Team Formation

Team assembly involves searching for, identifying and selecting members for a team.

• Who are the most appropriate team members to work together and achieve team goals?

References

• Gomez-Zara, D., DeChurch, L.A., and Contractor, N.S. (2020). A Taxonomy of Team-Assembly Systems: Understanding How People Use Technologies to Form Teams. Proceedings of ACM Human-Computer Interaction, 4. CSCW2, Article 181. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415252.

Forming ineffective teams can have devastating consequences on:

• team dynamics (e.g., conflict, authoritarian leadership, group divisions) and
• team outcomes (e.g., delays, failure, poor performance, lack of innovation).

“If you don’t have the right mix of people, the team is dead from the start.”
– CEO and Chairman of CAN

References

• McGrath, J.E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
• Matheiu, J.E., Tannenbaum, S.I., Donsbach, J.S., and Alliger, G.M. (2014). A Review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 130-160.

• Team task (e.g., duties members will perform)
• The knowledge, skills, attitudes and other factors necessary for team members to perform team tasks so that members can best match project needs
• Leadership (e.g., leadership capabilities of members, project management skills, whether outside leadership will be necessary)
• Team membership requirements (e.g., hierarchies, certifications, degrees, rank)
• Team members’ availability and constraints (e.g., schedules, members’ locations, communication media)
• Team members’ relationships (e.g., prior experience working together)
• Team members’ knowledge, skills and abilities (e.g., complementary skills, necessary skills to accomplish tasks)
• Team members’ previous performance record (e.g., track record for producing timely and high quality work)
• Team members’ personalities (e.g., compatibility of member traits)
• Team members’ diversity (e.g., different perspectives, gender/ethnicity/race balance, different languages)
• Team members’ identification with the group (e.g., see themselves as part of the group and are committed to team goals)
• Team members’ fit with other team members (e.g., whether member interactions are likely to be conflicting or complementary)

References

• Gomez-Zara, D., DeChurch, L.A., and Contractor, N.S. (2020). A Taxonomy of Team-Assembly Systems: Understanding How People Use Technologies to Form Teams. Proceedings of ACM Human-Computer Interaction, 4. CSCW2, Article 181. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415252
• Donsbach, J.S., Tannenbaum, S.I., Alliger, G.M., Mathieu, J.E., Salas, E., Goodwin, G.F., and Metcalf, K.A. (2009). Team composition optimization: The team optimal profile system (TOPS). Technical report 1249 for U.S. Army Research Institute.
• How to pick project team members. Chron.com.

How much choice do team members have in who they work with?

• In self-assembled teams, members form their own teams.
  • Team members who can choose new members report having a higher level of satisfaction and communication.
  • Self-assembled teams increases the likelihood of homogeneous teams because members are most likely to choose teammates who they already know and are similar to themselves.
  • Therefore, special efforts are needed to promote diversity of membership and avoid segregated teams.
• At the other end of the continuum, instructors, managers, or a computer system form teams with no input from team members.
  • Members may not perceive the selection process as fair.

How many people will participate in the team assembly process?

• Low participation involves one user who assembles the team.
  • Decision- making tends to be more efficient since only one person decides.
• High participation involves multiple users in the team assembly process.
  • Outcomes are uncertain and more unpredictable since decisions depend on multiple users.
  • Communication and interaction are needed to coordinate efforts across multiple decision makers.

How much time is needed to put people in place?

• Do candidates need to demonstrate minimum technical skills before an interview is conducted?

What is the deadline for team assembly?

References

• Gomez-Zara, D., DeChurch, L.A., and Contractor, N.S. (2020). A Taxonomy of Team-Assembly Systems: Understanding How People Use Technologies to Form Teams. Proceedings of ACM Human-Computer Interaction, 4. CSCW2, Article 181. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415252.
• Donsbach, J.S., Tannenbaum, S.I., Alliger, G.M., Mathieu, J.E., Salas, E., Goodwin, G.F., and Metcalf, K.A. (2009). Team composition optimization: The team optimal profile system (TOPS). Technical report 1249 for U.S. Army Research Institute.
• Colarelli, S.M., and Boos, A.L. (1992). Sociometric and ability‐based assignment to work groups: Some implications for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 187-196.

Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (CATME) Team-Maker

See CATME Team-Maker here

• A web-based system that allows instructors to form student teams based on instructor-specified criteria
• Steps in Assembling a Team via CATME’s Team-Maker:
  • Instructors create a survey featuring criteria important to them, including
    • Schedules
    • Grade-point average (GPA)
    • Leadership preferences
    • Skills (e.g., writing, software)
    • Discipline (e.g., engineering, psychology, computer science, business)
    • Commitment level
    • Demographics
  • Once the survey is administered to students, CATME collects student data on the various criteria
  • Instructors then select which criteria to use, weight each factor and determine the maximum and minimum team size in assigning members to teams.
  • The system algorithm then composes teams as specified.
• See instructional videos on CATME
• CATME includes other team-support tools, including:
  • Peer evaluation – collect and summarize self and peer feedback to support accountability and assessment of individual students and team dynamics
  • Rater practice – evaluates and provides feedback to students to improve their ability to rate teammates
  • Meeting support – templates for charters, agendas and minutes

References

• Layton, R.A., Loughry, M.L., Ohland, M.W., and Ricco, G.D. (2010). Design and validation of a web-based system for assigning members to teams using instructor-specified criteria. Advances in Engineering Education, 2(1), 1-28.

My Dream Team (MDT), built by the SONIC Research Group at Northwestern University

See My Dream Team here

• A social networking, web-based platform to help participants form project teams online
  • Assumes that the best teams are formed by members organically selecting their own teammates (not assigned)
  • Helps participants find professional collaborators (similar to how dating sites help individuals find romantic partners)
  • Has been used to assemble teams in undergraduate, graduate, and executive training programs.
• Steps in assembling a team:
  • Users answer personality and network-based survey questions to create an online profile based on six dimensions:
    • Personality
    • Social connections
    • Creativity
    • Skills
    • Leadership
    • Domains (e.g., sports, transportation, politics, finance)
  • Users then query My Dream Team to select teammates according to their preferences regarding networks, competencies, similarity and personality
  • The recommendation engine of My Dream Team uses matching and ranking algorithms to provide theoretically driven suggestions of potential teammates who match the queries.
  • Participants view these matches to ensure that they fit what they are looking for in potential teammates
  • Participants invite others to join their team and others can decide to accept or decline the invitation
• Watch My Dream Team introductory video on Youtube

• Consider applying research networking systems (e.g., CATME, MDT) to facilitate team assembly.
• Given the complexity of factors to consider with team assembly, it is advisable to start by staffing key team roles and then assemble the rest of the team around the most important positions.
• Choosing team members based on individual competencies alone is not sufficient to ensure team success.
  • Rather, it is important to consider the configuration or mix of members and whether they fit together on knowledge, skills, abilities, and other factors.
• Team assembly is only one step in building an effective team
  • Establishing a positive climate that builds trust and fostering team cohesion are critical for team success.
• Team interventions, including team building, team debriefs and/or leadership can aid in compensating for misaligned team assembly.

References

• Mohammed, S., and McKay, A.S. (2017). Selection for team membership: Complexity, contingency, and dynamism across multiple levels. In J. L. Farr and N. T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of Employee Selection (second edition, pp. 812-832). New York: Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group).
• Donsbach, J.S., Tannenbaum, S.I., Alliger, G.M., Mathieu, J.E., Salas, E., Goodwin, G.F., and Metcalf, K.A. (2009). Team composition optimization: The team optimal profile system (TOPS). Technical report 1249 for U.S. Army Research Institute.

• Harvard Business Review article by Leonardi and Contractor (2018) on using network-based relational analytics to assemble teams
• 8 Tips on Selecting Project Team Members

Team composition involves selecting the right team members, the right number and the right combination of team members based on taskwork and teamwork competencies.

• Team composition concerns:
  • The individual knowledge, skills and attitudes relevant to team performance
  • The best configuration or mix of member characteristics in a team
  • The role of diversity and complementarity in team effectiveness
• Two broad categories of member characteristics are:
  • Surface-level (overt demographic attributes such as gender, race and age) – as members get to know one another, the effect of surface-level diversity on outcomes decreases
  • Deep-level (underlying psychological attributes such as personality and values) – as members get to know one another, the effect of deep-level diversity on outcomes increases

References

• Salas, E., Shuffler, M.L., Thayer, A.L., Bedwell, W.L., and Lazzara, E.H. (2015). Understanding and improving teamwork in organizations: A scientifically based practical guide. Human resource management, 54(4), 599-622.
• Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H., Gavin, J.H., and Florey, A.T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029-1045.

• Selecting the right team members, the right number and the right combination of team members are key variables in the team effectiveness equation.
• Changes in team membership influence both team processes (e.g., communication, coordination) and team outcomes (e.g., performance, innovation, decision-making).

References

• Matheiu, J.E., Tannenbaum, S.I., Donsbach, J.S., and Alliger, G.M. (2014). A Review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 130-160.
• Shuffler, M.L., Diazgranados, D., Maynard, M.T., and Salas, E. (2018). Developing, sustaining, and maximizing team effectiveness: an integrative, dynamic perspective of team development interventions. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 688–724. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0045.

• The right size for a team depends on its goals, the type of team and task requirements.
  • More team members may be desirable when the environment is complex.
• Too few members can result in unreasonable work demands
• Larger teams:
  • Are generally advantaged by:
    • Division of labor
    • Greater expertise
  • Are generally disadvantaged by:
    • Lower member involvement
    • Increased coordination difficulties
    • Unnecessary redundancy
  • Staff teams with the smallest number of members required to do the work

  References

  • Mohammed, S., and McKay, A.S. (2017). Selection for team membership: Complexity,
    contingency, and dynamism across multiple levels. In J.L. Farr and N.T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of Employee Selection (second edition, pp. 812-832). New York: Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group).

Multiple studies have found that team performance increases when teams are composed of members who are:

• Intelligent
• Conscientious
• Agreeable
• Prefer to work in teams
• Diverse regarding functional background (e.g., marketing, engineering, sales)

In general, composing a team of talented, task-proficient team members increases the probability of team effectiveness, but does not guarantee it.

• A team of experts does not guarantee an expert team.
• Teams may struggle when individual members are proficient on technical skills because they are not team players and not a good fit for the team.
• Therefore, members should be selected based on both taskwork (technical competencies necessary to perform the task) and teamwork (characteristics that help members work together) competencies.
• Beyond the taskwork skills and abilities of members, research has demonstrated that generic teamwork skills predict team effectiveness, including:
  • Interpersonal skills
  • Communication skills
  • Preference for teamwork
  • Agreeableness

In addition to generic competencies, it is important to consider contingent teamwork competencies for specific teams that are influenced by team type, task demands, dynamism and team staffing variables.

Choosing team members based on individual competencies alone is not sufficient to ensure team success.

• The fit of members with each other and the team as a whole must be taken into account

References

• Mohammed, S., and McKay, A.S. (2017). Selection for team membership: Complexity, contingency, and dynamism across multiple levels. In J.L. Farr and N.T. Tippins (Eds.), Handbook of Employee Selection (second edition, pp. 812-832). New York: Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group).
• Salas, E., Shuffler, M.L., Thayer, A.L., Bedwell, W.L., and Lazzara, E.H. (2015). Understanding and improving teamwork in organizations: A scientifically based practical guide. Human resource management, 54(4), 599-622.

• Tannenbaum, S., and Salas, E. (2020). Teams that work: The seven drivers of team effectiveness. Oxford University Press.
  • Chapter 4 on team capabilities
• The Science and Art of Terrific Teams
  • Presents nine myths about teamwork, several of which deal with team composition
• Leading the Team You Inherit
  • A discussion of team composition consideration issues in a business context
• NIH: Research and methods for facilitating team composition and assembly in science teams