“Team chemistry” through chemistry lenses: interdisciplinary science or a metaphorical conundrum?

A Google search on “team chemistry” returns over 443,000 entries (October 2014) usually denoting some sort of team process, such as cohesion, shared mental models, and collective efficacy. Practitioners (e.g., athletic coaches and business managers) often emphasize the importance of team chemistry for optimal performance. For instance, former NFL quarterback and current business executive Roger Staubach noted that “In any team sport, the best teams have consistency and chemistry.” Researchers in performance psychology also allude to the notion of “team chemistry” when discussing exceptional teams (Levine, 1994; Gershgoren et al., 2013). Although practitioners and researchers refer to team chemistry as an antecedent of team expertise, there has been neither philosophical nor conceptual debate on whether chemistry principles may indeed inform performance and sport psychology research and practice. Therefore, the question that motivates me to write this commentary paper is: “What if scholars would indeed seek inspiration in microscopic chemistry principles in order to better understand macroscopic team dynamics?” Of note, mixing “soft” and “hard” sciences is common in the pursuit of interdisciplinary research. Applied philosophers and psychologists have long tried to establish connections between group processes and the natural world (i.e., “Associationist School”). Recently, psychologists have employed concepts from physics, including quantum theory, to study decision-making in social contexts (Busemeyer et al., 2006). Specific to chemistry, Green (2012) uses history to discuss fundamental organic chemistry principles, while Nobel Laureate Harold Kroto (2005) wrote about how art and design inspired his research on chemistry. Although I do not have a “set-instone” response to the question I propose herein, I open debate and share insights on whether, and how, general chemistry concepts may be useful to performance and sport psychologists interested in team dynamics. Specifically, I comment on two overarching chemistry concepts that emerged in several Nobel Laureates’ presentations during the 63rd Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting (LNLM) in chemistry. During this week-long scientific gathering 34 Laureates discussed how chemistry (and its disciplines, such as organic, inorganic, and biochemistry) has been used to inform research and practice in various domains of human interest including social matters such as education and politics. First, I discuss whether the concept of “inter-action” from a chemical viewpoint may promote parsimonious research and meta-cognitively inform applied work in psychology. Second, I comment on “structure means function” by illustrating the notion of catalysis in chemical reactions, particularly discussing how leaders may serve as “catalysts” of team processes and performance. A remark from a Nobel Laureate in chemistry follows my discussion, offering an independent analysis of the idea discussed herein. Finally, a senior sport psychology researcher and a human movement scientist share their reactions to the idea of “team chemistry through chemistry lenses.”