Team Performance Management recently welcomed a new Editorial team, lead by Associate Professor Sjir Uitdewilligen. We are now pleased to announce a refreshed Aims&Scope, as well as new Manuscript Types. We encourage all of our authors to consult the Author Instructions included below as part of the submissions process. We look forward to receiving your manuscripts!
Refreshed Aims & Scope
The goals of Team Performance Management are to 1) increase understanding about groups and teams, 2) to facilitate research on groups and teams, 3) to provide a forum for sharing ideas, discussion and debate, and 4) to inform practice in organizational settings.
We do this by publishing:
1) empirical and theoretical contributions on group and team phenomena, including different levels and contexts that contribute to team functioning.
2) new, revised or extended research methods that share relevant insights into paradigms, simulations, interventions, measures, or statistical methods that can be used by other team scholars and practitioners.
3) monologues, commentaries, opinion papers, and perspectives on the field that provide insights, debate, or stimulate research into novel areas and directions.
4) empirical and theoretical articles with evidence-based suggestions of high practical value.
5) state-of-the-art reviews of contemporary relevant topics, and by communicating relevant findings from TPM manuscripts to the wider audience.
TPM invites contributions from scholars and practitioners using a variety of research methods (e.g., diary, longitudinal, computational simulations, and agent-based model) from experimental to qualitative and from laboratory to field research.
Potential topics include but are not limited to:
- Team processes and emergent states
- Team-based organizations
- Teams in extreme environments
- Sports teams
- Sociology of teams
- Team behavioral observation
- Groups and teams research methods
- Team competencies
- Team leadership
- Negotiation in groups
- Well-being in teams
- Group and team interventions
- Intergroup relations
- Multi-team systems
- Human-AI teamwork
- Virtual and hybrid teams
- Human-robot teams
- Human autonomy teaming
New Manuscript Types
Research manuscript: (between 4000 and 7000 words). These can include rigorously conducted empirical investigations that extend conceptual understanding (original investigations or meta-analyses), theory development articles, as well as rigorously conducted qualitative research on phenomena that are difficult to capture with quantitative methods, or on phenomena that warrant inductive theory building.
Research notes: These are short (up to 3000 words) manuscripts, accurately describing a robust empirical study, with a short introduction on the theoretical background. The emphasis is on a careful description of the empirical design, materials, and procedures, and a succinct description of the results in such a way that it ensures transparency and replicability. Materials that are not critical for the main understanding of the study can be added in online repositories (e.g. OSF).
Method papers: These are manuscripts that share relevant insights into paradigms, simulations, interventions, measures, or statistical approaches that can be helpful for other academics in conducting their research or for practitioners for improving team performance.
Opinion papers: These are short or regular sized papers that pose a challenging question or question current (research) practices. In consultation with the author, the editorial team can invite other authors to provide a response to the opinion paper.
State-of-the-art reviews: These are systematically conducted review papers on a topic relevant for the TPM audience (both scholars and practitioners). Review papers should follow current guidelines. For instance, systematic reviews should follow a structured and transparent approach (for instance using the PRISMA checklist), with full reporting on the steps taken to guarantee a comprehensive coverage of the relevant literature.
Author Instructions
1) The relation between the content of the study and the aims and scope of TPM should be made explicit in the manuscript. For instance, we welcome research on sports teams, but consider it important that authors embed their studies in the wider organizational teams’ literature and outline the relevance for groups and teams research beyond the context in which the study has been conducted.
2) We welcome studies at different levels of analysis, including team level studies, individual level studies (if it is made clear how it informs team level phenomena), as well as multilevel studies focusing on top-down as well as on bottom-up dynamics. However, the phenomena under consideration should be operationalized at the appropriate level. In cases where this is not possible, authors should provide compelling reasoning for their choice and discuss the potential implications for interpreting their results. Descriptive statistics and correlations should be provided at the respective level.
3) Common method bias should be avoided where possible. Ideally this should be taken into account in the design phase by assessing model variables at different time points or from different sources. We will publish purely cross-sectional research only in exceptional cases (for instance, in case of unique samples, such as Antarctica teams, from which it is difficult to collect multiple waves or sources of data).
4) Review papers should follow current guidelines. For instance, systematic reviews should follow a structured and transparent approach (for instance using the PRISMA checklist), with full reporting on the steps taken to guarantee a comprehensive coverage of the relevant literature.
For specific guidelines, see the following references:
Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual review of psychology, 70, 747-770.
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human resource development review, 4(3), 356-367.
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of business research, 104, 333-339.
Davis, J., Mengersen, K., Bennett, S., & Mazerolle, L. (2014). Viewing systematic reviews and meta-analysis in social research through different lenses. SpringerPlus, 3, 1-9.
5). Authors should report on the following of ethical standards. Authors should clearly describe whether the study had approval from an ethical review board, how informed consent was obtained from the participants, as well as indicate how the study was conducted in compliance with the appropriate Data Protection regulations. If any of these are not the case, authors should provide a compelling explanation. We also advise authors to include sample diversity information. More specifically, authors are encouraged to justify their sample demographics.