¡§Team¡¨ has been the essential working unit for companies nowadays. Researchers do not regard it as an important issue of telling ¡§groups¡¨ from ¡§teams¡¨ for team research, because they are all for being interdependent and being responsibility-apportioned working units, and the former is the major characteristic of being a team. The writer aims at mission-interdependent and affiliation-interdependent working departments, which being referred to the past research, meanwhile taking team personality and transformational leadership as independent variables, team efficacy as dependent variable, and coherence as the major medium. The writer released 795 questionnaires to the working units in hospitality and tourism industry, including 103 questionnaires to management level, 692 to subordinates level, totally 103 work units, eventually ended up effective 418 questionnaires in 66 units with 64.08% return rate for work units and 52.58% return rate for individuals. The findings are as follows. 1.The agreeableness of team personality, and the ideal influence, spiritual encouragement and talent development of transformational leadership have positive influence on team cohesion. 2.Team cohesion is indeed helpful to team efficacy enhancement. 3.Team cohesion merely has partial medium to team personality, transformational leadership and team efficacy.

Performance and efficacy are reciprocally causal; however, the effect of performance on subsequent perceptions of efficacy has received little attention, especially in the context of team training. In addition, the moderating effect of feedback accuracy on the relationship between team performance and team-efficacy is largely unexplored. As such, the objective of the present study was to investigate the relationship between team performance and team-efficacy in the context of after-action reviews (AARs). Specifically, this study examined the conjoint influence of (a) the accuracy of performance feedback available to trainees during AARs, and (b) time on the predictive validity of team performance on team-efficacy. Data were obtained from 492 undergraduate students assigned to 123 teams in a 5 hr team training protocol using a 3 (training condition: non-AAR, versus subjective AAR, versus objective AAR) x 3 (sessions) repeated measures design. Contrary to the first set of hypotheses, the positive relationship between performance and efficacy was strongest for teams trained without AARs and weakest for teams trained using subjective AARs. Although team-efficacy was predicted more strongly by more proximal team performance than by more distal team performance, this pattern of results was found only for teams trained either without AARs or with objective AARs. The predictive validity of performance on efficacy decreased as performance episodes became more proximal among teams trained using subjective AARs. Finally, within-team agreement of team-efficacy ratings decreased over time for teams that engaged in AARs and remained constant over time for teams that did not engage in AARs. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed. It is anticipated that this research will provide insight into the roles of feedback accuracy and time in the performance-efficacy relationship and provide guidance to researchers and practitioners in effectively integrating AAR design characteristics into team training environments.

Workers in modern teams that perform tasks over computer-mediated communication channels encounter challenges in building trust and performing effectively. Finding interventions to mitigate such losses could improve team performance. Collaborative critical thinking (CCT) training has the potential to improve trust, monitoring, and effectiveness in virtual teams. Using a simulated search-and-rescue task, the effects of CCT training, as compared with a control training, were evaluated in 105 three-member teams. No effects of CCT training were found on team positive or negative monitoring, team cognitive or affective trust, team efficacy, or team viability. However, teams trained in CCT reported consistently higher levels of team cooperation. Directions for future research are discussed so as to maximize the possibility that CCT might yet be an effective intervention.