Thursday 23 July 2015, by Maša Vidmar

When introducing local ESL multi-professional teams, consideration should be given to designing the team in accordance with the institutional context, shared vision, the development of the team and task competencies of team members, adequate team composition, the required training of team members and the development of leadership expertise.

Multi-professional teams at the local level have been recognised as important for tackling ESL, but many challenges still lie ahead. Two interrelated and complementary articles aim to bring forward expertise from the teams and small groups literature to help deal with challenges and contribute to awareness of what is needed for teams to function effectively at the micro-level: this first article focuses on the factors that shape, leverage or align team processes (part I), whereas the second article looks at the team processes (including emergent states) per se (part II). Findings from this article show that ESL teams are complex, dynamic and cyclic systems that operate at multiple interacting levels (individual, team, organisation). Teams are characterised by the interdependence of members’ action, shared responsibility, common goals, specialised roles and positioning within a broader organisational context/school (Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, 2011; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). The article identifies several factors that influence team processes. Team design means that teams have to be designed in accordance with the general institutional (system) context (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Team composition and competencies refer to the fact that ESL team members require adequate task- and team-related competencies; moreover, the composition of competencies across members is to be considered as well as the non-equal influence of members (Mathieu et al., 2014). Leadership expertise should also receive attention (Burke et al., 2006). Finally, team training has been proven to impact different team-related variables (e.g. Salas et al., 2008) and thus needs to be embedded in an ESL team via various training media (e.g. videos and exercises that replicate or simulate the task context). Based on this, the following recommendations may be emphasised to ensure ESL teams function effectively: (1) development of members’ task competencies related to ESL; (2) development of members’ team competencies (i.e. social and interpersonal knowledge, skills and attitudes); (3) utilisation of cross-training to improve how well team members know and understand each other’s positions; and (4) keeping the size of the team below 10.


Multi-professional teams operating on the local level (in and around schools) are a grassroots form of cross-sectorial cooperation aimed at tackling ESL (European Commission, 2013). In the present article, we review scientific theoretical and empirical findings about the micro-level approach to teams (groups) [1] rather than the macro-level approach of cross-sector collaboration at the policy (system) level (for a framework of cross-sectoral collaboration also see Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006; Hood, Logsdon, & Thompson, 1993). The reason for promulgating the scientific findings on teams (groups) is twofold: (1) cross-sectoral collaborations show many characteristics that are common to all groups; and (2) the integration of the critical concepts from the group literature is missing in the cross-sector collaboration literature (Hood et al., 1993). Since the body of literature on the topic is very large and the topic of cross-sectoral team collaboration lies in the focus of the TITA project, we decided to present an overview of key scientific findings in two separate yet interrelated articles. In this first article, we focus on the factors that shape, leverage or align team processes (part I), whereas in the second article we concentrate on team processes (including emergent states) per se (part II; see Figure 1).

As depicted in Figure 1, the science of teams (groups) acknowledges the importance and embeddedness of the team within the environment, organisations or wider system, but focuses on aspects of team functioning and team effectiveness at a micro-level. Thus, the aim of the present article is to examine the impressive body of theoretical and empirical literature on small groups and teams to help understand (multi-professional) teams’ daily functioning at the grassroots level and thus help deal with the challenges.

We begin our article with the contemporary conceptual framework for understanding teams. This is followed by a review of factors that shape, leverage or align team processes and a team’s emergent states. In addition, how knowledge can be applied to the field of ESL multi-professional teams is presented; these practical insights are marked in italics.


First, we conducted computerised literature searches in electronic sources (PsycINFO, PsyArticles, ScienceDirect, ABI/INFORM Complete and Google Scholar) using a variety of relevant keywords, e.g. team composition, team processes, team competencies, team leadership, team conflict, team performance, team effectiveness, small group research, group dynamics, meta-analysis. Second, we examined references cited in other articles (i.e., ‘backward search’ procedures). Third, we examined relevant chapters in major handbooks of work, organisation and industrial psychology.

The focus was on examining meta-analytical and review articles; this was complemented by examining individual empirical studies. Emphasis was on recent literature published in the last two decades (since 1995). Most of the reviewed work builds on or integrates previous theoretical and empirical work. The methodology for this article and its continuation in the second article was common.

Conceptual framework: contemporary perspective on teams

Figure 1 illustrates the contemporary perspective on teams [2] and explains the article’s focus (the top rectangle). Environmental dynamics and complexity influence the team’s task. The focus in this article is on factors that affect team processes and emergent states. Together, this results in team effectiveness. Team effectiveness, in turn, influences the environment in ongoing cycles. This represents the theoretical framework and relevant empirical studies are reviewed below.

JPEG - 515.7 kb
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for understanding team effectiveness (adapted from Ilgen Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005; Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).

There are many definitions of teams, but they generally all emphasise similar features:

  • two or more members;
  • the interdependence of members’ action (one member cannot resolve the issue alone; members depend on each other in their workflow);
  • shared responsibility (members are brought together to accomplish a task, outcome);
  • common goals (members have one or more meaningful and valued goals to achieve);
  • specialised roles (members have different roles or functions); and
  • positioning within the broader organisational context (with boundaries and linkages to the broader system that presumably affects their performance) (Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, 2011).
    Teams are complex, adaptive and dynamic systems that affect and are affected by a number of individual, task, situational, environmental and organisational factors as they perform a task over time (ibid.; for a review of the team’s ecosystem, see Bryson et al., 2006; Hood et al., 1993). Team tasks and team capabilities are not fixed (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006) and team functioning is not linear, consecutive or static. Teams can be observed at multiple levels (i.e. individual, team) and these levels interact with each other. The life of a team is cyclic (Ilgen et al., 2005) which can be brief, recurring or enduring (Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, 2011). Teams are often engaged in multiple tasks that vary in duration and are at different stages of their development (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).

ESL teams clearly fit into the described conceptualisation. They are embedded within the school/community and are composed of several members who have a shared goal and responsibility to prevent ESL. To achieve this, they need to align their actions. The work of the team depends on the characteristics of each member (e.g. teacher’s competence), the task (e.g. to understand and stop a student’s increased truancy), the situation (e.g. an especially difficult personal and family history of the potential ESLer) and other environmental/organisational factors (e.g. new regulation adopted at the school level, renovation of school building; national strategy against ESL adopted) and these variables all influence each other. This process is cyclic, meaning that a similar cycle occurs every time a new student is introduced to the ESL team (at the same time the work with other potential ESL students continues, hence the team is engaged in multiple tasks). The process is constantly changing over time as new conditions are introduced (e.g. a new team member; another (potential) ESLer).

Factors that shape, leverage or align team processes

In the following sections, we present the factors that influence the processes and emergent states that occur within a team.

Team design

Even though this may seem obvious, it is important to ensure that the team is designed in accordance with the organisational context (does the organisation/government provide rewards, education/training and information at the individual and team level for team work) and has support and resources (competence and finance) to accomplish the task (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). This is not only important at the time of establishing the team, but throughout its lifetime.

With regard to ESL teams, this means they have to find (be given) their place in the school functioning – they have to be embedded in the school life, but also in the wider education system. Team members and the team as a whole have to be given relevant information as to what is the ESL team mission (task) and some guidelines on how to accomplish it (how to organise their work, how to address specific problems, which responsibilities and jurisdictions they have etc.). Their appropriate training and financial incentives also have to be provided for (being a member of an ESL team requires time – either this is paid separately or other workload is decreased).

Team composition

Team composition research examines the attributes of team members and how combinations of these characteristics across team members influence processes, emergent states and outcomes (Mathieu, Tannenbaum, Donsbach, & Alliger, 2014). These researchers have posited the four different theoretical models about team composition listed below; in parentheses empirical studies supporting each model are listed. In the area of team composition, one must simultaneously consider all four different aspects/models:

  1. the level of individuals’ task-related competencies (high levels of task-related skills are better; Devine & Philips, 2001; Cooke et al., 2003);
  2. the level of individuals’ team-related competencies (high levels of teamwork competence are better; Stevens & Campion, 1994; Morgeson, Reider, & Campion, 2005);
  3. the combination of relevant characteristics across members (e.g. what does each member bring in relation to the other members – the ‘strongest’ and the ‘weakest’ level of a characteristic, the average, the heterogeneity; Bell, Villado, Lukasik, Belau, & Briggs, 2011; Jackson, Joshi, & Erhardt, 2003);
  4. which competencies are possessed by members in core versus peripheral roles (‘critical team member’, ‘core’ team roles; Bell, 2007; Humphrey, Morgeson, & Mannor, 2009).

In addition, these aspects are dynamic and change over time:

  1. at different stages of the team’s cycle different aspects of the team composition are significant (e.g. early in the team’s cycle, the team’s average and variance of uncertainty avoidance is relevant; later in the team’s cycle average and variance of relationship orientation is important; Cheng, Chua, Morris, & Lee, 2012);
  2. members’ position and roles may change over time as does the importance of the position/role; and
  3. team memberships change over time (on one hand, membership adjustment allows for better alignment with the demands but, on the other, membership changes also disrupt team functioning; Summers, Humphrey, & Ferris, 2012) and histories of members working together are important (Mathieu et al., 2014).

In ESL multi-professional teams each team member has competence related to their profession – task-related competence (i.e. technical competence required by the job; e.g. guidance counsellor knows a variety of out-of-school-programmes in the community available to the youngster); each member also possesses a certain level of competencies relevant for working in the group – team-related competence (i.e. knowledge and skills about teamwork – social and interpersonal requirements; e.g. emotional intelligence). Taken together, all members form a team profile that can be described by average or variance (heterogeneity) or minimum or maximum (mean level of general cognitive ability, the level of minimum disagreeableness, average preference for teamwork etc.). Moreover, some members may be more influential (for different reasons) than others – e.g. the school head’s suggestions may be taken more seriously due to their position, or the counsellor may make a good conflict manager due to their professional expertise or the teacher/nurse may have specific relevant information about or experience with a student. Further, the influence of a member may change over time (e.g. depending on which competencies are needed in each stage).

It is expected that some members will be more permanent (school counsellors, school heads) while for others (e.g. school nurses, teacher) memberships will perhaps be more flexible to reflect the needs of the potential ESLer. The level of disturbance caused by these changes depends on the relative task- and team-related competencies of the leavers and arrivers and how they fit in with the team profile and which position they occupy (Mathieu et al., 2014). Thus, when replacing a team member, the strategy should not focus only on ‘position requirements’, but also on the other aspects described above. For example, if a ‘temporary member’ possesses an attribute relevant for team functioning and no other member can take this role (e.g. good at managing conflicts), the team leader may decide to keep the person in the team even though the professional may not be directly linked to the potential ESLer or his/her situation. Considering the two types of members in ESL multi-professional groups, it seems that permanent members are more crucial in terms of team functioning and this should guide the team composition and decisions regarding the necessary professional development programmes (training), feedback and team building. Some team members are likely to have already worked together and this experience may positively or negatively influence working in ESL teams.

The key message from team composition is that while the right mix of people in a team sets the stage for team effectiveness – the ‘right mix’ is not a static property. In addition, awareness of the described aspects/models in team composition can make the decisions in this regard more transparent (e.g. when assigning members to teams; when targeting human resource efforts – e.g. training) or, perhaps more importantly, can help anticipate problems and take preventive actions (Mathieu et al., 2014).

Team diversity

Team composition is linked with the concept of diversity; it refers to how homogenous or heterogeneous is the composition of a team with regard to different features. Multi-professional ESL teams are by definition diverse in their demographics, i.e. functional background (e.g. teaching, administration, counselling) and educational background (e.g. degree in psychology). Theoretical classifications describe this as highly job-related (Weber & Donahue, 2001) and surface-level diversity (Bell, 2007). Both attributes reflect a team member’s type of knowledge, attitude and perspective that the member brings to the task and both are expected to lead to a broader task-relevant perspective, thus increasing the team’s success (e.g. teachers are expected to contribute with their teaching and pedagogical experience and with insight from the classroom concerning a specific student). Indeed, a meta-analysis of empirical studies by Bell and colleagues (2011) examined demographic diversity and performance; and functional background diversity had a positive (albeit small) relationship with general team performance as well as with team creativity and innovation, while educational background variety was related to team creativity and innovation.

Team competencies

Authors (e.g. Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, 2011) highlight two separate tracks of activities within the team: task-work (what it is that the team is doing) and team-work (how they are doing it with each other – social interactions, the relationship among members). This is linked to the two sets of competencies – task(work) competencies and team(work) competencies.

Based on the work of other scholars, Cannon-Bowers and Bowers (2011) summarise the team competencies that have replaced the personality-based approach. Competencies are essentially composed of knowledge, skills and attitudes (i.e. KSA) and are easier to influence (via selection or training) than trait attributes. Team competencies are:

  1. Knowledge: knowledge of teamwork skills, knowledge of team roles
  2. Skills:
    1. adaptability (reallocation of team resources),
    2. interpersonal factors (conflict resolution, ability to negotiate, cooperativeness, desire to help others, interpersonal trust),
    3. team management and leadership (task motivation, goal-setting abilities, ability to establish roles and expectations, organising abilities),
    4. assertiveness (sharing ideas clearly and directly),
    5. mutual performance monitoring (ability to give, seek and receive feedback), communication (ability to clearly and accurately exchange information),
    6. cross-boundary factors (ability to build links with organisation or other teams); and
  3. Attitudes: a preference for teamwork (inclination to be part of a team).
    Along the same lines, Steven and Campion (1994, 1999) identified interpersonal and self-management KSA as important for teamwork. These KSA should be considered in the processes of selection, training, performance appraisal, career development, compensation and job analysis (Steven & Campion, 1994).

In ESL teams, first, task analysis is warranted at least at some general level to identify the competencies required to perform team- and task-related tasks (Burke, 2005). Team-related competencies in this context refer to knowledge about interpersonal relations and teamwork as well as to skills on how to interact with other team members effectively and a positive attitude to working together; other team members have a different educational background and different experience, the role in the school, their position may be hierarchically below or above one’s position – all this makes team competencies much needed. Task-related competencies in this context are specific ESL competencies, i.e. knowledge and understanding of ESL, skills that help prevent/re-integrate ESLers, preference for working with ESLers. When designing the ESL team, task and team competencies must be considered, although it appears that team competencies are often neglected.

Second, some systematic approach to developing teamwork competencies is needed (taking the team composition model described above into account). Third, when possible it would be worth taking teamwork competencies into account for future candidate selection (to some degree these team competencies are generic; Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, 2011). Fourth, a system for monitoring effectiveness and allowing for appropriate compensation for the team members must be put in place.

Team size

There is no straight-forward answer concerning the question to the optimal size of the teams, perhaps because the answer depends on the task, purpose and responsibility of the team (Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, 2011). However, scholars indicate that as the group grows larger this has negative effects on various dimensions, e.g. member satisfaction, cooperation (Forsyth, 2010; Levine & Moreland, 1990). Parker (2003) recommends that for cross-functional teams 6 to 10 members is the optimal team size, indicating this would be an optimal size also for ESL multi-professional teams.

Team training

Every team training or training intervention needs to specify the objectives (what has to be learnt – e.g. knowledge, skills, changes in attitudes). Training objectives depend on the team goals, job design and training needs – at the individual or team level (Campbell & Kuncel, 2005). Training needs are aligned with the required teamwork and taskwork competencies (see above).

There are many ways to build teamwork competencies. The focus can be on the individual (e.g. assertiveness training), the team (e.g. cross-training) or both (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004). The training can be delivered via specific instructional methods and training media, e.g. lecture, synthetic experiences (simulation, exercises) (Campbell & Kuncel, 2005; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Empirical evidence in a meta-analysis showed that team training fosters team cognitive and affective outcomes (i.e. emergent states), teamwork processes, and performance outcomes (Salas et al., 2008) – essentially, it affects factors that shape, align or leverage team processes, team processes per se as well as team effectiveness directly. Attention to post-training procedures (training evaluation, transfer and application of newly gained KSA of training) is also needed (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001).

The most important implication for ESL multi-professional teams is that team training is effective and should thus become an integral part of the team’s existence. For ESL multi-professional teams, cross-training (i.e. exposure to and practice on team members’ tasks), specifically positional clarification (explanation of team members’ general position and responsibilities) and positional modelling (duties of each member are discussed and observed) are the most relevant (see Day et al., 2004). This means that upon establishing the ESL team some sessions (meetings) would be devoted so that each member (e.g. teacher, external actor) explains their general role and responsibility in the ESL team and that these are discussed; such cross-training helps avoid future misconceptions and false expectations about what other ESL team members can or should do. Thus, cross training can be beneficial for the team’s communication and coordination strategies as well as improve the team’s anticipatory behaviour (Day et al., 2004). Team self-correction training through which the team is taught to diagnose, design and implement solutions to its team functional problems also seems worth considering. Assertiveness training (i.e. to communicate effectively when offering or requesting assistance, offering a potential solution, or providing feedback) is also called for. This is essentially training in communication for ESL team members that helps the members express their thoughts in an unoffending way and also receive others’ ideas without being offended.

The design of ESL multi-professional team training is based on the assumption that members have already received adequate training and education in their discipline (e.g. teachers, nurses). However, it is important to note that these trainings generally do not include team competencies, potentially leading to difficulties in functioning of the ESL team. Team competencies of ESL team members should be systematically developed.

Team leadership

Leadership in teams matters for team performance outcomes (Burke et al., 2006) as well as for supporting a range of team processes (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Contemporary theoretical perspectives on team leadership view it as an outcome of team processes that provide resources for better team adaptation and performance in subsequent performance cycles; this perspective complements the perspective of leadership as an input to team processes and effectiveness (Day et al., 2004). The key point is that both leadership and team processes influence each other (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001). Team leadership is considered a dynamic process in which the leader’s behaviour changes/adapts (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006).

In the theoretical framework leadership behaviours are classified in four large categories: information search and structuring, information use and problem-solving, managing personnel resources, and managing material resources (Fleishman et al., 1991). Other types of leadership in the context of cross-sector team cooperation also exist (e.g. Bryson et al., 2006; Hood et al., 1993). Leadership behaviour can also be seen along two dimensions: task-focused leadership (dealing with task accomplishment) and person-focused leadership (dealing with team interaction and development, i.e. with socio-emotional aspects; Burke et al., 2006). Meta-analyses of empirical studies (Burke et al., 2006) showed that both types of behaviour contribute significantly to team-perceived effectiveness and also to team productivity.

Recently the idea of distributed /shared leadership has received increasing attention, including distributed leadership in education (Day et al., 2004; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamon, 2000). Distributed leadership conceptualises leadership as something that emerges within a team (it goes beyond the attributes of the individual/leader; Day et al., 2004); it is not concentrated in one person (the leader), instead leadership behaviour is performed by multiple team members (Nicolaides et al., 2014). Meta-analysis of empirical studies demonstrated that shared leadership has important effects on performance over and above the effects of vertical leadership (ibid.).

Two complementing implications arise for ESL multi-professional leadership. On one hand, team leaders need to be trained in both task- and person-focused types of behaviour. On the other hand, the whole team rather than an individual leader may be the most appropriate target for developing leadership expertise, i.e. behaviours, mind-set, actions (Spillane et al., 2000). Given the nature of ESL teams and their functioning within the school system, it seems that task- and person- focused leadership are more appropriate – thus, the leader deals with the task as well as with the socio-emotional aspects of the team.


ESL multi-professional teams have emerged as a promising measure against ESL. However, it seems that findings from the science on teams have not been taken into consideration when implementing (or advancing existing) teams designed to address ESL. Empirical studies show that teams have to be designed (not just put together) and, in designing them, several factors should be given attention: is a clear, valued and shared vision established, do teams fit into the general institutional (system) context, do team members have the required team- and task-related competencies (have they received adequate training, been given information or instructions on dealing with the task), is the team composed of relevant actors, is the time and financial aspect of team functioning accounted for, what kind of leadership is needed for the functioning of teams and who is doing it.

ESL teams have no easy task to deal with, but when attention to these aspects is provided their work is facilitated. It makes it more likely they will be successful in accomplishing their mission. Based on the review of the scientific literature on teams and the context of ESL multi-professional teams, the following recommendations can be emphasised: (1) development of members’ team competencies (i.e. social and interpersonal knowledge, skills and attitudes); (2) development of members’ task competencies related to ESL; (3) utilisation of cross-training to improve how well team members know and understand each other’s positions; and (4) keeping the size of the team below 10.


[1In this article, the terms “team” and “group” are used interchangeably because – as stated by some researchers (e.g. Cannon-Bowers & Bowers, 2011) – the distinctions between the terms has neither been consistent nor widely accepted.

[2In this article, the general term “team” is used rather than multi-profiessional collaboration to denote that aspects presented here are based on the science of teams in general and hold for teams in general.

(2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 595–615.

, , , , & (2011). Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 37, 709–743.

, , & (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66, 44–55.

(2005). Team task analysis. In N. Stanton, A. Hedge, K. Brookhuis, E. Salas, & H. Hendrick (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods (56-1 – 56-8). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Retrieved from

, , , , , & (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 288–307.

& (2005). Individual and team training. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology: Volume 1: Personnel psychology (278–312). London: SAGE Publications.

& (2011). Team development and functioning. In Z. Sheldon (Ed), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol 1: Building and developing the organization. APA Handbooks in Psychology (597–650). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

, , , & (2012). Finding the right mix: How the composition of self-managing multicultural teams’ cultural value orientation influences performance over time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 389–411.

, , , , , & (2003). Measuring team knowledge: A window to the cognitive underpinnings of team performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 179–199.

, , & (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 857–880.

, & (2001). Do smarter teams do better – A meta-analysis of cognitive ability and team performance. Small Group Research, 32, 507–532.

(2013). Reducing early school leaving: Key messages and policy support. Final Report of the Thematic Working Group on Early School Leaving. Retrieved from

, , , , , & (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: A synthesis and functional interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 245–287.

(2010). Group dynamic (5th Ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

, , & (1993). Collaboration for social problem solving: A process model. Business & Society, 32(1), 1–17.

, , & (2009). Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: A role composition model of team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 48–61.

, , , & (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.

, , & (2003). Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29, 801–830.

, & (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20(2), 403–437.

& (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124.

, & (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 585–634.

, , , & (2014). A review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40(1), 130–160.

, , & (2005). Selecting individuals in team settings: The importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge. Personnel Psychology, 58, 583–611.

, , , , , , & (2014). The shared leadership of teams: A meta-analysis of proximal, distal, and moderating relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 923–942.

(2003). Cross-functional teams: Working with allies, enemies, and other strangers (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from:,+enemies,+and+other+strangers&source=bl&ots=LsWEudBmwP&sig=JDAD_U4MK3sams8u4grdgOLJEHU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBGoVChMIwKOTypqyxwIVS1UUCh15GAgp#v=onepage&q=Cross-functional%20teams%3A%20Working%20with%20allies%2C%20enemies%2C%20and%20other%20strangers&f=false

, & (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 471–499.

, , , , , , & (2008). Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(6), 903–903.

, , & (2000). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30, 23–28.

, & (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20, 503–530.

, & (1999). Staffing work teams: Development and validation of a selection test for teamwork settings. Journal of Management, 25(2), 207–228.

, , & (2012). Team member change, flux in coordination, and performance: Effects of strategic core roles, information transfer, and cognitive ability. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 314–338.

, & (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27, 141–162.

, , & (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 451–483.