors will have to engage in qualitatively different performance strategies to be successful than teams making decisions under high levels of such environmental stressors. The team task environment differs from organizational context because it is not under the direct control of the organization; it is a function of the external environment in which the team performs its task.

Environmental characteristics can include the degree of risk that is prevalent in the environment, the level of autonomy that team members have in their work, stressors such as dangerous work conditions, or uncertainty. Each of these factors can have an influence on how well the team is able to operate in a given environment. For example, environmental uncertainty is experienced by the individual as a sense of doubt that blocks or delays action (Lipshitz & Strauss, 1997 ). This doubt arises from four characteristics of information from the environment: missing information, unreliable information, ambiguous or conflicting information, and complex information (Klein, 1988 ). If a team is missing information, they will not have all of the information necessary to complete their mission. Unreliable information, on the other hand, is not caused by lack of information, but instead caused by the poor credibility of the information, such as when teams are unsure of the accuracy of information or are purposefully deceived. Information is ambiguous if it can be interpreted in more than one reasonable way. Lastly, understanding complex information involves taking many separate pieces of information and integrating them into one overall understanding.

Temporal characteristics

Another critical contextual factor in teams is the temporal aspect of that team. It is important to remember that teams are dynamic, and their performance and structure can change over time (Marks et al., 2001 ). Teams can differ on many temporal characteristics, including team lifespan, performance episode duration, performance episode frequency, performance trigger, and continuity of membership. For example, teams can differ in terms of the continuity of the membership from one performance episode to the next. Membership can be continuous, variable, or completely new. In continuous membership, the team remains relatively stable in terms of its members between performance episodes. In variable membership, some of the team members rotate in and out between performance episodes.

In new membership, the team changes almost completely between performance episodes. For example, in a provincial reconstruction team (PRT), there may be a large team of members who work together often to attain the overarching goals of reconstructing the local community, but when responding to a specific need of the community, only a subset of those members may respond at any given time (Reitjens, 2008 ). In this situation, the group of team members working together will change, depending on who is assigned to what task. This is an important characteristic to consider when making training decisions, since training transportable teamwork skills may be more advantageous for teams with variable or new membership, while training team-specific skills may be best for relatively continuous teams (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 1997 ).

Structural characteristics

Finally, team functioning can be influenced by the structural characteristics of the team. Team structure refers to the properties of the configurations in which teams are arranged (Dyer, 1984 ). There are many factors that compose the structural characteristics of a team, including the structure of its leadership (Morgeson, et al., 2010 ), the communication structure among team members, the division of work and roles among team members, and the distribution (physical and temporal) of team members (Sundstrom et al., 2000 ).

Structural characteristics can significantly affect the degree to which teams are effective in accomplishing their tasks. For example, distribution involves the degree to which team members are spread out across time and space. This is a very critical dimension to consider when classifying teams, and Bell and Kozlowski ( 2002 ) developed a taxonomy devoted specifically to virtual, or distributed, teams. With the increased use of collaborative technologies, team members are often separated in these dimensions, which have been found to impact team communication, leadership, trust, and conflict (Connaughton & Shuffler, 2007 ). Overall, structural characteristics are worthy of examination in teams, as they may have strong influences on team process and performance.

Overall, there are many factors that can influence military team functioning and performance. Inputs such as team member personalities, the type of task being performed, and the composition of the team can have a significant impact on the effectiveness of subsequent team processes and emergent states. The publication of Marks and colleagues’ ( 2001 ) taxonomy of team processes and emergent states has led to a significant focus in teams research on understanding the differentiation of transition, action, and interpersonal processes, as well as the development and influence of emergent states. Team leadership is a somewhat unique component of teams and is especially critical to military teams. Finally, given the complex contexts in which military teams currently operate, attention to environmental, temporal, and situational factors is merited, as these factors can determine the eventual success or failure of such teams. Indeed, all of these factors provide a wealth of information regarding how teams function, but the sheer number of potentially influential factors can prove to be challenging in terms of developing and managing successful teams.

Improving Military Teams: Designing, Developing, and Delivering Team Training

Based on the discussion in the previous sections, it is clear that there are many factors that can influence successful team performance. Given this extensive number of factors, it is important to find ways to improve and enhance team processes and functioning through interventions aimed at training and building successful teams. Team developmental interventions such as team training can be critical to fostering team effectiveness (Noe, 2002 ). As a topic of great importance to the military community, team training has been heavily studied over the past decades. Team training has been defined “as a set of tools and methods that, in combination with required [team-based] competencies and training objectives, form an instructional strategy” (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 1997 , p. 313). Team training enables team members to learn and practice requisite team knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) while receiving feedback on their performance. Moreover, similar to individual training, team training involves identifying the optimal combination of tools (e.g., team task analysis), delivery methods (e.g., practice-based, information-based, demonstration-based), and content (e.g., knowledge, skills, attitudes) required to improve teams (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 1997 ).

Today, the process of team training is well understood, with numerous team training approaches and taxonomies available in the literature. However, the successful theoretical and applied concepts of team training must be applied in practice in order to be useful to organizations as a whole. Thankfully, the team training community has provided a number of methodological advances that can be harnessed for effective team training in the military. The three primary techniques and topics that must be considered for successful training are needs analysis, individual differences of trainees, and specific training methods.

Training-Needs Analysis

For any team or individual training to be successful, the development of a team training solution must be informed by the context for which the training is being created. The first step of training development, then, is the analysis of the task and organization that is being trained for. Training-needs analysis is the process by which this analysis takes place. In the most general sense, training-needs analysis examines where training is needed, what needs to be conveyed in training, and to whom training must be delivered (Goldstein & Ford, 2002 ). This analysis is conducted in three phases of decreasing organizational complexity: organizational analysis, task analysis, and person analysis (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001 ). Furthermore, when developing team training, it is also important to conduct a team task analysis in order to ensure that team-level KSAs and tasks are captured. Each of these analyses is described in further detail below.

Organizational analysis

In an organizational analysis, the characteristics of the organizational environment are examined for their potential effects on training. More specifically, organizational analysis focuses on organizational goals, resources, support, and constraints (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001 ). The goals of an organization have profound implications for the development of training. In the military, doctrine may need to be embedded throughout training. Similarly, the disposition the organization has toward training and the organization’s general climate of flexibility (i.e., willingness or ability to adopt new information into their work) impacts how training is approached and delivered. In the military, training is inherently an ongoing process (i.e., a “continuous learning culture”; Goldstein & Ford, 2002 ), which suggests higher receptiveness to training. However, the constraints and attitudes of individual branches or segments of the targeted organization must be examined if the training environment is to be properly addressed.

Task analysis

The next level of training-needs analysis moves to the actual job or task being trained for. Task analysis is most immediately relevant to the actual training being developed, as it results in an in-depth description of the job and the requirements (i.e., KSAs and competencies) thereof. KSAs—the knowledge, skills, and attitudes (or knowledge, skills, and abilities) required to complete a task—are inherently linked to tasks via their impact on that task. For example, the ability to comprehend standard NATO symbology (e.g., APP-6A) affects a soldier’s ability to understand course-of-action plans provided by the commander. One method by which these KSAs and competencies are identified is cognitive task analysis (CTA), which is a technique that focuses on the mental components of a task. While the goal of CTA is to inform training for non-experts, it is conducted by interviewing subject-matter experts (SMEs). Through interviews, concept mapping, and think-aloud protocols, subject-matter experts provide information to shape the development of an expert method by which to complete a task. This information can also be obtained by referring to previously developed task documentation or other organizational knowledge resources.

Person analysis

The final step in training-needs analysis is the person analysis, which focuses on which individuals require training and what type of training they require. While the organization analysis has established the general constraints upon the training, and task analysis has determined what KSAs and competencies must be conveyed in training, person analysis provides the insight that is required to actually develop and deploy training (Goldstein & Ford, 2002 ). The first step of person analysis is effectively performance assessment. By assessing the competency of the individuals in an organization, it is possible to determine what KSAs are insufficiently represented. Given that so much training is now focused on the team rather than the individual, person analysis may also be conducted by treating the team as the “individual unit” that must be trained—similar processes are then used to assess the capacities of the team and determine what gaps are present across teams. For example, Baker and Salas ( 1996 ) assessed individual aircrew teams’ teamwork capabilities through custom-developed teamwork inventories. This focus on teams reveals additional teamwork KSAs, which should be identified during the task analysis portion of the needs analysis (e.g., cohesiveness, communication; Salas, Bowers, & Cannon-Bowers, 1995 ). Once the various KSA gaps present in the organization’s workers are identified, training techniques by which to remedy these gaps can be formulated or selected.

Team task analysis

In many ways, team task analysis is similar to an individual-level needs analysis, widely used by organizations to assist in selection and training development. A team task expands beyond this individual-level information, however, as it incorporates both the taskwork and teamwork skills, challenges, and interdependences required in team interactions (Baker, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1998 ). Identifying this information along both sets of behavioral tracks (i.e., taskwork and teamwork) is necessary as these two components capture different yet equally important sets of cues, conditions, and standards involved in team processes and performance (Burke, 2005 ). Furthermore, team needs analysis provides a systematic approach to gathering information from current team members to ensure an accurate portrayal of the skills, challenges, and interdependencies that may not be fully captured through other means. While team-level KSAs may be more challenging to “bring out” due to their more implicit nature, techniques such as critical incident gathering and cognitive interviews can be useful in revealing these types of information. Critical incidents can provide situations that SMEs have experienced themselves, enabling team interactions to be drawn out through cognitive interview questions that make use of retrieval cues and mental images to extract this information. Additionally, observation of teams performing their daily duties can also aid in determining these critical team interactions.

Individual Differences

Some of the most significant developments in team training research fall within the domain of individual differences. Characteristics of individuals can influence how successful team training will be, in that different team members may respond differently to the training being provided. Studies into how the characteristics of individuals affect the efficacy and feasibility of training have uncovered a number of effects, with constructs such as motivation, self-efficacy, cognitive ability, and goal orientation drawing considerable attention.

Motivation is one of the most recognizable concepts in the field of psychology. Within the context of training, motivation is the drive, effort, and persistence that trainees tap in order to engage in learning activities and reflection upon those activities (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001 ). Training motivation is key to the actual success of trainees, with empirical studies indicating its relationship to not only skill acquisition and retention, but also the eventual transfer of learned information to on-the-job practice (Martocchio & Webster, 1992 ; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992 ). However, research also indicates that training motivation is not a simple one-dimensional construct. Conceptually, motivation can be divided into two major categories: intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. Whereas intrinsic motivation refers to motivation that is derived from an inherent satisfaction with a task or other internal driver (Ryan & Deci, 2000 ), extrinsic motivation is created through some external reward, threat, or consequence (Shaw, 1976 ). Generally, intrinsic motivation is the preferable dimension of motivation to target, as extrinsic motivation does not have the same degree of effectiveness, especially for ensuring transfer of training (Ryan & Deci, 2000 ).

Self-efficacy

The concept of self-efficacy is closely related to motivation, as it influences the degree to which learners may be intrinsically motivated by a learning task (Quinones, 1995 ). Self-efficacy is the belief that one is capable of achieving a task goal through behaviors and actions (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001 ). As a construct, self-efficacy has been repeatedly linked to performance. Additionally, self-efficacy beliefs mediate the relationship between training and adjustment to a new task environment for new workers (Saks, 1997 ), which may be of special interest to the military context, where deployment to new environments is commonplace. Similarly, technology self-efficacy influences whether trainees are likely to use the training technologies provided to them (Christoph et al., 1998 ). All the training technology in the world does little good if individuals are not willing and able to engage with it.

Cognitive ability

General cognitive ability, also referred to as g , or general intelligence, has been empirically linked to knowledge attainment and task performance (Ree et al., 1995 ). As a construct, cognitive ability is thus extremely useful from a selection standpoint. Because cognitive ability promotes learning, performance, and skill acquisition (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001 ), it can be used as the basis by which to assign more complicated training and responsibilities. However, the impact of low g must also be considered when developing training. For the military context, it is important that trainees in particular tasks all achieve a baseline level of competency. Developing training that is effective even for low-cognitive-ability trainees is essential to ensuring that an organization is adequately trained. Unfortunately, research on cognitive ability in training has generally focused on the relationships between g , training, and performance, and has not produced mature guidelines for training low- and high-cognitive-ability trainees together.

Goal orientation

Like many of the constructs developed through industrial-organizational psychology research, goal orientation has ties to motivation. Goal orientation is the framework an individual uses to inform their thoughts and behavior in relation to training and performance (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001 ). Two goal orientations that are useful to examine when discussing training are mastery orientation and performance orientation. Learners with a mastery orientation seek to acquire skills and develop competence, whereas learners with a performance orientation seek external recognition of their competence (e.g., positive performance evaluations; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001 ). It is unclear whether these two orientations are mutually exclusive (Buttom et al., 1996 ), but the impact of goal orientation on training success is clear. Mastery orientation has been empirically linked to training success with regard to knowledge outcomes (Fisher & Ford, 1998 ).

Training Methods

The quest for effective team-training methods has resulted in the creation of many techniques with proven efficacy. Team training methods are similar to individual training methods in that they can focus on information-based, demonstration-based, or practice-based methods. Information-based methods are team training methods that focus on the delivery of concepts, facts, knowledge, or theories through methods such as lectures or slide presentations. The focus of this method is to present information as distinct from providing practice or building skills. Demonstration-based methods are rooted in illustrations of behaviors, actions, or strategies to be learned. The use of demonstration-based methods gives the team the opportunity to passively observe the required behaviors, actions, or strategies for a given task.

Practice-based methods are methods that give the team hands-on practice as well as feedback on their progress. Utilization of practice-based methods is critical to team training, as providing teams with guided practice, feedback, and coaching allows the team to understand, organize, and digest the learning objectives (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 1997 ).

There are numerous strategies that have emerged in the literature of team training that have incorporated the various methods previously discussed. One method that has been especially prominent in the military team-training literature is crew resource management (CRM) training. However, other techniques are well represented scientifically, and may serve as useful military team training methods. For example, simulation-based training (SBT) has gained considerable traction in civilian, corporate, and military enterprises. Other techniques such as the event-based approach to training (EBAT), cross-training, and competency-specific methods provide additional means by which to create targeted team-training programs. These techniques are briefly reviewed here in order to provide an overview of the types of methods available for team training.

Crew resource management

CRM was originally developed for use by flight deck crews, but is now employed for a variety of contexts, including naval vessels and hospital operating rooms (Flin, 1997 ). CRM training is generally non-technical, focusing instead on the “soft” team skills that allow a team to properly apply their technical knowledge. Thus, CRM includes training on skills such as team communication, leadership, decision making, and teamwork (Flin, 1997 ). Based on a review of 58 CRM training studies, Salas, Burke, Bowers, and Wilson ( 2001 ) concluded that CRM training is effective in engendering attitude and knowledge-learning outcomes. More importantly, the body of literature reviewed by the authors strongly indicated that CRM training results in actual behavior changes, indicating its utility for directed team training (Salas et al., 2001 ).

Simulation-based training

SBT is a general approach to team training that can be used across a wide range of contexts. In the most basic sense, a simulation is a combination of rules and fiction that provide an abstraction of reality (Juul, 2007 ). Today, “simulation” is often synonymous with “computer simulation,” though simulation exercises can also be conducted via role-playing or other non-digital techniques (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001 ). Because virtual environments are relatively low-cost to maintain after their creation, they are especially useful for training that would be expensive if conducted in the real world (e.g., pilot training, naval command center training, etc.). When conducting simulation-based training within a team context, there are many options for how to allow team members to work together. Co-located teams may perform tasks together, as in the case of the Navy’s AEGIS threat-diagnosis training (Zachary et al., 1999 ). In cases where the real-world task is distributed among different members or when the team must train but is not physically in the same place, distributed training can be conducted in virtual environments that are networked together (Elliott, Cardenas, & Schiflett, 1999 ).

Event-based approach to training

The EBAT is a special type of scenario-based training (not to be confused with simulation-based training) that focuses on simple measurement of team performance. An EBAT requires demonstration, practice, and feedback segments, though it is the practice (i.e., performance) and feedback (i.e., evaluation) segments that compose EBAT (Fowlkes & Burke, 2005 ). The distinguishing characteristic of EBAT is the transition from checklist-style performance assessment to feedback. For example, the scales used in the Targeted Acceptable Responses to Generated Events or Tasks (TARGETs) methodology allow even relatively novice observers to appropriately rate team behavior and provide targeted feedback (Fowlkes et al., 1994 ). These rating scales are developed with the assistance of subject-matter experts and target specific observable behaviors, exhibited knowledge, and critical skills.

Cross-training

Cross-training is the process by which team members are exposed to the role-specific training that their team members are provided with. When a team is cross-trained, each team member emerges with a working knowledge of each other team member’s role (Marks et al., 2002 ). The goal of cross-training is to provide a more consistent and complete team mental model and increase situation awareness during actual task performance. Evidence suggests that teams who cross-train outperform teams that do not cross-train, as the cross-trained teams engage in more efficient communication and interact more effectively with each other (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1998 ). Cross-training studies with action teams (i.e., a team where expertise, information, and tasks are distributed throughout the team) have shown similar effects (Marks et al., 2002 ), indicating the potential usefulness of cross-training to military contexts.

Guided team self-correction

Self-correction training is a strategy developed to enable teams to enhance their performance by diagnosing their problems and developing effective solutions to these identified problems (Salas, Nichols, & Driskell, 2007 ; Smith-Jentsch et al., 1998 ). Blickensderfer, Cannon-Bowers, and Salas ( 1997 ) defined team self-correction as a four-step process in which team members: (1) debrief in order to highlight what occurred during their performance session, (2) identify the errors that occurred and engage in problem-solving, (3) exchange feedback with one another, and (4) plan for improvement. The basis of self-correction training lies in building shared mental models within the team and engaging in effective feedback and problem-solving.

Designing Team Training

The science of team training, when combined with what is known about training individuals, has been instrumental in understanding how to maximize performance gains in teams (Cannon-Bowes et al., 1995 ). For example, the information gained from team task analyses can be used to identify team competencies, specify team training objectives, and develop and deliver realistic scenarios for practice (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 1997 ). Just as individual task proficiency is related to team performance, training interventions that enhance individual capabilities and characteristics (e.g., task KSAs, motivation) should also contribute to team performance (Tannenbaum, Beard, & Salas, 1992 ). At the same time, team performance requires more than individual task proficiency (e.g., Steiner, 1972 ); the ability of team members to coordinate their work and communicate effectively with one another is the hallmark of effective teams. Thus, training in “teamwork skills” should also enhance team performance for tasks requiring coordination and adaptation.

In terms of designing team training for performance gains, pairing team-training content with appropriate training delivery and design methods is critical, as such a match ensures that the training is suited to the nature of team performance. For example, simulation-based training (SBT) is particularly beneficial for team training because it promotes the development of teamwork in a safe environment that also allows for practice, feedback, and remediation (Gorman et al., 2007 ). In order to best decide the proper training design, it is important to begin with a thorough analysis of the skills to be trained, the interdependencies among team members that require teamwork, and the targeted members for training (Burke, 2005 ). Once this information is determined, the best training method can be derived based on the knowledge, skills, and abilities to be developed.

Furthermore, team training is typically designed using well-established principles of learning that aid in ensuring long-term transfer of training to the work environment. These principles involve utilizing the most appropriate team training strategies based on the phase of training. For example, prior to receiving training, teams should be given advanced organizers that prepare them for learning with an overview of the training content. Once training is developed and the appropriate strategies implemented, team training should be evaluated, particularly in terms of how much was learned, the transfer of behaviors to the workplace, and long-term organizational results (Kraiger, Ford, & Salas, 1993 ). Additional detail is provided later in this chapter in regard to how team performance is best measured for these types of evaluations.

Overall, team training is a science-driven, useful intervention for developing effective teams. There are several strategies and methods that can be used to design effective team training. When team training is designed and implemented, it must be rooted in the science of training and carefully matched to the team’s needs. Careful attention to all elements of the design and delivery of training should result in a team that possesses the critical knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for efficient team processes.

Effectiveness of Team Training Interventions

As team training interventions have grown increasingly popular, especially in the military, it is important to understand if they are in fact effective in terms of improving team performance. Many narrative and quantitative reviews of team training and its impact on team outcomes have been conducted (Denson, 1981 ; Dyer, 1984 ; Marks, Zaccaro, & Mathieu, 2000 ; Mathieu et al., 2000 ; Salas et al., 2001 , 2007 ). In terms of the most recent contributions, however, team training has been the subject of three meta-analyses published in the past four years, each examining different aspects. First, Salas and colleagues ( 2007 ) examined three specific training strategies: cross-training, team coordination and adaptation training, and guided team self-correction training. This meta-analysis examined seven studies with 28 effect sizes, and found that across the three training strategies, team performance did improve. Specifically, their performance improved as measured by both subjective and objective ratings, with team coordination and adaptation training, and team guided self-correction having the largest effects on performance.

Salas and colleagues ( 2008 ) expanded upon this work further by incorporating different meta-analytic techniques as well as moderators of the relationship between team training and outcomes. Variables examined included the relative effectiveness of all types of team training on team cognitive, affective, process, and performance outcomes, as well as the potential moderating factors of team size, training content, and team member stability. In examining 93 effect sizes representing 2,650 teams, the researchers found that moderately positive relationships existed between team training interventions and all outcomes. Another more recent meta-analysis by Delise and colleagues ( 2010 ) has further investigated the effects of specific moderators on the link between team training and team outcomes.

Examining affective, cognitive, subjective task-based, objective task-based, and teamwork skill outcomes, Delise and colleagues again confirmed that team training was positively related to team outcomes. Furthermore, they found that the type of team (i.e., military or civilian) did not moderate the relationship between team training and team outcomes. When considering the evaluation setting as a moderator, it was found that team training had stronger effects on cognitive outcomes for transfer applications than for training applications. Finally, Delise and colleagues did not find significant results for the impact of other methodological factors (i.e., training content, training designer, duration of training) or publication bias as moderators of the relationship between team training and outcomes. In sum, team training appears to be a successful approach to improving, not only team performance, but also team processes.

Team training is an effective approach to improving military teams, but only if it is designed, developed, and delivered in an appropriate manner. Following the science of training is critical for the development of effective military team training. This includes incorporating a training-needs analysis, determining the appropriate type of training given the training needs, and ensuring that the training is properly evaluated so that any necessary adjustments can be made. The various types of team training that have been developed over the years for the military community and similar organizations have all been quite successful in terms of improving team performance, but only when guided by the science behind team training. Therefore, it is critical that future team training efforts are informed by this system of developing training.

Measurement of Military Team Performance

The notion of team training carries with it a particularly complicated secondary issue: the measurement of team performance. To determine whether team training is successful, some sort of team-level evaluative measure is necessary. This is much less complicated when the training in question is on an individual level—an individual’s performance can be assessed with a variety of well-established techniques (Kozlowski & Klein, 2003 ). Team performance measurement, on the other hand, is conceptually nebulous. What does it mean to be “an effective team”? How does an individual’s performance contribute to team performance? From context to context, the answers to these questions are likely to change. A team is a collective that is greater than the sum of its parts, created to solve problems that individuals alone cannot (Salas, Burke, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000 ). It follows, then, that simple aggregation of individual performance is often an inappropriate gauge of team performance, especially when individual team members are highly varied (Cooke et al., 2000 ). Fortunately, the science of training has produced a number of methods that are effective in determining the performance levels of entire teams. These various techniques are explained in greater detail below, alongside a discussion of their limitations and considerations for use.

The Event-Based Approach to Training (EBAT)

The Event-Based Approach to Training (Fowlkes Dwyer, Oser, & Salas, 1998 ) is a general simulation approach that links training objectives, task design, and assessment. This linkage of objectives, events, and feedback forms the core of EBAT and provides the means by which EBAT tasks are designed. EBAT is employed in training contexts where demonstration, practice, and feedback are possible (Fowlkes & Burke, 2005 ). In such contexts, EBAT is used as the practice and feedback segments of training. In EBAT, the analysis of training requirements informs the design of specific simulation scenarios. These scenarios are designed to allow trainees to engage in required behaviors, present necessary knowledge, or demonstrate specific skills. For example, in an aviation training scenario, one of the behavior goals might be the pilot asking ground control for clarification in response to a particular adverse event.

During an EBAT simulation scenario, trainees are assessed based on these performance criteria in order to determine whether they have performed adequately. Based on this assessment, feedback is provided to the learner in order to guide them toward future success or make them aware of the quality of their performance. While this description of EBAT is fairly similar to the description of many simulation approaches, EBAT’s focus on objectively definable criteria makes it much more administrator-friendly than other observational techniques. Observers in an EBAT task need not vigilantly record and catalogue a variety of potential behaviors, but only assess whether key event–response linkages were properly made.

One of the most recognizable examples of EBAT is the Targeted Acceptable Responses to Generated Events or Tasks methodology. In the TARGETs methodology, events are paired with targets (i.e., required behaviors) based on determined critical behaviors, knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Fowlkes et al., 1998 ). For example, in aircrew coordination training, skill areas such as mission analysis, leadership, and communication are instantiated as event-behavior pairs that evoke these skill areas (e.g., “Section leader calls for lead change”; “Pilot-flying uses standard terminology during lead change”; Fowlkes et al., 1998 ). These events and behavior pairs are established a priori , based on task analysis, consultation with subject matter experts, and referenced documentation. Because both the events that will arise during the simulation and the required response are known to the observer before training even begins, assessment is relatively simple. In a team training exercise, teams can be assessed based on how many target behaviors were “hit” and how many were “missed.”

Implementing TARGETs is a six-step process (Fowlkes & Burke, 2005a ). First, the measurement objectives that will drive the development of the scenario are determined. Next, the scenarios and events that are part of the task are developed. In team evaluation and training, these events can be fully scripted to occur at specific times or partially scripted to occur when appropriate, based on team interactions (Fowlkes & Burke, 2005a ). Third, a behavioral checklist is developed. This checklist lists each event that will occur, the time it will occur (or the event that triggers it), and the acceptable behavioral responses to the event. Once the behavioral checklist has been developed, the remaining steps of TARGETs are much more applied. In the fourth step, scenario control measures are developed. These measures ensure that the scripted events occur without the team’s knowing they are being “led down a path.” After this, pilot testing is performed in order to verify the event script. Finally, the actual measurement is performed using the designed TARGETs.

A more applied example of EBAT within a military context is the Shipboard Mobile Aid to Training and Evaluation (ShipMATE) tool. ShipMATE is a handheld device that assists in instructor-guided team training on an Aegis-class ship (Zachary et al., 1999 ). Using ShipMATE, an instructor is able to assess a team engaging in EBAT, using the provided prompts and cues to determine whether the learners are succeeding. After the exercise, ShipMATE provides guidance for instructor-delivered feedback, guiding the user through debriefing, after-action review, and performance assessment.

Though EBAT and its instantiated examples are convenient from an assessment standpoint, the method is not without flaws. Because it relies on the observation of specific behaviors in response to scripted events, EBAT is less useful in a non-controlled environment, as the advantage of knowing when events and responses will occur is lost. EBAT is also very behavior-focused, and is thus not particularly suited to assessing cognitive states or affective response. Nonetheless, as a tool to assess competency or perform team training, it is effective and reliable.

Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)

EBAT is not the only technique that focuses on subjective observation of team behavior. A number of techniques that work to guide raters in providing effective judgments of individual and team behavior exist. Like the Event-Based Approach to Training, Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) require an external observer to assess performance. The BARS method tasks expert observers with classifying and rating behavior according to a predefined numerical scale. Unlike some other observational techniques, BARS includes a rating of quality rather than just a running tally of the number of times a behavior occurs. Each scale is anchored with examples of low- and high-quality behaviors on either end of a Likert-style numerical range (Smith & Kendall, 1963 ). These anchors are provided by subject-matter experts, and ensure that some insight into the effectiveness of exhibited behaviors is captured by the observer ratings.

BARS is well suited for use in military settings due to its highly codified nature. Observers using BARS need only check to see if a particular behavior is present, then situate the quality of the behavior along the numerical scale. One example of BARS in a military context is the observer-based measurement component of the Adaptive Architectures for Command and Control (A2C2) program’s team performance measure (Entin & Entin, 2001 ). Using this measure, single or multiple observers record notes on team behavior and rate these behaviors along the provided scales after team performance is complete. An example item on the measure the authors provided was for the “clear SAMs” (surface-to-air missiles) objective. Raters would indicate where the team’s behavior fell along the range of “very poor” to “superior” along a seven-point scale. The scale indicated superior performance was contingent upon the team’s using appropriate assets in a suitable time frame. Poor performance was characterized by failure to completely destroy the SAM sites, use of inappropriate assets, poor time planning, or heavy casualties (Entin & Entin, 2001 ).

Like EBAT, measurement with BARS requires observers to check whether—and how—specific types of behaviors have occurred. However, unlike EBAT, the scenarios in which BARS can be employed are broader, as specific scenario restrictions are not imposed during BARS. Whereas EBAT is a process for training and analysis, BARS is only a tool—because of this, care must be used when employing BARS, as it may inadvertently cause raters to focus on observing only the behaviors that have been outlined in the scale (Kendall & Salas, 2004 ).

Communication Analysis

BARS and EBAT both require observation of actual team behavior in a simulated or live environment. Because of the logistical difficulty of having expert observers available during training, or the costliness of training observers to reach the necessary level of expertise with the subject matter, such behavioral measurement may not always be appropriate for the military context. One technique that eschews behavioral observation entirely is communication analysis. As the name suggests, communication analysis involves examining the exchange between team members as they complete a task. This analysis is generally performed post-hoc, based on communication transcripts, reducing the logistical constraints on training imposed by subject-matter experts (Salas et al., 2008 ).

By analyzing the content and flow of team communication, it is possible to assess the degree to which a team is engaging in effective team behavior. In content analysis, the actual semantic content of the team communications is extracted, allowing examination of the topics of discussion, the number of times specific kinds of exchanges occurred, the frequency of specific words, and so on. Based on semantic content, this analysis can also reveal which specific team behaviors, such as backup behavior, are occurring. Flow analysis, meanwhile, examines the directionality of communication rather than the content thereof. In flow analysis, the pattern of communication is revealed, showing how questions and responses are exchanged in the team and how team members contribute information (e.g., at what rate, whether they are prompted, etc.).

Beyond content and flow analysis, other forms of communication analysis are also possible. Low-level analysis of speech can provide insight into the emotional state of the speaker (Bachorowski, 1999 ), their level of assertiveness (Lum et al., 2007 ), or the intensity of their communication (Scherer, 1986 ). Because of variations in pitch, loudness, and tempo, it is possible to derive such insights solely from recordings of individual voices. This vocalization analysis is one example of automated communication analysis—the process by which audio data of team communication are transformed into usable data without costly manual transcription and coding. A semi-automated method of communication analysis is Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA; Landauer, Foltz, & Latham, 1998 ). In LSA, content data of vocalizations (i.e., transcriptions of communication) are processed by a computer model that assesses co-occurrence of words in order to create representations of communication that can be compared across team members (Cooke et al., 2004 ). Other semi-automated approaches include Clustered Hypothesized Underlying Models in Sequence (CHUMS; Kiekel et al., 2004 ), which allows for flow analysis based on shifts of data between team members. Unfortunately, fully automated communication analysis is still nascent, as speech-recognition technology is not yet sophisticated enough to consistently understand human speech at an acceptable level for team performance assessment.

While communication analysis can provide insights that behavioral observation cannot, as a team performance measure it is somewhat limited. Unless the task being performed by the team is inherently tied to communication, communication analysis will only be able to provide information relating to the effectiveness of their teamwork behavior, and will be unable to lend insight into the “external” behavior that the team is engaging in. Because of this, communication analysis is best used for assessment when the task or training pertains to teamwork behavior or a communication-heavy task (e.g., a command-and-control simulation).

Team performance measurement has greatly improved in recent decades. While observer-based team performance ratings tend to have low inter-rater reliability (Fowlkes et al., 1998 ), the observational methods described previously focus on more robust methods of assessing team performance. For example, the EBAT measures performance based on the exhibition of objectively identifiable behaviors. More traditional behavioral measurement techniques such as BARS task the raters with rating and classifying observed behavior based on behavior quality. Physically enacted behaviors may be overlooked entirely in performance measurement using techniques such as communication analysis. Similarly, the reliance on human observers is resolved in automated team performance measurement techniques. Overall, understanding team performance measurement and its related issues is critical to military teams, as it enables us to better assess how military teams are functioning and what needs to be done in terms of team development and training.

Emerging Challenges and Research Needs

As can be seen in this review, team research has come a long way in the past several decades. However, there are still many future challenges and research needs, especially for military teams, as military operations continue to change and require different competencies of team members. The following section provides a summary of several of the major future challenges, including factors that can influence military team effectiveness, such as multiculturalism, distribution, and shared leadership. We next address future measurement issues, followed by a discussion of the challenges related to training military teams. Finally, we will address the overarching challenge of converting science to practice that arises when applying scientific research to real-world military team situations.

Factors Influencing Military Team Effectiveness

Multicultural teams.

There are many components of culture that can influence team effectiveness. First, culture has become a critical issue in military teams. The joint operations that combine American and foreign militaries have become even more prevalent given the current state of foreign affairs and the requirement of unified strategies to prevent the unnecessary loss of life and friendly fire incidents (Wilson et al., 2007 ). Standing Joint Force Headquarters (SJFHQ) are a prime example of this, in that they consist of a collection of multinational individuals from a variety of backgrounds, including both different military branches and different countries (Peck, 2005 ). While bringing together individuals from different cultures has become the norm for much of the military, these teams are not without their own problems. Indeed, multicultural teams—whose team members have diverse values and beliefs based on their own cultures—tend to have cooperation issues (Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001 ), communication problems (Connaughton & Shuffler, 2007 ), conflict issues (Elron, 1997 ; Mortensen & Hinds, 2001 ), and issues with team performance (Elron, 1997 ; Gibson, 1999 ; Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001 ; Matveev & Milter, 2004 ). However, the challenges inherent in leading and working within teams in which individuals have vastly different backgrounds, traditions, motivations, and concerns are often overlooked (Dinwoodie, 2005 ). Multiculturalism in military teams is therefore a pressing future challenge that requires additional research in order to address these potential issues and reduce the negative aspects of such teams, while enhancing their positive benefits.

Distributed teams

The prevalence of technology and the increasing distribution of team members is also an issue in need of additional research. Distribution of team members has become commonplace in U.S. military operations, and it is the focus of a growing body of academic research across multiple disciplines. Although distribution is often characterized by the terms “virtual” or “dispersed,” we adopt the term “distributed,” as it best depicts the construct and is becoming more prevalent in its use, particularly for military contexts (Goodwin & Halpin, 2006 ). The distributed (or virtual) team has been defined as a “team or group whose members are mediated by time, distance, or technology” (Driskell, Radtke, & Salas, 2003 , p. 297). This definition illustrates the major features of distribution: the use of technology to bring together team members who may be spatially distributed (i.e., not co-located), or temporally distributed (i.e., interacting asynchronously; Bell & Kozlowksi, 2002 ).

Distribution is an important factor in team functioning as it can change how team members interact. It has been shown that full distribution can have constraining effects on collaboration and its relevant affective, behavioral, and cognitive components, such as trust (e.g., Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999), information exchange (e.g., Cramton, 2001 ), and communication (e.g., Cogburn & Levinson, 2003 ). Studies that have examined partially distributed teams have found that the balance of distribution matters significantly in terms of team outcomes (see Polzer et al., 2006 ; O’Leary & Mortenson, 2005 ; Ocker et al., 2008 ; Huang & Ocker, 2006 ; Bos et al., 2006 ). As military teams may often be geographically dispersed, distribution is an important factor to understand in military team performance. However, the research regarding the specific influences of distribution is very limited, especially in terms of partial distribution as well as the combined influences of distribution and virtuality. Given the rise towards distributed teams relying upon technology to communicate, it is critical that attention be paid to this issue.

Multi-team systems

A third challenge to future military team research is the concept of teams of teams, or multi-team systems. Multi-team systems (MTSs) are defined as “two or more teams that interface directly and interdependently in response to environmental contingencies toward the accomplishment of collective goals” (Mathieu, Marks, & Zaccaro, 2001 , p. 290). While MTSs are becoming more prevalent, understanding how they operate is a new challenge for researchers, especially in terms of the identity challenges faced by the individuals on such teams. Individuals in MTSs have multiple memberships and multiple groups to which they belong (DeChurch & Mathieu, 2009 ). For instance, individuals working in an MTS belong to their component team as well as the larger multi-team system. Each individual belongs to at least one organization, and they may belong to a specific functional or professional unit as well. In addition, MTSs often comprise teams from several organizations. While each of these social entities (team, organization, MTS) may be trying to achieve the same overarching MTS-level goal, they may also have competing distal goals that can put both individuals and teams at odds in terms of which goal to focus their efforts on. This is especially true for the military, where MTSs are quickly becoming a common conformation, such as in provincial reconstruction teams that comprise civil-military teams that must work together to revive and reconstruct a region (Rietjens, 2008 ). Therefore, understanding the implications of these MTSs on military functioning and performance is a significant future research challenge.

Shared leadership

A final factor that requires additional research in terms of its potential influence on military team effectiveness is the concept of shared leadership. As discussed previously, leadership is an important component of team success, in that leaders provide direction and a vision for team members while also assisting in solving problems and ensuring team success (Zaccaro et al., 2009 ). While team leadership has been recognized as significant, less attention has been paid to the concept of shared or distributed leadership in military teams. Leadership in teams is typically assumed to be a role fulfilled by a single individual; however, given the dynamic complexity of teams, it is more reasonable to expect that leadership behaviors and responsibilities may be shared among team members (Shuffler et al., 2010 ). Work on shared leadership recognizes the complexity that is present in organizational settings and follows the perspective that “those who are doing the job are [often] in the best position to improve it” (Jackson, 2000 , p. 16). While some initial research has shown that leadership can in fact be shared and that the sharing of leadership responsibilities can improve team performance (Ensley, Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006 ; Pearce et al., 2004 ; Pearce & Sims, 2002 ), very little empirical evidence exists to fully explore shared leadership. This is particularly an issue for military teams, where leadership may rotate among members based on expertise or ability during a mission, or where a leader may be lost and someone else must step in to fulfill leadership responsibilities. Thus, understanding the premise of shared leadership and what it means for military team performance is a critical issue for future research.

Military Team Training and Development

As with measurement, there is still much to be learned in the team training realm. Though the science of training has become quite sophisticated (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001 ), the training requirements of teams continue to evolve. As teams continue to be tasked with performing increasingly complex jobs, the techniques used to train them must remain applicable.

Simulations are one of the most prominent tools for training. The science of simulation has progressed to create a vast literature base that informs the design, deployment, and assessment of a variety of simulation applications. However, simulation-based training is still in need of significant research. While past work has indicated that simulations are useful learning environments, and that simulations can perform across a range of fidelities (Maran & Glavin, 2003 ), the understanding of how learning occurs in simulation environments has not yet reached maturity. In other words, the field must address the mechanisms by which learners are able to acquire knowledge and skill through the use of simulation-based training.

While advances in measurement over recent years have led to increasingly effective behavioral and communication analysis techniques, much remains to be done in order to effectively integrate measurement with training and performance. The measurement techniques previously described in this chapter are effective, but they are external to any training or performance. Integrating measures with simulation, for example, will create more unified training and assessment solutions. Examples of such fused performance-feedback simulation systems can be found in the numerous after-action review (AAR) solutions that have arisen in recent years.

The need to reduce the reliance on expert observers is concurrent with the fusion of simulation and measurement. While integrating measurement solutions into simulations is one method of reducing the need for observers, other methods exist. For example, the BARS and TARGETs techniques described in this chapter allow less-expert observers to effectively assess performance. However, other ways to reduce this reliance on experts must be developed. As the military’s demand for truly effective training increases, so, too, will its reliance on such observers. Given the logistical issues in using observers, the high cost of SMEs, and the time requirement for training non-experts up to expert level in order to function as observers, the cost to organizations of relying on human observers is significant.

Overarching Challenge: Translation of Science into Practice

One of the universal challenges of scientific research is the transition from basic science into practical application. Basic science is all research performed for its own sake—the development of knowledge in order to understand. Applied science, on the other hand, is research performed with some goal in mind, such as propulsion research working towards creating a working space vehicle. While the divide between basic and applied science has been the topic of considerable debate within the scientific literature (e.g., Reagan, 1967 ; Slavin, 1978 ), in the military realm, the line between basic and applied science is less distinct.

Regardless of the semantic distinction between basic and applied science, the underlying implication of this theoretical divide is simple: in order to be useful to the military organization as a whole, scientific research must result in meaningful changes in military practice. Whether this takes the form of new equipment, updated procedures, or refined personnel selection processes, it is this transition to the world outside of the laboratory that makes science practically useful. Thus, it is the responsibility of the scientific community and the military organizations engaged in research partnerships to work together to ensure that advances such as the Event-Based Approach to Training (Fowlkes et al., 1998 ) are made into useful real-world solutions such as the Shipboard Mobile Aid to Training Evaluation (Zachary et al., 1999 ).

Given the increasingly complex operations that today’s military finds itself engaged in, it is unlikely that teams as a structure will be disappearing any time in the near future. Thankfully, the science of teams has provided a considerable scientific base from which to draw best practices for successful team composition and performance. However, as discussed in this review, there is much ground left to cover. Only through continued research efforts will our understanding of teams continue to grow. As the complexity of team tasks continues to increase, this understanding will be of ever greater importance. Extrapolating from the past successes of the science of teams, this challenge should be well within the capabilities of the field. Though teams are complex, their benefits are salient and tangible. It is the responsibility of the field to ensure that the science continues to inform the successes of military teams in the years to follow.

Bachorowski, J. A. ( 1999 ). Vocal expression and perception of emotion.   Current Directions in Psychological Science , 8 (2), 53–57. 10.1111/1467-8721.00013

Baker, D. P., & Salas, E. ( 1996 ). Principles for measuring teamwork skills.   Human Factors , 34 (4), 469–475.

Baker, D., Salas E., & Cannon-Bowers J. ( 1998 ). Team task analysis: Lost but hopefully not forgotten.   Industrial/Organizational Psychology , 35 (3), 79–83.

Baran, B. E., & Scott, C. W. ( 2010 ). Organizing ambiguity: A grounded theory of leadership and sense-making within dangerous contexts.   Military Psychology , 22 (1), S42–S69.

Barling, J., Christie, A., & Hoption, A. ( 2010 ). Leadership. In S. Zedeck et al. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 183–240). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Bass, B. M. ( 1996 ). New paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into transformational leadership . Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. ( 2002 ). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership.   Group and Organization Management , 27 (1), 14. 10.1177/1059601102027001003

Blickensderfer, E. L., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. ( 1997 ). Theoretical bases for team self-correction: Fostering shared mental models. In M. Beyerlein, D. Johnson, & S. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies in work teams series (Vol. 4, pp. 249–279). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Boies, K., & Howell, J. M. ( 2009 ). Leading military teams to think and feel: Exploring the relations between leadership, soldiers’ cognitive and affective processes, and team effectiveness.   Military Psychology , 21 (2), 216–232. 10.1080/08995600902768743

Bos, N., Olson, J. S., Nan, N., Shami, N. S., Hoch, S., & Johnston, E. (2006). “Co-location blindness” in partially distributed groups: Is there a downside to being co-located? Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems, April 22–27, 2006, Montréal, Québec, Canada. doi 10.1145/1124772.1124969.

Bunderson, J S. ( 2003 ). Management team learning orientation and business unit performance.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 (3), 552. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.552

Burke, C. S. ( 2005 ). Team task analysis. In N. Stanton, H. Hendrick, S. Konz, K. Parsons, & E. Salas (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods (pp. 56–51–56–58). London: Taylor & Francis.

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. L. ( 2006 ). Understanding team adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 (6), 1189–1207. 10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1189

Burke, C. S., Wilson, K. A., & Salas, S. ( 2003 ). Teamwork at 35,000 feet: Enhancing safety through team training.   Human Factors and Aerospace Safety , 3 (4), 287–312.

Buttom, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D.M. ( 1996 ). Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation.   Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes , 67 (1), 26–48. 10.1006/obhd.1996.0063

Campbell, D. J. ( 1988 ). Task complexity: A review and analysis.   Academy of Management Review , 13 (1), 40–52.

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. ( 1998 ). Team performance and training in complex environments: Recent findings from applied research.   Current Directions in Psychological Science , 7 (3), 83–87. 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10773005

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. ( 1995 ). Defining team competencies: Implications for training requirements and strategies. In R. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 333–380). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. ( 2007 ). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance.   Academy of Management Journal , 50 (5), 1217–1234. 10.2307/20159921

Driskell, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & O’Shea, P. G. ( 2006 ). What makes a good team player? Personality and team effectiveness.   Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice , 10 (4), 249–271. 10.1037/1089-2699.10.4.249

Christoph, R. T., Schoenfeld, G. A., Jr., & Tansky, J. W. ( 1998 ). Overcoming barriers to training utilizing technology: The influence of self-efficacy factors on multimedia-based training receptiveness.   Human Resource Development Quarterly , 9 (1), 25–38. 10.1002/hrdq.3920090104

Cogburn, D. L., & Levinson, N. S. ( 2003 ). U.S.–Africa virtual collaboration in globalization studies: Success factors for complex, cross-national learning teams.   International Studies Perspectives , 4 (1), 31–54.

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. ( 1997 ). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite.   Journal of Management , 23 (3), 239–290.

Connaughton, S. L., & Shuffler, M. ( 2007 ). Multinational multicultural distributed teams: A review and future agenda.   Small Group Research , 38 (3), 387–412. 10.1177/1046496407301970

Cooke, N. J., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Stout, R. J. ( 2000 ). Measuring team knowledge.   Human Factors , 42 (1), 151–173. 10.1518/001872000779656561

Cooke, N. J., Salas, E., Kiekel, P. A., & Bell, B. ( 2004 ). Advances in measuring team cognition. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition (pp. 83–106). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Cramton, C. D. ( 2001 ). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration.   Organization Science , 12 (3), 346–371. 10.1287/orsc.12.3.346.10098

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. ( 2003 ). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 (4), 741–749. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741

DeChurch, L., & Mathieu, J. ( 2009 ). Thinking in terms of multi-team systems. In E. Salas, J. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations (pp. 267–292). New York: Taylor Francis Psychology Press.

Delise, L., Gorman, C. A., Brooks, A. M., Rentsch, J. R., & Steele-Johnson, D. ( 2010 ). The effects of team training on team outcomes: A meta-analysis.   Performance Improvement Quarterly , 22 (4), 53–80. 10.1002/piq.20068

Denson, R. W. ( 1981 ). Team training: Literature review and annotated bibliography (Final Report AFHRL-TR-80–40). Brooks Air Force Base, TX: HQ Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Dinwoodie, D. L. ( 2005 ). Solving the dilemma: A leader’s guide to managing diversity.   Leadership in Action , 25 (2), 3–6. 10.1002/lia.1107

Driskell, J. E., Radtke, P. H., & Salas, E. ( 2003 ). Virtual teams: Effects of technological mediation on team performance.   Group dynamics: Theory, research, and practice , 7 (4), 297–323. 10.1037/1089-2699.7.4.297

Dyer, J. L. ( 1984 ). Team research and team training: A state-of-the-art review. In F. A. Muckler (Ed.), Human factors review (pp. 285–323). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. ( 2000 ). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning.   Academy of Management Journal , 43 (1), 26–49. 10.2307/1556384

Edmondson, A. C., & Rollof, K. S. ( 2009 ). Overcoming barriers to collaboration: Psychological safety and learning in diverse teams. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 183–208). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

Edwards, B.D., Day E.A., Arthur, W., & Bell, S. ( 2006 ). Relationships among team ability composition, team mental models, and team performance.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 (3), 727–736. 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.727

Elliott, L. R., Cardenas, R., & Schiflett, S. G. (1999). Measurement of AWACS team performance in distributed mission scenarios. Available online at: http://www.Dodccrp.Org/1999ccrts/Pdf_Files/Track_3/013ellio.Pdf .

Elron, E. ( 1997 ). Top management teams within multinational corporations: Effects of cultural heterogeneity.   Leadership Quarterly , 8 (4), 393–412. 10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90021-7

Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. ( 2006 ). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups.   Leadership Quarterly , 17 (3), 217–231. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.002. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.002

Entin, E. E., & Entin, E. B. (2001). Measures for evaluation of team processes and performance in experiments and exercises. Proceedings of the June, 2001, Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD.

Fisher, S. L., & Ford, J. K. ( 1998 ). Differential effects of learning effort and goal orientation on two learning outcomes.   Personnel Psychology , 51 (2), 392–420.

Flin, R. H. ( 1997 ). Crew resource management for teams in the offshore oil industry.   Team Performance Management , 3 (2), 23–27.

Fowlkes, J. E., & Burke, C. S. ( 2005 ). Event-based approach to training (EBAT). In N. Stanton, H. Hendrick, S. Konz, K. Parsons, & E. Salas (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods (pp. 47–1–47–5). London: Taylor & Francis.

Fowlkes, J. E., Dwyer, D. J., Oser, R. L., & Salas, E. ( 1998 ). Event-based approach to training (EBAT).   International Journal of Aviation Psychology , 8 (3), 209–221. 10.1207/s15327108ijap0803_3

Fowlkes, J. E., Lane, N. E., Salas, E., Franz, T., & Oser, R. ( 1994 ). Improving the measurement of team performance: The TARGETs methodology.   Military Psychology , 6 (1), 47–61. 10.1207/s15327876mp0601_3

Geister, S., Konradt, U., & Hertel, G. ( 2006 ). Effects of process feedback on motivation, satisfaction, and performance in virtual teams.   Small Group Research , 37 (5), 459–489. 10.1177/1046496406292337

Gibson, C. B. ( 1999 ). Do they do what they believe they can? Group efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures.   Academy of Management Journal , 42 (2), 138–152. 10.2307/257089

Goldstein, I. L., & Ford, J. K. ( 2002 ). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation (4th ed.). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

Goodwin, G. F., & Halpin, S. M. (2006, May). Multinational, multicultural teams: Leadership challenges in the U.S. Army. In S. J. Zaccaro, T. Koehler, & G. Yun (Chairs), Global at work, but local at heart! Symposium presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Conference, Dallas, Texas.

Gorman, J. C., Cooke, N. J., Amazeen, P. G., et al. (2007) Knowledge training versus process training: The effects of training protocol on team coordination and performance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 51st Annual Meeting—2007 (pp. 382–387). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. ( 1996 ). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness.   Annual Review of Psychology , 47 (1), 307–338. 10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.307

Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. ( 1975 ). Group tasks, group interaction process and group performance effectiveness: A review and partial integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 47–99). New York: Academic Press.

Hiller, N. J., Day, D. V., & Vance, R. J. ( 2006 ). Collective enactment of leadership roles and team effectiveness: A field study.   Leadership Quarterly , 17 (4), 387–397. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.004

House, R. J. ( 1977 ). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189–207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Huang, H., & Ocker, R. (2006). Preliminary insights into the in-group/out-group effects in partially distributed teams: An analysis of participant reflections. Presentation, April 13. SIGMIS-CPR 2006, Claremont, California.

Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. ( 2005 ). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models.   Annual Review of Psychology , 56 (1), 517–543. 10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250

Jackson, S. ( 2000 ). A qualitative evaluation of shared leadership barriers, drivers, and recommendations.   Journal of Management in Medicine , 14 (3/4), 166–178. 10.1108/02689230010359174

Janis, I. L. ( 1982 ). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Jehn, K. A. ( 1995 ). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict.   Administrative Science Quarterly , 40 (2), 256–282. 10.2307/2393638

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. ( 1999 ). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups.   Administrative Science Quarterly , 44 (4), 741–763. 10.2307/2667054

Juul, J. ( 2007 ). A certain level of abstraction. In Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference, Situated Play (pp. 510–515). Tokyo: University of Tokyo.

Kankanhalli, M. S., Wang, J., & Jain, R. ( 2006 ). Experiential sampling in multimedia systems.   IEEE Trans. on Multimedia , 8 (5), 937–946. 10.1109/TMM.2006.879876

Kendall, D. L., & Salas, E. ( 2004 ). Measuring team performance review of current methods and consideration of future needs. In J. W. Ness, V. Tepe, & D. Ritzer (Eds.), The science and simulation of human performance (Vol. 5, pp. 307–326). New York: Elsevier. 10.1016/S1479-3601(04)05006-4

Kiekel, P.A., Gorman, J. C., & Cooke, N. J. (2004). Measuring speech flow of co-located and distributed command and control teams during a communication channel glitch. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting , Sept. 20–24, 2004, New Orleans, LA.

Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. ( 2001 ). The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: The mediating role of employee resistance.   Academy of Management Journal , 44 (3), 557–569. 10.2307/3069370

Kolditz, T. A. ( 2007 ). In extremis leadership: leading as if your life depended on it . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. ( 2000 ). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Klein, G. ( 1988 ). Sources of power: How people make decisions . Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. ( 1994 ). Team mental models: Construct or metaphor?   Journal of Management , 20 (2), 403–437.

Komaki, J. L., Desselles, M. L., & Bowman, E. D. ( 1989 ). Definitely not a breeze: Extending an operant model of effective supervision to teams.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 74 (3), 522–529. 10.1037/0021-9010.74.3.522

Koman, E. S., & Wolff, S. B. ( 2008 ). Emotional intelligence competencies in the team and team leader: A multi-level examination of the impact of emotional intelligence on team performance.   Journal of Management Development , 27 (1), 55–75. 10.1108/02621710810840767

Kozlowski, S. J. W., & Bell, B. S. ( 2003 ). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology. Vol. 12: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 353–376). New York: Wiley.

Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. ( 1993 ). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 78 (2), 311–328. 10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311

Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. ( 1998 ). An introduction to latent semantic analysis.   Discourse Processes , 25 (2), 259–284. 10.1080/01638539809545028

LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. ( 2008 ). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria.   Personnel Psychology , 61 (2), 273–307. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00114.x

Lipshitz, R., & Strauss, O. ( 1997 ). Coping with uncertainty: A naturalistic decision-making analysis.   Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 69 (2), 149–163. 10.1006/obhd.1997.2679

Lum, H.C., Smith-Jentsch, K., Sims, V., & Flood, M. ( 2007 ). Vocal analysis and heart rate as measures of assertiveness and aggression. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 51st Annual Meeting—2007 (pp. 1224–1226). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Maran, N. J., & Glavin, R. ( 2003 ). Low- to high-fidelity simulation: A continuum of medical education?   Medical Education , 37 (Suppl. 1), 22–28. 10.1046/j.1365-2923.37.s1.9.x

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.

Marks, M. A., Sabella, M. J., Burke, C. S., & Zaccaro, S. J. ( 2002 ). The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 (1), 3–13. 10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.3

Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. ( 2000 ). Performance implications of leader briefings and team interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 85 (6), 971–986. 10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.971

Martocchio, J. J. ( 1992 ). Microcomputer usage as an opportunity: The influence of context in employee training.   Personnel Psychology , 45 (3), 529–552. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1992.tb00859.x

Mathieu, J. E., & Schulze, W. ( 2006 ). The influence of team knowledge and formal plans on episodic team process-performance relationships.   Academy of Management Journal , 49 (3), 605–619. 10.5465/AMJ.2006.21794678

Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T. L., & Gilson, L. L. ( 2008 ). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future.   Journal of Management , 34 (3), 410–476.

Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. ( 2000 ). The influence of shared mental models on team process and effectiveness.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 85 (2), 273–283. 10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273

Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Cannon-Bowers, J., & Salas, E. ( 2005 ). Scaling the quality of teammates’ mental models: Equifinality and normative comparisons.   Journal of Organizational Behavior , 26 (1), 37–56. 10.1002/job.296

Mathieu, M., Marks, M. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. ( 2001 ). Multi-team systems theory. In N. Anderson, D. Oniz, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), The international handbook of work and organizational psychology (pp. 289–313). London: Sage Publications.

Matveev, A. V., & Milter, R. G. ( 2004 ). The value of intercultural competence for performance of multicultural teams.   Team Performance Management , 10 (5/6), 104–111. 10.1108/13527590410556827

McGrath, J. E. ( 1962 ). Leadership behavior: Some requirements for leadership training . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Civil Service Commission, Office of Career Development.

Merket, D., Bergondy, M., & Salas, E. ( 1999 ). Making sense out of team performance errors in military aviation environments.   Transportation Human Factors , 1 (2), 231–242. 10.1207/sthf0103_4

Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. ( 2010 ). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes.   Journal of Management , 36 (1), 1–39.

Mortensen, M., & Hinds, P. J. ( 2001 ). Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed teams.   International Journal of Conflict Management , 12 (3), 212–238. 10.1108/eb022856

Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. ( 2006 ). A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 (4), 946–953. 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.946

Noe, R. A. ( 2002 ). Employee training and development (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Ocker, R. J. ( 2008 ). The impact of personality on virtual team creativity and quality. In S. Kelsey & K. St. Amant (Eds.), Handbook of research on computer mediated communication (Vols. 1–2, pp. 647–655). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference/IGI Global. 10.4018/978-1-59904-863-5.ch046

O’Leary, M., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Subgroups with attitude: Imbalance and isolation in geographically dispersed teams. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Conference, Aug 5–10, Honolulu, HI.

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. ( 2003 ). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. ( 2002 ). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors.   Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice , 6 (2), 172–197. 10.1037/1089-2699.6.2.172

Pearce, C. L., Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. ( 2004 ). Leadership, social work, and virtual teams: The relative influence of vertical versus shared leadership in the nonprofit sector. In R. E. Riggio & S. S. Orr (Eds.), Improving leadership in nonprofit organizations (pp. 180–203). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Peck, M. ( 2005 ). Joint staff officers often unprepared for jobs.   National Defense , 90 (12), 56.

Polzer, J. T., Crisp, C. B., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Kim, J. W. ( 2006 ). Extending the fault-line model to geographically dispersed teams: How co-located subgroups can impair group functioning.   Academy of Management Journal , 49 (4), 679–692. 10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083024

Porter, C. O. L. H. ( 2005 ). Goal orientation: Effects on backing up behavior, performance, efficacy, and commitment in teams.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 (4), 811–818. 10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.811

Prince, C., & Salas, E. ( 1999 ). Team processes and their training in aviation. In D. Garland, J. Wise, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Handbook of aviation human factors (pp. 193–213). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Quinones, M.A. ( 1995 ). Pretraining context effects: Training assignment as feedback.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 80 (2), 226–238. 10.1037/0021-9010.80.2.226

Ree, M.J., Caretta, T. R., & Teachout, M. S. ( 1995 ). Role of ability and prior job knowledge in complex training performance.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 80 (6), 721–730. 10.1037/0021-9010.80.6.721

Reagan, M.D. ( 1967 ). Basic and applied research: A meaningful distinction?   Science , 155, 1383–1386. 10.1126/science.155.3768.1383

Rietjens, S. J. H. ( 2008 ). Managing civil–military cooperation: Experiences from the Dutch provincial reconstruction team in Afghanistan.   Armed Forces & Society , 34 (2), 173–207. 10.1177/0095327X06297601

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. ( 2000 ). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.   American Psychologist , 55 (1), 68–78. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & van Dyne, L. ( 1993 ). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 78 , 61–72. 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.61

Saks, A M. ( 1997 ). Transfer of training and self-efficacy: What is the dilemma?   Applied Psychology , 46 (4), 365. 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01240.x

Salas, E., Burke, C. S., Bowers, C. A., & Wilson, K. A. ( 2001 ). Team training in the skies: Does crew resource management (CRM) training work?   Human Factors , 43 (4), 641–674. 10.1518/001872001775870386

Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. ( 2000 ). The anatomy of team training. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Training and retraining: A handbook for business, industry, government, and the military (pp. 312–335). New York: Macmillan Reference.

Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. ( 2001 ). Teamwork and team training. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 15487–15492). New York: Elsevier.

Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. ( 1997 ). Methods, tools, and strategies for team training. In M. A. Quinones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace: Applications of psychological research (pp. 249–280). Washington, D.C.: APA.

Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. ( 2008 ). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments.   Human Factors , 50 (3), 540–547. 10.1518/001872008X288457

Salas, E., DiazGranados, D., Klein, C., et al. ( 2008 ). Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis.   Human Factors , 50 (6), 903–933. 10.1518/001872008X375009

Salas, E., Bowers, C. A., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. ( 1995 ). Military team research: Ten years of progress.   Military Psychology , 7 (2), 55–75. 10.1207/s15327876mp0702_2

Salas, E., Burke, C. S., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. ( 2000 ). Teamwork: Emerging principles.   International Journal of Management Reviews , 2 (4), 339–356. 10.1111/1468-2370.00046

Salas, E., Stagl, K. C., Burke, C. S., & Goodwin, G. F. ( 2007 ). Fostering team effectiveness in organizations: Toward an integrative theoretical framework of team performance. In J. W. Stuart, W. Spaulding, & J. Poland (Eds.), Modeling complex systems: Motivation, cognition and social processes, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 185–243) Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Salas, E., Kosarzycki, M. P., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Carnegie, D. ( 2004 ). Principles and advice for understanding and promoting effective teamwork in organizations. In R. Burke & C. Cooper (Eds.), Leading in turbulent times: Managing in the new world of work (pp. 95–120). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Salas, E., Nichols, D. R., & Driskell, J. E. ( 2007 ). Testing three team training strategies in intact teams: A meta-analysis.   Small Group Research , 38 (4), 471–488. 10.1177/1046496407304332

Salas, E., Prince, C., Baker, D. P., & Shrestha, L. ( 1995 ). Situation awareness in team performance: Implications for measurement and training.   Human Factors , 37 (1), 123–136. 10.1518/001872095779049525

Salas, E., Rosen, M., Burke, S., & Goodwin, G. ( 2009 ). The wisdom of collectives in organizations: An update of team competencies. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 39–79). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

Salas, E., Sims, D., & Burke, C.S. ( 2005 ). Is there a ‘big five’ in teamwork?   Small Group Research , 36 (5), 555–599. 10.1177/1046496405277134

Scherer, K. R. ( 1986 ). Vocal affect expressions: A review and a model for future research.   Psychological Bulletin , 99 , 143–165. 10.1037/0033-2909.99.2.143

Shaw, M. ( 1976 ). Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Shuffler, M. L., Rosen, M. A., Wildman, J. L., & Salas, E. (2010). Practically applying statecharts to understand time’s complex influence on teams. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Conference, Vancouver, Canada, August 2010.

Shuffler, M. L., Wiese, C. W., Salas, E., & Burke, C. S., ( 2010 ). Leading one another across time and space: Exploring shared leadership functions in virtual teams.   Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 26 (1), 3–17.

Slavin, R. E. ( 1978 ). Student teams and comparison among equals: Effects on academic performance and student attitudes.   Journal of Educational Psychology , 70 (4), 532–538. 10.1037/0022-0663.70.4.532

Smith, P. C., & Kendall, L. M. ( 1963 ). Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales.   Journal of Applied Psychology , 47 (2), 149–155. 10.1037/h0047060

Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Zeisig, R. L., Acton, B., & McPherson, J. A. ( 1998 ). Team dimensional training: A strategy for guided team self-correction. In J. A. Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training (pp. 271–297). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Steiner, I. ( 1972 ). Group process and productivity . New York: Academic Press.

Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. ( 1990 ). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness.   American Psychologist , 45 (2), 120–133. 10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.120

Sundstrom, E., McIntyre, M., Halfhill, T., & Richards, H. ( 2000 ). Work groups: From the Hawthorne studies to work teams of the 1990s and beyond.   Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice , 4 (1), 44–67. 10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.44

Tannenbaum, S.I., & Yukl, G. ( 1992 ). Training and development in work organizations.   Annual Review of Psychology , 43 (1), 399–441. 10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.002151

Tannenbaum, S. I., Beard, R. L., & Salas, E. ( 1992 ). Team building and its influence on team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issue, theory, and research in industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 117–153). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Van Dick, R., Tissington, P.A., & Hertel, G. ( 2009 ). Do many hands make light work?   European Business Review , 21 (3), 233.

Wilson, K. A., Salas, E., Priest, H. A., & Andrews, D. ( 2007 ). Errors in the heat of battle: Taking a closer look at shared cognition breakdowns through teamwork.   Human Factors , 49 (2), 243–256. 10.1518/001872007X312478

Yammarino, F. J., Mumford, M. D., Connelly, M. S., & Dionne, S. D. ( 2010 ). Leadership and team dynamics for dangerous military contexts.   Military Psychology , 22 (suppl 1), S15– S41.

Yukl, G. ( 2006 ). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Zaccaro, S. J., Heinen, B., & Shuffler, M. ( 2009 ). Team leadership and team effectiveness. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 83–111). New York: Routledge.

Zaccaro, S. J., Ardison, S. D., & Orvis, K. L. ( 2004 ). Leadership in virtual teams. In D. V. Day, S. J. Zaccaro & S. M. Haplin (Eds.), Leader development for transforming organizations: Growing leaders for tomorrow (pp. 267–292). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. ( 2001 ). Team leadership.   Leadership Quarterly , 12 (4), 451–483. 10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00093-5

Zachary, W., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bilazarian, P., Krecker, D., Lardieri, P., & Burns, J. ( 1999 ). The Advanced Embedded Training System (AETS): An intelligent embedded tutoring system for tactical team training.   International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education , 10 (1452), 257–277.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Low VA Rates, LLC is not affiliated with any government agencies, including the VA, FHA, or the HUD. VA lender ID #9797520000. Consumer NMLS# 1109426 (This page and its contents are not intended for residents or home owners in the states of MA, NY or WA.)

The Importance of Teamwork in the Military

From the time you join, or even before you go to boot camp, your recruiter should constantly be emphasizing the importance of teamwork. Teamwork is one of the most important parts of any branch of military, any unit, or any MOS, especially combat arms MOS.

When you arrive at boot camp, the cadre immediately start yelling, “you better start working together as a team or you will all fail.” You then realize how true this is because many people can’t handle the constant yelling and screaming and they pretty much freeze up and freak out.

I have literally seen people who knew what to do and how to do it; however, when they’re being yelled at they just stand there, usually shaking, and they can’t even complete a simple task such as folding their shirt right. This is where being a team can help those struggling individuals.

What Leadership Does for Teamwork

The common denominator in a great team is a great leader. This should be someone who doesn’t just bark out orders and dictate all the time to their team. A great leader is able to perform any task that the team is assigned, and they’re always willing and able to do it better.

I’ve always tried to achieve my best in weapons qual, the PT test, and more. If a leader can do this, too, it helps set an example and develop trust within their team. It gives the team a challenge without even asking. They all want to do better than you so they can earn your trust and respect.

As the old saying goes, “There is no ‘i’ in team.” The sooner you realize this, the easier and more fun it will be.

That’s why in Army special operations training Rangers and Green Berets have peer-outs. This is used to get rid of the people who are focused on being individuals and not being part of a team. These are the ones we call rambos.

Rambos are the ones who think they can take on the enemy all by themselves. They’re the same ones that brag about every so called firefight they’ve been in, most of which are a lie. The ones who don’t talk about their actual combat experiences are the ones that are telling the truth.

Teamwork at Its Best

When I look at which units in the United States military are the best in regards to teamwork, the one I think that stands out, head and shoulders above the rest, are the Rangers. And I am not just saying this because I am one. I am saying this because of my hands-on experience.

On the first day of Ranger school, soldiers learn the importance of what a team is all about. And, once again, this is why they’ll have peer-outs after each mission.

I have had the opportunity, since I am EOD as well, to deploy and work with many different units throughout the military, including the Navy.

I won’t go into specifics, but I started my career in the Navy EOD on a boat unit (or swick team) working with SEALs. The Navy special operations units are some of the best combat teams that employ teamwork so I would rank them just below the Rangers.

What Does Teamwork Mean?

Teamwork isn’t just about helping carry somebody’s ruck during a ruck march, or about bringing somebody chow on bed rest. It’s about coming together and making decisions based on knowledge and experience. Teamwork is about standing weapon to weapon and being ready to take on the enemy and always staying online.

To be a great team, just like in sports, it takes cohesiveness, and that can take years. But in the military, we don’t have years. We’ll only have months, or sometimes days, to be ready for a mission. You have to learn about how each person moves and more. You’ll always have to be thinking together as one. This is why the military trains as they fight.

In regards to teamwork, the military will always set the standards that civilian companies try to emulate. That’s one reason why civilian companies like to hire military leaders. They can bring them aboard for leadership positions within their organization.

Teamwork will always be a large part our military. If it wasn’t, we’d just have a bunch of rambos running around trying to earn a medal. If you ever want to see what it takes to be a great team, you don’t have to watch USC or San Diego State, you just have to watch a Ranger team because they, by far, are the best in the world.

• Latest Posts

• Terrorism, Part 3: Taking Precautions & Taking Action - November 7, 2017
• Terrorism, Part 2: Recruiting and Future Problems - November 2, 2017
• Terrorism, Part 1: A Basic Understanding - October 31, 2017

You also might be interested in

Army Chaplain Corps

July 29th marks the 241st anniversary of the Army Chaplain[...]

VA Cash-Out Refinance Guidelines

The VA IRRRL is an extremely popular and helpful option.[...]

Air Force Song

The Air Force Song and Field Music Traditions Since its[...]

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Related Links

• VA Home Loans
• Jumbo Mortgage
• VA Loan Calculator
• VA Hybrid Loan
• US Military

Type and press Enter to search

• Navigating Deployment
• Pain Management
• Service-Specific Resources
• TFF Strategies
• Get Into Fighting Weight
• Training & Performance
• Rx3, Rehab, Refit, Return to Duty
• Injury Prevention
• Environmental Extremes
• Mental Health
• Performance Psychology
• Sleep & Stress
• Spiritual Fitness
• Substance Use
• Go For Green®
• Warfighter Nutrition Guide
• Military Nutrition Environment
• Fighting-Weight Strategies
• Performance Nutrition
• Unique Nutrition Needs
• Couples & Intimacy
• Family Optimization
• Relationship Building
• Teams & Leadership
• SSFS 7x7 Initiative
• ADVet-HOMME
• What is HPRC
• Our Partners
• Guidelines & Policies
• Ask the Expert
• facebook link
• twitter link
• instagram link
• youtube link

Interpersonal skills to optimize effective military teamwork

High-performing military teams are crucial to mission success. But it takes more than just tactical military training for teamwork to be effective. For teams (and individuals) to complete mission-essential tasks, it takes strong, interpersonal social-fitness skills on top of tactical training. So, what are the person-to-person skills and beliefs that make up high-performing teams?

• It starts with trust —in each other’s dedication to the mission and the team.
• With trust comes team cohesion and your teammates uniting to complete a task and form one-on-one connections, no matter how different their backgrounds.
• Diversity , another key component of optimized teams, is about accepting and recognizing how different skills and experiences can boost creativity and support problem-solving.
• But at the top of it all, high-performing teams have high-performing leadership . The best leaders foster trust, cohesion, and diversity while also using their own interpersonal skill sets to support their teams across the board.

Published on : March 3, 2021

Teamwork & Peak Performance

Building a high-performing team isn’t about gathering a group of skilled, well-trained people together. It’s so much more. It’s about how they work together, understand each other, and perceive one another. Consider each of these interpersonal aspects of effective teams.

Trust is believing that each team member is competent, reliable, and loyal to the mission.

Cohesion is about growing connections based on shared commitment, mutual support, and cooperation.

Diversity means respecting each other’s differences to allow for multiple approaches, joint problem-solving, and new ideas.

Leadership is about supporting your team through mutual trust, emotional intelligence, and a bird’s-eye view.

To learn more about building each of these team components, check out the Teams and Leadership section on HPRC.

Ahronson, A., & Cameron, J. E. (2010). The nature and consequences of group cohesion in a military sample. Military Psychology, 19 (1), 9–25. doi:10.1080/08995600701323277

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (2), 207–218. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207

Brown, U. J., Knouse, S. B., Stewart, J. B., & Beale, R. L. (2008). The relationship between unit diversity and perceptions of organizational performance in the military. Journal of Applied Statistics, 36 (1), 111–120. doi:10.1080/02664760802443905

Driskell, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (2018). Teams in extreme environments: Alterations in team development and teamwork. Human Resource Management Review, 28 (4), 434–449. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.002

Frigotto, M. L., & Rossi, A. (2011). Diversity and communication in teams: Improving problem-solving or creating confusion? Group Decision and Negotiation, 21 (6), 791–820. doi:10.1007/s10726-011-9250-x

Grossman, R., & Feitosa, J. (2018). Team trust over time: Modeling reciprocal and contextual influences in action teams. Human Resource Management Review, 28 (4), 395–410. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.03.006

Kirkpatick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management Perspectives, 5 (2), 48–60. doi:10.5465/ame.1991.4274679

Lambert, J. (2016). Cultural diversity as a mechanism for innovation: Workplace diversity and the absorptive capacity framework. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 20 (1), 68–76.

McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Impact of leadership style and emotions on subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 13 (5), 545–559. doi:10.1016/s1048-9843(02)00143-1

Stanley, D. (2003). What do we know about social cohesion: The research perspective of the federal government's social cohesion research network. Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, 28 (1). doi:10.2307/3341872

Sweeney, P. J., Thompson, V., & Blanton, H. (2009). Trust and influence in combat: An interdependence model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39 (1), 235–264. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00437.x

van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Homan, A. C. (2013). Diversity mindsets and the performance of diverse teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121 (2), 183–193. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.03.003

Military Mindset: Leadership, Discipline, Resilience, and Teamwork

Introduction, documentation.

Military training and experience are systematically known for creating highly efficient, cohesive, and resilient organizations which is the national military and its units. In the post-9/11 era of regional conflicts and short-term deployments in global anti-terrorism efforts, veterans often find themselves entering the labor force, with the experience often highly valued by employers. The military mindset forged through weeks of training and subsequent high-pressure situations can have relevant applications in a corporate business environment which has become oftentimes stagnant, undisciplined, and without strong management or leadership at non-executive levels. This literature review will focus on the four themes identified in the context of the military mindset, which is leadership, discipline, resilience, and teamwork which can be used within non-military organizations to enhance various elements of performance or organizational structure.

The literature search strategy sought to use a deductive approach of taking a broad theme and research topic of “leveraging military mindset into business” and narrowing it down to specific applications. For example, the practical applications of the military mindset were explored such as in the context of business leadership, business discipline, resilience in crises, or strong elements of teamwork. Using article databases such as Google Scholar, JSTOR, Scopus, Science Direct, and Emerald, key terms were searched for, and articles were selected based on relevance from a preliminary reading of abstracts.

Approximately 30 articles were examined, out of which 10 were selected for the literature review. Articles were reviewed for subject matter, relevancy, as well as basic elements of efficacy and reliability. Thematic analysis was conducted to categorize the articles based on subject themes in relation to the organization of the thesis and organization of the literature review. Based on this, a logical cohesive flow of information was written based on the available research.

Table 1. Categorization of literature by theme on the topic of leveraging military mindset in business environments.

Military is known for stimulating and developing leadership traits in many service members. As a result, many military veterans pursue leadership roles in organizations or begin as entrepreneurs where they take charge. The military provides individuals with key skills needed in leadership, some of which are discussed in other themes, such as the ability to overcome obstacles, teamwork, weighted risk-taking, and discipline. The spirit of a military mindset can be replicated in team spirit and solidarity in business environments where the individual is able to take the leadership role (Dermott et al., 2015).

The military uses a continuous and consistent approach to leadership development, expecting competencies from all its members regardless of actual position or authority. However, those in positions of power in the military have much more consequential roles, where mistakes can cost the lives of soldiers as well as national security risks for civilians. Therefore, the development of leadership competency through the synthesis of knowledge, skills, and abilities is a holistic model of development that can be applicable in non-military organizations as well (Kirchner & Akdere, 2017).

Nazri & Rudi (2019) proposed a military leadership framework seen above. They argue that leader paradigms continue to emphasize attributes and traits which are crucial in key settings. Furthermore, military leadership commonly follows guidance, doctrines, standards, and principles which are regularly updated, allowing for development and innovation. Many of these traits are effective in complex, dynamic environments which can be seen in the business context. Traits the likes as confidence, adaptability, emotional stability, intelligence, decision-making and competence are crucial for leadership organization in virtually any context.

One of the most recognized military traits is discipline, which also has a fit in the context of corporate business. Discipline brings with it a mindset that is objective-oriented but also organized and the ability to persevere through difficult or tedious tasks. While discipline is not unique to the military, it often places discipline at a high priority. Discipline is a key element for both leaders, which have to exercise patience and control, and for basic workers and low-level managers who have to demonstrate discipline in fulfilling remedial tasks and waiting for opportunities to climb within an organization (Georgiev, 2019). Discipline is a foundation for multiple other aspects of leadership and military mindset which are discussed in this review.

Discipline is beneficial in bringing focus and attention to a business environment. In a complex, shifting environment and market where a business operates, it is impossible to cover everything, so discipline allows focusing on the important elements which will ensure stability and growth for the company. Discipline helps in maintaining order and reducing panic in challenging situations, as well as adapting to difficult changes if a company has to become more efficient and cut costs. Disciplines in officers create an individual that demonstrates critical professional thinking, while also maintaining creativity and independence, fostering intellectual development. A disciplined figure can influence positive corporate actions and impact the organization in a manner that adheres to the best values and principles of business law and ethics (Nasih et al., 2019).

The military mindset leads to the formation of resilience, a key to survival in warfare contexts, but also creates character traits of adaptability and psychological strength that continue to remain useful in civilian life. However, resilience is the interaction between personal characteristics and the structural environment in which a person operates (McGarry et al., 2017). The military fosters a culture of resilience through its customs, traditions, and values.

Resilience is also taught as part of military education, based on the cognitive-behavioral model. Transitioning from military to civilian life, resilience has both positive and negative impacts. While it may benefit an individual by providing strong core values, organizational skills, adaptability, and efficiency – negative elements such as the inability to emotionally adapt or shutting out traumatic experiences can cause psychological harm (Adler & Sowden, 2018).

Organizational resilience of the company and its members is a key trend in management practice recently. Williams et al. (2017) propose a framework that focuses on the themes of crisis and resilience. When integrating resilience into organizations, creates capabilities of durability, organizing and adjusting, competent response, and strong self-analysis through feedback. The interaction between crisis and resilience is a dynamic process that requires leadership and mindfulness to navigate (Williams et al., 2017). Integrating the concepts of military resilience in civilian organization contexts can be highly valuable from a mindset standpoint as they bring the capabilities listed above and navigate dynamic crises

Military culture is distinguished by a profound commitment to a larger goal, often resulting in individuals putting their desires on hold. The culture and perspectives are inherently collectivistic and built around the concept of group-think and teamwork to support each other and achieve the set objectives (Adler & Sowden, 2018). Teamwork and collaboration have become a central element of the workplace and the use of teams is projected to increase. Businesses invest millions into the training of enhancing teamwork effectiveness since successful teams produce effective outcomes in a wide range of contexts due to the team competencies and processes (Lacerenza et al., 2018).

The military or other industries heavily reliant on teamwork for function or survival can achieve strong and cohesive teamwork due to culture and methods of training and discipline not seen in typical office workplaces.

Some key elements that can be adopted from the military model are trust and familiarity. Despite the hierarchical structure of the military, the individuals within teams as well as the chain of command have a number of informal interactions and set of linkages. With time, one becomes familiar with the teammates due to the intimate knowledge of their behavior and actions, resulting in organic cohesion and teamwork. This leads to trust, as teammates trust each other with time, but leaders also demonstrate trust by placing responsibility on the teams and trusting them to function on their own.

There are expectations and reputation, but trust is vital as it allows to rely on your team members, whether it is a nighttime raid that can cost casualties or a major office project that impacts everyone’s professional career. However, the military more often than not operates day-to-day functions that are mundane, and the lessons can be transferred to the commercial sector, which consists of basic factors such as building relationships and understanding team capabilities (McGinn, 2015).

The military mindset contributes strongly to enhancing the corporate business environment. Military leadership benefits in business by being able to make critical decisions in high-pressure situations and a strategic approach to long-term objectives as well as bring a level of strong leadership that garners respect but promotes comradery. Discipline and rigor are beneficial since bringing these to business practices aid in better structuring and organization within the structure – offering once again a systematic approach to problem-solving and processes, eliminating redundancies and improving efficiencies. Resilience is needed in business just as much as in the military as it aids in overcoming challenges and being able to flexibly navigate the multidimensional situations that may arise in market circumstances.

Finally, teamwork is a staple of the military mindset that is critical for business at every level that has largely functioned as an independent-centric structure even if teamwork is beneficial and required. Teamwork helps to better communication, enhanced workflow, and socially motivational aspects toward a common objective.

Adler, A. B., & Sowden, W. J. (2018). Resilience in the military: The double-edged sword of military culture. Military and Veteran Mental Health , 43–54. Web.

Georgiev, M. (2019). Improvement in the forming of the military professional qualities during the educational process. Knowledge – International Journal, 31 (6), 1945-1950.

Kirchner, M., & Akdere, M. (2017). Military leadership development strategies: Implications for training in non-military organizations . Industrial and Commercial Training, 49 (7/8), 357–364. Web.

Lacerenza, C. N., Marlow, S. L., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (2018). Team development interventions: Evidence-based approaches for improving teamwork. American Psychologist, 73 (4), 517–531. Web.

McDermott, M. J., Boyd, T. C., & Weaver, A. (2015). Franchise business ownership: A comparative study on the implications of military experience on franchisee success and satisfaction . Entrepreneurial Executive, 20 , 9-30. Web.

McGarry, R., Walklate, S., & Mythen, G. (2014). A sociological analysis of military resilience. Armed Forces & Society, 41 (2), 352–378. Web.

McGinn, D. (2015). What companies can learn from military teams? Harvard Business Review . Web.

Nasih, M., Harymawan, I, Putra, F. J., & Qotrunnada, R. (2019). Military experienced board and corporate social responsibility disclosure: An empirical evidence from Indonesia. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 7(1), 553-573. Web

Nazri, M., & Rudi, M. (2019). Military leadership: A systematic literature review of current research . International Journal of Business and Management, 3 (1). Web.

Williams, T. A., Gruber, D. A., Sutcliffe, K. M., Shepherd, D. A., & Zhao, E. Y. (2017). Organizational response to adversity: Fusing crisis management and resilience research streams. Academy of Management Annals, 11 (2), 733–769. Web.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, September 7). Military Mindset: Leadership, Discipline, Resilience, and Teamwork. https://studycorgi.com/military-mindset-leadership-discipline-resilience-and-teamwork/

"Military Mindset: Leadership, Discipline, Resilience, and Teamwork." StudyCorgi , 7 Sept. 2022, studycorgi.com/military-mindset-leadership-discipline-resilience-and-teamwork/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'Military Mindset: Leadership, Discipline, Resilience, and Teamwork'. 7 September.

1. StudyCorgi . "Military Mindset: Leadership, Discipline, Resilience, and Teamwork." September 7, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/military-mindset-leadership-discipline-resilience-and-teamwork/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Military Mindset: Leadership, Discipline, Resilience, and Teamwork." September 7, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/military-mindset-leadership-discipline-resilience-and-teamwork/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "Military Mindset: Leadership, Discipline, Resilience, and Teamwork." September 7, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/military-mindset-leadership-discipline-resilience-and-teamwork/.

This paper, “Military Mindset: Leadership, Discipline, Resilience, and Teamwork”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: November 21, 2022 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Teamwork Is The Most Important Lesson You Learn From The Military

Editor’s Note: A version of this article originally appeared on the personal website of Brad Harrison. Of the first ten...

By Brad Harrison | Published Mar 12, 2015 9:00 AM EDT

• Military Life

Editor’s Note: A version of this article originally appeared on the personal website of Brad Harrison.

Of the first ten years of my grown up life, I spent four at West Point and the remainder as an Airborne Ranger in the Army. The key principles that we focused on were leadership, teamwork, and integrity. These are also the core principles that the team at Scout Ventures believes is critical to strong management teams.

This week I’ve been working with one of our teams and they are struggling with teamwork. Each founder is bright with unique and relevant experience, and they all complement each other well. Unfortunately, they struggle with creating their own support structure because their teamwork skills are weak. I know this because when they have heated discussions about the direction of their product and business, they often can’t reach a solution without coming to me to help broker the negotiation.

In large companies, we see a strong focus on teamwork within certain verticals — sales, marketing, product, technology, etc. — but these teams often don’t see eye to eye when they compete for required resources like budget, manpower, etc.

My greatest life lessons came through failure »

In early stage startups, resources are much more limited and it’s often teamwork and shared resources that enable these businesses to get things done and succeed.

But when there are more than two founders, it is inevitable that someone is not comfortable in his or her role. This happens when multiple founders want or think they can be CEO, or when they simply can’t agree on titles and responsibility. This can become even worse when the company is raising money and there’s a prospect of hiring new people. In all cases, teamwork often suffers.

How can this be resolved?

First and foremost, believe in leadership. This means that one person must be responsible for providing direction to the team. This is the CEO. And this is a critical piece for creating a strong team.

Second, the CEO needs to set an environment based on mutual respect. This is so important for getting each and every member of the team engaged with the understanding that their opinion matters.

Third, the CEO needs to engage his or her team members and have them work to solve problems. This often requires asking people to provide their perspectives and having a constructive conversation exploring opposite points of view.

Fourth, regardless of the outcome of a specific debate, the team needs to all embrace the decision and move forward. Moving forward means each team member supports their peers even if they didn’t agree with the decision.

And last, the CEO needs to bring the team together to bond and move forward. At Scout Ventures, we like to have a good meal or take everyone out for a night; either way our goal by the end of the night is to hear the founders saying, “I love you man,” “I understand the decision,” “I got your back,” and “We’re going to be a billion-dollar company.”

That’s teamwork.

Subscribe to Task & Purpose Today

Get the latest in military news, entertainment and gear in your inbox daily.

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — The Art of War — The Essential Characteristics of Effective Military Leadership

The Essential Characteristics of Effective Military Leadership

• Categories: The Art of War

About this sample

Words: 626 |

Published: Mar 8, 2024

Words: 626 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Trustworthiness, effective communication, adaptability, strong decision-making abilities, leading by example, teamwork skills.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Literature

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

7 pages / 3276 words

3.5 pages / 2123 words

7 pages / 3092 words

6 pages / 2729 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on The Art of War

The art of war, as elucidated by the ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu in his renowned treatise, transcends its historical origins to offer profound insights applicable to various aspects of contemporary society. This [...]

To take over a nation or organization, the cleverest method to take would be by following the wise advices of Sun Tzu in his remarkable work the Art of War and Machiavelli in his notable work The Prince. By following these wise [...]

In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell uses several literary techniques to develop the theme that totalitarianism is destructive. He does so by using extensive imagery, focusing on the deterioration of the Victory Mansions, [...]

In order for one to exist in a totalitarian society whose government is successful in its control, one must deal on a day-to-day basis with strong persuasion and propaganda. These totalitarian societies have an iron grip on [...]

The fear of a dystopian future that is explored in both Fritz Lang’s film Metropolis and George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty Four is reflective of the values of the societies at the time and the context of the authors. As [...]

A government of an ideal society is meant to represent the people. It is the people’s choice to support, to select, and to seize government. The idea of open communication is employed as a way for people to choose the best [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

How does this work

Customer Reviews

Progressive delivery is highly recommended for your order. This additional service allows tracking the writing process of big orders as the paper will be sent to you for approval in parts/drafts* before the final deadline.

What is more, it guarantees:

• 30 days of free revision;
• A top writer and the best editor;
• A personal order manager.

* You can read more about this service here or please contact our Support team for more details.

It is a special offer that now costs only +15% to your order sum!

Would you like to order Progressive delivery for your paper?

Can I pay after you write my essay for me?