Abstract

Global virtual teamwork has emerged as a cornerstone of collaborative teamwork in today’s work landscape, characterized by cross-border collaboration using digital technologies. Although research has started to investigate the mechanisms underlying effective teamwork through information and communication technologies (ICTs), an often-neglected dimension is the pivotal social context within which this collaboration unfolds. To address this research gap, this study adopts a social capital lens on teamwork in proposing social capital as a multidimensional mediator between the usage of ICTs and team effectiveness. The research model was tested using questionnaire data from 271 technologically sensitive and aware companies in the DACH region (Germany, Austria, Switzerland). The findings reveal that using multiple ICTs alone does not suffice for effective global virtual teamwork. Therefore, this study highlights the significance of social capital for the effectiveness of global virtual teamwork, which holds significant implications for theory and practice.

Introduction

Advances in information and communication technologies (ICTs), coupled with the increasing prevalence of globalization, have driven organizations to rely on digital technologies for globally distributed collaboration—so-called global virtual teamwork ( Tavoletti & Taras, 2023 ). Due to several benefits, such as time and cost savings, talent pooling, and increased team diversity, global virtual teams were already well established in today’s workplace before the COVID-19 pandemic ( Jimenez, Boehe, Taras, & Caprar, 2017 ; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006 ; Tavoletti & Taras, 2023 ). However, global virtual teamwork also presents significant challenges that can threaten team effectiveness. Reliance on ICTs reduces media richness and delays feedback, including an increased risk of miscommunication and misunderstanding ( Bilotta et al., 2021 ; Klitmøller & Lauring, 2013 ; Mangla, 2021 ).

Based on the premise that a single medium cannot support the two fundamental communication processes of conveyance (i.e., sharing new information) and convergence (i.e., reaching a common understanding), we introduce the concept of ICT usage, which refers to the frequent and strategic use of multiple ICTs ( Dennis, Fuller, & Valacich, 2008 ; Niinimäki, Piri, Lassenius, & Paasivaara, 2012 ). We propose that high levels of ICT usage will increase team effectiveness, which consists of performance, longevity, and satisfaction ( Dennis et al., 2008 ; Hackman, 1987 ).

Conclusion

The confluence of digitalization and globalization has had an enduring influence on utilizing virtual and global collaboration in the workplace. Due to their embeddedness in a social context, teams are a focal point of multiple levels, linking the individual team members and the organizational system holistically ( Kozlowski & Bell, 2013 ). This requires a profound comprehension of the social context, which can enhance the uptake of ICTs and the effectiveness of global virtual teamwork. To fill this research gap, we conceptualized social capital as a multidimensional mediator, encompassing structural, cognitive, and relational social capital ( Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998 ), between the adoption of ICTs and team effectiveness composed of performance, satisfaction, and longevity.

In summary, this study provides a solid foundation for integrating social capital in global virtual teamwork. The results of our study indicate that frequent use of multiple ICTs does not influence the effectiveness of global virtual teams. Instead, a significant positive relationship was found between ICT use and social capital. Regarding the individual dimensions of social capital, this relationship was only found for structural social capital. Similar results were obtained for the mediator hypotheses, with both total and structural social capital acting as strengthening mediators between ICT usage and team effectiveness. Conversely, cognitive and relational social capital did not show significant mediating effects. The present research context makes developing cognitive and relational social capital difficult, although their importance cannot be denied, as both social capital and its individual dimensions show a positive relationship with team effectiveness. Possible ways to build cognitive and relational social capital include allocating sufficient time for team interactions and creating shared physical spaces, such as face-to-face meetings, to balance them. Overall, our study provides insights into the extent to which the integration of social capital enhances team effectiveness in today’s digitized and globalized world.

Abstract

Although knowledge drives organizational growth, limited teamwork skills have hindered effective knowledge sharing and utilization across departments and individuals in higher education institutions (HEIs). Thus, this paper develops a pertinent knowledge-intensive teamworking model for HEIs. Educational background, leadership, and social media adoption were independent variables, while knowledge acquisition, development, application, revision, and knowledge-intensive teamwork were dependent variables. Using an online questionnaire, a quantitative investigation of 918 people across different HEIs tested hypotheses based on PLS-SEM findings. Results showed that educational background, leadership, and social media adoption are integral enablers in smoothing knowledge management operations, while the synergistic combination of process phases drives teamwork. Consequently, outcomes establish foundations for fostering a continuous learning culture, accountability, and cooperation in HEIs.

Introduction

Most management and technology research has focused on the technical efficiency of social media [1]. Information technology revolutionized education over three decades ago, and more recent research has examined various impacts on the workplace, such as training and communication [2,3]. Social media adoption in higher education institutions (HEIs) depends on strategic aims, resources, and cultural factors [4]. Furthermore, the adoption of technology by HEIs is contingent on organizational strategy and differs among HEIs in the same education system [5]. The use of social media in education has drawn interdisciplinary interest [6,7] as HEIs shift communication from one-way to interactive to regularly engage stakeholders [8]. Continual society-wide communication needs frequent updates across media, especially social platforms. Different methods can shape how HEIs utilize social media as key channels, enabling stakeholder conversations. Communication frequently starts on blogging platforms and spreads across media as users access multiple integrated channels, facilitating tailored, multi-way exchanges without time barriers.

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated remote work and learning, disrupting traditional HEI teamwork models and requiring new virtual collaboration approaches [9]. This research extends knowledge management theory by examining how social media enables leadership, knowledge sharing, and co-development in virtual teams. Specifically, it provides empirical support for the knowledge management cycle model of Kang and Hau [10] by demonstrating how social media can facilitate key stages of knowledge acquisition, sharing, and revision in virtual settings. The findings reveal how social media-enabled leadership, through modeling knowledge-sharing practices and incentivizing participation, is critical for overcoming motivational barriers to collaborative knowledge activities online [11]. This paper advances the theoretical understanding of the interconnected relationships between social media adoption, leadership influence, and iterative knowledge improvement critical for virtual team effectiveness in higher education institutions. Moreover, a key contribution is providing empirical evidence on the affordances of different social media platforms for enabling specific collaborative activities in virtual HEI teams. The findings provide actionable guidance to HEI leaders on effective social media policies and professional development to optimize virtual teamwork. This research also contributes a new conceptual model of social media-enabled knowledge-intensive teamwork tailored to the HEI context.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted higher education institutions, catalyzing a shift towards remote and online learning. In this context, social media has become an integral platform enabling knowledge-intensive teamwork, allowing seamless communication and collaboration regardless of location. Specifically, social media can promote the development of such teams in several key ways. Online discussions and forums can be leveraged to share information and resources, discuss ideas, brainstorm solutions, and provide feedback among team members. Video conferencing tools facilitate virtual meetings and presentations, helping members stay connected and engaged. Additionally, knowledge management systems allow the centralized sharing and accessing of documents while tracking progress – optimizing coordination. Consequently, social media facilitates effective knowledge-intensive teamwork in higher education after COVID-19 by providing ubiquitous channels for cooperation.

In conclusion, high-performing knowledge-based teams in higher education are predicated on an innovation-centric framework requiring integrated organizational and procedural alignment. Positive relationships among knowledge skill-building, leadership support, and cultural enablement underscore the need to embed holistically developmental, technological, and structural conditions that foster learning and innovative capacity at individual and team levels. Internally, sustained idea flows via cooperation enable continuous adaptation and improvement as contexts shift.

Abstract

     The rapid development of information and communication technology (ICT) has resulted in several improvements in diverse aspects of the organizational structures, including the introduction of virtual teams (VTs). Organizations rely on VTs since they bring a lot of benefits, such as the enhancement of organizational performance. However, effective VTs cannot exist without the proper implementation of decision-making processes. There is a lack of scientific research that attempts to understand the factors affecting decision-making processes in VTs. Studies in this area have only been conducted in the United States and Europe. However, such research has not been conducted in the Middle East, where specific scientific solutions are still required to improve the performance of VTs. Therefore, this study is conducted in the Middle East to gain scientific knowledge on this region’s specificity. Thus, the objective of this study is to identify the factors that affect VT decision-making processes. An online survey was used to collect data (Google forms) from companies in the IT industry in UAE, which are engaged in VTs. A literature review, survey methods, and structural equation modeling were used. The results showed that culture intelligence (CQ), transformational leadership (TL), and task conflict have a positive effect on VT decision-making processes, and relationship conflict has a negative impact on VT decision-making processes, which provides the management teams with a guideline on what to concentrate on in the measuring and enhancement of the effectiveness of VT decision making.

Introduction

     The most important changes that face organizations are caused by information and communication technology (ICT) (Al Majzoub and Davidaviˇciene˙ 2018). ICT has caused the formation of a new type of team work called virtual teams. The use of virtual teams is important for organizations because they allow team members to communicate, despite distance and time constraints. They allow organizations to hire the most talented people regardless of the location, which increases the efficiency of the team (Schmidtke and Cummings 2017). VTs are defined as “groups of people who are geographically and/or organizationally dispersed and who rely on collaboration technologies to carry out tasks” (Lowry et al. 2015). VTs bring advantages to organizations, such as the presence of diverse staff, innovation allocation of resources, flexible organizational structure, enhanced decision making and an increase in organizational performance (Bhat et al. 2017). Even though VTs provide benefits to the organization, they impose challenges to perform effectively. One of the essential factors that affects VT performance is decision-making processes (Wei et al. 2017). To date, there exists a case of scarcity in academic research in the field of decisionmaking processes in virtual teams (Davidaviciene et al. 2020; Drouin and Bourgault 2013; Tan 2019; Zakaria 2017). Most of the research is conducted on university students instead of actual organizational virtual teams (O’Neill et al. 2016; Organ and Flaherty 2018; Paul and Dennis 2018). From the literature review, it could be concluded that there is a lack of research that examines the effect of these three factors—conflict, culture and leadership—on the decision-making process in UAE.

Conclusions

     VT decision making is an important key indicator of VT performance, and hence organizational performance. Organizations must understand and measure the key factors that affect decision making and team performance in an organization and work to enhance it to be able to obtain its market share and be competitive. This article aimed to identify the following factors—CQ, TL, and task and relationship conflict—that affect VT decisionmaking processes. Based on the empirical research conducted, it can be concluded that CQ, TL, and task and relationship conflict are important factors to consider when measuring VT decisions, as the results show that culture intelligence (CQ), transformational leadership (TL), and task conflict are positively correlated with decision-making processes, and relationship conflict is negatively correlated with decision-making processes in VTs. This article provides a guideline for management in an organization to measure VT decision making. For example, when measuring decision making in VT, management should concentrate on how to enhance the following factors—cultural intelligence, transformational leadership, and task conflict—and how to eliminate or reduce relationship conflict factors between members in VTs. Measuring and controlling these factors will help an organization to enhance its VT decisions, which in turn will improve VT performance. In addition, this study proposes a framework for future studies to add factors to these models and create new models, not only to measure but also to implement strategies that can be used to enhance the VT decision-making process and hence improve VT performance. As all research does, this study has limitations. The first limitation of this study is the use of four factors affecting decision-making processes. However, there are other factors that affect decision making that were not included in this study, such as trust, ICT, etc. Second, the study was conducted among organizations in the IT industry. Future studies should include other industries. Third, this study was conducted in the U.A.E. Future studies should include countries in the Middle East in comparison with other regions. Future studies also should include all the mentioned limitations

1- Teams in extreme environments

2- Stress effects

3- Team processes and emergent states

4- Further research

5- Implications for application

6- Conclusions

References

Abstract

We rely upon teams to perform complex tasks in highly demanding environments, ranging from space exploration to response to earth-bound disasters. In this article, we first briefly review the rich historical legacy of research on teams in extreme settings. Second, we orient our discussion of team performance in extreme environments by focusing on the contextual environment—the high demand, high-stress environment in which these teams operate. We discuss the mechanisms through which extreme demands or stress may impact team behavior, and discuss specific team processes and emergent states that may be impacted by these conditions. Finally, we address challenges in conducting research on extreme teams, and describe implications for application and practice.

Teams in extreme environments

It is useful to first describe what we mean by the terms “team” and “extreme environments.” We define a team as two or more persons who interact in pursuit of a common goal (see Salas, Cooke, & Rosen, 2008). For our purposes, we will use the terms “team” and “group” interchangeably and further note that teams of interest may typically range in size from a dyad (e.g., the early studies of isolated and confined groups by Haythorn and colleagues; Haythorn, Altman, & Myers, 1966) to ten (e.g., the Navy Sea Lab program; Helmreich, 1966) to twenty or more (e.g., groups wintering-over in the Antarctic; Stuster, 1996). Further, we define the term extreme environments as settings in which there are significant task, social, or environmental demands that entail high levels of risk and increased consequences for poor performance. According to Harrison and Connors (1984), extreme (or exotic) environments may be marked by (a) hostile environmental demands, (b) danger and physical risk to self or others, (c) restricted living or working conditions, and (d) social demands that may include isolation from those outside the setting and close confinement with those inside. Bell, Fisher, Brown, and Mann (2016) define extreme environments as (a) task contexts that are atypical in terms of the level of demands (e.g., time pressure) or the type of demands (e.g., confinement, danger), and (b) contexts in which ineffective performance has severe consequences. It is worthwhile to note that our working definition subsumes a large number of diverse types of settings. For example, Stachowski, Kaplan, and Waller (2009) define crisis situations as low-probability, high-impact events characterized by time pressure and ambiguity and that have significant consequences for the team (see also Yu, Sengul, & Lester, 2008). Harrison and Connors (1984) describe exotic environments as those marked by severe environmental conditions, danger, isolation, and enforced interaction with others. Gardner (2012) describes performance pressure as an external force imposed on the team that includes shared outcome accountability, heightened scrutiny of the team’s work, and significant consequences for the team’s performance; whereas Salas, Driskell, and Hughes (1996) define stress as a process by which environmental demands evoke an appraisal process in which perceived demand exceeds resources, and that results in undesirable physiological, psychological, behavioral, or social outcomes. These are all related terms that have been used to describe different types of high-demand task settings. Moreover, we note that the main commonality among these various terms is that they all refer to a highly demanding performance context. Current research on teams in extreme environments include the study of teams in long-duration spaceflight (Salas, Tannenbaum et al., 2015), mountaineering teams in high-altitude settings (Wickens, Keller, & Shaw, 2015), teams in military settings (Driskell, Burke, Driskell, Salas, & Neuberger, 2014), teams in nuclear plant control rooms (Stachowski et al., 2009), and other teams in various high-demand, high-stress environments (Ellis, 2006; Kamphuis, Gaillard, & Vogelaar, 2011; Pearsall, Ellis, & Stein, 2009). Finally, we note that the task, environmental, and social demands that teams face in extreme settings are matters of degree—that is, we view “extreme teams” as those operating under task conditions that may vary on a continuum of very high demand to moderate demand. Thus, our view is that teams operating under demanding conditions may include combat teams as well as project teams.

1- Introduction

2- “Marketing and Communications Team”

3- Background of conflict states

4- Team conflict profiles

5- Propositions of the Team Conflict Dynamics Model

6- Future research, limitations, and conclusion

7- Conclusion

References

Abstract

In the current review we consider theory and research involving task, relationship, and process conflict. We examine relationships with team performance and innovation with an eye toward recent meta-analytic findings. We then review recent research investigating the interplay of team conflict types in the form of team conflict profiles. We advance the Team Conflict Dynamics Model to connect conflict profiles with key variables in the nomological net: psychological safety, conflict management, and team performance. This model considers dynamics by examining conflict transformations over time, reciprocal effects of conflict management processes, and negative feedback loops. Moreover, the model incorporates contextual features involving team design and the organizational environment. This review is needed in order to integrate recent meta-analytic findings, conflict profiles, conflict dynamics, and contextual factors into a parsimonious model useful for guiding future research and practice.

Introduction

Organizational work teams are by definition comprised of members that work interdependently and count on one another to make task-, goal-, and outcome-related progress (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Given that conflict is inevitable wherever interdependencies occur (Deutsch, 1949), conflict in teamwork is a regular occurrence. Because these conflicts have powerful implications for team functioning and effectiveness (DeChurch, Mesmer-Magnus, & Doty, 2013), it is not surprising that there is a long history of research and ongoing work on this topic (see reviews by Korsgaard, Jeong, Mahony, & Pitariu, 2008; Loughry & Amason, 2014). The current work moves beyond the existing narrative reviews and is needed for several reasons. First, although Korsgaard et al. (2008) provided a review on the multilevel dynamics of team conflict, there have been a number of important recent developments. These largely involve new meta-analyses that shed important light on the benefits, detriments, and contingencies of conflict. Second, Korsgaard et al.’s focus was restricted to antecedents of conflict in teams whereas our focus is on new meta-analytic evidence of conflict’s consequences, namely, conflict’s implications for performance and innovation. Third, reviews by Loughry and Amason (2014) and Bradley, Anderson, Baur, and Klotz (2015) focused on identifying conditions in which task conflict is most effective. We build on this by drawing from recent empirical work examining team conflict profiles, which describe more clearly the patterns of conflict that occur in teams (O’Neill, McLarnon, Hoffart, Woodley & Allen, in press). Fourth, we theoretically examine the dynamics of team conflict in order to advance research on how conflict profiles are related to other key variables over time. In this way, we further build upon existing reviews, which have called for development of theoretical models that incorporate the role of conflict dynamics given that conflict occurs across multiple episodes of interaction (e.g., Korsgaard et al., 2008). Fifth, the previous reviews do not consider team design or organizational environment factors that represent contextual features with implications for team effectiveness (Hackman, 1987). Ignoring such factors would lead to an incomplete understanding of conflict in teams (Todorova, Bear, & Weingart, 2014). Thus, this review is needed to advance a model of team conflict that captures recent scientific developments, identifies priorities for future research, and provides implications for practice.

In 2016, estimated 21,580 women will be diagnosed with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer in the United States; and approximately 14,300 of them will die from the disease [1]. The vast majority of patients with these cancers present with advanced malignancy, stage III or IV disease, with widespread tumor dissemination within the abdominal cavity, with or without tumor spread to the liver, lungs, or distant organs [1]. This is the deadliest of all gynecologic cancers. Though it accounts for only 3% of all cancer cases in women, ovarian cancer is the ffth leading cause of cancer-related death [2]. Although more than 70% of women with advanced disease respond to the initial chemotherapy, most become subject to recurrent disease within the peritoneal cavity and eventually become resistant to chemotherapy [3]. Once the disease recurs, it usually becomes incurable despite further chemotherapy and surgery, and patients eventually die of their disease. Symptom management of patients with ovarian cancer is performed along a continuum: beginning at diagnosis, continuing through curative treatment and for some will continue when disease recurs. For patients with end-stage ovarian cancer, palliative services, including actively setting achievable patient-centered goals for medical care and aggressive symptom management, should be routinely ofered, alongside curative and disease-modifying treatments. At the recurrence setting, ovarian cancer patients may have a variety of symptoms, including emotional and psychological issues, as well as physical symptoms including pain, bowel symptoms (chronic constipation, obstructions, and diarrhea), abdominal bloating due to recurrent ascites, dyspnea due to pleural efusion or pulmonic congestion, and deterioration in quality of life. In this review, we address issues related to end-stage ovarian cancer patients and review the options for treatment aimed to improve pain control and quality of life.

Ovarian cancer end‑stage disease

The primary intervention for patients with ovarian cancer is complete/optimal surgical cytoreduction. In the case of advanced disease, either debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy using paclitaxel plus carboplatin, with or without biologic agents, or neoadjuvant chemotherapy with interval debulking is performed [2]. In cases of recurrence, most women eventually become resistant to the frst-line therapies and require treatment with second-, third-, and possibly fourth-line chemotherapy regimens. Advanced ovarian cancer runs a chronic course. By the end of the second to the fourth line of chemotherapy, a time comes when patients are left without any available cancer-specifc treatment options despite the presence of a progressive disease. At this point, only palliative and supportive care can be ofered. The goal in end-of-life care is to provide maximum palliation of symptoms and maximal psychological support. End-of-life care should emphasize the shift from curing the disease to major eforts for palliation and control of symptoms that are caused by the disease. Achieving this dramatic change in attitude entails the incorporation of palliative care teams for patients and their caregiving network, family, and friends.

First, let us address the question of why shared leadership is such a hot topic. Increasing complexity in the workplace, dwindling resources, generational issues including a surge of baby boomer retirements and cultural value changes in younger staff members, as well as significant changes in the health care business environment all create tremendous pressure on today’s nursing leaders. Years ago, I was conducting interviews and focus groups of managers about the many changes in their health care system. As a consultant, I had worked with their system for 4 years, helping them become a team-based organization. I was surprised to find that they were handling the current pressures so effectively. When I asked if the number of changes they were facing had decreased, they laughed and assured me that, if anything, the pace of change was faster than ever. I asked them why they seemed so calm and in control. To my surprise, I heard this response from manager after manager: ‘‘Since I implemented a leadership team, this is the first time in my management experience I don’t feel like I’m alone! I feel like I have others to help me with the leadership load.’’ What testimony to the benefit of a leadership team! None of our current challenges are going to go away and our leadership load is not likely to lessen. It may be that the only realistic hope for help and support is to embrace the concept of shared leadership. Although it can require more effort to establish, in the long run, it pays off exponentially. When the leadership role in your department or work group (eg, on your shift or in your clinical area) is shared, needed results can be greatly improved. Other important benefits include: greater alignment with organizational values and purpose; improved communication and decision making; decreased ‘‘silo’’ behavior; increased support of each other; stronger personal commitment and engagement of members; and the deliberate development of future leaders. These benefits are realized only if the leadership team is a true team, working in concert with each other for the benefit of the whole. A dysfunctional work group is more likely to increase the work for the leader rather than decrease it. For this reason, it is important you have the key assessment points at your fingertips to determine whether your team is effective or not!

The International Council of Nursing (ICN) recognises that health systems reforms are underway in all parts of the world (International Council of Nursing, 2010). The delivery of effective, high quality and safe nursing care has attracted much attention internationally (Valentine, Nembhard, & Edmondson, 2011) and more locally in Australia (O’Connell, Duke, Bennett, Crawford, & Korfiatis, 2006). In contemporary clinical practice, team nursing has become the widely accepted model forthe delivery of patient care. Whilstthere is a broad consensus of what team work entails, several nursing teamwork definitions and conceptual frameworks are reported in the literature. Team work is considered to be a dynamic process encompassing an interplay of several factors (Xyrichis & Ream, 2008) inherently complex and too difficult to be defined by a single definition (Mickan & Rodger, 2000; O’Connell et al., 2006). Salas et al. uses a conceptual model to frame five core elements of teamwork including team leadership, backup behaviour, adaptability, team orientation, and mutual performance monitoring supported by a circle of mutual trust, closed loop communication and shared mental models (Salas, Sims, & Shawn Burke, 2005). Kalisch et al. adapted Salas’s conceptual framework and identified significant factors associated with nursing teamwork that formed the basis of a validated nursing teamwork survey (NTS) (Kalisch, Lee, & Rochman, 2010). The key factors identified to positively influence teamwork by Kalisch et al. include trust, team orientation, back up, shared mental model and team leadership (Kalisch, Weaver, & Salas, 2009; Kalisch & Lee, 2009). Although the various factors influencing team work are well established organisational structure, individual contribution and team processes play a fundamental role in team work (Mickan & Rodger, 2000). The benefits of effective teamwork for both patients and nurses are well documented. For patients team work has been demonstrated to improve patient safety, reduced errors (Institute of Medicine, 1999; Leonard, Graham, & Bonacum, 2004; Nadzam, 2009) and reduce mortality (Wheelan, Burchill, & Tilin, 2003). For nurses, teamwork increases job satisfaction, staff retention (Kalisch et al., 2010; O’Connell et al., 2006) and enables a range of nursing skills and expertise to effectively and efficiently deliver high quality patient care (O’Connell et al., 2006; Wheelan et al., 2003). In addition team work provides adequate supervision and/or mentoring of less experienced nurses (Fairbrother, Jones, & Rivas, 2010; Ferguson & Cioffi, 2011; Nelsey & Brownie, 2012). In contrast, dysfunctional teams increase conflict, increase absenteeism, reduce performance and job satisfaction (Carver & Candela, 2008; Duffield, Roche, O’Brien-Pallas, Catling-Paull, & King, 2009). In the last decade Australia has experienced an increase in patient acuity, a shortage in nurses, a diverse skill mix, a poor retention rate of new graduate registered nurses (Nelsey & Brownie, 2012) and have an ageing nursing workforce The observed changes to the health care sector and to the nursing workforce prompted a review of the way nursing care was being delivered (O’Connell et al., 2006) in the public health care sector. Models of nursing care shifted from a model of patient allocation to a team nursing model of care where a small team of ward based nurses collaborate to provide all care to a patient group (Ferguson & Cioffi, 2011; Garling, 2007; Chiarella & Lau, 2006; Walker, Donoghue, & Mitten-Lewis, 2002, 2007).

The education provided by computer-related departments such as computer engineering, software engineering, computer science, informatics, etc. aim to equip graduates with specific skills and competencies, which do not often conform with the capabilities required by the computer industry. The dynamic and complex conditions encountered in the workplace of computer and software companies are not always fulfilled by the new graduates’ qualifications, leading to failures in software development and, consequently, dissatisfaction among employers. (Andrews and Higson, 2008; Turhan and Akman, 2013). The success of software projects developed in Information Technology (IT) and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) companies largely depend on the success of the individuals and teams who take part in the software development process (Acuña et al., 2015) [1]. Even though the software development process is mainly considered to be a team activity along with the collaboration, coordination and conflicts among the team, the individual performance of the team members also contribute to the success of the project at hand (Balamohan et al., 2015; Bender et al., 2014). Software project managers demand different competencies from graduates when they need to work independently; this is in contrast to when they are expected to work as a team member. The attitude, behaviour and performance of new graduates tend to vary in individual and team work settings, depending on their technical competencies, personal skills and educational background. There have been numerous studies on the technical/hard and non-technical/soft skills that graduates are expected to possess (Andrews and Higson, 2008; Selvadurai et al., 2012); yet, the employers’ perceptions of how these skills affect the performance of the employee when working individually vs. in a team has not been investigated fully. The employability of graduates have been previously examined in a number of studies from different perspectives. For example, in their studies, Kiffin-Petersen and Cordery (2003) examine employee attitudes towards teamwork; Andrews and Higson (2008) perform an exploratory study investigating the viewpoints of graduates and employers in four European countries; Selvadurai et al. (2012) study the required generic skills of graduates from employer’s perspectives; DuPre and Williams (2011) examine undergraduates’ perceptions regarding the expectations of their prospective employers; Balamohan et al. (2015) investigate the role of emotional intelligence on individual performance, leadership and team-effectiveness; Lau et al. (2016) explores the exptectations regarding the IT skills for Vietnam; Malik and Venkatraman (2017) compare the employer expectations with the employee skills in India; Ramadi et al. (2016) analyze the gap between the managers’ expectations and satisfaction in engineering in the MENA region and, lastly, Costa et al. (2014) present a model for teamwork engagement. Additionally, the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) gives higher emphasis to professional competencies (Turhan and Akman, 2013; Shuman et al., 2005) than curricular course details since they are nearly standard in almost all IT departments. Furthermore, Mukhtar et al. (2009) and Pool and Sewell (2007) also pointed out the changing nature of competencies and, therefore, the need for further research for a better chance of occupational satisfaction and success (Turhan and Akman, 2013).

Nursing care is provided within the context of interdisciplinary and Inter-agency teams. A high standard of teamwork is critical for therapeutic and safe care. In the current climate of escalating clinical demand on health services, nurses and medical staff are experiencing increasing workload pressures (Royal College of Physicians, 2012; Royal College of Nursing, 2013), and relationships within teams have the potential to become strained (Care Quality Commission, 2013). Failures in team working have adverse implications for patient safety as evidenced in inquiries of substandard care in United Kingdom (UK) hospital services, including the Mid-Staffordshire National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust (Francis, 2013) and the Vale of Leven Hospital (MacLean, 2014). While there is a clear need for positive support structures and a good organisational shell (Xiao et al., 2013), individual and in-group characteristics are also important in teamwork. Safety in healthcare is dependent on doctors, nurses, pharmacists and allied health professionals being able to coordinate and communicate treatment plans with one another, in partnership with patients and their families (Feeley et al., 2010). Future registrants of healthcare professions must be provided with opportunities to enhance their competence and interpersonal skills for working in teams. Such learning is not limited to the cognitive domain and involves mostly affective learning. Boore and Deeny (2012) have highlighted the limited value of didactic methods for affective learning, and have posited that an experiential and problem-based approach may be more relevant in developing interpersonal skills for working effectively in teams. Research indicates that learning in Higher Education is enhanced when students are engaged in purposeful and collaborative activity (Gilboy et al., 2015; Wood, 2015; Yew & Goh, 2016). Group poster development is an evidence-informed strategy for enhancing student engagement, and promoting learning relationships and collaborative behaviour (Zepke & Leach, 2010; Brooman & Darwent, 2014). Creation of a health promotion poster and presenting this work to peers, teachers, statutory and voluntary organisations at a public conference was considered by the authors to provide an authentic team learning experience. This paper reports on a pilot study that tested the suitability of the TeamSTEPPS Teamwork Perceptions Questionnaire (Battles & King, 2010) for measuring the impact of the experiential intervention among undergraduate nursing students developing ability to work in teams.

The work once accomplished by individuals is now regularly performed by teams. This is due to a number of factors, including enhanced opportunities for collaboration through newly developed technologies, a need for greater levels of innovation due to increasing competition between firms, and a rise in complex tasks requiring high levels of creativity. With the recognition that teams may be especially important where creative and innovative tasks are required (Parrotta, Pozzoli, Pytlikova, 2014; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998), teams are becoming increasingly common in many organizations. This is especially true of self-managed teams, which are becoming more and more popular as organizational hierarchies collapse and individuals collaborate between different units within a firm. Following this rise in the presence of self-managed organizational teams, the study of team-level constructs has become popular in recent years. In disciplines including organizational behavior, sociology, education, and many others, researchers are interested in evaluating the presence, emergence, and measurement of team constructs (e.g. Chen & Kanfer, 2006; DeShon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner & Wiechmann, 2004; Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). Measuring Teamwork and Team Performance 2 While various definitions of teams have been proposed, this paper will utilize Kozlowski and Bell’s (2003) definition: teams are composed of two or more individuals who collectively hold one or more common goals, share interdependent tasks while maintaining task boundaries, and interact socially as part of a higher-level context that constrains the team. While some previous work has provided a distinction between groups and teams (e.g. Katzenbach & Smith, 1993), for the remainder of this paper, the term “team” will be used, replacing “group” or “cluster” in reviewing previous studies to maintain consistency of language.

Teamwork and collaboration are expected from scientists. Recently, an increasing number of voices have been asking for explicit training in ‘soft skills’ for university graduates [1–4] to prepare them for careers both in academia and outside. However, what soft skills are most valued by scientists and by recruiters? Are some soft skills more important than others for research collaboration? Are they in fact learnable? How might a postgraduate program be set up to inculcate them? Published studies about scientific collaboration are mainly statistics of authorship pattern [5,6], case studies and individual testimony [7–9], or material for self-training mainly about leadership (e.g., how to set up your own lab? [10]) or tricks for tackling teamwork [8,11] (e.g., writing ‘prenuptial’ agreements, handling conflict etc.). Here, we consider which soft skills are ranked highest by research team leaders, and how relevant training might be delivered to early-career scientists. What we offer is based on two main sources of evidence. We have been running short courses for postgraduates and postdocs within our Genes to Geoscience Research Enrichment Program. We have refined these courses through discussion and reflection over several years. We have also surveyed opinion among leaders of research labs.