The Future of Psychology Practice and Science

The July-August 2010 issue of the American Psychologist includes the 2009 American Psychological Association (APA) Presidential Address of James H. Bray, Ph.D. entitled The Future of Psychology Practice and Science.

In his address he identified human factors as one of nine “growth areas for psychological science” in the 21 century.

Other interesting points include:

• Psychological science makes life-changing contributions to our society, but psychologists often are not recognized for these contributions. (p. 355)
• As our consulting and applied psychologists know, psychologists do much more than provide mental health services. Helping business and industry cope with the uncertainty caused by global changes in the world economy and helping them maintain psychologically healthy workplaces and workforces present extraordinary opportunities for our profession. (p. 360)
• Although there are many types of psychologists, our common core includes our methods and scientific rigor. Our methods and scientific rigor are a double-edged sword, however, as many of our methods (e.g., measurement models and assessments) are strong on internal validity issues while ignoring external validity and application to the solving of social problems. (p. 363)
• Human factors psychologists have already made major advances through research in aviation safety and training, human–machine computer interfaces (e.g., Google), and traffic safety. An exciting and promising development is the application of safety research conducted in aviation to the health care arena to improve patient safety during medical procedures. Both human factors and I/O methods in team building and functioning are improving medical outcomes through increased patient safety. (p. 364)
• Utilizing the strengths of psychological methods and theories can enhance the work of many basic sciences, as there is almost always a human and psychological component in applying new scientific and technological advances. (p. 365)
• We need more psychologists employed by or as consultants to agencies that are tackling global problems such as environmental change, war, displacement, manmade and natural disasters, and famine. We can spend billions of dollars to develop new technologies, but in the end, if people do not use them correctly they will be underutilized, will not work, or will contribute to further problems (cf. Han et al., 2005). This is another area of research in which psychologists can play important roles. (p. 366)
• We need to change the way we train our students and, most likely, the places in which we train them. These types of changes necessitate that we collaborate with professions outside of psychology while maintaining our unique identity as psychologists. For science, we need to collaborate more with economists, engineers, neuroscientists, and computer scientists and to set up joint training programs to take advantage of each discipline’s unique strengths. (p. 367)
• In summary, our profession can make a difference that makes a difference, and we can create a future in which our nation benefits from the application of our rich and varied science to the grand challenges of our society and the individuals we serve. (p. 367)

 Print This Post

On Teams, Teamwork, and Team Performance

Salas, Cooke, and Rosen (2008) provide a concise overview “…of the key discoveries and developments in the area of team performance over the past 50 years, especially as reflected in the pages of Human Factors” (p. 540). Specifically, they highlight eight discoveries, along with supporting evidence for each, and five challenges researchers need to address, including:

Discoveries

1. Shared cognition matters in team performance.
2. Shared cognition can be measured.
3. Team training promotes teamwork and enhances team performance.
4. Synthetic task environments (STEs) provide context for research.
5. Team performance can be modeled.
6. Factors that influence team performance have been identified.
7. Well-designed technology can improve team performance.
8. The field belongs to many disciplines.

Challenges

1. We need better measurement.
2. We need to study teams “in the wild.”
3. We need a better understanding of dynamic assembly of adaptive teams.
4. We need an increase emphasis on team cognition.
5. We need a better understanding of teams in a multicultural context.

The authors close the article by making the following comments:

In sum, there is a science of team performance that has met much of the demand from organizations for guidance on the formation and management of teams. But the work is not done; there are discoveries and developments yet to come. The field must continue to keep pace with new demands from a continuously changing workplace. To achieve advances in our abilities to understand, predict, control, and design for team performance in the coming decades, we must forge functional partnerships between researchers and practitioners across scientific disciplines and domains of application. (p. 545)

References

Salas, E., Cooke, N.J., & Rosen, M.A. (2008).  On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments.  Human Factors, 50, 540-547. (104 KB, .pdf)

 Print This Post

How Can Leaders Facilitate Organizational Learning?

Organizational learning is vital to surviving (and thriving) in a rapidly changing business environment.  Thus, business leaders should strive to create conditions that facilitate organizational learning.  Yukl (2009) provides several examples of approaches leaders can undertake to encourage organizational learning, including (p. 50):

• Encourage people to question traditional methods and look for innovative new approaches that will be more effective.
• Articulate an inspiring vision to gain support for innovative changes from members of the organization.
• Encourage and facilitate the acquisition of skills needed for collective learning by individuals and teams.
• Strengthen values consistent with learning from experience and openness to new knowledge, thereby helping to create a learning culture in the organization.
• Help people develop shared mental models about cause-effect relationships and the determinants of performance for the team or organization.
• Encourage social networks that will facilitate knowledge sharing, collaborative development of creative ideas, and the acquisition of political support for innovations.
• Help people recognize when important learning has occurred and to understand the implications for the team or organization.
• Gain external support and financing for major initiatives involving the acquisition or application of new knowledge (e.g., acquisitions or joint ventures).
• Encourage experiments to gain more knowledge about the likely effects of changes before implementing them on a large scale in a way that cannot easily be aborted.
• Encourage teams to conduct after-activity reviews to identify effective and ineffective processes.
• Develop measures of collective learning and knowledge diffusion to assess how well it is accomplished and identify ways to improve it (learning how to learn).
• Encourage people to acknowledge when a new initiative is failing and should be aborted rather than continuing to waste resources on it.
• Create decentralized subunits with considerable authority to pursue learning and entrepreneurial activities in a responsible way.
• Develop, implement, and support programs and systems that will encourage and reward the discovery of new knowledge and its diffusion and application in the organization.

References

Yukl, G. (2009).  Leading organizational learning: Reflections on theory and research.  The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 49-53.

 Print This Post

Seven Key Reviews of the Teams Literature

In an increasingly complex work environment, organizations are relying more than ever on effective teams to meet their goals.

But, what are the best ways to create and support teams?  One method of answering this question is to identify best practices from the scientific literature.

Below are seven reviews that provide an overview to the breadth and complexity of research on teams.

• 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, 517–543. (256 KB, .pdf)
• Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 12 (pp. 333-375). London: Wiley.
• Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124. (456 KB, .pdf)
• 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, 410-476.
• McGrath, J.E., Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J.L. (2000).  The study of groups: Past, present, and future.  Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 95-105. (60 KB, .pdf)
• Salas, E., Stagl, K. C., & Burke, C. S. (2004). 25 years of team effectiveness in organizations: Research themes and emerging needs.  In C. L. Cooper & I.T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial organizational psychology: Vol. 19 (pp. 47-92).  New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• 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 R. A. Dienstbier, J. W. Shuart, W. Spaulding, & J. Poland (Eds.), Modeling complex systems: Motivation, cognition and social processes: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol 51 (pp. 185–243). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

 Print This Post

Types of Teams

Over the years, the scientific literature has conceptualized several types of teams. They’ve been characterized based on different classifications, dimensions, and features. Below are some of the more popular examples:

Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, and Smith (1999)

• Tasks
• Goals
• Roles
• Process Emphasis
• Performance Demands

Sundstrom, McIntyre, Halfhill, and Richards (2000)

• Production
• Service
• Management
• Project
• Action and Performing
• Advisory

Devine (2002)

• Executive
• Command
• Negotiation
• Commission
• Design
• Advisory
• Service
• Production
• Performance
• Medical
• Response
• Military
• Transportation
• Sports

Hackman and Wageman (2005)

• “Surgical” teams
• Coaching Groups
• Face-to-Face Teams
• Virtual Teams
• “Sand Dune” Teams

References

Devine, D.J. (2002). A review and integration of classification systems relevant to teams in organizations. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 291-310.

Hackman, J.R., & Wageman, R. (2005). When and how team leaders matter. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 37-74.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., & Smith, E. M. (1999). Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, personnel actions, and development (pp. 240–292). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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, 44-67.

 Print This Post