Help
Cart
Skip main navigation

Available Issues

April 10, 2013 - June 5, 2026

Available Issues

April 10, 2013 - June 5, 2026

The Task Space: An Integrative Framework for Team Research

Published Online:5 Mar 2026https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.03544

References

  • Aggarwal I, Wooley AW (2019) Team creativity, cognition, and cognitive style diversity. Management Sci. 65(4):1586–1599.Link, Google Scholar
  • Allport GW, Odbert HS (1936) Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psych. Monographs 47(1):i–171.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Almaatouq A, Alsobay M, Yin M, Watts DJ (2021a) Task complexity moderates group synergy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118(36):e2101062118.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Almaatouq A, Alsobay M, Yin M, Watts DJ (2024c) The effects of group composition and dynamics on collective performance. Topics Cognitive Sci. 16(2):302–321.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Almaatouq A, Amin Rahimian M, Burton JW, Alhajri A (2022) The distribution of initial estimates moderates the effect of social influence on the wisdom of the crowd. Sci. Rep. 12(1):16546.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Almaatouq A, Becker J, Houghton JP, Paton N, Watts DJ, Whiting ME (2021b) Empirica: A virtual lab for high-throughput macro-level experiments. Behav. Res. Methods 53(5):2158–2171.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Almaatouq A, Griffiths TL, Suchow JW, Whiting ME, Evans J, Watts DJ (2024a) Beyond playing 20 questions with nature: Integrative experiment design in the social and behavioral sciences. Brain Behav. Sci. 47:1–55.Google Scholar
  • Almaatouq A, Griffiths TL, Suchow JW, Whiting ME, Evans J, Watts DJ (2024b) Replies to commentaries on beyond playing 20 questions with nature. Brain Behav. Sci. 47:e65.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Almaatouq A, Noriega-Campero A, Alotaibi A, Krafft PM, Moussaid M, Pentland A (2020) adaptive social networks promote the wisdom of crowds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117(21):11379–11386.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Altmann A, Toloşi L, Sander O, Lengauer T (2010) Permutation importance: A corrected feature importance measure. Bioinformatics 26(10):1340–1347.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Arrow KJ, Forsythe R, Gorham M, Hahn R, Hanson R, Ledyard JO, Levmore S, et al. (2008) The promise of prediction markets. Science (1979) 320(5878):877–878.Google Scholar
  • Asch S (1956) Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psych. Monographs General Appl. 70(9):1–70.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Bahrami B, Olsen K, Latham PE, Roepstorff A, Rees G, Frith CD (2010) Optimally interacting minds. Science (1979) 329(5995):1081–1085.Google Scholar
  • Bailey KD (1989) Taxonomies and disaster: Prospects and problems. Internat. J. Mass Emerg. Disasters 7(3):419–431.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Bailey KD (1994) Typologies and Taxonomies in Social Science: An Introduction to Classification Techniques, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Series No. 07-102 (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
  • Balietti S, Klein B, Riedl C (2021) Optimal design of experiments to identify latent behavioral types. Exp. Econom. 24(3):772–799.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Bareinboim E, Pearl J (2013) A general algorithm for deciding transportability of experimental results. J. Causal Inference 1(1):107–134.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Baribault B, Donkin C, Little DR, et al. (2018) Metastudies for robust tests of theory. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 115(11):2607–2612.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Baron J, Hershey JC (1988) Outcome bias in decision evaluation. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 54(4):569–579.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Barrick MR, Bradley BH, Kristof-Brown AL, Colbert AE (2007) The moderating role of top management team interdependence: Implications for real teams and working groups. Acad. Management J. 50(3):544–557.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Barrick MR, Stewart GL, Neubert MJ, Mount MK (1998) Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. J. Appl. Psych. 83(3):377–391.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Batista RM, Ross J (2024) Words that work: Using language to generate hypotheses. Preprint, submitted September 16, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4926398.Google Scholar
  • Bavelas A (1950) Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 22(August):725–730.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Becker J, Almaatouq A, Horvát E-Á (2021) Network structures of collective intelligence: The contingent benefits of group discussion. Preprint, submitted March 8, http://arxiv.org/abs/2009.07202.Google Scholar
  • Bell ST (2007) Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psych. 92(3):595–615.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Brunswik E (1956) Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psych. Rev. 62(3):193–217.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Camerer CF (1997) Progress in behavioral game theory. J. Econom. Perspect. 11(4):167–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Carton AM (2022) The science of leadership: A theoretical model and research agenda. Annual Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 9(1):61–93.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Chang EH, Kirgios EL, Smith RK (2021) Large-scale field experiment shows null effects of team demographic diversity on outsiders’ willingness to support the team. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 94(May):104099.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Chen W, Li X (2012) Deciphering wisdom of crowds from their influenced binary decisions. Proc. 2012 IEEE Internat. Conf. Intelligence Security Informatics (IEEE, Washington, DC), 235–240.Google Scholar
  • Chen Y, Chu C-H, Mullen T, Pennock DM (2005) Information markets vs opinion pools: An empirical comparison. Proc. ACM Conf. Electronic Commerce (ACM, New York), 58–67.Google Scholar
  • Cohen SG, Bailey DE (1997) What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. J. Management 23(3):239–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • De Dreu CKW, Weingart LR (2003) Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psych. 88(4):741–749.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Dhami MK, Hertwig R, Hoffrage U (2004) The role of representative design in an ecological approach to cognition. Psych. Bull. 130(6):959–988.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Diehl M, Stroebe W (1987) Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 53(3):497–509.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Driskell JE, Salas E, Hogan R (1987) A Taxonomy for Composing Effective Naval Teams (Naval Training Systems Center, Orlando, FL).Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Epley N, Gilovich T (2006) The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psych. Sci. 17(4):311–318.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Ericksen J, Dyer L (2004) Right from the start: Exploring the effects of early team events on subsequent project team development and performance. Admin. Sci. Quart. 49(3):438–471.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Eyke NS, Green WH, Jensen KF (2020) Iterative experimental design based on active machine learning reduces the experimental burden associated with reaction screening. Reaction Chemistry Engrg. 5(10):1963–1972.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Eysenck HJ (1994) Systematic reviews: Meta-analysis and its problems. Education and debate. BMJ 309(6957):789–792.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Fleishman EA (1975) Toward a taxonomy of human performance. Amer. Psych. 30(12):1127–1149.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Gilardi F, Alizadeh M, Kubli M (2023) ChatGPT outperforms crowd-workers for text-annotation tasks. Preprint, submitted March 27, http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.15056. Google Scholar
  • Goldberg LR (1993) The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Amer. Psych. 48(1):26–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Goodwin GF, Blacksmith N, Coats MR (2018) The science of teams in the military: Contributions from over 60 years of research. Amer. Psych. 73(4):322–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Graf-Drasch V, Gimpel H, Barlow JB, Dennis AR (2022) Task structure as a boundary condition for collective intelligence. Personnel Psych. 75(3):739–761.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Gross E (1954) Primary functions of the small group. Amer. J. Sociol. 60(1):24–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Gully SM, Incalcaterra KA, Joshi A, Beaubien JM (2002) A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. J. Appl. Psych. 87(5):819–832.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Hackman JR (1968) Effects of task characteristics on group products. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 4(2):162–187.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Hackman JR (1969) Towards understanding the role of tasks in behavioral research. Acta Psychologica 31(2):97–128.Google Scholar
  • Hackman JR, Oldham GR (1975) Development of the job diagnostic survey. J. Appl. Psych. 60(2):159–170.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Harris AM, Gómez-Zará D, DeChurch LA, Contractor NS (2019) Joining together online: The trajectory of CSCW scholarship on group formation. Proc. ACM Human Comput. Interact. 3(CSCW):1–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Herold DM (1978) Improving the performance effectiveness of groups through a task-contingent selection of intervention strategies. Acad. Management Rev. 3(2):315–325.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Hill GW (1982) Group versus individual performance: Are N + 1 heads better than one? Psych. Bull. 91(3):517–539.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Hollenbeck JR, Beersma B, Schouten ME (2012) Beyond team types and taxonomies: A dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description. Acad. Management Rev. 37(1):82–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Hough LM (1992) The ‘big five’ personality variables—Construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Perform. 5(1&2):139–155.Google Scholar
  • Hueffmeier J, Hertel G (2011) When the whole is more than the sum of its parts: Group motivation gains in the wild. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 47(2):455–459.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Husband RW (1940) Cooperative versus solitary problem solution. J. Soc. Psych. 11(2):405–409.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Janis IL (1971) Groupthink. Psychology Today (Ziff-Davis Publishing: New York), 1–7.Google Scholar
  • Koriat A (2012) When are two heads better than one and why? Science (1979) 336(6079):360–362.Google Scholar
  • Krackhardt D, Stern RN (1988) Informal networks and organizational crises: An experimental simulation. Social Psych. Quart. 51(2):123–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Larson JR (2010) In Search of Synergy in Small Group Performance (Psychology Press, New York).Google Scholar
  • Laughlin PR, Ellis AL (1986) Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. J. Experiment. Social Psych. 22(3):177–198.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Laughlin PR, Hatch EC, Silver JS, Boh L (2006) Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 90(4):644–651.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Laughlin PR, Kerr NL, Davis JH, Halff HM, Marciniak KA (1975) Group size, member ability, and social decision schemes on an intellective task. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 31(3):522–535.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Lee SM, Koopman J, Hollenbeck JR, Wang LC, Lanaj K (2015) The Team Descriptive Index (TDI): A multidimensional scaling approach for team description. Acad. Management Discoveries 1(1):91–116.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Levinthal DA (1997) Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Sci. 43(7):934–950.Link, Google Scholar
  • Levinthal DA, Rosenkopf L (2020) Commensurability and collective impact in strategic management research: When non-replicability is a feature, not a bug. Accessed November 13, 2022, https://mackinstitute.wharton.upenn.edu/2020/commensurability-and-collective-impact-in-strategic-management-research/.Google Scholar
  • Li G, Rubenstein AL, Lin W, Wang M, Chen X (2018) The curvilinear effect of benevolent leadership on team performance: The mediating role of team action processes and the moderating role of team commitment. Personnel Psych. 71(3):369–397.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Lorge I, Solomon H (1960) Group and individual performance in problem solving related to previous exposure to problem, level of aspiration, and group size. Behav. Sci. 5(1):28–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Lundberg SM, Lee S-I (2017) A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Proc. 31st Conf. Neural Inform. Processing Systems (NIPS, Long Beach, CA), 4768–4777.Google Scholar
  • Manzi J (2012) Uncontrolled: The Surprising Payoff of Trial-and-Error for Business, Politics, and Society (Basic Books, New York).Google Scholar
  • Mao A, Mason W, Suri S, Watts DJ (2016) An experimental study of team size and performance on a complex task. PLoS One 11(4):e0153048.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SI (2001) A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad. Management Rev. 26(3):356–376.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Marquart DI (1955) Group problem solving. J. Social Psych. 41(1):103–113.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Mason W, Watts DJ (2011) Collaborative learning in networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109(3):764–769.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Mathieu JE, Hollenbeck JR, van Knippenberg D, Ilgen DR (2017) A century of work teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology. J. Appl. Psych. 102(3):452–467.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Mathieu JE, Tannenbaum SI, Donsbach JS, Alliger GM (2014) A review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. J. Management 40(1):130–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • McCormick EJ, Jeanneret PR, Mecham RC (1972) A study of job characteristics and job dimensions as based on the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ). J. Appl. Psych. 56(4):347–368.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • McGrath JE (1984) Groups: Interaction and Performance (Prentice-Hall, Inc, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
  • Meluso J, Hébert-Dufresne L (2023) Multidisciplinary learning through collective performance favors decentralization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 120(34):e2303568120.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Merton RK (1949) On sociological theories of the middle range. Calhoun C, Gerteis J, Moody J, Pfaff S, and Indermohan V, eds. Classical Sociological Theory, 2nd ed. (Blackwell Pub, Malden, MA), 448–459.Google Scholar
  • Meslec N, Curseu PL, Meeus MTH, Iederan Fodor OC (2014) When none of us perform better than all of us together: The role of analogical decision rules in groups. PLoS One 9(1):e85232.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Morris CG (1966) Task effects on group interaction. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 4(5):545–554.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Mullen B, Johnson C, Salas E (1991) Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 12(1):3–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Oldeweme M, Konradt U, Brede M (2021) The rhythm of teamwork: Discovering a complex temporal pattern of team processes. Group Dynam. Theory Res. Practice 27(1):50–64.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Peterson RS, Owens PD, Tetlock PE, Fan ET (1998) Group dynamics in top management teams: Groupthink, vigilance, and alternative models of organizational failure and success. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 73(2/3):272–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Peterson NG, Mumford MD, Borman WC, Richard Jeanneret P, Fleishman EA, Levin KY, Campion MA, et al. (2001) Understanding work using the Occupational Information Network (O*NET): Implications for practice and research. Personnel Psych. 54(2):451–492.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Riedl C, Kim YJ, Gupta P, Malone TW, Woolley AW (2021) Quantifying collective intelligence in human groups. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118(21):e2005737118.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Roby TB, Lanzetta JT (1958) Considerations in the analysis of group tasks. Psych. Bull. 55(2):88–101.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Salas E, Reyes DL, McDaniel SH (2018) The science of teamwork: Progress, reflections, and the road ahead. Amer. Psych. 73(4):593–600.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Shaw ME (1963) Scaling Group Tasks: A Method for Dimensional Analysis (American Psychological Association).Google Scholar
  • Shore J, Bernstein E, Lazer D (2015) Facts and figuring: An experimental investigation of network structure and performance in information and solution spaces. Organ. Sci. 26(5):1432–1446.Link, Google Scholar
  • Silver I, Mellers BA, Tetlock PE (2021) Wise teamwork: Collective confidence calibration predicts the effectiveness of group discussion. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 96(September):104157.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Simons DJ, Shoda Y, Lindsay DS (2017) Constraints on generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspect. Psych. Sci. 12(6):1123–1128.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Simonsohn U, Montealegre A, Evangelidis I (2024) Stimulus sampling reimagined: Designing experiments with mix-and-match, analyzing results with stimulus plots. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 129(1):71–90.Google Scholar
  • Stasser G, Titus W (1985) Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 48(5):1467–1478.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Stasson MF, Bradshaw SD (1995) Explanations of individual-group performance differences: What sort of ‘bonus’ can be gained through group interaction? Small Group Res. 26(2):296–308.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Steiner ID (1972) Group Process and Productivity (Academic Press, New York).Google Scholar
  • Stewart GL, Barrick MR (2000) Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Acad. Management J. 43(2):135–148.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Straub VJ, Tsvetkova M, Yasseri T (2023) The cost of coordination can exceed the benefit of collaboration in performing complex tasks. Collective Intelligence 2(2):263391372311569.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Thompson WR (1933) On the likelihood that one unknown probability exceeds another in view of the evidence of two samples. Biometrika 25(3–4):285–294.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Thompson LL, Wilson ER (2015) Creativity in teams. Thompson LL, Choi HK, eds. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Mahwah, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Tushman ML (1979) Work characteristics and subunit communication structure: A contingency analysis. Admin. Sci. Quart. 24(1):82–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Valentine MA, Nembhard IM, Edmondson AC (2015) Measuring teamwork in health care settings: A review of survey instruments. Med. Care 53(4):e16–e30.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Watts DJ (2017) Should social science be more solution-oriented? Nat. Human Behav. 1(1):0015.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Weber B, Hertel G (2007) Motivation gains of inferior group members: A meta-analytical review. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 93(6):973–993.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Weidmann B, Deming DJ (2021) Team players: How social skills improve team performance. Econometrica 89(6):2637–2657.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Wells GL, Windschitl PD (1999) Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality Social Psych. Bull. 25(9):1115–1125.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Whiting ME, Blaising A, Barreau C, Fiuza L, Marda N, Valentine M, Bernstein MS (2019) Did it have to end this way? Understanding the consistency of team fracture. Proc. ACM Human Comput. Interact. 3(CSCW):1–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Wildman JL, Thayer AL, Rosen MA, Salas E, Mathieu JE, Rayne SR (2012) Task types and team-level attributes: Synthesis of team classification literature. Human Resource Development Rev. 11(1):97–129.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Wood RE (1986) Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 37(1):60–82.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone TW (2010) Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science (1979) 330(6004):686–688.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Yarkoni T (2022) The generalizability crisis. Behav. Brain Sci. 45:e1.Crossref, Google Scholar
  • Zigurs I, Buckland BK, Connolly JR, Wilson EV (1999) A test of task-technology fit theory for group support systems. ACM SIGMIS Database Adv. Inform. Systems 30(3–4):34–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
Previous
Back to Top
Next
INFORMS site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; Others help us improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Please read our Privacy Statement to learn more.
Agree