Multiple teams, multiple projects, multiple groups at the intersection of (multiple) research fields: A bibliometric study.

Multi-teaming is a concept studied across a variety of disciplines. While using a bibliometric approach on 255 research papers extracted from Web of Science, we aimed to depict the architecture of the multi-teaming concept across academic disciplines and time. Results of citation, co-citation and bibliographic coupling analyses identified four major fields looking at the concept of multi-teaming. The fields emerged over time from fragmentation to integration and acknowledging similarities. We identify gaps and propose (multi)-disciplinary research ideas that can benefit the field of multi-teaming.

Development and Validation of a Short Measure of Emotional, Physical, and Behavioral Markers of Eustress and Distress (MEDS).

We report the results of three validation studies for a short measure of emotional, physical, and behavioral markers of eustress and distress as they occur when individuals encounter stressful events in academic and organizational settings. Given the importance of the distinction between "positive" and "negative" stress as well as the recent resurgence of research exploring the differences between challenge and hindrance stress and between eustress and distress, it is important to put forward a short, validated scale that evaluates these constructs. Our short measure-the MEDS-therefore has important theoretical as well as practical implications. By showing that the eustress and distress subscales have adequate internal consistency and good construct and criterion validity, we open new avenues for research that extends our knowledge and understanding of the antecedents and consequences of eustress and distress. We also discuss appropriate uses of the scale in educational and organizational settings.

Death anxiety, job satisfaction and counterproductive work behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic: a comparative study of healthcare and non-healthcare professionals.

Healthcare professionals are the vanguard of battling the COVID-19 pandemic and they experience major challenges associated with their jobs in the context of this pandemic. We carried out a survey of 253 healthcare professionals and 189 employees working in other domains to explore differences in how they adapted to COVID-19. Our results show that healthcare professionals perceive a higher mortality threat, lower job satisfaction and engage in fewer counterproductive work behaviors compared to respondents from other professions. Building on the tenets of the Terror Management Theory, we show that dispositional differences in death anxiety are the main drivers of perceived mortality threat in relation to COVID-19, yet this positive association is weaker for healthcare professionals, pointing to the engagement of proximal defenses specific to this work domain. Mortality threat mediates the association between death anxiety and job satisfaction only when supervisory support is low, pointing towards the crucial role of social support at work as a buffering mechanism against the deleterious effects of COVID-19 threat. Our paper presents one of the first empirical attempts to compare healthcare professionals with other workers with respect to job satisfaction and counterproductive work behaviors during the pandemic.

In Leaders We Trust, or Should We? Supervisors' Dark Triad Personality Traits and Ratings of Team Performance and Innovation.

Our study tests in a sample of 87 organizational groups (297 employees and 87 supervisors) the mediating role of leader-member exchange (LMX) and collective narcissism in the relationship between supervisors' dark triad (SDT) personality traits and ratings of team outcomes made by supervisors and team members. We show that LMX mediates the association between SDT and team performance and innovation as rated by team members, while collective narcissism mediates the association between SDT and supervisory ratings of team innovation and team performance. Moreover, collective narcissism also mediates the association between SDT and team innovation as rated by team members. Results show that team-level performance appraisal is influenced by supervisory attributes and that the quality of relational exchanges and collective narcissism are plausible mechanisms explaining this association. The use of supervisory ratings of team outcomes in empirical research should also account for the supervisory attributes.

Multiple Team Membership, Performance, and Confidence in Estimation Tasks.

Multiple team membership (MTM) is a form of work organization extensively used nowadays to flexibly deploy human resources across multiple simultaneous projects. Individual members bring in their cognitive resources in these multiple teams and at the same time use the resources and competencies developed while working together. We test in an experimental study whether working in MTM as compared to a single team yields more individual performance benefits in estimation tasks. Our results fully support the group-to-individual (G-I) transfer of learning, yet the hypothesized benefits of knowledge variety and broader access to meta-knowledge relevant to the task in MTM as compared to single teams were not supported. In addition, we show that individual estimates improve only when members are part of groups with low or average collective estimation errors, while confidence in individual estimates significantly increases only when the collective confidence in the group estimates is average or high. The study opens valuable venues for using the dynamic model of G-I transfer of learning to explore individual learning in MTM.

Let's Not Joke about It Too Much! Exposure to COVID-19 Messaging, Attitudes and Protective Behavioral Intentions.

Our study evaluates the role of exposure to COVID-19 messaging in negativity towards COVID-19 and the intentions to engage in protective behaviors. Building on the theory of planned behavior (TPB), we derive a mediation model and test it in a sample of 737 participants (556 Romanians and 181 Kazakhs). The exposure to general information concerning COVID-19 positively predicts negative attitudes, negative emotions and the emergence of subjective norms in relation to COVID-19, as well as the likelihood of engaging in protective behavioral intentions. The exposure to humoristic communication, however, diluted the positive association between exposure to general information and negative attitudes, as well as negative emotions. The results support the overall predictions of the TPB and report positive associations between negative attitudes towards COVID-19, subjective norms and behavioral control on the one hand, and protective behavioral intentions on the other. Negative emotions significantly predict the likelihood of engaging in protective behaviors. Our results also show that older respondents tend to develop more negative attitudes towards COVID-19, yet they do not report stronger intentions to engage in protective behaviors than younger respondents. An important emergent result shows that time lapse seems to increase negativity towards COVID-19, yet it does not directly increase the likelihood of engaging in protective behaviors. Implications for public health communication related to COVID-19 are discussed.

Minority Dissent and Social Acceptance in Collaborative Learning Groups.

The main aim of this paper is to test the extent to which social acceptance moderates the impact of minority dissent on group cognitive complexity (GCC). We hypothesize that divergent views expressed by a minority increase GCC especially when the group climate is open to divergent contributions (e.g., a socially accepting group climate). We also hypothesize that group size has a non-linear association with GCC in such a way that GCC increases as group size increases from low to average and then GCC decreases as group size further increases from average to high. We test these hypotheses in a sample of 537 students (258 women, with an average age of 23.35) organized in 92 groups that have worked together in the same group throughout the semester, and show that: (1) group size has a decreasing positive association with GCC, (2) both minority dissent and social acceptance are beneficial for GCC and (3) groups with the highest GCC are those that experience minority dissent and develop a socially accepting climate (in which group members can equally participate to the task), allowing the majority to process the dissenting views extensively.

The "Emotional Side" of Entrepreneurship: A Meta-Analysis of the Relation between Positive and Negative Affect and Entrepreneurial Performance.

The experience of work in an entrepreneurial context is saturated with emotional experiences. While the literature on the relation between affect and entrepreneurial performance (EP) is growing, there was no quantitative integration of the results so far. This study addresses this gap and meta-analytically integrates the results from 17 studies (N = 3810) in order to estimate the effect size for the relation between positive (PA) and negative affect (NA), on the one hand, and EP, on the other hand. The meta-analysis includes studies in English language, published until August 2016. The results indicate a significant positive relation between PA and EP, r = 0.18. The overall NA - EP relation was not significant, r = -0.12. Only state NA has a significant negative relation with EP (r = -0.16). The moderating role of several conceptual (i.e., emotion duration, integrality etc.), sample (i.e., gender, age, education) and methodological characteristics of the studies (i.e., type of measurements etc.) are explored and implications for future research are discussed.

When none of us perform better than all of us together: the role of analogical decision rules in groups.

During social interactions, groups develop collective competencies that (ideally) should assist groups to outperform average standalone individual members (weak cognitive synergy) or the best performing member in the group (strong cognitive synergy). In two experimental studies we manipulate the type of decision rule used in group decision-making (identify the best vs. collaborative), and the way in which the decision rules are induced (direct vs. analogical) and we test the effect of these two manipulations on the emergence of strong and weak cognitive synergy. Our most important results indicate that an analogically induced decision rule (imitate-the-successful heuristic) in which groups have to identify the best member and build on his/her performance (take-the-best heuristic) is the most conducive for strong cognitive synergy. Our studies bring evidence for the role of analogy-making in groups as well as the role of fast-and-frugal heuristics for group decision-making.