Teams of psychologists helping teams: The evolution of the science of team training.

Team training contributes to improved performance, reduced errors, and even saving lives-and it exists today because psychologists collaborated across domains to contribute their expertise. Our objective was to highlight the salient role of multidisciplinary collaboration in the success of team training, an area driven by psychologists responding to real-world problems. In this article, we deliver (a) a historical account of team training research, acknowledging critical turning points that shaped the science; (b) a synthesis of major contributions from subdisciplines of psychology; and (c) a collection of lessons learned in the science and practice of team training. We begin with the history of problems that created a need for solutions and the psychologists across domains who worked together to develop a science to improve teamwork. We give poignant examples of fatal mistakes that incited action and enabled scientific breakthroughs through research partnerships. Next, we detail the theoretical drivers behind the science and the hands-on approach of investigating how we turn a team of experts into an expert team. We discuss the spectrum of team training research throughout time, including major influences that shifted dominant paradigms of thought, while emphasizing its multidisciplinary nature and the contributions of psychologists. Finally, we provide a list of lessons learned from a half-century of multidisciplinary research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Multiple Patient Casualty Scenarios: A Measurement Tool for Teamwork.

INTRODUCTION: Teamwork is a critical aspect of patient care and is especially salient in response to multiple patient casualties. Effective training and measurement improve team performance. However, the literature currently lacks a scientifically developed measure of team performance within multiple causality scenarios, making training and feedback efforts difficult. The present effort addresses this gap by integrating the input of subject matter experts and the science of multicasualty teams and training to (1) identify overarching teamwork processes and corresponding behaviors necessary for team performance and (2) develop a behavioral observation tool to optimize teamwork in multicasualty training efforts. METHOD: A search of articles including team performance frameworks associated with team training was conducted, leading to the identification of a total of 14 articles. Trained coders extracted teamwork processes and the corresponding team behaviors indicative of effective performance from these articles. Five subject matter experts were interviewed using the critical incident technique to identify additional behaviors. RESULTS: Team situation awareness, team leadership, coordination, and information exchange emerged as the four core team processes required for team performance in scenarios with multiple patient casualties. Relevant behaviors and subbehaviors within these overarching processes were identified to inform a pilot behavioral framework of team performance. CONCLUSIONS: The processes and associated behaviors identified within this effort serve as scientifically grounded behaviors of team performance in the case of multiple patient casualties simulated training scenarios. Future work can use and further refine these results to ensure that measures of team performance are grounded in specific, observable, and scientifically delineated behaviors.

The science of teamwork: Progress, reflections, and the road ahead.

We need teams in nearly every aspect of our lives (e.g., hospitals, schools, flight decks, nuclear power plants, oil rigs, the military, and corporate offices). Nearly a century of psychological science has uncovered extensive knowledge about team-related processes and outcomes. In this article, we draw from the reviews and articles of this special issue to identify 10 key reflections that have arisen in the team literature, briefly summarized here. Team researchers have developed many theories surrounding the multilayered aspects of teams, such that now we have a solid theoretical basis for teams. We have recognized that the collective is often stronger than the individual, initiating the shift from individual tasks to team tasks. All teams are not created equal, so it is important to consider the context to understand relevant team dynamics and outcomes, but sometimes teams performing in different contexts are more similar than not. It is critical to have teamwork-supportive organizational conditions and environments where psychological safety can flourish and be a mechanism to resolve conflicts, ensure safety, mitigate errors, learn, and improve performance. There are also helpful teamwork competencies that can increase effectiveness across teams or tasks that have been identified (e.g., coordination, communication, and adaptability). Even if a team is made up of experts, it can still fail if they do not know how to cooperate, coordinate, and communicate well together. To ensure the improvement and maintenance of effective team functioning, the organization must implement team development interventions and evaluate relevant team outcomes with robust diagnostic measurement. We conclude with 3 main directions for scientists to expand upon in the future: (a) address issues with technology to make further improvements in team assessment, (b) learn more about multiteam systems, and (c) bridge the gap between theory and practice. In summary, the science of teams has made substantial progress but still has plenty of room for advancement. (PsycINFO Database Record

Leadership training design, delivery, and implementation: A meta-analysis.

Recent estimates suggest that although a majority of funds in organizational training budgets tend to be allocated to leadership training (Ho, 2016; O'Leonard, 2014), only a small minority of organizations believe their leadership training programs are highly effective (Schwartz, Bersin, & Pelster, 2014), calling into question the effectiveness of current leadership development initiatives. To help address this issue, this meta-analysis estimates the extent to which leadership training is effective and identifies the conditions under which these programs are most effective. In doing so, we estimate the effectiveness of leadership training across four criteria (reactions, learning, transfer, and results; Kirkpatrick, 1959) using only employee data and we examine 15 moderators of training design and delivery to determine which elements are associated with the most effective leadership training interventions. Data from 335 independent samples suggest that leadership training is substantially more effective than previously thought, leading to improvements in reactions (δ = .63), learning (δ = .73), transfer (δ = .82), and results (δ = .72), the strength of these effects differs based on various design, delivery, and implementation characteristics. Moderator analyses support the use of needs analysis, feedback, multiple delivery methods (especially practice), spaced training sessions, a location that is on-site, and face-to-face delivery that is not self-administered. Results also suggest that the content of training, attendance policy, and duration influence the effectiveness of the training program. Practical implications for training development and theoretical implications for leadership and training literatures are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record