National Institutes of Health
National Institute of General Medical Sciences
Notice Number: NOT-GM-16-107
June 16, 2016
SIOP Response to National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) Request for
Information on Approaches for Supporting Team Science in the Biomedical Research
Community
The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) strongly supports team science as a
means for scientific research and applications in the field of biomedical research. Industrial and
organizational psychology (I-O) is the scientific study of working and the evidence-based application of
that science into the workplace. Several areas of concentration within the field of I-O speak directly to
the current NIGMS RFI including the topics of leadership, work teams, employee selection, and
assessment. Below, we incorporate key I-O research findings and theory to address RFI topics 1, 2, 3,
and 5.
Topic 1: Interest in team science
Research findings and theory within the field of I-O psychology suggest that team-based research is both
an appropriate and useful approach to advancing the field of biomedical science. To this point, I-O
research has been utilized to promote team effectiveness in a variety of domains including cyber
security (with the Department of Homeland Security; DHS), team dynamics among astronauts and space
scientists (with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; NASA), workplace health and safety
(with the U.S. Department of Energy; DOE), and corporate top management teams (National Research
Council, 2015).
Further supporting the value of team science for advancing scientific discovery and innovation, a
comparison of solo-authored versus team research conducted over the last 50 years shows that
interdisciplinary teams are “increasingly dominant” over individuals in producing more novel and
impactful research (as measured by patents and publications; Uzzi et al., 2013; Wuchty, et al., 2007).
This, and other research, points to several key factors underlying the advantages of team science. First is
the diversity of knowledge and skills derived from the different functional backgrounds of the various
team members. Despite common challenges observed among diverse teams (Mannix & Neale, 2005),
diverse teams benefit from members’ different functional backgrounds through the sharing of different
scientific perspectives, methodologies, and technologies (Bell et al., 2011). Second among the key
advantageous components of team science is the pooling and integration of resources, including time,
technology, and funding, across multiple individuals and institutions. Importantly, the potential gains
resulting from shared resources are often accompanied by corresponding challenges in coordination and
communication, particularly as teams become increasingly large (see Cooke & Hilton, 2015).
National Institutes of Health
National Institute of General Medical Sciences
Notice Number: NOT-GM-16-107
Ongoing and future research on optimal team size, optimal amounts and types of team heterogeneity,
and optimal team structures and processes will be important to maximizing the potential of team
science for research in biomedicine and in other domains. However, given the supportive evidence for
team science across a wide variety of contexts and purposes (Cooke & Hilton, 2015) and the inherently
interdisciplinary nature of biomedicine, we believe team science to be a highly valuable means by which
to advance the field.
Topic 2: Management and advisory structures in team science
Of key importance with regard to organizational structure and team science is the inherently multilevel
structure of teams and their contexts, including that of individual team members and the many different
institutions with which the team and its members interact. For example, institution-level support (e.g.,
training, resources) has been shown to influence team empowerment (Hempel et al., 2012).
I-O psychologists have contributed extensively to multilevel research, theory, and analytic
advancements and have demonstrated the importance of analyzing the role of organizational and team
factors on individual team member behavior as well as the dynamic nature of individual and team
performance over time (Bliese et al., 2007; Thoresen et al., 2004).
Integral to the concept of team structure, leadership (both within the team itself and from supporting
institutions) is another important factor in team effectiveness. More than 50 years of research within I-O
and related fields has yielded substantial insight into how and why effective leaders influence individual
and team behaviors and processes including communication, motivation, team cohesion, team climate,
and conflict (Cooke & Hilton, 2015). Summarizing this research, a meta-analysis combining 131 study
effects on the relationship between team leadership and team performance suggests that team leaders
influence team effectiveness through shaping the way core tasks are performed within the team and
through managing the socioemotional needs of the team members (Burke et al., 2006). Also of
particular relevance to the often interdisciplinary nature of team science collaborations, leaders may
play a critical role in building adaptive capabilities within the team (Kozlowski et al., 2009) and in
creating shared understanding or “mental models” for the way capabilities and work are distributed
within the team (Gray, 2008).
Given the importance of organizational structure, team leadership, and institutional support for team
effectiveness, SIOP recommends that team science project proposals carefully and clearly articulate
plans for the team’s structure and processes at multiple levels within its system as well as the role of
leadership in the team.
National Institutes of Health
National Institute of General Medical Sciences
Notice Number: NOT-GM-16-107
Topic 3: Team composition
A large subdomain of study within the field of I-O psychology is that of organizational staffing and
employee selection. Much of the existing knowledge about employee selection is at the individual-level
of analysis; at this level, the factors that tend to emerge as consistent predictors of individual work
performance include cognitive ability (IQ) and conscientiousness (a personality trait related to
motivation and persistence). However, team composition is more complicated than individual employee
selection (Cooke & Hilton, 2015) and requires consideration of the interplay between individual team
members’ knowledge, skills, abilities, and personality.
Existing research and theory suggests several “best practices” with regard to team composition. First,
and perhaps most importantly, team members should possess a high level of technical expertise in an
area of relevance to the team’s purpose and goals (Cooke & Hilton, 2015). Second, teams should be
constructed to maximally capitalize on a diversity of expertise from the different individual members of
the team (Cummings et al., 2013). Third, regardless of their prior expertise and experience, team
members should receive training and development aimed at enhancing knowledge sharing and team
functioning (Cooke & Hilton, 2015). Fourth, decisions regarding team composition should incorporate
consideration of theoretically and empirically relevant individual factors when selecting individual team
members; these factors include general cognitive ability, a disposition to forge relationships and share
information with others, and personality traits of conscientiousness and openness to experience (see
Cooke & Hilton, 2015). Importantly, many other individual-level qualities may be important in achieving
the ideal mix of capabilities and perspectives at the team-level. Although more research is needed on
this subject, a study of 41 corporate research and development teams found that innovation was
enhanced by including a balance of both creative and conformist team members (Miron-spektor et al.,
2011).
In sum, SIOP recommends that team science project proposals explicitly address how teams will be
composed (and why), including consideration of the optimal team size, the optimal mix of team member
expertise, and the optimal balance of team member personality. Additionally, SIOP recommends
continued research on team science as a field of study itself in order to further understanding of how
best to compose teams.
Topic 5: Assessment of team science
Assessment of team science projects is important not only from the perspective of reviewing and
learning from a completed project’s successes and failures, but also from the perspective of planning
National Institutes of Health
National Institute of General Medical Sciences
Notice Number: NOT-GM-16-107
projects in advance (Villado & Arthur, 2013). Thus, projects should be more likely to be successful when
plans for post-project assessment are incorporated into the project proposal.
Drawing from a large body of I-O psychology research on the assessment of individual, team, and
organizational performance, SIOP recommends that funding agencies require authors of team-sciencebased proposals to specify collaboration plans and to explicate the process by which the different
capabilities and perspectives of the team members (and their respective disciplines) will be integrated in
the research process (Cooke & Hilton, 2015). Additionally, SIOP recommends that such proposals be
required to explicate the intended project outcomes as specific indicators of the team’s effectiveness
(e.g., publications, patents, specific impact on stakeholder well-being).
References
Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L., & Briggs, A. L. (2010). Getting specific about
demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Management, 37, 709-743.
Bliese, P.D., Chan, D., & Ployhart, R.E. (2007). Multilevel methods: Future directions in measurement,
longitudinal analyses, and non-normal outcomes. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 551-563.
Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S.M. (2006). What type of leadership
behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288-307.
Cook, N.J., & Hilton, M.L. (Eds.,). 2015. Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. 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: The National Academies
Press.
Cummings, J.N., Kiesler, S., Zadeh,R., & Balakrishnan, A. (2013). Group heterogeneity increases the risks
of large group size: A longitutdinal study of productivity in research groups. Psychological Science, 24,
880-890.
Gray, B. (2008). Enhancing transdisciplinary research through collaborative leadership. American Journal
of Preventative Medicine, 35(2S): S124-S132.
Hempel, P.S., Zhang, Z., & Han, Y. (2012). Team empowerment and the organizational context:
Decentralization and the contrasting effects of formalization. Journal of Management, 38, 475-501.
National Institutes of Health
National Institute of General Medical Sciences
Notice Number: NOT-GM-16-107
Kozlowski, S.W.J., Watola, D.J., Jensen, J.M., Kim, B.H., & Botero, I.C. (2009). Developing adaptive teams:
A theory of dynamic team leadership. In E. Salas, G.F. Goodwin, and C.S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness
in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 113-155). New York:
Routledge.
Mannix, E., & Neale, M.A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of
diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6, 31-55.
Miron-spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2011). The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail
members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of Management Journal,
54, 740-760.
National Research Council (2015). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Committee on the
Science of Team Science, N.J. Cooke and M.L. Hilton, Editors. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
Stvilia, B., Hinnant, C. C., Schindler, K., Worrall, A., Burnett, G., Burnett, K., … & Marty, P. F. (2011).
Composition of scientific teams and publication productivity at a national science lab. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(2), 270-283.
Thoresen, C.J., Bradley, J.C., Bliese, P.D., & Thoresen, J.D. (2004). The big five personality traits and
individual job performance growth trajectories in maintenance and transitional job stages. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89, 835-853.
Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific
impact. Science, 342(6157), 468-472.
Villado, A. J., & Arthur Jr, W. (2013). The comparative effect of subjective and objective after-action
reviews on team performance on a complex task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(3), 514.
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of
knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036-1039.