Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
CONFLICT, TRUST, AND
COHESION: EXAMINING
AFFECTIVE AND ATTITUDINAL
FACTORS IN SCIENCE TEAMS
Stephen M. Fiore, Dorothy R. Carter and
Raquel Asencio
ABSTRACT
In this chapter we discuss attitudinal and affective factors in the context
of science teams. We review some of the key findings on conflict, trust,
and cohesion in teams and discuss the differentiation between teamrelated and task-related definitions of each. In so doing, we discuss their
relevance to team effectiveness in science teams and provide guidance on
notional areas of research for understanding how these are related to
effectiveness in science teams.
Keywords: Science collaboration; cohesion’ conflict; trust; problem
solving
Team Cohesion: Advances in Psychological Theory, Methods and Practice
Research on Managing Groups and Teams, Volume 17, 271 301
Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 1534-0856/doi:10.1108/S1534-085620150000017011
271
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
272
STEPHEN M. FIORE ET AL.
The problems facing us today are complex, cutting across scientific, social,
and national boundaries. From climate change, to cancer, to poverty, such
problems are multifaceted and require immense coordinated effort between
numerous disciplines. In order to develop innovative solutions for theses
complicated real-world issues, teams of scientists from multiple fields must
be able to collaborate effectively. However, there are difficulties inherent in
collaborative work in teams. These difficulties are exacerbated when team
members hail from multiple fields and hold different perspectives, yet must
develop innovative solutions to problems in ambiguous situations. Success
in solving such problems requires members address factors associated both
with their team and with their problem-solving task. This necessitates team
members to develop appropriate levels of cohesion and trust while managing conflict.
Though much research has been done on the study of these attitudinal
and affective factors in teams, as of yet, scientific collaboration is one area
largely unaddressed. As such, the purpose of this chapter is to review some
of the key findings around a subset of these and discuss them in the context
of team science. Our goal for this is two-fold. First, we hope to show their
relevance to team effectiveness in science teams. Second, we hope this will
provide guidance on notional areas of research for understanding how
these are related to effectiveness in science teams. Toward this end, we initially discuss the field of the Science of Team Science along with some of the
fundamental features associated with teamwork in order to highlight their
relevance to scientific collaboration. We then review some of the research
on team conflict, team trust, and team cohesion. We conclude with an integrative perspective on these factors and offer a set of guidelines for science
teams. Overall, we hope to show how principles from the social and organizational sciences can be used to improve collaborative research and the
practice of team science.
SCIENCE OF TEAM SCIENCE
Over the past two decades there has been increasing interest and investment
by government agencies in team-based research in an effort to accelerate
progress toward solving many complex and intractable environmental,
social, and public health problems. The Science of Team Science (SciTS) is
a rapidly growing cross-disciplinary field of study that aims to gain a fundamental understanding of team effectiveness in science, to build an
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
Affective and Attitudinal Factors in Science Teams
273
evidence-base for methods aimed at improving science team effectiveness,
and to develop translational applications to help maximize the efficiency
and effectiveness of team-based research (e.g., Börner et al., 2010; FalkKrzesinski et al., 2010; Fiore, 2008).
Team science is a collaborative form of science where research no longer
follows a single investigator model in which scientists worked relatively in
isolation, to one that involves a multiple investigator approach in which
scientists work interdependently toward a common goal (Fiore, 2008; Hall,
Feng, Moser, Stokols, & Taylor, 2008; Stokols, Misra, Moser, Hall, &
Taylor, 2008). Evidence is increasingly mounting that collaboration in
science is on the rise and that such forms of science are having an increasing impact on the production of knowledge (Jones, Wuchty & Uzzi. 2008;
Wuchty, Jones, & Uzzi, 2007). This shift in research approach was necessitated by the complexity of problems being addressed across multiple scientific fields (Hall et al., 2008; Stokols et al., 2008). Team science can be
unidisciplinary, that is, conducted within one or related disciplines of
science, or it can be cross-disciplinary, cutting across disparate disciplines
(Hall et al., 2008 2012). Additionally, team science is not confined to a particular field as it is increasingly practiced within and across a variety of disciplines cutting across the physical, social, life/health, and computational
sciences (Asencio, Carter, DeChurch, Zaccaro, & Fiore, 2012; Börner
et al., 2010; Falk-Krzesinski et al., 2010 2011; Fiore, 2008; Olson & Olson,
2013). To support this important component of the scientific process, the
“Science of Team Science” (SciTS) is described as “a new interdisciplinary
field … which aims to better understand the circumstances that facilitate or
hinder effective team-based research and practice and to identify the unique
outcomes of these approaches in the areas of productivity, innovation, and
translation” (Stokols, Hall, & Vogel, 2013, p. 4).
At issue is that conducting research as a team creates a context where
challenges at multiple levels can hinder the achievement of scientific goals.
Challenges to collaboration in science broadly fall along two inter-related
lines. First, there are challenges arising from the academic infrastructure
associated with universities (e.g., departments based upon disciplines), and
the norms within disciplines that can act as a barrier to collaboration.
Second, there are the more specific challenges associated with teamwork.
This includes interpersonal problems that can arise from poor communication or ineffective leadership, as well as problems in attitudes within a team
(e.g., lack of cohesion or psychological safety, preventing knowledge sharing). Nonetheless, much remains unknown about how to support science
teams and ensure collaborations are effective. Furthermore, leading and
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
274
STEPHEN M. FIORE ET AL.
managing science teams and supporting faculty engaged in such research is
still a challenge for academia (Pavlidis, Petersen, & Semendeferi, 2014).
Finally, educating and training the next generation of scientists in preparation for working in teams, either within, or across, disciplines is still an
area requiring further research (e.g., Stokols et al., 2013). Discussing all of
these challenges at multiple levels is beyond the scope of this chapter (see
Cooke & Hilton, 2015). We focus on a subset of factors at the team level in
order to highlight how they may play a prominent role in success in science
teams. We turn next to a brief discussion of team theory to lay the foundation for how we will discuss attitudinal factors in science teams.
Teamwork Inside and Outside of Science
Teams are defined as, “interdependent collections of individuals who share
responsibility for specific outcomes for their organizations” (Sundstrom,
DeMeuse, & Futrell, 1990, p. 120) and “two or more individuals who must
interact and adapt to achieve specified, shared, and valued objectives”
(Salas, Dickinson, Converse, & Tannenbaum, 1992, p. 4). Further, to function, teams must deal with multiple information sources and rely on intensive communication. This is required given the task-relevant knowledge
held by team members and the fact that teams get constructed with meaningful task interdependencies. From this comes the need for coordination
to integrate these specialized roles. But, also from this comes the affective
and attitudinal factors that produce the group dynamics influencing teamwork. Critical to our argument is recognition that teamwork outside of
science had foundational characteristics similar to teamwork in science. In
both contexts, a given task brings people together to achieve objective(s)
that an individual could not achieve on his/her own. Further, the team
does so while maintaining only partially overlapping knowledge (Salas &
Fiore, 2004). Inherent in this interaction, though, is a complementarity set
of factors that, at a general level, give rise to team effectiveness.
With this as foreground, we frame our discussion around two fundamental dimensions inherent to any team. As discussed in the small groups
literature, this represents an important complementarity that gives rise to
team functioning; that is, the task dimension and the social dimension of
teams (e.g., Ellis & Fisher, 1994). Although described with various terms in
the literature, the primary point is to distinguish between elements of the
interaction having to do with the reason a team is assembled (i.e., the task
dimension), and the social processes associated with their interactions
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
Affective and Attitudinal Factors in Science Teams
275
(i.e., the interpersonal dimension). The task dimension refers to the interaction between the group members related to the task they must perform.
Different types of tasks will place varying demands on team members.
Some tasks may require teams to coordinate differently, for example, via
the use of technology rather than face to face. In science teams, this often
occurs when members may be in different labs. In addition, for those events
related to accomplishing objectives, the task dimension also includes
actions the team takes to meet group goals. In science teams, this could
include implementation of a particular experimental method. By contrast,
the interpersonal dimension refers to the relationship of group members
have with one another and the reciprocal relationship between the individual and the team. This has been described as the social dimension and
related to a team’s socio-emotional climate (Ellis & Fisher, 1994). In this
case, it is seen as a melding of the individual ‘with’ the team such that a
social system is formed. In science teams, this can influence how a team
performs its tasks by, for example, affecting work relationships more
generally as well as influencing the provision and acceptance of member
contributions from different disciplines.
This theorizing aligns with that found in the team training literature
coming out of the organizational sciences. Specifically, when developing
training programs, team researchers differentiated between teamwork and
taskwork (Fiore, 2008; Morgan, Glickman, Woodard, Blaiwes, & Salas,
1986). Taskwork referred to what needs to be accomplished to meet the
team’s goals and complete objectives. This can be construed as the content
relevant “work” of teams. This can be further categorized along the dimensions associated with knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs). In the context of science teams, there is the knowledge necessary for a project. This
could involve, for example, understanding the relevant theories and constructs. There are also the skills supporting execution of a project. For a
science team this might involve developing and running experiments and
analyzing and writing up findings. Finally, there are also attitudes about
the particulars of a science team’s project. For example, this might be preferences for methodological approaches, or even trust in certain
technologies.
Complementary to the task dimension, teamwork refers to the factors
required to function effectively as part of an interdependent team (Fiore,
2008; Morgan et al., 1986). The is similar to what was described earlier as
the social and interpersonal component of science teams. This, too, can be
further categorized along the dimensions associated with knowledge, skills,
and attitudes (KSAs). In the context of science teams, this includes
276
STEPHEN M. FIORE ET AL.
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
the knowledge associated with teammates. Here, we mean understanding
the roles and responsibilities of teammates (e.g., statistician) along with
their capabilities (e.g., expert in multivariate analysis). There are also skills
relevant to supporting interaction with teammates. This can include communicating effectively about the scientific project as well as backing up
teammates who need help. Finally, there are attitudes about teammates
based upon prior interactions and/or reputation. This might include trust
in teammates and a sense of cohesion with teammates.
Summary
In this section, we have reviewed some of the basic ideas around SciTS and
about teams more generally. The distinction between teamwork and taskwork helps us to ground discussion about the varied and complex set of
interactions that arise when scientists collaborate. We offer these as a
means of helping to frame the discussion for the purposes of moving the
research in the science of team science forward. At issue is that collaboration creates a context where challenges at multiple levels can hinder the
achievement of scientific goals. Specifically, challenges for science teams
mirror the above complementarity to broadly fall along two inter-related
lines. First, there are challenges arising from the need to combine and
synthesize multiple forms of data and information in service of knowledge
integration. This challenge is aligned with the task dimension. Second,
there are the more specific challenges associated with the team dimension.
This includes interpersonal problems that can arise from poor communication, relationship problems such as animosity toward a teammate, as well
as problems in attitudes within a team (e.g., lack of cohesion or trust, preventing knowledge sharing).
In order for us to truly understand and improve the effectiveness of
science teams, what is needed are conceptual definitions from which we can
develop a better specified set of operational definitions that could drive our
understanding and assessment of science team effectiveness. The broader
the conceptualizing, and the more richly specified the concepts, the more
likely it is that researchers will develop and offer accurate principles and
guidelines as well as effective interventions that facilitate collaboration in
science. As such, we suggest that the taskwork and the teamwork dimensions can help scaffold our discussion of science teams. These are highly
interdependent and a team benefits from maintaining a balance between
them. We next focus in on a subset of these team and task factors that we
Affective and Attitudinal Factors in Science Teams
277
posit require further elaboration and integration in the study of science
teams, particularly, as they relate to team cohesion.
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
CONFLICT, TRUST, AND COHESION IN SCIENCE
TEAMS
In order to advance SciTS, we need to understand the specific team processes that drive the effectiveness of teams. Science teams pose a particular challenge in that the nature of their assembly will influence the
development of cohesion and trust. For example, science teams tend to be
formed around particular projects and based upon the form of task expertise needed for that project. As such, it is not always the case that all
team members will have any familiarity other than, perhaps, awareness of
their prior research accomplishments. Additionally, the very nature of
scientific work requires a certain degree of conflict. For example, during
the initial development of innovative ideas, conflict might arise from disagreements about how to frame the problem or the core concepts associated with the conceptual model a team might develop (cf. De Dreu &
Weingart, 2003; Farh, Lee, & Farh, 2010). Fortunately, there exists a considerable amount of research on team functioning and effectiveness coming out of the organizational and social sciences (e.g., Kozlowski & Bell,
2003; Salas, Fiore, & Letsky, 2012). To better inform the science of team
science, in this section we draw from this literature to gain insight into
the team science process and the complex inter-relations between teamwork and teamwork factors and how they relate to scientific productivity
(Fiore, 2008).
Conflict in Teams
In early research on conflict within organizations and teams, conflict was
thought to be detrimental to group performance and should be avoided at
all costs (e.g., Brown, 1983). However, researchers have since demonstrated
that conflict is not a unidimensional construct (Jehn, 1995; Wall & Nolan,
1986). Rather, conflict within teams was categorized as either relationship
conflict or task conflict (Jehn, 1995). Relationship conflict refers to an
affective state in which people experience or perceive incompatibilities with
the groups’ members, causing tension, animosity, and annoyance between
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
278
STEPHEN M. FIORE ET AL.
them. Task conflict is the state that exists when there are real or perceived
differences among group members in opinions, viewpoints, and/or ideas
about the content of the tasks being performed (De Dreu & Weingart,
2003; Jehn, 1995).
Relationship conflict was argued to generally decrease satisfaction and
performance in teams, while task conflict was thought to not always have
these detrimental effects (Jehn, 1995). Specifically, task conflict has been
proposed to be advantageous for nonroutine tasks, or tasks that are complex and lack one standard solution. This proposition is based on the idea
that task conflict should increase the likelihood that group members will
question or scrutinize task issues and engage in deep processing of taskrelevant information, thus developing more creative solutions to problems
in the process (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003).
Jehn’s (1994, 1995) findings sparked interest amongst other researchers
to further clarify the conditions under which task conflict may be positively
related to team performance. In a meta-analysis of the conflict literature,
De Dreu and Weingart (2003) challenged the common assumption that
task conflict could, at times, be beneficial to performance. Their metaanalytic results revealed that, under most circumstances, there is no differential effect between task and relationship conflict on team performance.
Although, task conflict was found to be slightly less damaging to team performance than relationship conflict, neither task nor relationship conflict
were beneficial. Furthermore, while team task uncertainty was found to be
a significant moderator of the relationship between task conflict and team
performance, this relationship was not consistent with prior theorizing on
task versus relationship conflict. Instead, task conflict had strong negative
effects on team performance in tasks that were the most uncertain and the
weakest negative effects in tasks that were less uncertain.
While these results may suggest that task conflict should, in fact, be
avoided at all costs, De Dreu and Weingart (2003) posit that, under certain
circumstances, and for certain tasks, such as creative problem-solving tasks,
teams could still benefit from some level of task conflict when they have
cultivated a cohesive environment that is open and tolerant of diverse viewpoints. Additionally, they argue that establishing cooperative norms within
the team that prevent disagreements from being perceived as personal
attacks helps to reverse the negative impact of conflict (Amason, 1996; De
Dreu & West, 2001).
More recent research on task conflict, has demonstrated that the relationship between task conflict and team performance is even more complex
than originally thought. For example, Farh et al. (2010) found that, in
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
Affective and Attitudinal Factors in Science Teams
279
creative problem-solving teams, task conflict and performance have a curvilinear relationship such that moderate levels of task conflict help performance, but very low or high levels of task conflict are detrimental. These
findings are consistent with researchers who have suggested an inverted
U-shaped relationship between tension and team effectiveness (De Dreu,
2006; Van de Vliert & De Dreu, 1994). Furthermore, this relationship was
only demonstrated during the early phase of the project’s life cycle. In the
early phases of creative thinking, task conflict displayed the curvilinear
relationship with performance just discussed, however, in later phases of
the project’s life cycle, the relationship was nonexistent. In other words,
novel ideas presented early on are more likely to be incorporated into creative outcomes, but later in the project’s life cycle, possibly during phases in
which implementation is the focus of the team, these novel ideas, and the
conflict they may cause, are not as helpful.
Researchers have also examined the moderators of the task conflictperformance relationship. For example, similar to propositions put
forth by previous researchers (e.g., De Dreu & Weingart, 2003), Bradley,
Postlethwaite, Klotz, Hamdani, and Brown (2012) found that, in project
teams, task conflict was positively related to performance under conditions
of high psychological safety. Psychological safety within a team refers to a
shared belief among team members that the team environment is safe and
that team members will not “embarrass, reject, or punish someone for
speaking up” (Edmondson, 1999, p. 354). These findings suggest that there
are affective drivers of the relationship between task conflict and team
performance.
Finally, this distinction was further differentiated to account for conflict
“states” and conflict “processes” (DeChurch, Mesmer-Magnus, & Doty,
2013). Specifically, team conflict states are defined as the “shared perceptions among members of the team about the intensity of disagreement over
either tasks (i.e., goals, ideas, and performance strategies) or relationships
(i.e., personality clashes, interpersonal styles)” (DeChurch et al., 2013,
p. 560). Team conflict processes, also referred to as “conflict management,”
was defined as “members’ interactions aimed at working through task and
interpersonal disagreements” (DeChurch et al., 2013, p. 560). This distinction is important in that the way team members interact about conflict,
that is, their conflict processes, can influence how they frame their conflict
states (i.e., how they perceive any difference). As argued by DeChurch and
colleagues, this, then, has a reciprocal effect such that the states shape the
team’s behavioral responses to any perceived difference. In their comprehensive meta-analysis of the conflict literature that took these distinctions
280
STEPHEN M. FIORE ET AL.
into account, DeChurch et al. (2013) found that collectivistic conflict processes are more likely to produce beneficial outcomes. These are conflict
processes that “support a greater focus on concern for and reliance on
others, preference for working as a team, cooperation among members,
and team wide goal accomplishment” (p. 561).
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
Considering Conflict in Science Teams
Certainly, the previous results comparing the relationships between task
and team conflict and team performance are complicated. Therefore, it is
important to the development of a science of team science to synthesize
these results and help move the field forward to research their applicability
to science teams. We argue that science teams are one example of a team
context in which a degree of task conflict is, in fact, beneficial to performance. Science teams could be conceptualized as a particular type of creative problem-solving team in which a certain amount of inherent conflict
naturally arises due to the nature of the task requirements. Furthermore,
we posit, that for science teams in particular, task conflict is actually vital
to effective team performance and the generation of innovative ideas.
Because task conflict in science teams may lead to innovative outcomes, it
is essential to the study of science team functioning to look further into
how these teams can maximize the benefits of task conflict while avoiding
the hindering effects of team conflict.
In a team of expert scientists, hailing from multiple disciplines, it is to be
expected that there will be considerable differences in opinions about what
solution(s) are most feasible and effective. However, these differences in
opinion can drive science teams toward the most creative, implementable,
and high-quality innovative ideas (Badke-Schaub, Goldschmidt, & Meijer,
2010; Farh et al., 2010). As noted, task conflict has been argued to enhance
team creativity in various ways. Fitting with the expected processes of
science teams, when task conflict arises, teams are more likely to exchange
information, scrutinize the task, and question the majority view
(Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009; Nemeth, 1986). Task conflict can,
therefore, expose members to a breadth of ideas and can cause more
aspects of the situation to be considered by multiple members (Nemeth,
1986). This illustrates how task conflict is essential to scientific collaboration, particularly when members come from different disciplines.
From this, we can identify two fundamental components of conflict in
science teams. First, task-related conflict in science collaborations can be
Affective and Attitudinal Factors in Science Teams
281
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
viewed as knowledge-based disagreements pertaining, for example, to theory and constructs and/or to methodologies for problem solving. Second,
team-related conflict in science collaborations can be seen as the degree to
which team members manifest animosity toward each other based upon,
for example, assessments of different attitudinal factors. With these as
foundation, we offer the following research recommendations.
• Research Recommendation 1. Research on science teams must determine
the degree to which team-related conflict will affect performance. This
could be, for example, by decreasing goal-relevant communication and/
or increasing goal-irrelevant communication.
• Research Recommendation 2. Research on science teams must determine
the degree to which task-related conflict will affect performance. This
could be, for example, by increasing goal-relevant communication and/
or decreasing goal-irrelevant communication.
In order to develop the most effective and innovative science teams, the
aim of future research on science teams should be to discover how to maintain the most optimal levels of task and team conflict. The first step in this
endeavor, then, becomes the identification of the antecedents of both taskrelated and team-related conflict. A promising starting point in the identification of these antecedents is to examine the relationships between conflict
and the other emergent states that appear within teams. Specifically, within
the organizational sciences, there are other affective emergent states that
have been empirically linked with task and team conflict and with team performance. Furthermore, we argue that the differentiation between task and
team conflict could offer researchers a meaningful way of conceptualizing
the relationships that exist between emergent states and scientific innovation. Moreover, distinguishing between the task-related and team-related
aspects of various emergent states could lead to more clarity in predicting
these relationships. In the following sections, we examine some of the affective emergent states and the corresponding task-related and team-related
aspects of these states that have been shown to lead to conflict and subsequent team performance. Specifically, we will discuss the complex relationships that likely exist between trust, cohesion, and conflict in team settings.
AFFECTIVE EMERGENT STATES
Many of the leading models of team effectiveness are based on the inputprocess-output (I-P-O) model of team effectiveness (Hackman, 1987;
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
282
STEPHEN M. FIORE ET AL.
McGrath, 1984; Steiner, 1972). In other words, success in teams is, in part,
dependent both on the inputs of the team (e.g., team composition,
resources) as well as the processes that team members use to interact with
one another in pursuit of team goals (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001).
Marks and colleagues (2001) define these teamwork processes as those
“interdependent team activities that orchestrate taskwork in employees’
pursuit of goals” (Marks et al., 2001, p. 358).
While teamwork processes are relevant to the study of teams, many of
the constructs teams researchers examine (e.g., cohesion, trust) are, in fact,
emergent cognitive, motivational, or affective states (or other types of mediators), rather than teamwork processes. Emergent states refer to those
“properties of the team that are typically dynamic in nature and vary as a
function of team context, inputs, processes, and outcomes” (Marks et al.,
2001, p. 357). Researchers have re-conceptualized team effectiveness and
have developed and tested theories based on the more comprehensive
input-mediators-output-input (IMOI) model (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, &
Jundt, 2005). This model accounts for the fact that mediators of team
inputs and outputs are not only team processes but also these emergent
states. Furthermore, this model allows researchers to conceptualize team
effectiveness as cycling through multiple feedback loops wherein outputs
can become inputs in the next cycle. Finally, the IMOI model does not
imply a linear progression of inputs affecting processes affecting outputs.
Rather, many interactions may exist between categories in the model. For
example, there may be meaningful input by process effects or process by
emergent state effects.
Two affective emergent states that have received substantial attention in
the team’s research literature are trust and cohesion. As with most emergent states, trust and cohesion within the team can simultaneously influence, and be a product of, team processes. For example, team members’
interactions can influence their trust in one another and, additionally, members’ trust in one another can influence their interactions (Sheng, Tian, &
Chen, 2010). To contextualize, we expect that trust in team members and
as well as cohesion within the team will both be important affective emergent states that should have substantial impact on the effectiveness of the
science team. We next discuss these in turn.
Trust in Teams
Trust in team settings has received a great deal of attention in the literature,
due, in part, to how the nature of work evolved in organizations in latter
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
Affective and Attitudinal Factors in Science Teams
283
parts of the 20th century. First, there was increased diversity within the
workforce, and second there was increased reliance on self-directed work
teams (Wellins, Byham, & Wilson, 1991). These had important implications
for research on the development of trust in several ways. First, teams comprises individuals with highly diverse backgrounds are less likely to be able
to rely on interpersonal similarity and similar experiences to augment their
willingness to work together (Hatfield, Walster, Walster, & Berscheid,
1978). They must, therefore, be able to develop trust and willingness to collaborate with one another based on other reasons. Additionally, in selfdirected teams, trust may serve as a substitute for direct supervision of
work (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Moreover, development of trust
in teams is thought to facilitate cohesion and collaboration between team
members (Mayer et al., 1995). As such, the development of trust in teams
was thought to be relevant to a variety of important organizational
outcomes.
Although recognized as important, trust is an elusive construct (Costa,
2003) and difficult to define (McAllister, 1995). Often, researchers
have conceptualized trust as an expression of confidence between people
(Jones & George, 1998; Sabel, 1993). For example, Mayer et al. (1995)
defined trust as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions
of another party based on the expectations that the other will perform a
particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to
monitor or control that other party” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712). Most simply defined, trust is confident positive expectations about the behavior of
another (Jones & George, 1998; Lewicki, McAllisters, & Bies, 1998;
Moorman, Zaltman, & Deshpande, 1992; Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna,
1985; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998; Thompson & DeHarpport,
1998). In particular, within a team setting, trust has been referred to as the
degree to which team members allow themselves to be vulnerable to each
other’s actions (Costa, Roe, & Taillieu, 2001). Recent research has
expanded work on trust to examine how it can rapidly form. For example,
Wildman et al. (2012) developed a theory of trust in “swift starting action
teams” to describe how antecedents to team interaction influence initial
attitudes and how context alters the development of trust in such teams.
Trust is foundational to teams given the interdependence and need for
coordination. In particular, team members have a mutual dependency that,
among other things, requires open lines of communication (De Vries,
1999). Trust is increased when teams have shared values and beliefs and
this leads to more effective teamwork (De Vries, 1999; Jones & George,
1998). Interpersonal trust might mediate cooperation by increasing
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
284
STEPHEN M. FIORE ET AL.
confidence in others, as well as increasing help-seeking behaviors and the
free exchange of information (Jones & George, 1998). For example, in studies manipulating trust expectations by altering initial member perceptions
as being negative/positive, performance was influenced via changes to
information sharing (Butler, 1999). Trust has also been related to social dissatisfaction in product innovation teams (Nerkar, McGrath, & MacMillan,
1997). In particular, social dissatisfaction affected ability of the team to
share information and trust one another enough to fluently execute their
task. Similar results have been found in that a team’s ability to “harmoniously combine actions (i.e., be coordinated) is likely to be contingent on
the extent to which individuals can depend on their partners and can predict their partners’ behaviors” (Dirks, 1999, p. 447). In this line of work,
trust was related to sharing and committing to ideas in that team that had
low trust group worked toward individual goals, while those teams with
high trust showed more collective effort.
Similar to the literature on conflict in teams, trust has both a team and a
task element. In the trust literature, this is referred to as cognitive and affective dimensions (Lewis & Weigert, 1985), but, for the sake of consistency, we
categorize these along the lines of task and team trust. Task foundations of
trust are based in the idea that people consciously choose who they will trust
and under what circumstances (Lewis & Weigert, 1985). In a team task situation, knowledge about team members is accumulated during observations of
their behaviors and from reported reputations of others’ relationships. Taskbased trust is then formed based on judgments of competence and reliability.
In other words, task trust relates to the predictability and reliability of a
team member’s capacity to execute and complete the project for which they
have been assembled. Conversely, team-based trust is more interpersonal or
relational and refers to the emotional bonds between individuals (Lewis &
Weigert, 1985). This type of trust pertains to one’s perceptions of another
team members’ dependability and concern about the person’s interests.
Similar to task-based trust, it emerges from repeated interactions and experiences of reciprocated interpersonal care and concern.
Research has provided support for the distinction between these two
principal forms of trust and has demonstrated the importance of both task
and team trust in facilitating effective coordinated action in organizations
(e.g., McAllister, 1995). Furthermore, Erdem and Ozen (2003) found that
task and team trust were both positively related to performance in 50
work-based teams. In sum, both task and team trust can influence cooperation by increasing confidence in others, as well as increasing help-seeking
behaviors and the free exchange of information.
Affective and Attitudinal Factors in Science Teams
285
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
Considering Trust in Science Teams
We suggest that conclusions drawn from the study of trust in teams (e.g.,
Costa, 2003) are directly transferable to the demands of diverse and selfdirected teams of scientists who are collectively searching for solutions to
multifaceted problems. For example, trust is foundational to knowledge
building, a critical component of the kind of collaborative problem solving
found in science teams (Fiore, Elias, Salas, Warner, & Letsky, 2010). In
particular, clearly communicating to team members about information,
data, etc. is essential to success in research (Linlin & Haifa, 2011; Staples &
Webster, 2008). As noted in studies of collaboration in science centers,
“there is a strong positive relationship between trust and knowledge sharing for all types of teams. Trust amongst team members results in enhanced
cooperation and acquisition of shared work values” (Calhoun et al., 2013,
p. 68). From the above, we can identify two fundamental components of
trust in scientific teams. First, task-based trust can be viewed as scientist’s
confidence in, or willingness to rely on, teammates’ competence. Second,
team-based trust can be viewed as confidence a scientist places in a teammate based upon feelings of security and the level of concern demonstrated
for each other. With these as foundation, we offer the following research
recommendations.
• Research Recommendation 3. Research on science teams must determine
the degree to which team-related trust will affect performance. This
could be, for example, by enhancing help-seeking behaviors.
• Research Recommendation 4. Research on science teams must determine
the degree to which task-related trust will affect performance. This could
be, for example, by increasing information sharing among team members.
Cohesion in Teams
Similar to trust, cohesion is an abstract construct that is difficult to measure and define (Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009). Since its inception as a construct in the team literature, cohesion has generally been associated with
attraction to, or closeness with, the group and/or the group’s activities.
Early theorizing described cohesion as a kind of force binding members
together or preventing their dissolution based upon attraction to each other
or to the group goals or task (Festinger, 1950). Some noted that having a
shared purpose leads to team cohesion in that the pursuit of common goals
and objectives can enhance solidarity (Man & Lam, 2003). Communication
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
286
STEPHEN M. FIORE ET AL.
is also related to cohesion when members share information and guidance
and offer each other’s perspective on issues (Van Woerkom & Sanders,
2010). But the mechanism(s) leading to cohesion are varied and can also
depend upon, for example, cognitive factors, such as familiarity with teammates or how much members believe they match a perceived prototype of
the typical group member (Hogg, 1987). In this case, cohesion increases as
a function of the perceived similarity among group members. Others have
also related cohesion to social identity. In teams with highly interdependent
tasks, identification with the group leads to shared focus and cohesion lead
to working toward a common goal (Lembke & Wilson, 1998). In this case,
cohesion represents commitment to the team and the task.
However, these conceptualizations were difficult to operationalize and
left researchers with little to work with when developing measurement tools
(Craig & Kelly, 1999). Furthermore, some argued that this one-dimensional
view of cohesion incorrectly implies that the components of cohesion are
identical. Instead, they contended that the “forces acting on members” can
be a variety of things and a group may be attractive to members for different reasons (Gross & Martin, 1952). Thus, cohesion was also thought to
have multiple operational definitions and can operate in a variety of ways
for different members within the same team. Because this early theorizing
often conflated attraction to the group members and the group task, an
explicit differentiation between social and task cohesion began to emerge.
This allowed for distinguishing between interpersonal factors associated
with member attractions and a desire for collective achievement of collective goals (Zaccaro, Gualtieri, & Minionis, 1995). Research has generally
categorized cohesion as either interpersonal attraction or commitment to
task (Zaccaro, 1991; Zaccaro & Lowe, 1988). Importantly, this difference
helped to disentangle some conflicting findings in the literature. For example, research suggested that task cohesion is more relevant than interpersonal cohesion when tasks can be parsed into sub-tasks that can be later
combined (Zaccaro & Lowe, 1988). But when tasks are more interdependent, that is, they continually rely on member contributions, both task and
interpersonal cohesion is related to performance (Zaccaro & McCoy, 1988).
A number of meta-analyses have examined the relationship between team
cohesion and team performance and have consistently shown a positive relationship depending upon how cohesion was conceptualized and how outcomes were defined. An early meta-analysis by Mullen and Copper (1994)
differentiated between various components of cohesion, including interpersonal attraction (social cohesion) and task commitment (task cohesion) and
examined these constructs’ relationships with team performance.
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
Affective and Attitudinal Factors in Science Teams
287
Interpersonal attraction refers to shared liking among the group members
and a collective feeling of closeness and friendship (Evans & Jarvis, 1980;
MacCoun, 1996), whereas, task commitment refers to the group’s shared
commitment to the group task and their motivation to complete the task
(MacCoun, 1996). Mullen and Copper (1994) study revealed that task commitment is related to performance independent of the other components of
cohesion. This work also showed that interpersonal cohesion was negatively
related to decision quality whereas quality was positively related when cohesion was high on task commitment (Mullen & Copper, 1994). Another metaanalysis considered factors associated with the task and showed that, when
interdependence is high, there is a strong relationship between cohesion and
performance (Gully, Devine, & Whitney, 1995). Further meta-analytic
research supported the differential effects of the components of cohesion on
performance (Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003). Specifically, research
showed that both task cohesion and interpersonal cohesion were positively
related to performance. But results depended upon how performance is
defined. When viewed as a behavior or considered from an efficiency
standpoint, there is strong relationship (Beal et al., 2003). More recent metaanalytic work examined how research and team context might moderate such
effects. For example, task cohesion was found to have a stronger relationship
to performance than social cohesion in academic project teams (Chiocchio &
Essiembre, 2009). In short, the previous studies examining cohesion’s effect
on performance demonstrate the importance of the different categorizations
of cohesion and can be used to clarify how cohesion does and does not relate
to performance.
As with our other factors, we re-label social and task cohesion to fit with
our approach and, as such, refer to them as team and task cohesion.
Broadly speaking, team cohesion is associated with the degree to which
members maintain social interaction while task cohesion is associated with
the degree to which team members have a shared desire to meet project
related goals (Carron, Eys, & Burke, 2007). For teams to mature and
acquire expertise, team cohesion in the form of strong interpersonal relations, and task cohesion, in the form of clear task roles and shared performance goals, must be developed.
Considering Cohesion in Science Teams
We suggest that conclusions drawn from the study of cohesion in teams
need to be examined in the context of teams of scientists who are
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
288
STEPHEN M. FIORE ET AL.
collaborating to solve complex problems. Thus, from the above, we can
identify two fundamental components of cohesion in scientific teams.
First, task cohesion, has to do with a team’s shared commitment to its
task or goals. Task cohesion in science teams, then, describes the
degree to which team members are committed to solving their problem
and working together to achieve common goals. Second, team cohesion
has to do with attraction to or liking within the team. Team cohesion
in science teams, then, describes the degree to which team members
more freely engage in communication and more willingly coordinate
efforts.
With this said, research must examine the development of cohesion in
science teams. For example, the notion of identity and cohesion described
above is particularly problematic in science teams. Specifically, if cohesion
is a function of a form of self-categorization process, whereby cohesion is
dependent upon the degree of congruency between one’s self-concept and
their perception of their group (Hogg, 2001; Levine & Moreland, 1990),
team members from different disciplines may struggle with this kind of
identity driven cohesion. Team members from similar disciplines may
show higher levels of initial cohesion; that is, to the degree that one
believes he/she matches a prototypical member of the science team, the
level of cohesion may increase. Importantly, initial interaction can support
or refute one’s perceptions of the group prototype. For example, a social
scientist working with a computer scientist may identify common research
goals that help overcome a lack of shared identity to build a foundation
for cohesion. With these as foundation, we offer the following research
recommendations.
• Research Recommendation 5. Research on science teams must determine
the degree to which task-related and team-related cohesion will affect
performance. This could be, for example, by communicating clearly
about disagreements, discussing conflict in the context of project goal,
increasing commitment to the team, or by developing relations for overcoming obstacles.
• Research Recommendation 6. Research on science teams must determine
how self-categorization (or discipline based identity), is related to the
development of cohesion in science teams. This could be, for example,
when interdisciplinary team members, identify with their problem
topic (e.g., cancer researcher), rather than their discipline (e.g.,
biologist).
Affective and Attitudinal Factors in Science Teams
289
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
Examining Conflict, Trust, and Cohesion
In this sub-section we describe some of the research that has examined
combinations of conflict, trust, and cohesion in teams. Initial theories on
team development noted the important relationship between the development of cohesion and conflict (Gersick, 1988; Tuckman, 1965). Both argued
that if conflict is managed while a team is forming, teams are better able to
cohere around team goals at later stages. But much of this research did not
account for differences between task and relationship conflict. Further, as
noted, research has more recently attended to the role that conflict management plays in this relationship. Initial work found that attention to conflict
processes (e.g., discussing problematic relationships) was positively related
to cohesion (Edmondson & Smith, 2006). Later work show similar results
in that teams that were able to directly address interpersonal conflict,
showed higher levels of cohesion (Tekleab, Quigley, & Tesluk, 2009).
More interesting, though, is how task conflict faired somewhat differently. With lower levels of conflict management, there was more of a positive relationship between task conflict and cohesion, but not with higher
levels of conflict management. As noted by Tekleab and colleagues, it could
be that “openly discussing disagreements when teams experienced high task
conflict might have neutralized the potential positive effect of task conflict
on cohesion” (p. 193). But, there is evidence that implicitly managing task
conflict, can be beneficial. For example, early work found that more discreet ways of dealing with conflict, such as brief periods away from teamwork, allowed for task conflict to diminish (Murnighan & Conlon, 1991).
Further, actually working through the team task was another means of
alleviating task conflict. This is important because neither approaches
directly addressed the conflict; explicit discussion could have focused too
much attention on the conflict and, therefore, escalated it into relationship
conflict. This relationship was demonstrated again in a longitudinal study
that found that implicit conflict management strategies were positively
related to cohesion (Tekleab et al., 2009).
When it comes to emergent states such as trust, some theorize that the
antecedents of trust foster cohesion and facilitate collaboration (Mayer
et al., 1995). In the context of community and teacher groups, trust and
dialogue are seen as foundational to building cohesion (Grossman,
Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2001). In studies of teams in the federal government, workgroup cohesion was also found to be related to trust and suggested a relationship to tenure within the organization (Gilbert & Tang,
1998). Research on healthcare teams also found that workgroup cohesion
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
290
STEPHEN M. FIORE ET AL.
is related to trust and behavior. Specifically, there was a mediated relationship such that when there is trust in senior management in workgroups
that are higher in cohesion, there are lower levels of antisocial work behaviors (Thau, Crossley, Bennett, & Sczesny, 2007). Similarly, in sports
teams, cohesion was found to mediate the relationship between trust and
performance (Mach, Dolan, & Tzafrir, 2010).
In sum, a strong foundation of research has discussed the complex interrelation between conflict, trust, and cohesion. Yet these have not been
examined in the context of scientific collaboration. With the above as foundation, we offer the following research recommendations.
• Research Recommendation 7. Research on science teams must examine
the relationship between task-related trust and task-related cohesion. To
the degree findings generalize to science teams, these should be positively
associated based upon, for example, assessments of competence in one’s
scientific teammates and commitment to a scientific objective.
• Research Recommendation 8. Research on science teams must examine
the relationship between team-related trust and team-related cohesion.
To the degree findings generalize to science teams, these should be positively associated based upon, for example, familiarity with one’s scientific
teammates and one’s identification with their team.
• Research Recommendation 9. Research on science teams must examine
the relationship between task-related trust and task-related conflict. To
the degree findings generalize to science teams, these should be positively
associated based upon, for example, assessments of competence in one’s
scientific teammates and open discussion of disagreements about
methods.
• Research Recommendation 10. Research on science teams must examine
the relationship between team-related trust and team-related conflict. To
the degree findings generalize to science teams, these should be negatively
associated based upon, for example, familiarity with one’s scientific
teammates and any animosity that may be held.
GUIDELINES FOR ADDRESSING CONFLICT, TRUST,
AND COHESION IN SCIENCE TEAMS
When reflecting on these factors in the context of science teams, we conclude with discussion of a set of distinct possibilities requiring further
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
Affective and Attitudinal Factors in Science Teams
291
exploration. We frame these as a set of recommendations for addressing
attitudinal and affective factors in science teams (see summary in Table 1).
Consider the difference between a team assembled more organically, that
is, one brought together by mutual interests, and one brought together
from a more authoritative standpoint, for example, one assembled by a
science center director. These can be referred to, respectively, as a bottomup versus top-down science team assembly. On the one hand, when a
science team assembles from the bottom-up, they will be composed of
members familiar with each other and they will likely have some level of
trust established. This will foster communication and the willingness to
express different perspectives (Okhuysen, 2001; Okhuysen & Bechky,
2009). On the other hand, when a science team is assembled from the topdown, there is less likely to be any kind of direct familiarity. Such teams,
then, might have lower levels of trust and this could inhibit freely communicating. We are likely to see differences in the rate of development of cohesion in these differently formed science teams. As such, it is recommended
Table 1.
Summary of Recommendations for Addressing Attitudinal/
Affective Factors in Science Teams.
Team Science
Recommendation 1
Team Science
Recommendation 2
Team Science
Recommendation 3
Team Science
Recommendation 4
Team Science
Recommendation 5
Team Science
Recommendation 6
It is recommended that science teams composed using a more topdown approach (or those made up of members with less
familiarity), take into account a potentially lower level of initial
trust as well as a slower developmental trajectory of cohesion.
It is recommended that science team members be mindful of the
these potential issues when conflict may emerge; for example, how
less familiarity might lead to misconstruing task-related conflict as
a form of personal animosity (i.e., team-related conflict).
It is recommended that science team members be mindful of the need
to address differences through awareness of, and execution of
conflict management processes (e.g., identification of the
disagreement and discussion of it in relation to scientific
objectives).
It is recommended that initial attention be paid to clearly specifying
roles so conflict can be mitigated and cohesion may be more likely
to arise.
It is recommended that science team member interaction (e.g.,
through kick-off meetings) be cultivated to foster cohesion and
trust and to lay the foundation to manage member conflict.
It is recommended that science teams cultivate what is called
“affective integration” by making team roles explicit and
specifying expectations and acceptable processes (e.g., using team
charters or collaboration agreements.
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
292
STEPHEN M. FIORE ET AL.
that science teams composed using a more top-down approach (or those
made up of members with less familiarity), take into account a potentially
lower level of initial trust as well as a slower developmental trajectory of
cohesion.
Continuing with these differently assembled teams, and taking this to
the next level, we need to acknowledge that the very nature of scientific
problem solving will create a context for disagreement and debate. At issue
is the degree to which differing forms of conflict will emerge. In the bottom-up situation, given that the team is familiar with each other and share
trust, the nature of the conflict may be entirely task-based (e.g., Simons &
Peterson, 2000). But, in the case of the top-down assembled team, members
may not be able to clearly distinguish task-based or team-based conflict.
That is, in the absence of knowing each other well, and lacking familiarity
about member dispositions, a genuine disagreement on the “task” (e.g., the
utility of a particular scientific method), could be construed as a personal
attack. For example, one member may argue that the problem requires the
development of new computational models while another might argue that
existing modeling approaches will suffice. Granted, this is a simplistic
example, but it serves to illustrate how the content of conflict can produce
different perceptions (cf. DeChurch et al., 2013). Furthermore, it is also
illustrative to consider how attention to conflict processes could be used to
address such situations. The manner in which team members interact
“about” conflict will have an effect on how conflict states are perceived
(Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, & Trochim, 2008). When team members pursue
a collectivistic conflict where, for example, disagreements are discussed
with projects goals in mind (cf. DeChurch et al., 2013), this could help
ensure that the science team maintains focus of the conflict at the task level.
Given the above, it is recommended that science team members be mindful
of these potential issues when conflict may emerge; for example, how less
familiarity might lead to misconstruing task-related conflict as a form of
personal animosity (i.e., team-related conflict). In this vein, members
should be mindful of the need to address such differences through awareness of, and execution of conflict management processes (e.g., identification
of the disagreement and discussion of it in relation to scientific objectives).
We can additional provide guidance on how these newly assembled
teams structure themselves. By their very nature, interdisciplinary science
teams bring with them particular expertise. This naturally leads to role
assignments within such teams. When roles are clearly defined, as they
would be when disciplinary expertise is brought to bear on a scientific
problem, this can help overcome a lack of familiarity and, thus, enhance
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
Affective and Attitudinal Factors in Science Teams
293
the development of cohesion (Bechky, 2006; Klein, Ziegert, Knight, &
Xiao, 2006; Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009). This serves two purposes: “First, it
brings different perspectives to bear on a problem because each role represents a different point of view. Second, because each member is expected to
be an expert in his or her role, bringing up problems or disagreements is a
natural part of the role-based structure” (Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009,
p. 312). Thus, whether a team is assembled from the top-down, or bottomup methods, it is recommended that initial attention be paid to clearly specifying roles so conflict can be mitigated and cohesion may be more likely
to arise.
With regard to team member familiarity, it is recommended that member interaction be cultivated to foster cohesion and trust and to lay the
foundation to manage member conflict. As the team interacts more, member familiarity increases via increased information sharing and greater
understanding of member expertise and preferences of their teammates
(Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009; Reagans, Argote, & Brooks, 2005). This, in
turn, helps members differentiate between team and task conflict (Simons &
Peterson, 2000). Further, it can build trust and contribute to the development of cohesion. This is particularly important for science teams because
of “increased and intense interaction that allows the group to build common
goals, ensuring the commitment and participation of all members. The
familiarity that develops from intense and frequent interactions increases
interpersonal knowledge regarding beliefs and norms, and makes work
interactions easier” (Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009, p. 313; see also Jehn &
Shah, 1997; Okhuysen, 2001; Shah & Jehn, 1993). Importantly, with
increased familiarity and trust, disagreements are better managed in that
members are comfortable not always agreeing on important matters and do
not need to resort to any form of personal attacks (Okhuysen & Bechky,
2009). This can be pursued either formally or informally. From the more
formal standpoint, science teams can set project “kick-off meetings.” And,
from the more informal standpoint, “journal clubs” and the like can be
scheduled to discuss relevant scientific findings.
Finally, it is recommended that science teams cultivate what is called
“affective integration.” As explained by Weingart and Jehn (2009), the concept of affective integration is used to describe how teams foster collaboration and manage conflict. This captures liking and respect within the team,
as well as the interpersonal trust in a team (see also Cronin, Bezrukova,
Weingart, & Tinsley, 2011; Weingart, Cronin, Houser, Cagan, & Vogel,
2005). Further, this is related to how behaviors are interpreted in that team
members trust each other’s competence and intentions. This is particularly
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
294
STEPHEN M. FIORE ET AL.
salient to science teams. Specifically, we suggest that affective integration
can support interdisciplinary collaboration because it “increases the likelihood that team members’ assets (knowledge, skills, and abilities or KSAs)
are actually used by the team while collaborating. Both trust and respect
play a key role. Trust influences the willingness to share information and
receive information as accurate” (Weingart & Jehn, 2009, p. 332). The combination of these features, that is, familiarity and liking and trust and
respect, are important to interdisciplinary science, particularly when a hierarchy is present. Specifically, these can alleviate concerns about fairness
norms being violated and ensure that all members are treated with the
equal levels of dignity (Tyler, Degoey, & Smith, 1996; Weingart & Jehn,
2009). To ensure affective integration, it is recommended that science teams
make explicit team roles and specify expectations and acceptable processes
via team charters (Asencio et al., 2012) or develop collaboration agreements prior to the project start (Bennett, Gadlin, & Levine-Finley, 2010).
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, we have summarized a subset of the attitudinal and affective factors facing teams (see Table 2). We have contextualized within the
science of team science, a field developed to improve scientific collaboration. Teams are increasingly facing complex problems that cut across
Table 2.
Summary of Attitudinal/Affective Factors in Science Teams.
Attitudinal/Affective
Factors
Definitions
Task-related conflict
Viewed as knowledge-based disagreements pertaining, for example, to
theory and constructs and/or to methodologies for problem solving.
Seen as the degree to which team members manifest animosity toward
each other based upon, for example, assessments of different
attitudinal factors.
Viewed as scientist’s confidence in, or willingness to rely on,
teammates’ competence.
Seen as confidence a scientist places in a teammate based upon feelings
of security and the level of concern demonstrated for each other.
The degree to which science team members are committed to solving
their problem and working together to achieve common goals.
The degree to which team science members more freely engage in
communication and more willingly coordinate efforts.
Team-related conflict
Task-based trust
Team-based trust
Task cohesion
Team cohesion
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
Affective and Attitudinal Factors in Science Teams
295
scientific and societal boundaries. This necessitates bringing together stakeholders from various disciplines. Our goal was to elucidate some of the
group dynamics that can emerge in this particular context. That is, we set
out to highlight how conflict, trust, and cohesion arises when scientists are
brought together to deal with complicated problems. We described how
these are influenced by the fact that team members are often brought
together from different fields and hold different perspectives. Our goal was
to discuss the relevance of these factors to science team effectiveness as well
as provide guidance on notional areas of research for exploration in science
teams. Broadly, we contribute to the science of team science by illustrating
how principles from the social and organizational sciences can be used to
improve collaborative research and the practice of team science.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writing of this chapter was partially supported by Grant SES-0915602
from the National Science Foundation. The views, opinions, and findings
contained in this chapter are the authors and should not be construed as
official or as reflecting the views of the University of Central Florida or the
National Science Foundation.
REFERENCES
Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on
strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management groups. Academy
of Management Journal, 39, 123 148.
Asencio, R., Carter, D. R., DeChurch, L. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Fiore, S. M. (2012). Charting a
course for collaboration: A multiteam perspective. Translational Behavioral Medicine,
2(4), 487 494.
Badke-Schaub, P., Goldschmidt, G., & Meijer, M. (2010). How does cognitive conflict in
design teams support the development of creative ideas? Creativity and Innovation
Management, 19(2), 119 133.
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 989 1004.
Bechky, B. A. (2006). Gaffers, gofers, and grips: Role-based coordination in temporary projects. Organization Science, 17, 3 21.
Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2008). The critical role
of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
296
STEPHEN M. FIORE ET AL.
management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,
170 188.
Bennett, L. M., Gadlin, H., & Levine-Finley, S. (2010). Collaboration & team science: A field
guide. Collaboration & team science: A FIELD Guide. Bethesda, MD: National
Institutes of Health.
Börner, K., Contractor, N., Falk-Krzesinski, H. J., Fiore, S. M., Hall, K. L., Keyton, J., &
Uzzi, B. (2010). A multi-level systems perspective for the science of team science.
Science Translational Medicine, 2(49), 1 5.
Bradley, B. H., Postlethwaite, B. E., Klotz, A. C., Hamdani, M. R., & Brown, K. G. (2012).
Reaping the benefits of task conflict in teams: The critical role of team psychological
safety climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 151.
Brown, L. D. (1983). Managing conflict at organizational interfaces. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Butler, J. K. (1999). Trust expectations, information sharing, climate of trust, and negotiation
effectiveness and efficiency. Group & Organization Management, 24(2), 217–238.
Calhoun, W. J., Wooten, K., Bhavnani, S., Anderson, K. E., Freeman, J., & Brasier, A. R.
(2013). The CTSA as an exemplar framework for developing multidisciplinary translational teams. Clinical and Translational Science, 6(1), 60 71.
Carron, A. V., Eys, M. A., & Burke, S. M. (2007). Team cohesion: Nature, correlates, and
development. In S. Jowette & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social psychology in sport (pp.
91 102). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Chiocchio, F., & Essiembre, H. (2009). Cohesion and performance a meta-analytic review of
disparities between project teams, production teams, and service teams. Small Group
Research, 40(4), 382 420.
Cooke, N. J., & Hilton, M. L. (Eds.). (2015). Committee on the science of team science; board
on behavioral, cognitive, and sensory sciences; Division of behavioral and social
sciences and education; National research council. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Costa, A. C. (2003). Work team trust and effectiveness. Personnel Review, 32(5), 605 622.
Costa, A. C., Roe, R. A., & Taillieu, T. (2001). Trust within teams: The relation with performance effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(3),
225 244.
Craig, T. Y., & Kelly, J. R. (1999). Group cohesiveness and creative performance. Group
dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3(4), 243.
Cronin, M. A., Bezrukova, K., Weingart, L. R., & Tinsley, C. H. (2011). Subgroups within a
team: The role of cognitive and affective integration. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 32(6), 831 849.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). A contingency theory of task conflict and performance in groups and organizational teams. In M. A. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. G.
Smith (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working (pp. 150 166). Chichester: Wiley.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
1191 1201.
De Dreu, C. K. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 83–
107.
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
Affective and Attitudinal Factors in Science Teams
297
De Vries, M. F. R. (1999). High-performance teams: Lessons from the pygmies.
Organizational Dynamics, 27, 66 77.
DeChurch, L. A., Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Doty, D. (2013). Moving beyond relationship
and task conflict: Toward a process-state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,
98(4), 559 578.
Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84, 445 455.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350 383.
Edmondson, A. C., & Smith, D. M. (2006). Too hot to handle? How to manage relationship
conflict. California Management Review, 49, 6 31.
Ellis, D. G., & Fisher, M. (1994). Small group decision making (4th ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Erdem, F., & Ozen, J. (2003). Cognitive and affective dimensions of trust in developing team
performance. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 9(5 6),
131 135.
Evans, C. R., & Jarvis, P. A. (1980). Group cohesion: A review and re-evaluation. Small
Group Behavior, 11, 359 370.
Falk-Krzesinski, H. J., Börner, K., Contractor, N. S., Cummings, J., Fiore, S. M., Hall, K. L., &
Uzzi, B. (2010). Advancing the science of team science. Clinical and Translational Science,
3, 5.
Falk-Krzesinski, H. J., Contractor, N. S., Fiore, S. M., Hall, K. L., Kane, C., Keyton, J., &
Trochim, W. (2011). Mapping a research agenda for the science of team science.
Research Evaluation, 20, 143 156.
Farh, J. L., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. (2010). Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how
much and when. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1173 1180.
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57(5), 271 282.
Fiore, S. M. (2008). Interdisciplinarity as teamwork: How the science of teams can inform
team science. Small Group Research, 39(3), 251 277.
Fiore, S. M., Elias, J., Salas, E., Warner, N., & Letsky, M. (2010). From data, to information,
to knowledge: Measuring knowledge building in the context of collaborative cognition.
In E. Patterson & C. Miller (Eds.), Macrocognition metrics and scenarios: Design and
evaluation for real-world teams (pp. 179–200). Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group
development. The Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9 41.
Gilbert, J. A., & Tang, T. L. P. (1998). An examination of organizational trust antecedents.
Public Personnel Management, 27, 321 338.
Gross, N., & Martin, W. E. (1952). On group cohesiveness. American Journal of Sociology, 57,
546–564.
Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community.
The Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942 1012.
Gully, S. M., Devine, D. S., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research,
26(4), 497 520.
Hackman, J. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational
behavior (pp. 315 342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
298
STEPHEN M. FIORE ET AL.
Hall, K. L., Feng, A. X., Moser, R. P., Stokols, D., & Taylor, B. K. (2008). Moving the
science of team science forward: Collaboration and creativity. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 35(2S), 243 249.
Hall, K. L., Vogel, A. L., Stipelman, B. A., Stokols, D., Morgan, G., & Gehlert, S. (2012). A
four-phase model of transdisciplinary team-based research: Goals, team processes, and
strategies. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 2(4), 415 430.
Hatfield, E., Walster, E. H., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and
research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hogg, M. A. (1987). Social identity theory and group cohesiveness. In J. Turner (Ed.),
Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 89 116). Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 5(3), 184–200.
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation
at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of
Applied psychology, 94(5), 1128.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations:
From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review Psychology, 56,
517 543.
Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages
of value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5,
223 238.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and determinants of intragroup
conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256 282.
Jehn, K. A., & Shah, P. P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An examination of mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 775 790.
Jones, B., Wuchty, S., & Uzzi, B. (2008). Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science, 322, 1259 1262.
Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for
cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23, 531 546.
Klein, K. J., Ziegert, J. C., Knight, A. P., & Xiao, Y. (2006). Dynamic delegation: Shared,
hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 51, 590 621.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. Handbook of
psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lembke, S., & Wilson, M. G. (1998). Putting the ‘team’ into teamwork: Alternative theoretical
contributions for contemporary management practice. Human Relations, 51(7),
927 944.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of
Psychology, 41, 585 634.
Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships
and realities. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438 458.
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social forces, 63(4), 967 985.
Linlin, J., & Haifa, S. (2011). The effect of researchers’ interdisciplinary characteristics on
team innovation performance: Evidence from university R&D teams in China.
International Journal of Human Resources Management, 21(3), 2488 2502.
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
Affective and Attitudinal Factors in Science Teams
299
MacCoun, R. J. (1996). Sexual orientation and military cohesion: A critical review of the evidence. In G. Herek, J. Jobe, & R. E. Carney (Eds.), Out in force: Sexual orientation and
the military (pp. 157 176). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mach, M., Dolan, S., & Tzafrir, S. (2010). The differential effect of team members’ trust on
team performance: The mediation role of team cohesion. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 771 794.
Man, D. C., & Lam, S. K. (2003). The effects of job complexity and autonomy on cohesiveness
in collectivistic and individualistic work groups: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24(8), 979 1001.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356 376.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709 734.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24 59.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationship between providers and
users of marketing research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations.
Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 314 328.
Morgan, B. B., Jr., Glickman, A. S., Woodard, E. A., Blaiwes, A. S., & Salas, E. (1986).
Measurement of team behaviors in a Navy environment (NTSC Tech. Rep. No. 86-014).
Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance:
An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210 227.
Murnighan, J. K., & Conlon, D. E. (1991). The dynamics of intense work groups: A study of
British string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 165 186.
Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence processes.
Psychological Review, 93, 10 20.
Nerkar, A. A., McGrath, R. G., & MacMillan, I. C. (1997). Three facets of satisfaction and
their influence on the performance of innovation teams. The Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 14, 63.
Okhuysen, G., & Bechky, B. A. (2009). Making group process work: Harnessing collective
intuition, task conflict, and pacing. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), The Blackwell handbook of
principles of organizational behavior (pp. 309 326). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Okhuysen, G. A. (2001). Structuring change: Familiarity and formal interventions in problem
solving groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 794 808.
Olson, J. S., & Olson, G. M. (2013). Working together apart: Collaboration over the internet.
Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 6(5), 1 151.
Pavlidis, I., Petersen, A. M., & Semendeferi, I. (2014). Together we stand. Nature Physics, 10,
700 702.
Reagans, R., Argote, L., & Brooks, D. (2005). Individual experience and experience working
together: Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to
work together. Management Science, 51, 869 881.
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95 112.
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
300
STEPHEN M. FIORE ET AL.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A
cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393 404.
Sabel, C. F. (1993). Studied trust: Building new forms of cooperation in a volatile economy.
Human Relations, 46(9), 1133–1170.
Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams:
Their training and performance (pp. 3 29). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Salas, E., & Fiore, S. M. (Eds.). (2004). Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive
process and performance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Salas, E., Fiore, S. M., & Letsky, M. (Eds.). (2012). Theories of team cognition: Crossdisciplinary perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
Shah, P. P., & Jehn, K. A. (1993). Do friends perform better than acquaintances? The interaction of friendship, conflict, and task. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2(2), 149–165.
Sheng, C. W., Tian, Y. F., & Chen, M. C. (2010). Relationships among teamwork behavior,
trust, perceived team support, and team commitment. Social Behavior and Personality:
An International Journal, 38(10), 1297 1305.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
102 111.
Staples, D. S., & Webster, J. (2008). Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependence and
virtualness on knowledge sharing in teams. Information Systems Journal, 18(6),
617 640.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Stokols, D., Hall, K. L., & Vogel, A. L. (2013). Transdisciplinary public health: Core characteristics, definitions, and strategies for success. In D. Haire-Joshu & T. D. McBride
(Eds.), Transdisciplinary public health: Research, methods, and practice (pp. 3 30). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stokols, D., Misra, S., Moser, R., Hall, K. L., & Taylor, B. (2008). The ecology of team
science: Understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S96 S115.
Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120 133.
Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict,
conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group and Organization
Management, 34(2), 170 205.
Thau, S., Crossley, C., Bennett, R. J., & Sczesny, S. (2007). The relationship between trust,
attachment, and antisocial work behaviors. Human Relations, 60(8), 1155 1179.
Thompson, L., & DeHarpport, T. (1998). Relationships, goal incompatibility, and communal
orientation in negotiations. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20(1), 33–44.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63,
384 399.
Tyler, T., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures
matters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913 930.
Van de Vliert, E., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (1994). Optimizing performance by stimulating conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 211 222.
Downloaded by Professor Stephen Fiore At 22:02 18 December 2015 (PT)
Affective and Attitudinal Factors in Science Teams
301
Van Woerkom, M., & Sanders, K. (2010). The romance of learning from disagreement: The
shared effect of cohesiveness and disagreement on knowledge sharing behavior and
individual performance within teams. Journal of Business Psychology, 25(1), 139 149.
Wall, V., & Nolan, L. (1986). Perceptions of inequity, satisfaction, and conflict in task-oriented
groups. Human Relations, 39, 1033 1052.
Weingart, L. R., Cronin, M. A., Houser, C. J. S., Cagan, J., & Vogel, C. (2005). Functional
diversity and conflict in cross-functional product development teams: Considering
representational gaps and task characteristics. In L. L. Neider & C. A. Schriesheim
(Eds.), Understanding Teams (pp. 89 110). Greenwich, CT: IAP.
Weingart, L. R., & Jehn, K. (2009). Managing intra-team conflict through collaboration. In E.
A. Locke (Ed.), The Blackwell handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp.
327 346). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Wellins, R. S., Byham, W. C., & Wilson, J. M. (1991). Empowered teams: Creating selfmanaging working groups and the improvement of productivity and participation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wildman, J. L., Shuffler, M. L., Lazzara, E. H., Fiore, S. M., Burke, C. S., Salas, E., &
Garven, S. (2012). Trust development in swift starting action teams: A multilevel
framework. Group & Organization Management, 37(2), 137–170.
Wuchty, S., Jones, B., & Uzzi, B. (2007). Why do team-authored papers get cited more.
Science, 317, 1496 1498.
Zaccaro, S. J., Gualtieri, J., & Minionis, D. (1995). Task cohesion as a facilitator of team decision making under temporal urgency. Military Psychology, 7(2), 77.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Lowe, C. A. (1988). Cohesiveness and performance on an additive task:
Evidence for multidimensionality. Journal of Social Psychology, 128(4), 547 558.
Zaccaro, S. J., & McCoy, M. C. (1988). The effects of task and interpersonal cohesiveness on
performance of a disjunctive group task. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(10),
837 851.
Zaccaro, S. J. (1991). Nonequivalent associations between forms of cohesiveness and grouprelated outcomes: Evidence for multidimensionality. The Journal of Social Psychology,
131(3), 387–399.