Team Emergent States

by

Tammy L. Rapp

• LAST MODIFIED: 19 February 2025
• DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199846740-0229

Introduction

Team emergent states (TES) represent dynamic properties of teams that are cognitive, affective, and motivational states of teams, and which vary as function of team context, inputs, processes, and outcomes. TES constructs have a theoretical origin residing at lower levels of analysis (i.e., individual) that arise over time to characterize the team as a whole. TES are key variables in team effectiveness models. These are distinct from team processes, which refer to the actions team members take to combine their individual resources, knowledge, and skills to achieve collective goals. Until the early 2000s, TES were often erroneously considered team processes. Since being clearly distinguished from team processes, the nature of TES has gained conceptual clarity, and the TES literature has evolved considerably. TES are typically conceptualized as playing a mediating role in input-mediator-outcome (IMO) models of team effectiveness, which depict inputs (I) as antecedent factors (e.g., team composition, design, leadership) that influence mediating mechanisms (M) such as team processes and team emergent states, which subsequently impact team outcomes (O) such as team performance. However, TES are also frequently examined as predictor, moderator, and outcome factors in studies today. There are numerous specific types of TES that can be classified into different categories depending upon whether the focal construct is cognitive, affective, or motivational in nature. The fundamental conclusion of this body of research is that a variety of factors can encourage the development of team emergent states, which have important implications for team processes and other team emergent states as well as team-level and, sometimes, individual-level effectiveness outcomes.

General Overviews

There are multiple overviews of the team emergent state (TES) literature. Marks, et al. 2001 provides the first clear distinction between TES and team processes. Several articles provide broad overviews of the work teams literature and offer sections focusing on TES. Cohen and Bailey 1997 chronicles what had been learned (1990–1997) about several TES including team cohesion, team affect, and team cognition for different types of work teams (work, parallel, project, management). Kozlowski and Bell 2013 offers a fifteen-year review of the work teams literature that includes sections devoted to several TES (team mental models, transactive memory, climate, cohesion, efficacy, emotion). Kozlowski and Ilgen 2006 provides a general review of the teams literature that includes sections summarizing several TES including team cohesion, efficacy/potency, affect, mood, and emotion. Mathieu, et al. 2008 provides a comprehensive review of the teams literature (1998–2008), summarizing TES that received significant attention during that period (team efficacy and potency, team empowerment, team climate, team cohesion, shared mental models, and shared consensus). Mathieu, et al. 2019 reviews team effectiveness research (2009–2019), highlighting research on psychological safety, shared cognition/mental models, and transactive memory systems. Additionally, two recent literature reviews provide more detailed treatments of TES that focus specifically on summarizing the TES literature. Rapp, et al. 2021 summarizes what is known about the eight most researched TES constructs and offers a taxonomy that classifies TES as cognitive, affective, motivational, or a combination of those, in nature. Fyhn, et al. 2023 summarizes the articles that focus specifically on the dynamic nature of TES and how TES develops over time.

• Cohen, Susan G., and Debra E. Bailey. “What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite.” Journal of Management 23 (1997): 239–290.

  DOI: 10.1177/014920639702300303

  Literature review summarizing findings in the broader work teams literature for four types of teams (work, parallel, project, management) from 1990 to 1997. Includes sections on several team emergent states including team cohesion, affect, and cognition.

• Fyhn, Bård, Vidar Schei, and Therese E. Sverdrup. “Taking the Emergent in Team Emergent States Seriously: A Review and Preview.” Human Resource Management Review 33 (2023): 100928.

  DOI: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100928

  Team emergent state literature review that focuses on the dynamic nature of team emergent states and summarizes the findings of 115 articles that measure TES at multiple points in time.

• Kozlowski, Steve W. J., and Bradford S. Bell. “Work Groups and Teams in Organizations.” In Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Vol. 12. of Handbook of Psychology. Edited by Neal W. Schmitt and Scott Highhouse, 333–375. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2013.

  In-depth fifteen-year work team literature review that includes sections focused on cognitive and affective team emergent states including team mental models, transactive memory, climate, cohesion, efficacy, and emotion.

• Kozlowski, Steve W. J., and Daniel R. Ilgen. “Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and Teams.” Psychological Science 7 (2006): 77–124.

  DOI: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x

  Concisely chronicles over fifty years of research on work groups and teams. Includes sections on several team emergent states (team cohesion, efficacy/potency, affect, mood, and emotion).

• Marks, Michelle A., John E. Mathieu, and Stephen J. Zaccaro. “A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes.” Academy of Management Review 26 (2001): 356–376.

  DOI: 10.5465/amr.2001.4845785

  Seminal article that clearly differentiates team emergent states from team processes. Specifies that emergent states can be cognitive, affective, and motivational in nature. Advances a theory of episodic team processes and classifies team processes as action, interpersonal, and transactional in nature.

• Mathieu, John E., Peter T. Gallagher, Monique A. Domingo, and Elizabeth A. Klock. “Embracing Complexity: Reviewing the Past Decade of Team Effectiveness Research.” Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 6 (2019): 17–46.

  DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015106

  Chronicles team effectiveness research (2009–2019), highlighting several team emergent states (team psychological safety, shared cognition/mental models, transactive memory systems). Includes a useful summary of meta-analytic correlations between team emergent states and team performance and attitudinal outcomes.

• Mathieu, John E., M. Travis Maynard, Tammy L. Rapp, and Lucy L. Gilson. “Team Effectiveness 1997–2007: A Review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse into the Future.” Journal of Management 34 (2008): 410–476.

  DOI: 10.1177/0149206308316061

  Comprehensive work team literature review (1998–2008). Advances the input-mediator-outcome-input (IMOI) team effectiveness framework and summarizes the literature on several team emergent states (team efficacy/potency, team empowerment, team climates, team cohesion, team trust, collective cognition, shared mental models, and strategic consensus).

• Rapp, Tammy L., Travis Maynard, Monique Domingo, and Elizabeth Klock. “Team Emergent States: What Has Emerged in the Literature over 20 Years.” Small Group Research 52 (2021): 68–102.

  DOI: 10.1177/1046496420956715

  Literature review focused on team emergent states. Summarizes literature on the most-researched team emergent states (team efficacy/potency, team trust, team psychological safety, team identification, team empowerment, team cohesion, team cognition, team climate). Advances a taxonomy that categorizes emergent state constructs as cognitive, affective, motivational, or amalgams in nature.