Skip main navigation
SPECIAL RESEARCH FORUM: New Ways of Seeing

Dynamic Systems Theory and Dual Change Score Models: Seeing Teams through the Lens of Developmental Psychology

    Published Online:19 Dec 2019https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.1358

    Abstract

    Empirical research examining team development has long lagged behind purely conceptual work. Moreover, traditional designs and logics frequently employed in the organizational sciences generally preclude the possibility of studying the trajectories of various team properties. This is problematic as continuity, nonlinearity, and within-construct feedback are implicit in many eminent conceptualizations of teams. Hence, the present investigation integrates dynamic logic, theory, and methodology from the discipline of developmental psychology—wherein the nature of the topic has necessitated a more careful examination of change over time—into the organizational literature. As a product of this integration, we propose and test a novel theoretical perspective that provides several contributions to teams research. First, we extend theory that has thus far been primarily used to explain intraindividual development in children to detail three testable principles of dynamism in team properties. Second, and utilizing a within-construct logic, we demonstrate that teams are indeed dynamic systems, but that the extent to which any particular team property may be considered dynamic is contingent upon characteristics of the property itself. Finally, we illustrate how teams’ unique pasts may be leveraged to predict their asymmetric reactions to disruptive events in the future by employing a contemporary modeling technique.

    REFERENCES

    • Amato, P. R., Loomis, L. S., & Booth, A. 1995. Parental divorce, marital conflict, and offspring well-being during early adulthood. Social Forces, 73: 895–915. Google Scholar
    • Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E., & Berdahl, J. L. 2000. Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Google Scholar
    • Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14: 20–39.Link , Google Scholar
    • Baltes, P. B., & Nesselroade, J. R. 1979. History and rationale of longitudinal research. In J. R. NesselroadeP. B. Baltes (Eds.), Longitudinal research in the study of behavior and development: 1–29. New York, NY: Academic Press. Google Scholar
    • Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Conlon, D. E., Humphrey, S. E., Moon, H., & Ilgen, D. R. 2009. Cutthroat cooperation: The effects of team role decisions on adaptation to alternative reward structures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108: 131–142. Google Scholar
    • Bentler, P. 1990. Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 238–246. Google Scholar
    • Bernard, K., Peloso, E., Laurenceau, J. P., Zhang, Z., & Dozier, M. 2015. Examining change in cortisol patterns during the 10-week transition to a new child-care setting. Child Development, 86: 456–471. Google Scholar
    • Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. KleinS. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: 349–381. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
    • Bollen, K. A. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley. Google Scholar
    • Carter, N. T., Carter, D. R., & DeChurch, L. A. 2018. Implications of observability for the theory and measurement of emergent team phenomena. Journal of Management, 44: 1398–1425. Google Scholar
    • Chang, S., Jia, L., Takeuchi, R., & Cai, Y. 2014. Do high-commitment work systems affect creativity? A multilevel combinational approach to employee creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 665–680. Google Scholar
    • Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. 2004. Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55: 591–621. Google Scholar
    • Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. 1998. Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In D. T. GilbertS. T. FiskeG. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology: 151–192. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
    • Clark, D. A., Nuttall, A. K., & Bowles, R. P. 2018. Misspecification in latent change score models: Consequences for parameter estimation, model evaluation, and predicting change. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53: 172–189. Google Scholar
    • Collins, C. G., Gibson, C. B., Quigley, N. R., & Parker, S. K. 2016. Unpacking team dynamics with growth modeling: An approach to test, refine, and integrate theory. Organizational Psychology Review, 6: 63–91. Google Scholar
    • Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. 1970. How we should measure “change”—or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74: 68–80. Google Scholar
    • Cronin, M. A., Weingart, L. R., & Todorova, G. 2011. Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet? Academy of Management Annals, 5: 571–612.Link , Google Scholar
    • Dalal, R., Lam, H., Weiss, H., Welch, E., & Hulin, C. 2009. A within-person approach to work behavior and performance: Concurrent and lagged citizenship–counterproductivity associations, and dynamic relationships with affect and overall job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 1051–1066.Link , Google Scholar
    • Davison, R. B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Barnes, C. M., Sleesman, D. J., & Ilgen, D. R. 2012. Coordinated action in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97: 808–824. Google Scholar
    • DeChurch, L. A., & Marks, M. A. 2006. Leadership in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 311–326. Google Scholar
    • DeChurch, L. A., Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Doty, D. 2013. Moving beyond relationship and task conflict: Toward a process–state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 559–578. Google Scholar
    • Deuling, J. K., Denissen, J. J. A., van Zalk, M., Meeus, W., & van Aken, M. 2011. Perceived influence in groups over time: How associations with personality and cognitive ability can change over time. Journal of Research in Personality, 45: 576–585. Google Scholar
    • Edwards, J. R. 2001. Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods, 4: 265–287. Google Scholar
    • Emery, R. 1999. Marriage, divorce, and children’s adjustment. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Google Scholar
    • Ferrer, E., & McArdle, J. 2003. Alternative structural models for multivariate longitudinal data analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 10: 493–524. Google Scholar
    • Firth, B. M., Hollenbeck, J. R., Miles, J. E., Ilgen, D. R., & Barnes, C. M. 2015. Same page, different books: Extending representational gaps theory to enhance performance in multiteam systems. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 813–835.Link , Google Scholar
    • Greer, L. L., van Bunderen, L., & Yu, S. 2017. The dysfunctions of power in teams: A review and emergent conflict perspective. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37: 103–124. Google Scholar
    • Grimm, K. J., Castro-Schilo, L., & Davoudzadeh, P. 2013. Modeling intraindividual change in nonlinear growth models with latent change scores. GeroPsych, 26: 153–162. Google Scholar
    • Grimm, K. J., Ram, N., & Estabrook, R. 2017. Growth modeling: Structural equation and multilevel modeling approaches. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Google Scholar
    • Hamagami, F., & McArdle, J. J. 2019. Latent change score models with curvilinear constant bases. In E. FerrerS. M. BokerK. J. Grimm (Eds.), Longitudinal multivariate psychology: 80–108. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar
    • Hill, W. F., & Gruner, L. 1973. A study of development in open and closed groups. Small Group Research, 4: 355–381. Google Scholar
    • Hogg, M. A. 2004. Uncertainty and extremism: Identification with high entitativity groups under conditions of uncertainty. In V. YzerbytC. M. JuddO. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism: 401–418. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Google Scholar
    • Hollenbeck, J. R., Ellis, A. P. J., Humphrey, S. E., Garza, A. S., & Ilgen, D. R. 2011. Asymmetry in structural adaptation: The differential impact of centralizing versus decentralizing team decision-making structures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114: 64–74. Google Scholar
    • Hollenbeck, J. R., Klein, H. J., O’Leary, A. M., & Wright, P. M. 1989. Investigation of the construct validity of a self-report measure of goal commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 951–956. Google Scholar
    • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6: 1–55. Google Scholar
    • Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. 2005. Teams in organizations: From input–process–output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56: 517–543. Google Scholar
    • James, L. R. 1982. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 219–229. Google Scholar
    • James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 85–98. Google Scholar
    • Jehn, K. A. 1995. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 256–282. Google Scholar
    • Johnson, C. T. 2012. Adjustment outcomes of divorce for young children and adolescents. Intuition: The BYU Undergraduate Journal in Psychology, 9: 21–29. Google Scholar
    • Johnson, M. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Ilgen, D. R., Jundt, D., & Meyer, C. J. 2006. Cutthroat cooperation: Asymmetrical adaptation to changes in team reward structures. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 103–119.Link , Google Scholar
    • Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. 2009. When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members’ need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 581–598.Link , Google Scholar
    • Kelly, J. B. 2000. Children’s adjustment in conflicted marriage and divorce: A decade review of research. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39: 963–973. Google Scholar
    • King, L. A., King, D. W., McArdle, J. J., Saxe, G. N., Doron-LaMarca, S., & Orazem, R. J. 2006. Latent difference score approach to longitudinal trauma research. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 19: 771–785. Google Scholar
    • Klein, H. J., Molloy, J. C., & Brinsfield, C. T. 2012. Reconceptualizing workplace commitment to redress a stretched construct: Revising assumptions and removing confounds. Academy of Management Review, 37: 130–151.Link , Google Scholar
    • Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Alge, B. J. 1999. Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 885–896. Google Scholar
    • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. BormanD. R. IlgenR. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, vol. 12: Industrial and organizational psychology: 333–375. London, U.K.: Wiley. Google Scholar
    • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Chao, G. T. 2012. The dynamics of emergence: Cognition and cohesion in work teams. Managerial and Decision Economics, 33: 335–354. Google Scholar
    • Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Nason, E. R., & Smith, E. M. 1999. Developing adaptive teams: A theory of compilation and performance across levels and time. In D. R. IlgenE. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, personnel actions, and development: 240–292. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
    • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. KleinS. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: 3–90. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
    • Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., & Otten, S. 2012. Power increases social distance. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 3: 282–290. Google Scholar
    • Lanaj, K., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Barnes, C. M., & Harmon, S. J. 2013. The double-edged sword of decentralized planning in multiteam systems. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 735–757.Link , Google Scholar
    • Lansford, J. 2009. Parental divorce and children’s adjustment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4: 140–152. Google Scholar
    • LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. 2008. A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61: 273–307. Google Scholar
    • Loignon, A. C., Woehr, D. J., Loughry, M. L., & Ohland, M. W. 2019. Elaborating on team-member disagreement: Examining patterned dispersion in team-level constructs. Group & Organization Management, 44: 165–210. Google Scholar
    • Luciano, M. M., DeChurch, L. A., & Mathieu, J. E. 2018. Multiteam systems: A structural framework and meso-theory of system functioning. Journal of Management, 44: 1065–1096. Google Scholar
    • Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. 2001. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26: 356–376.Link , Google Scholar
    • Marks, M. A., DeChurch, L. A., Mathieu, J. E., Panzer, F. J., & Alonso, A. 2005. Teamwork in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 964–971. Google Scholar
    • Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M. 2006. Empowerment and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 97–108. Google Scholar
    • Mathieu, J. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., van Knippenberg, D., & Ilgen, D. R. 2017. A century of work groups in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102: 452–467. Google Scholar
    • Mathieu, J. E., Marks, M. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. 2001. Multi-team systems. In N. AndersonD. OnesH. K. SinangilC. Viswesvaran (Eds.), International handbook of work and organizational psychology: 289–313. London, U.K.: SAGE. Google Scholar
    • Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. 2008. Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34: 410–476. Google Scholar
    • Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. 2014. A review and integration of team composition models: Moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40: 130–160. Google Scholar
    • Maynard, M. T., Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., O’Boyle, E. H., & Cigularov, K. P. 2012. Drivers and outcomes of team psychological empowerment: A meta-analytic review and model test. Organizational Psychology Review, 3: 101–137. Google Scholar
    • McArdle, J. J. 2009. Latent variable modeling of differences and changes with longitudinal data. Annual Review of Psychology, 60: 577–605. Google Scholar
    • McArdle, J. J., & Hamagami, F. 2001. Latent difference score structural model for linear dynamic analyses with incomplete longitudinal data. In L. M. CollinsA. G. Sayer (Eds.), New methods for the analysis of change: 139–175. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Google Scholar
    • McArdle, J. J., & Nesselroade, J. R. 2014. Longitudinal data analysis using structural equation models. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Google Scholar
    • McGrath, J. E. 1964. Social psychology: A brief introduction. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Google Scholar
    • McGrath, J. E., & Argote, L. 2001. Group processes in organizational contexts. In M. A. HoggR. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes: 603–627. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell. Google Scholar
    • McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J. L. 2000. The study of groups: Past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4: 95–105. Google Scholar
    • Menon, S. 2001. Employee empowerment: An integrative psychological approach. Applied Psychology, 50: 153–180. Google Scholar
    • Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. 2001. Building better theory: Time and the specification of when things happen. Academy of Management Review, 26: 530–547.Link , Google Scholar
    • Moon, H., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Ilgen, D. R., West, B., Ellis, A. P. J., & Porter, C. O. L. H. 2004. Asymmetric adaptability: Dynamic team structures as one-way streets. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 681–695.Link , Google Scholar
    • Morgeson, F. P. 2005. The external leadership of self-managing teams: Intervening in the context of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 497–508. Google Scholar
    • Morgeson, F. P., & DeRue, D. S. 2006. Event criticality, urgency, and duration: Understanding how events disrupt teams and influence team leader intervention. Leadership Quarterly, 17: 271–287. Google Scholar
    • Morgeson, F. P., & Hofman, D. A. 1999. The structure and function of collective constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review, 24: 249–265.Link , Google Scholar
    • Morgeson, F. P., Mitchell, T. R., & Liu, D. 2015. Event system theory: An event-oriented approach to the organizational sciences. Academy of Management Review, 40: 515–537.Link , Google Scholar
    • Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. 2012. Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Google Scholar
    • Myers, D. G. 2008. Social psychology (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
    • Okhuysen, G. A. 2001. Structuring change: Familiarity and formal interventions in problem-solving groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 794–808.Link , Google Scholar
    • Pearsall, M. J., & Venkataramani, V. 2015. Overcoming asymmetric goals in teams: The interactive roles of team learning orientation and team identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100: 735–748. Google Scholar
    • Pickhardt, C. E. 2005. The everything parent’s guide to children and divorce: Reassuring advice to help your family adjust. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Google Scholar
    • Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. 2010. Longitudinal research: The theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36: 94–120. Google Scholar
    • Podsakoff, P. M., Niehoff, B. P., Mackenzie, S. B., & Williams, M. L. 1993. Do substitutes for leadership really substitute for leadership? An empirical examination of Kerr and Jermier’s situational leadership model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54: 1–44. Google Scholar
    • Popper, K. 1959. The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Basic Books. Google Scholar
    • Porck, J. P., Matta, F. K., Hollenbeck, J. R., Oh, J. K., Lanaj, K., & Lee, S. M. 2019. Social identification in multiteam systems: The role of depletion and task complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 62: 1137–1162.Link , Google Scholar
    • Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S., Halevy, N., & Eidelson, R. 2008. Toward a unifying model of identification with groups: Integrating theoretical perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12: 280–306. Google Scholar
    • Salvatore, S., Tschacher, W., Gelo, O. C. G., & Koch, S. C. 2015. Dynamic systems theory and embodiment in psychotherapy research. A new look at process and outcome. Frontiers in Psychology, 6: 1–3. Google Scholar
    • Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. 2010. Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75: 243–249. Google Scholar
    • Shuffler, M. L., & Carter, D. R. 2018. Teamwork situated in multiteam systems: Key lessons learned and future opportunities. American Psychologist, 73: 390–406. Google Scholar
    • Shuffler, M. L., Jiménez-Rodríguez, M., & Kramer, W. S. 2015. The science of multiteam systems: A review and future research agenda. Small Group Research, 46: 659–699. Google Scholar
    • Spencer, J. P., Clearfield, M., Corbetta, D., Ulrich, B., Buchanan, P., & Schoner, G. 2006. Moving toward a grand theory of development: In memory of Esther Thelen. Child Development, 77: 1521–1538. Google Scholar
    • Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1442–1465.Link , Google Scholar
    • Summers, J. K., Humphrey, S. E., & Ferris, G. R. 2012. Team member change, flux in coordination, and performance: Effects of strategic core roles, information transfer, and cognitive ability. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 314–338.Link , Google Scholar
    • Thelen, E. 2005. Dynamic systems theory and the complexity of change. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 15: 255–283. Google Scholar
    • Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. 1994. A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
    • Tyre, M. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. 1994. Windows of opportunity: Temporal patterns of technological adaptation in organizations. Organization Science, 5: 98–118. Google Scholar
    • Waller, M. J., Okhuysen, G. A., & Saghafian, M. 2016. Conceptualizing emergent states: A strategy to advance the study of group dynamics. Academy of Management Annals, 10: 561–598.Link , Google Scholar
    • Wang, M., Zhou, L., & Zhang, Z. 2016. Dynamic modeling. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3: 241–266. Google Scholar
    • Witherington, D. C. 2007. The dynamic systems approach as metatheory for developmental psychology. Human Development, 50: 127–153. Google Scholar
    • Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. 2003. Interruptive events and team knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 49: 514–528. Google Scholar
    Academy of Management
      Academy of Management
      100 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 110
      Valhalla, NY 10595, USA
      Phone: +1 (914) 326-1800
      Fax: +1 (914) 326-1900
    © 2025 Academy of Management
    Powered by Atypon® Literatum