Challenging the “static” quo: Trajectories of engagement in team processes toward a deadline.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although team effectiveness research has advanced our understanding of team processes, much of this research has been based on static methodologies, despite the recognition that team processes change over time. Thus, the purpose of this article is to advance the team dynamics literature by developing and testing a theoretical account of team engagement in processes toward a deadline. We theorize about team process trajectories, which we suggest is the form of process change over time (i.e., pattern of increase/decrease). Further, we identify a key driver of process trajectories and consider the implications of trajectories for team performance. Results from a series of linear multilevel latent growth models suggested that teams' engagement in strategy and planning, monitoring goal progress, and cooperative conflict management (cf. Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001) increased over time toward a deadline, and that steeper increases tended to be positively related to team performance. Finally, achievement-striving was found to be an important within-team factor driving team-specific process trajectories and was indirectly related to performance. This study provides new theoretical insights with respect to how teams engage in processes toward a deadline, along with team achievement-striving as a compositional input, and the performance implications of team process trajectories. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it