56 Going Global
members will ask for assistance. In addition, if team members
misinterpret the cues offered within heterogeneous teams, they
may provide backup when it’s not needed, neglect the cue that
signals help is needed, or provide backup in a manner that is
culturally inappropriate. Given this example, it becomes easy to
see how heterogeneous teams may have more difficulty in backup
behavior because of misinterpretations and miscommunications.
Variations in power distance among members may also have an
impact on the success of any supporting behavior offered. In
multicultural teams with large variations in power-distance orien-
tations among team members, it will become more difficult to
successfully engage in supporting behaviors, because team mem-
bers will vary in their acceptance of these behaviors based on
the status differentials between recipients and senders. Further,
given some cultural orientations, the explicit manner in which
backup behavior is conducted may be seen as threatening, rude,
or embarrassing.
Critical Process #4: Engaging in Perspective Taking
to Develop a Cultural Foundation
One of the challenges to interaction within multicultural teams is
that cultural differences in values and beliefs lead individual mem-
bers to expect different things, ranging from how a team should
function to the interpretation of members’ actions. Yet oftentimes
these cognitive assumptions lie hidden. In the absence of explicit
recognition of such underlying assumptions members are often
likely to use stereotypes to explain behavior or will engage in
faulty attributions as they assume that fellow team members are
operating under the same set of rules, expectations, and prefer-
ences as their own. Perspective taking may be one of the most
important transition processes (see Marks et al., 2001) that occur

within a multicultural setting negotiation becomes key to effective
interaction. Negotiation has been defined as ‘‘the ways in which
individuals manage their interdependence’’ (Walton & McKersie,
1965 as cited in Gelfand, Fulmer, & Severance, in press). In
addition, whereas negotiation may differ across cultures, Gelfand
et al. (in press) argue that there are several core characteristics that
should apply across cultures: there is a perception of conflicting
interests, communication is involved, a joint outcome exists, and
although there are mixed motives, compromise is possible.
Within multicultural teams negotiation is critical because
members often come to the team with disparate cognitive
structures that are based in their cultural orientations. These
knowledge structures, in turn, serve to affect the way each
individual member views the world, team interaction, and the
attributions that are made. Though there are situations in which
the knowledge structures are different but still compatible, it
is often the case that the differences are not initially compatible.
58 Going Global
It is the team leader’s job to facilitate a negotiated reality for
the team such that coordinated, adaptive action is enabled.
Researchers have argued that the emergence of a third culture
within multicultural teams is one of the mechanisms that
facilitates effective interaction (see Earley & Mosakowski, 2000).
However, negotiation is a complex process even when conducted
within a single culture; it becomes even more complex when
conducted within the context of a multicultural team. For
example, culture has been shown to affect the types of negotiation
strategies, the nature of the influence used in negotiation, as
well as the valued outcomes (Gelfand et al., 2002; Morris et al.,
2004; Gelfand & Brett, 2004). Although viewing negotiation

ing the degree to which the team is perceived to be a safe
environment to engage in interpersonal risk taking (Edmond-
son, 1999). As such, psychological safety reflects a team climate
characterized by mutual respect and trust. Edmondson (2003)
found that psychological safety was important in culturally diverse
teams (such as medical teams) because it facilitated team inter-
action. For example, as the degree of psychological safety within
multicultural teams increases, members will be more willing to
take interpersonal risks, such as speaking up and offering con-
tributions during plan development or engaging in supporting
behaviors. One of the potential benefits of multicultural teams is
the diversity of vantage points that exist within these teams; psy-
chological safety helps the team to take advantage of this diversity
by promoting a climate in which members feel free to question
suggestions and decisions, in essence allowing members to play a
type of ‘‘devil’s advocate.’’ Furthermore, though cultures vary in
the degree to which they may engage in these actions, based on
power differentials and concerns about saving face, psychological
safety might play a role in mitigating some of these tendencies by
promoting a collective, holistic view of the team setting in which
out-groups are diminished.
Edmondson (2003) found that team leaders could promote
psychological safety within culturally diverse teams by engaging
in motivational, interpersonal activities and fostering a climate of
inclusion so that power differences were minimized and the input
of all members was recognized. As psychological safety reflects
a climate of trust and mutual respect, activities that promote
trust would be expected to facilitate a sense of safety. Within
multicultural teams, research has shown that not only does trust
have different relational bases, but also that cultures vary in

be responsible for which task based on a mutual understanding
of expertise, thereby reducing the cognitive load through more
efficient social information searches. Thus, using TMS within mul-
ticultural teams may affect communication patterns in that the
perceptions of where expertise lies within the team will differen-
tially guide interaction based on perceived expertise-based power
differences. In addition, when TMSs are accurate and knowledge
within them made explicit this may counter the tendency of indi-
viduals within multicultural teams to rely on false stereotypes and
inaccurate attributions.
TMS involves three primary components: specialization, or the
differentiation of information among team members; credibility,
or the beliefs of members regarding the accuracy and reliabil-
ity of others’ knowledge; and coordination, or the organized
knowledge processing of information (Akgun, Byrne, Keskin,
Multicultural Teams: Critical Team Processes and Guidelines 61
Lynn, & Imamgolu, 2005). Essentially, the root of this theory lies
upon distributed complementarity and compilational emergence,
where team members work as social information searchers to
determine who possesses which knowledge and expertise, and
then coordinate to ensure that the correct individuals are called
upon to utilize such knowledge.
Shared mental models (SMMs) are analogous to but unique
from TMS. Though SMMs are also a type of shared cognition
that works through distinct aspects of efficiency, there is not really
anything in the theory that mentionsspecialization of information.
This may be because SMMs were developed in teams, in which
a level of specialization is understood, as team members have an
inherent level of interdependency. Instead, SMM theory relies
more upon implicit coordination instead of social information

maximizing the benefits of multicultural collaboration has been
a struggle for researchers (van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007).
However, drawing from what is currently known regarding how to
prepare diverse teams to work together, and about general team
training principles, it is possible to provide guidelines that can
aid practitioners in reducing some of the challenges to success-
ful performance in such collaborations. These guidelines can be
divided according to the temporal frame in which their imple-
mentation is most effective: pre-interaction, during interaction,
and post-interaction.
Guidelines targeted at the pre-interaction phase on setting a
common ground for members of multicultural teams before team
processes are initiated. This will facilitate shared cognition and
skill-based processes that will encourage team members to utilize
a sense of cultural awareness in their multicultural environment,
while also reducing the negative impact of ethnocentric tenden-
cies. Guidelines that can be implemented during interaction are
primarily targeted at enhancing coordination across team mem-
bers, as this is a particularly challenging issue for multicultural
teams. Finally, guidelines can also facilitate post-interaction as a
means to improve future multicultural team interactions, either
within the same team or as team members move on to new teams.
These guidelines are centered on facilitating feedback to team
members regarding what went well during interaction, what could
be improved, and how to approach future interactions success-
fully. The next section provides a more in-depth look at the
processes occurring within each phase and corresponding guide-
lines to enhance multicultural teamwork that can be implemented
to enhance multicultural teamwork. The following list provides a
summary of guidelines.

communication failures that arise from differences in logic and
information storage (Kayworth & Leidner, 2002; Baba, Gluesing,
Ratner, & Wagner, 2004).
In addition to forming accurate shared understanding among
team members, a strong foundational set of skills that are neces-
sary to interact in multicultural environments can be cultivated
prior to multicultural interaction. Doing so will enhance cultural
awareness and ensure that team members have the appropriate
skills in their repertoire when faced with new or challenging
cultural situations (Salas, Wilson, & Lyons, 2009). Encouraging
team members to practice their skills in a safe environment,
64 Going Global
such as through the use of situational judgment tests, should
aid in facilitating the transfer of these skills during real inter-
actions (Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000). The following discussion pro-
vides a more detailed explanation regarding how both shared
knowledge and skill-based processes can be developed during
pre-interaction.
Facilitating Shared Mental Models & TMS
Developing at least some degree of a shared understanding among
multicultural team members is a critical pre-interaction step.
As previously discussed, shared mental models and transactive
memory systems can enable team performance by reducing con-
fusion regarding who can provide a particular expertise. Shared
understanding will also streamline communication, coordina-
tion, and comprehension of new knowledge (Cramton, 2001).
However, it is often the case in multicultural environments
that the development of shared mental models and transac-
tive memory is much more complicated than in homogenous
environments. Individuals in homogeneous teams tend to report

to first educate an individual about his or her own culture so
that when interacting with individuals from different cultures
the trainee will appreciate differences instead of ignoring them
or reacting negatively (Littrell & Salas, 2005). Furthermore, as
individuals are driven by their cultural beliefs and norms, it is
often the case that a tendency to view one’s own culture as supe-
rior will cloud interactions with others from different cultures
(Bussema & Nemec, 2006; Salas et al., 2009). Therefore, before
cultural interactions begin, bringing team members ‘‘back to the
basics’’ by encouraging an awareness of their own cultural beliefs,
biases, feelings, and responses to culture can aid team members
in developing a common understanding of cultural similarities,
differences, and biases. This can in turn reduce ethnocentric
behaviors and lead to greater tolerance and flexibility in cul-
tural perspectives, leading team members to be more effective in
creating shared knowledge structures as they begin to perceive
commonalities and acknowledge beneficial differences with their
team members.
Guideline #2: Implement Training That Emphasizes
Perspective Taking
In relation to enhancing team member cultural self-awareness
as a means of improving the development of shared knowledge,
multicultural teams can also benefit from training in perspective
taking, which is a social cognitive process of perceiving something
from the viewpoint of another person (Fiske & Taylor, 1984).
Perspective taking is particularly beneficial in cross-cultural envi-
ronments, as it allows an individual to assume the perspective of
another person during interactions, therefore enhancing under-
standing and the likely success of the interaction. Perspective
66 Going Global

members with examples of critical incidents, leading to both
positive and negative outcomes, to which they can apply their
knowledge of perspective taking and reflect upon how they would
have responded in the given situation (Bhawuk & Brislin, 2000).
Regardless of the approach utilized, ensuring that team mem-
bers have the opportunity to practice taking perspectives prior to
their interactions as a team can enable more open and effective
communication that will lead to better shared knowledge systems.
Multicultural Teams: Critical Team Processes and Guidelines 67
Guideline #3: Incorporate Advanced Organizers into Training
A final way to enhance a shared understanding across members of
a multicultural team during training is to provide team members
with advanced organizers, which are commonly utilized in the
beginning of a training program to provide a guiding theoretical
framework to trainees (Kraiger, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1995).
As novel content is more likely to be understood and recalled when
linked to existing knowledge, providing an advanced organizer
as a conceptual framework aids in the facilitation of training
organization and retention of the new information gained (Mayer
1979; 1989). Advanced organizers may be as simple as a brief
outline of the training modules and objectives or as complex as a
complete reference guide that can be consulted throughout the
training program.
Advanced organizers have been found to enhance training
effectiveness, particularly for programs such as cultural training
where content is complex. Bhawuk (1998; 2001) proposed that
cultural assimilators are more successful when linked to a cul-
tural theory that gives trainees a means by which to make sense of
cultural differences. Furthermore, by providing the entire team
with an advanced organizer, a shared understanding can be facil-

interactive learning environment that enables active learning and
promotes better skill development.
Situational judgment tests typically consist of a set of inci-
dents and the alternative actions that could be taken to deal
with each incident (Chan & Schmitt, 1997). SJTs have most
commonly been used as a selection tool or a method to assess per-
formance (Motowidlo, Hason, & Crafts, 1997). However, for the
purpose of preparing team members to interact in multicultural
environments, they can be used to create an immediately active
experience on the part of learners and provide useful informa-
tion about their present understanding of and attitudes toward
the importance of cross-cultural skills. The ease with which these
SJTs can be adapted to a team situation is also beneficial, as crit-
ical incidents can be designed for a range of cross-cultural skills
and implemented as needed by multicultural teams. This allows
a team to receive feedback on the skills most pertinent to its
given situation and context, as opposed to a mix of relevant and
irrelevant skills.
Although SJTs typically are conducted using text-based critical
incidents, video SJTs are increasing in popularity, particularly as
a training tool (Fritzsche et al., 2006). Video SJTs show trainees a
sketch or situation that they are then asked to respond to, just as
in a paper-based SJT. In learning environments, video vignettes
are used to demonstrate or allow individuals to practice a single
Multicultural Teams: Critical Team Processes and Guidelines 69
skill or set of skills. Because they can lend context and richness to
a learning environment, video vignettes have been proven useful
in numerous domains. For example, there are results suggesting
improvements in the reflective thinking of teachers (Calandra,
Gurvitch, & Lund, 2008) as well as potential for teaching busi-

through these three processes, it is very possible that despite
the best efforts prior to interaction, negative effects of multi-
culturalism will reemerge to some degree. These effects can
70 Going Global
include the highlighting of differences, the development of fault
lines, and the emergence of conflict (Jarvenpaa & Leidner,
1999; Lau & Murningham, 1998). Therefore, it is important to
recognize what strategies can be utilized during interaction
to maximize performance during this action phase and minimize
any negative effects of multiculturalism. The following discussion
provides three suggested guidelines that can be utilized to
facilitate coordination, cooperation, and communication during
interactions, namely through the development of a hybrid
culture, emphasizing similarities among team members, and
establishing a systematic means for coordination.
Guideline #5: Establish a Set of Team Norms, Behaviors, and Beliefs
to Create a Hybrid Culture That Emphasizes a Combination
of Team Member Cultural Characteristics
It is undeniable that multicultural team members bring their own
cultural influences, norms, and beliefs into their team interaction.
However, this does not have to be a detriment to team perfor-
mance if members are able to meld their cultural values into a new,
hybrid team culture (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000). A hybrid team
culture is a new set of norms, rules, expectations, and behaviors
that individuals within a team create themselves after some period
of interaction. The degree to which these values are shared deter-
mines the strength of the culture, but the establishment of any
degree of team culture that can unify members would be a benefit
during team interaction. Indeed, Earley and Mosakowski (2000)
found in their qualitative field study of transnational teams that

long-term ties, homophily based on such surface-level factors is
less important than homophily stemming from deeper sociocon-
textual characteristics (Yuan & Gay, 2006). Therefore, it may be
beneficial to provide opportunities for team members to recog-
nize their similarities. This could be achieved through a simple
question-and-answer session with team members or through peri-
odic reminders of similarities from the team leader. Regardless
of the strategy, encouraging team members to find similarities
among themselves should aid in enhancing team interaction.
Guideline #7: Enhance Coordination Through the Use of Regulatory
Communication and Realignment
A final means by which to successfully maintain multicultural team
processes of coordination, communication, and cooperation dur-
ing the interaction phase is to introduce a systematic means of
coordinating and communicating. This may tie in with the devel-
opment of a hybrid culture, as it involves creating a systematic
method by which team members can expect regular commu-
nications regarding their performance, and a way for teams to
determine if they need to realign their efforts based on their
current performance status. Essentially, this idea builds upon the
72 Going Global
premise of team self-correction, in that team members develop
an approach for communication and coordination that enables
them to work together in order to identify breakdowns as early
as possible and to provide a systematic means by which to cor-
rect these breakdowns (Sims, Salas, & Burke, 2005). Self-guided
correction in teams is a successful strategy for enhancing team
performance, as has been found in both laboratory and field
settings (Smith-Jentsch, Zeisig, Acton, & McPherson, 1998).
Though beneficial for homogenous teams, for multicultural

shared mental models, team processes, and both individual and
team performance (see Ellis & Davidi, 2005; Smith-Jentsch et al.,
2008; Smith-Jentsch et al., 1998). For example, Ellis and Davidi
(2005) compared the impact of traditional failure-focused AARs
(FAAR) to the impact of AARs which focused on both failures
and successes (FSAAR) during hands-on navigation training in a
sample of elite military defense forces. Results demonstrated that
both groups significantly increased performance over the course
of three hands-on navigation training exercises, however, indi-
viduals who partook in the FSAARs demonstrated significantly
greater performance gains. Additionally, trainees who partici-
pated in FSAARs demonstrated richer mental models of their
performance, suggesting more systematic, critical thinking.
These types of AARs can be very beneficial for multicultural
teams, as they provide a means by which team members can
analyze both their cultural skill and their performance as a team.
Providing multicultural teams with both performance and process
feedback is critical, as these teams should be aware not only of
their capabilities to work with others from different cultures, but
also of how they worked as members of a team. If team members
are only provided with overall team results and no feedback
regarding the specific processes that led to their success or failure,
performance may be falsely attributed to cultural differences or
similarities, or to team abilities. Therefore, developing a formal
feedback process such as an AAR by which team members can
analyze their performance and gain insight will only enable them
to perform more effectively in future multicultural teams.
Concluding Comments
Multicultural teams are by no means a new phenomena, for global
organizations have been in existence for decades. However, most

Research Laboratory’s Advanced Decision Architecture Collab-
orative Technology Alliance Cooperative Agreement (AAD19-
01-2-0009) and the Office of Naval Research MURI Grant to
Dr. Michele Gelfand, Principal Investigator, UMD (W911NF-08-1-
014), subcontract to UCF (Z885903). The views expressed in this
work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the
organizations with which they are affiliated or their sponsoring
institutions or agencies.
References
Adler, N. J. (1991). International dimensions of organizational behavior.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Akgun, A. E., Byrne, J., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S., & Imamgolu, S. Z.
(2005). Knowledge networks in new product development projects:
Multicultural Teams: Critical Team Processes and Guidelines 75
A transactive memory perspective. Information & Management,
42(8), 1105–1120.
Argote, L. & McGrath, J. D. (1993). Group processes in organisations:
Continuity and change. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.),
International review of industrial and organisational psychology,Vol.8.
New York: Wiley.
Ayoko, O. B., Hartel, C. E. J., & Callan, V. J. (2002). Resolving the
puzzle of productivity and destructive conflict in culturally hetero-
geneous workgroups: A communication accommodation theory
approach. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(2),
165–195.
Baba, M. L., Gluesing, J., Ratner, H., & Wagner, K. H. (2004). The
contexts of knowing: Natural history of a globally distributed team.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 547–587.
Bantz, C. R. (1993). Cultural diversity and group cross-culture team
research. Journal of Applied Communication, 21(1), 1–20.

Chen, G., Tjosvold, D., & Liu, C. (2006). Cooperative goals, leader
people and productivity values: Their contribution to top man-
agement teams in China. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5),
1177–1200.
Conyne, R., Wilson, F., Tang, M., & Shi, K. (1999). Cultural similarities
and differences in group work: Pilot study of a U.S Chinese group
comparison. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3(1),
40–50.
Cox, T. H., Lobel, S. A., & McLeod, P. L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group
cultural differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a
group task. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 827–847.
Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. (2005). Subgroup dynamics in internation-
ally distributed teams: Ethnocentrism or cross-national learning?
Organizational Behavior, 26, 231–263.
Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its con-
sequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12,
346–371.
Den Hartog, D. N., & Verburg, R. M. (1997). Charisma and rhetoric:
Communicative techniques of international business leaders. Lead-
ership Quarterly, 8(4), 355–391.
Densten, I. L., & Gray, J. H. (2003). Leadership applications: Organi-
zational effectiveness. (CFLI Contract Research Report #CR02–
0620). Kingston, ON: Canadian Forces Leadership Institute
Dinwoodie, D. L. (2005). Solving the dilemma: A leader’s guide to
managing diversity. Leadership in Action, 25(2): 3–6.
Earley, P. C., Gibson, C. B., & Chen, C. C. (1999). How did I do? Versus
how do we do? Cultural contrasts of performance feedback use and
self-efficacy. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(5) 594–619.
Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures:
An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of

coordination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(2), 109–124.
Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking:
Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and
in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4),
708–724.
Gelfand, M. J., & Brett, J. M. (Eds.) (2004). The handbook of negotiation
and culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gelfand, M. J., & Dyer, N. (2000). A cultural perspective on negotiation:
Process, pitfalls, and prospects. Applied Psychology, 49, 62–99.
Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational
behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 479–514.
Gelfand, M. J., Fulmer, C. A., & Severance, L. (in press). The psychology
of negotiation and mediation. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology.
Gelfand, M. J., Higgins, M. Nishii, L. H., Raver, J. L., & Dominguez A.,
et al. (2002). Culture and ego-centric biases of fairness in conflict
and negotiation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 833–845.
Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L., & Raver, J. (2006). On the nature and impor-
tance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91, 1225–1244.
Gersick, C. J. G., & Hackman, J. R. (1990). Habitual routines in task
performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 47, 65–97.
78 Going Global
Gibson, C. B. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? Group
efficacy beliefs and group performance across tasks and cultures.
Academy of Management Journal, 42, 138–152.
Gibson, C. B., & Earley, P. C. (2002). Multinational teams: A new perspective.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gibson, C. B., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. (2001). Metaphors and meaning:

New perspectives on international industrial/ organizational psychology.
San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Imai, L., & Gelfand, M. J. (under review). The culturally intelligent
negotiator: The impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation
sequences and outcomes.
Multicultural Teams: Critical Team Processes and Guidelines 79
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in
global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791–815.
Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E. (2001–2002). Leadership effectiveness
in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems,
18, 7–40.
Kirchmeyer, C., & Cohen, A. (1992). Multicultural groups: Their perfor-
mance and reactions with constructive conflict. Groups & Organiza-
tion Studies, 17(2), 153–170.
Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The impact of cultural values on
job satisfaction and organizational commitment in self-managing
work teams: The mediating role of employee resistance. Academy of
Management Journal, 44, 557–569.
Kraiger, K., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers J. A. (1995). Measuring knowl-
edge organization as a method for assessing learning during
training. Human Performance, 37, 804–816.
Lau, J., & Murningham, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and
faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups.
Academy of Management Review, 23, 325–340.
Littrell, L. N., & Salas, E. (2005). A review of cross-cultural training:
Best practices, guidelines, and research needs. Human Resource
Development Review, 4, 305–335.
Lehman, D. R., Chiu, C., & Schaller, M. (2004). Psychology and culture.
Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 689–714.
Man, D. C., & Lam, S. S. K. (2003). The effects of job complexity and

ing better ethics through critical thinking. Journal of Management
Education, 30(1), 149–177.
Molinksy, A., & Perunovic, W. Q. E. (2008). Training wheels for cultural
learning: Poor language fluency and its shielding effect on the
evaluation of culturally inappropriate behavior. Journal of Language
and Social Psychology, 27(3), 284–289.
Morris, M. W., Leung, K., & Iyengar, S. S. (2004). Person perception in
the heat of conflict: Negative trait attributions affect procedural
preferences and account for situational and cultural differences.
Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 127–147.
Mortensen, M., & Hinds, P. (2001). Conflict and shared identity in
geographically distributed teams. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 212–238.
Motowidlo, S. J., Hanson, M. A., & Crafts, J. L. (1997). Low-fidelity
simulations. In D. L. Whetzel & G. R. Wheaton (Eds.), Applied
measurement methods in industrial psychology. Palo Alto,CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Pillai, R., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). Context and charisma: A ‘‘Meso’’ level
examination of the relationship of organic structure, collectivism,
and crisis to charismatic leadership. Journal of Management, 24(5),
643–671.
Porter, C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Ellis, P. J., West, B., & Moon,
H. (2003). Backing up behaviors in teams: The role of personality
and legitimacy of need. Journal of Applied Psychology, 3, 391–403.
Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992).
Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In
R. J. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance
(pp. 3–29). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The anatomy of team training.
In S. Tobias and J. D. Fletcher (Eds.), Training and retraining: