TY - JOUR
T1 - On the Future of Teams Research
T2 - A Letter to Team-Would
AU - Luciano, Margaret M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2026. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
PY - 2026
Y1 - 2026
N2 - This article is a satirical letter to Team-would, the great-nephew of C.S. Lewis’ infamous devil Screwtape. Whereas Screwtape was tasked with corrupting a specific young man, Team-would is tasked with corrupting academics – especially teams researchers. The article suggests that this task can be accomplished in three easy steps: 1) entrap; 2) distract; and 3) obfuscate. Like other satirical pieces, this article is crafted to serve as constructive social criticism that challenges existing norms (e.g., selection and socialization) and structures (e.g., reward and task structures). It also strives to make uncomfortable topics easier to discuss (e.g., by introducing the Sufficiency Serpent and Generalizability Gremlin). Ultimately, we can choose whether to hike uphill and advance team science in service to society, or to follow the slippery slope toward an incoherent system that exists only to sustain itself.
AB - This article is a satirical letter to Team-would, the great-nephew of C.S. Lewis’ infamous devil Screwtape. Whereas Screwtape was tasked with corrupting a specific young man, Team-would is tasked with corrupting academics – especially teams researchers. The article suggests that this task can be accomplished in three easy steps: 1) entrap; 2) distract; and 3) obfuscate. Like other satirical pieces, this article is crafted to serve as constructive social criticism that challenges existing norms (e.g., selection and socialization) and structures (e.g., reward and task structures). It also strives to make uncomfortable topics easier to discuss (e.g., by introducing the Sufficiency Serpent and Generalizability Gremlin). Ultimately, we can choose whether to hike uphill and advance team science in service to society, or to follow the slippery slope toward an incoherent system that exists only to sustain itself.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105033013770
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105033013770#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1177/10464964261430372
DO - 10.1177/10464964261430372
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:105033013770
SN - 1046-4964
JO - Small Group Research
JF - Small Group Research
ER -