demics, practitioners, and applied professionals were willing to work with each other, which produced useful deliverables. Deliverables further kept sponsors and users
motivated, interested, and supportive.
Lesson 9: It Was All Given Away—For Free
The information, tools, techniques, and catalogs of evidence were all accessible. There was no “ownership” of the
science or the products that were built. Open access allowed
for wide dissemination of life-saving tools that could be
adapted and used across contexts. For example, CRM originated in aviation, but the study reported by Havinga et al.
(2017) exhibited its expansion into oil and gas, nuclear
power, and maritime. Likewise, TeamSTEPPS has been
adapted to contexts within and even outside health care,
such as in education (Benishek et al., 2016). It has been
promoted by the DoD and the AHRQ, with at least 17
countries using its materials and over 10,000 individuals
becoming certified trainers (Darzi, Parston, & McQueen,
Lesson 10: In the End, Egos Were Set Aside
Scientists from different backgrounds had to collaborate
within research teams, and researchers had to collaborate
with training users. This was not easy—domain experts had
to be open to change and accept that their knowledge was
insufficient alone. It required listening to and learning from
one another and coordinating throughout challenges and
creative differences (Ilgen, 1999). For instance, when CRM
was implemented across airlines, it was met with pushback
from seasoned pilots (Helmreich & Foushee, 1993). Delta
Airlines, known as the “captain’s airline,” was one of the
last to adopt CRM; it was not until a series of embarrassing
team failures that Delta fully embraced and championed
CRM (Cooke & Durso, 2008, pp. 35–36). Ultimately, the
motivation to make a difference from sponsors, scientists,
practitioners, regulators, and operational personnel far outweighed personal egos.
Final Thoughts and the Road Ahead
Small group research has a history fueled by public demand for explanations of human error and solutions to the
underlying problem (Ilgen, Major, Hollenbeck, & Sego,
1993). Ilgen and colleagues (1993) noted that early research
was often conducted in silos, with scientists interested in
finding practical solutions operating separately from those
interested in testing processes in laboratories under heavy
control. In a later review of work teams, Ilgen (1999)
acknowledged better integration between science- and
practice-oriented paradigms that underscores the need for
multiple perspectives to solve the complex problems faced
by teams. We see this integration as an implication of team
training (see Shuffler, Diazgranados, Maynard, & Salas,
2018), because the science was built with an applied approach by psychologists in collaboration with partners in
Not only does the practical nature of team training science
make an impact, but the multidisciplinary tradition of the
research team that built it serves as a testament to the
effectiveness of diverse team composition and the power of
teamwork in itself (see Howell, 1998 and Wuchty et al.,
2007). It may not be easy to work with others who subscribe
to different (sometimes opposing) perspectives, but the profound implications of team training demonstrate the potential of multidisciplinary research teams. We submit that the
impact of any science depends on the tendency for researchers to span the boundaries of their domains and challenge
typical perceptions and procedural paradigms. The science
of team training is not perfect, but the knowledge uncovered
through decades of collaboration is practical, useful, and
powerful. Team training works, and a great deal of its
success is owed to all of the disciplines that play a role in its
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2017). About TeamSTEPPS.
Retrieved May 17, 2018, from www.ahrq.gov/teamstepps/about-team
Allen, N. J., & Hecht, T. D. (2004). The “romance of teams”: Toward an
understanding of its psychological underpinnings and implications.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 439–461.
Alonso, A., Baker, D. P., Holtzman, A., Day, R., King, H., Toomey, L., &
Salas, E. (2006). Reducing medical error in the Military Health System:
How can team training help? Human Resource Management Review, 16,
Baker, D. P., Day, R., & Salas, E. (2006). Teamwork as an essential
component of high-reliability organizations. Health Services Research,
41, 1576 –1598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00566.x
Baker, D. P., Gustafson, S., Beaubien, J., Salas, E., & Barach, P. (2005).
Medical teamwork and patient safety: The evidence-based relation.
Retrieved from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality website:
Baker, D. P., & Salas, E. (1992). Principles for measuring teamwork skills. Human
Factors, 34, 469–475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872089203400408
Baldwin, T. T., Ford, J. K., & Blume, B. D. (2017). The state of transfer
of training research: Moving toward more consumer-centric inquiry.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 28, 17–28. http://dx.doi.org/
Bell, S. T., Fisher, D. M., Brown, S. G., & Mann, K. E. (2018). An
approach for conducting actionable research with extreme teams.
Journal of Management, 44, 2740 –2765. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
Benishek, L. E., Gregory, M. E., Hodges, K., Newell, M., Hughes, A. M.,
Marlow, S., . . . Salas, E. (2016). Bringing the science of team training
to school-based teams. Theory Into Practice, 55, 112–119. http://dx.doi
Briggs, G. E., & Naylor, J. C. (1964). Experiments on team training in a
CIC-type task environment (NAVTRADEVCEN Tech. Rep. No. 1327–
1). Port Washington, NY: U.S. Naval Training Device Center.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1998). Individual and team decision
286 BISBEY, REYES, TRAYLOR, AND SALAS