Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:43:29.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The composition and formation of effective teams: computer science meets organizational psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2018

Ewa Andrejczuk ,
Rita Berger ,
Juan A. Rodriguez-Aguilar ,
Carles Sierra  and
Víctor Marín-Puchades
Ewa Andrejczuk
Affiliation:
IIIA-CSIC, Campus UAB, 08193 Bellaterra, Catalonia, Spain e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Change Management Tool S.L., Passeig de Gràcia, 47, 08007 Barcelona, Spain
Rita Berger
Affiliation:
University of Barcelona, Passeig de la Vall d’Hebron, 08035 Barcelona, Spain e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Juan A. Rodriguez-Aguilar
Affiliation:
IIIA-CSIC, Campus UAB, 08193 Bellaterra, Catalonia, Spain e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Carles Sierra
Affiliation:
IIIA-CSIC, Campus UAB, 08193 Bellaterra, Catalonia, Spain e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Víctor Marín-Puchades
Affiliation:
University of Barcelona, Passeig de la Vall d’Hebron, 08035 Barcelona, Spain e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nowadays the composition and formation of effective teams is highly important for both companies to assure their competitiveness and for a wide range of emerging applications exploiting multiagent collaboration (e.g. crowdsourcing, human-agent collaborations). The aim of this article is to provide an integrative perspective on team composition, team formation, and their relationship with team performance. Thus, we review the contributions in both the computer science literature and the organizational psychology literature dealing with these topics. Our purpose is twofold. First, we aim at identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the contributions made by these two diverse bodies of research. Second, we aim at identifying cross-fertilization opportunities that help both disciplines benefit from one another. Given the volume of existing literature, our review is not intended to be exhaustive. Instead, we have preferred to focus on the most significant contributions in both fields together with recent contributions that break new ground to spur innovative research.

Type
Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 33 , 2018 , e17
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agmon, N., Barrett, S. & Stone, P. May 2014. Modeling uncertainty in leading ad hoc teams. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS).Google Scholar
Anagnostopoulos, A., Becchetti, L., Castillo, C., Gionis, A. & Leonardi, S. 2012. Online team formation in social networks. In Proceedings of the 21st World Wide Web Conference 2012, WWW, 839–848, April 16–20.Google Scholar
Andrejczuk, E., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J. A. & Sierra, C. 2016. Optimising congenial teams. In International Workshop on Optimisation in Multi-Agent Systems (OPTMAS) .Google Scholar
Andrejczuk, E., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J. A., Roig, C & Sierra, C. 2017. Synergistic team composition (extended abstract). In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, 1463–1465. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Google Scholar
Barrett, S., Stone, P., Kraus, S. & Rosenfeld, A. July 2013. Teamwork with limited knowledge of teammates. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
Bartol, K. M. 1977. Building synergistic edp teams. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual SIGCPR Conference.Google Scholar
Bartram, D. & Roe, R. A. 2005. Definition and assessment of competences in the context of the european diploma in psychology. European Psychologist 10(2), 93–99.Google Scholar
Bear, J. B. & Woolley, A. W. 2011. The role of gender in team collaboration and performance. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 36(2), 146–153.Google Scholar
Belbin, R. M. 1993. Team Roles at Work: A Strategy for Human Resource Management. Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
Bell, S. T. 2007. Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(3), 595–615.Google Scholar
Brodbeck, F. C. 2003. Team climate for learning in higher education. Aston Network (Summer), 4–5.Google Scholar
Butchibabu, A., Sparano-Huiban, C., Sonenberg, L. & Shah, J. 2016. Implicit coordination strategies for effective team communication. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58(4), 595–610.Google Scholar
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J. & Higgs, A. C. 1993. Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology 46, 823–847.Google Scholar
Carley, K. M., Moon, Il C., Schneider, M. & Shigiltchoff, O. 2005. Detailed analysis of factors affecting team success and failure in the america’s army game. Technical Report.Google Scholar
Chalkiadakis, G. & Boutilier, C. 2012. Sequentially optimal repeated coalition formation under uncertainty. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 24(3), 441–484.Google Scholar
Chen, B., Chen, X., Timsina, A. & Soh, L. 2015. Considering agent and task openness in ad hoc team formation. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2015, 1861–1862, May 4–8.Google Scholar
Crawford, C., Rahaman, Z. & Sen, S. 2016. Evaluating the efficiency of robust team formation algorithms. In International Workshop on Optimisation in Multi-Agent Systems.Google Scholar
Delgado Pña, M. I., Romero Martinez, M. A. & Gomez Martinez, L. 2008. Teams in organizations: a review on team effectiveness. Team Performance Management: An International Journal 14(1/2), 7–21.Google Scholar
Devine, D. J. 2002. A review and integration of classification systems relevant to teams in organizations. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 6(4), 291–310.Google Scholar
Devine, D. J. & Philips, J. L. 2001. Do smarter teams do better a meta-analysis of cognitive ability and team performance. Small Group Research 32(5), 507–532.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 44, 350–383.Google Scholar
Farhangian, M., Purvis, M. K., Purvis, M. & Savarimuthu, B. T. R. 2015a. Agent-based modeling of resource allocation in software projects based on personality and skill. In Communications in Computer and Information Science, 130–146.Google Scholar
Farhangian, M., Purvis, M. K., Purvis, M. & Savarimuthu, B. T. R. 2015b. Modeling the effects of personality on team formation in self-assembly teams. In PRIMA 2015: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems - 18th International Conference, Proceedings, 538–546, October 26–30.Google Scholar
Garavan, T. N. & McCarthy, A. 2008. Collective learning processes and human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources 10, 451–471.Google Scholar
Genter, K., Laue, T. & Stone, P. 2017. Three years of the robocup standard platform league drop-in player competition: creating and maintaining a large scale ad hoc teamwork robotics competition. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 31(4), 790–820.Google Scholar
Gibson, C. B. & Kirkman, B. L. 1999. Our past, present, and future in teams: the role of human resource professionals in managing team performance. Evolving practices in human resource management: Responses to a changing world of work, 90–117.Google Scholar
Guzzo, R. A. & Dickson, M. W. 1996. Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology 47(1), 307–338.Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R. 1990. Groups that work (and those that don't): Creating conditions for effective teamwork. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R. 2002. Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R. & Lawler, E. E. 1971. Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology 55(3), 259–286.Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. 1975. Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology 60(2), 159–170.Google Scholar
Hanna, N. & Richards, D. 2015. Do birds of a feather work better together? The impact of virtual agent personality on a shared mental model with humans during collaboration. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Collaborative Online Organizations, COOS 2016, Co-Located With the 14th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, AAMAS 2015, 28–37, May 4.Google Scholar
Haque, M., Egerstedt, M. & Rahmani, A. 2013. Multilevel coalition formation strategy for suppression of enemy air defenses missions. Journal of Aerospace Information Systems 10(6), 287–296.Google Scholar
Hoffman, G. & Breazeal, C. 2004. Collaboration in human-robot teams. In Proceedings of the 1st AIAA04 Intelligent Systems Conference.Google Scholar
Holmstrom, B. T. 1982. Moral hazard in teams. The Bell Journal of Economics 13(2), 324–340.Google Scholar
Horwitz, S. K. & Horwitz, I. B. 2007. The effect of team diversity on team outcomes: a meta-analyitic review of team demography. Journal of Management 33(6), 987–1015.Google Scholar
James, L. R., Choi, C., Ko, C. H. E., McNeil, P., Minton, M. & Wright, M. A. 2008. Collective learning processes and human resource development. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 17, 5–32.Google Scholar
Jennings, N. R., Moreau, L., Nicholson, D., Ramchurn, S., Roberts, S., Rodden, T. & Rogers, A. 2014. Human-agent collectives. Communications of the ACM 57(12), 80–88.Google Scholar
Kargar, M., An, A. & Zihayat, M. 2012. Efficient bi-objective team formation in social networks. In Proceedings of the 2012 European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases – Volume Part II, 483–498. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Knapp, R. 2010. Collective (team) learning process models: a conceptual review. Human Resource Development Review 9, 286–299.Google Scholar
Komaki, L. 2009. Behind the scenes: fieldtesting a measure of effectiveness for theater teams. In Team performance, Assessment and Measurement, Brannick, M. T. Salas E. & Prince C. (eds). LEA.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Bell, B. S. 2013. Work groups and teams in organizations: review update. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/927.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. & Ilgen, D.R. 2006. Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological science in the public interest 7, 28–77.Google Scholar
Laal, M. & Salamati, P. 2012. Lifelong learning; why do we need it? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 31, 399–403.Google Scholar
Lappas, T., Liu, K. & Terzi, E. 2009. Finding a team of experts in social networks. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 467–476. ACM.Google Scholar
Leavitt, A., Keegan, B. C. & Clark, J. 2016. Ping to win?: Non-verbal communication and team performance in competitive online multiplayer games. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 4337–4350. ACM.Google Scholar
Liemhetcharat, S. & Veloso, M. 2014. Team formation with learning agents that improve coordination. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, AAMAS’14, 1531–1532. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Google Scholar
Liemhetcharat, S. & Veloso, M. M. 2012. Modeling and learning synergy for team formation with heterogeneous agents. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2012, 3, 365–374, June 4–8.Google Scholar
Lorenz, J., Rauhut, H., Schweitzer, F. & Helbing, D. 2011. How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (22): 9020–9025.Google Scholar
Maghami, M. & Sukthankar, G. 2011. An agent-based simulation for investigating the impact of stereotypes on task-oriented group formation. In International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling, and Prediction, 252–259. Springer.Google Scholar
Malone, T. W. & Crowston, K. 1994. The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 26(1), 87–119.Google Scholar
Mao, A., Mason, W., Suri, S. & Watts, D. J. 2016. An experimental study of team size and performance on a complex task. PloS One 11(4), e0153048.Google Scholar
Marcolino, L. S., Jiang, A. X. & Tambe, A. 2013. Multi-agent team formation: diversity beats strength? In IJCAI 2013, Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, August 3–9.Google Scholar
Marcolino, L. S., Xu, H., Gerber, D., Kolev, B., Price, S., Pantazis, E. & Tambe, M. 2016. Multi-agent team formation for design problems. In Coordination, Organizations, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems XI. Lecture Notes in AI. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Martz, W. B Jr, Vogel, R. R. & Nunamaker, J. F. Jr. 1992. Electronic meeting systems: results from the field. Decision Support Systems 8, 141–158.Google Scholar
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T. & Gilson, L. 2008. Team effectiveness 1997-2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management 34(3), 410–476.Google Scholar
Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Taylor, S. R., Gilson, L. L. & Rudy, T. M. 2007. An examination of the effects of organizational district and team contexts on team processes and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 28, 891–910.Google Scholar
McGrath, J. E. 1984. Groups: Interaction and Performance, 14 . Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Meneses, R. & Navarro, J. 2015. How to improve team effectiveness through group processes: an example in the automotive industry. Papeles del Psicologo 36(3), 224–229.Google Scholar
Moon, I. C., Carley, K., Schneider, M. & Shigiltchoff, O. 2005. Detailed analysis of team movement and communication affecting team performance in the america’s army game.Google Scholar
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R. & Stewart, G. L. 1998. Five-factor model of personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11, 145–165.Google Scholar
Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H, Quenk, N. L. & Hammer, L. 1998. MBTI Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, 3 . Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Nagarajan, V., Marcolino, L. S. & Tambe, M. 2015. Every team deserves a second chance: identifying when things go wrong (student abstract version). In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 4184–4185, January 25–30.Google Scholar
Navarro, J., Quijano, S., Berger, R. & Meneses, R. 2011. Work-groups in organizations: a basic tool to manage increasing complexity and ambiguity. Papeles del Psicologo 32, 17–28.Google Scholar
Okimoto, T., Schwind, N., Clement, M., Ribeiro, T., Inoue, K. & Marquis, P. 2015. How to form a task-oriented robust team. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS’15, 395–403. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Google Scholar
Olivera, F. & Argote, L. 1999. Organizational learning and new product development: core processes. In Shared Cognition in Organizations: The Management of Knowledge, Levine, J. M., Thompson, L. L. & Messick, D. M. (eds). Psychology Press, 297–326.Google Scholar
Osatuyi, B. J. 2012. Effects of information importance and distribution on information exchange in team decision making. New Jersey Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Osipov, K. & Sukthankar, G. 2012. Amalgacloud: social network adaptation for human and computational agent team formation. Human Journal 1(2), 61–73.Google Scholar
Oyster, C. K. 1999. Groups: A Users Guide. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Peleteiro, A., Burguillo-Rial, J. C., Luck, M., Arcos, J. L. & Rodriguez-Aguilar, J. A. 2015. Using reputation and adaptive coalitions to support collaboration in competitive environments. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 45, 325–338.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B. & Michael, A. 1997. Moderating effects of goal acceptance on the relationship between group cohesiveness and productivity. Journal ofApplied Psychology 82(6), 974–983.Google Scholar
Quijano, S., Navarro, J., Yepes, M., Berger, R. & Romeo, M. 2008. Human system audit (HSA) for the analysis of human behaviour in organizations. Papeles del Psicologo 29(1), 92–106.Google Scholar
Rahwan, T., Michalak, T. P., Elkind, E., Faliszewski, P., Sroka, J., Wooldridge, M. & Jennings, N. R. 2011. Constrained coalition formation. In AAAI, W. Burgard and D. Roth (eds). AAAI Press, 719–725.Google Scholar
Ramchurn, S. D., Farinelli, A., Macarthur, K. S. & Jennings, N. R. 2010. Decentralized coordination in robocup rescue. Computer Journal 53(9), 1447–1461.Google Scholar
Ramchurn, S. D., Wu, F., Fischer, J. E., Reece, S., RobertsJ. W, S. J J. W, S. J, Rodden, T & Jennings, N. R. 2016. Human-agent collaboration for disaster response. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 30(1), 82–111.Google Scholar
Ramezan, M. 2011. Intellectual capital and organizational organic structure in knowledge society: how are these concepts related? International Journal of Information Management 31, 88–95.Google Scholar
Ramirez-Heller, B., Berger, R. & Brodbeck, F. C. 2014. Does an adequate team climate for learning predict team effectiveness and innovation potential? A psychometric validation of the team climate questionnaire for learning in an organizational context. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 114, 543–550.Google Scholar
Rangapuram, S. S., Biihler, T. & Hein, M. 2015. Towards realistic team formation in social networks based on densest subgraphs. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web, 1077–1088. ACM.Google Scholar
Rico, R., Alcover, C. M. & Tabernero, C. D. 2010. Efectividad de los equipos de trabajo, una revision de la ultima decada de investigacion (1999-2009). Revista de Psicologia del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones 26, 47–71.Google Scholar
Rochlin, I., Aumann, Y., Sarne, D. & Golosman, L. 2016. Efficiency and fairness in team search with self-interested agents. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 30(3), 526–552.Google Scholar
Roe, R. A. 2002. What makes a competent psychologist? European Psychologist 7(3), 192–202.Google Scholar
Rokicki, M., Zerr, S. & Siersdorfer, S. 2015. Groupsourcing: team competition designs for crowd-sourcing. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2015, 906–915, May 18–22.Google Scholar
Salas, E., Goodwin, G. F. & Burke, C. S. 2009. Team effectiveness in complex organizations: cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches. Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
Salas, E., Sims, D. E. & Burke, C. S. 2005. Is there a big five in teamwork? Small Group Research 36(5), 555–599.Google Scholar
Schutz, W. C. 1958. FIRO: A three dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. Holt, Rinehart, Winston.Google Scholar
Spradling, M., Goldsmith, J., Liu, X., Dadi, C. & Li, Z. 2013. Roles and teams hedonic game. In ADT, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 8176, 351–362. Springer.Google Scholar
Steiner, I. D. 2007. Group process and productivity (social psychological monograph). Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
Sukthankar, G., Sycara, K., Giampapa, J. A. & Burnett, C. 2009. Communications for agent-based human team support. In Handbook of Research on Multi-agent Systems: Semantics and Dynamics of Organizational Models, Dignum, V. (ed). IGI Global, 285–313.Google Scholar
Terveen, L. & McDonald, D. W. 2005. Social matching: a framework and research agenda. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 12(3), 401–434.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E., Peterson, R. S., McGuire, C., Chang, S. & Feld, P. 1992. Assessing political group dynamics: a test of the groupthink model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63(3), 403–425.Google Scholar
Wax, A., DeChurch, L. A. & Contractor, N. S. 2017. Self-organizing into winning teams: understanding the mechanisms that drive successful collaborations. Small Group Research 48(6), 665–718.Google Scholar
West, M. A. 2012a. Effective Teamwork: Practical Lessons Learned from Organizational Research. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
West, M. A. 2012b. Effective Teamwork: Practical Lessons from Organizational Research. JohnS Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
White, K. B. 1984. Mis Project Teams: An Investigation of Cognitive Style Implications. MIS Quarterly 8(2), 95–101.Google Scholar
Wilde, D. J. 2009. Teamology: The Construction and Organization of Effective Teams. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Wilde, D. J. 2011. Jungs Personality Theory Quantified. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Wilde, D. J. 2013. Post-Jungian Personality Theory for Individuals and Teams. SYDROSE LP.Google Scholar
Wildman, J. L., Thayer, A. L., Rosen, M. A., Salas, E., Mathieu, J. E. & Rayne, S. R. 2012. Task types and team-level attributes: synthesis of team classification literature. Human Resource Development Review 11, 97–129.Google Scholar
Woolley, A. W., Aggarwal, I. & Malone, T. W. 2015. Collective intelligence and group performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science 24(6), 420–424.Google Scholar
Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F, Pentland, A., Hashmi, N. & Malone, T. W. 2010. Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups. Science 330(6004), 686–688.Google Scholar
Yildir, I. 2005. Group motivation and performance indicators in an online team role playing game. Doctor of Education Thesis, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Zellmer-Bruhn, C. & Gibson, M. 2006. Multinational organization context: implications for team learning and performance. Academy of Management Journal 494, 501–518.Google Scholar