ABSTRACT
In a previous review, Salas, Oser, Cannon-Bowers, and Daskarolis (2002, p. 873) concluded that “As technological capabilities and the complexity of tasks and environments have broadened, likewise, the need for effective synchronicity and coordination of activities among members of crews, groups, teams, and collectives has increased.” Over a decade later, this statement still reads true and undoubtedly will be a decade from now. In order to keep up with changes in technology and task environments, organizations have placed a heavy reliance on teams. Several years prior to the ˜rst edition of this chapter, Devine, Clayton, Philips, Dunford, and Melner (1999) surveyed US organizations and found that almost half of these organizations leveraged teams to execute organizational outcomes. In a more recent survey of 185 professionals representing 185 organizations, DiazGranados et al. (2008) found that 94% of professionals stated that their organizations employed teams to achieve organizational outcomes. Additionally, there has been an increase in the use of virtual teams-“a team or group whose members are mediated by time, distance, or technology” (Driskell, Radtke, & Salas, 2003, p. 297). Due to the value of teams, considerable resources (e.g., time, personnel, and money) have been allocated to enhancing their effectiveness through training. Much has been learned over the past several decades about the science of training, leading researchers to conclude that training “produces clear bene˜ts for individuals and teams, organizations, and society” (cf. Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009, p. 452; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001).
