Eduardo Salas

Sangwon Seo, Bing Han, Rayan E. Harari et al.

Coaches are vital for effective collaboration, but cost and resource constraints often limit their availability during real-world tasks. This limitation poses serious challenges in life-critical domains that rely on effective teamwork, such as healthcare and disaster response. To address this gap, we propose and realize an innovative application of AI: task-time team coaching. Specifically, we introduce Socratic, a novel AI system that complements human coaches by providing real-time guidance during task execution. Socratic monitors team behavior, detects misalignments in team members' shared understanding, and delivers automated interventions to improve team performance. We validated Socratic through two human subject experiments involving dyadic collaboration. The results demonstrate that the system significantly enhances team performance with minimal interventions. Participants also perceived Socratic as helpful and trustworthy, supporting its potential for adoption. Our findings also suggest promising directions both for AI research and its practical applications to enhance human teamwork.

Huimin Xu, Yi Bu, Meijun Liu et al.

Power dynamics influence every aspect of scientific collaboration. Team power dynamics can be measured by team power level and team power hierarchy. Team power level is conceptualized as the average level of the possession of resources, expertise, or decision-making authorities of a team. Team power hierarchy represents the vertical differences of the possessions of resources in a team. In Science of Science, few studies have looked at scientific collaboration from the perspective of team power dynamics. This research examines how team power dynamics affect team impact to fill the research gap. In this research, all co-authors of one publication are treated as one team. Team power level and team power hierarchy of one team are measured by the mean and Gini index of career age of co-authors in this team. Team impact is quantified by citations of a paper authored by this team. By analyzing over 7.7 million teams from Science (e.g., Computer Science, Physics), Social Sciences (e.g., Sociology, Library & Information Science), and Arts & Humanities (e.g., Art), we find that flat team structure is associated with higher team impact, especially when teams have high team power level. These findings have been repeated in all five disciplines except Art, and are consistent in various types of teams from Computer Science including teams from industry or academia, teams with different gender groups, teams with geographical contrast, and teams with distinct size.