Task demonstrability defines the criteria that, when met, facilitate the effective exchange of knowledge within a problem-solving group. The extent to which those criteria are met should vary as a consequence of the relevant experiences that members have prior to entering the group. We investigate whether group members’ ability to coordinate with one another is facilitated by their prior task-related experiences. Participants worked individually, then in groups, and then individually again to complete a series of circuit board assembly tasks. Groups in which all members had pre-task experience performed significantly better than groups with even a single member lacking task experience, or individuals. Mediation analysis showed that prior task experience helps group members coordinate by improving task demonstrability. Group experience composition also affected post-group individual performance. Groups with diverse task experience produced individuals who performed better solo but only after working on an unstructured task that allowed for greater exploration.
ArgoteL.FahrenkopfE. (2016). Knowledge transfer in organizations: The roles of members, tasks, tools, and networks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 146–159.
4.
ArgoteL.GruenfeldD.NaquinC. (2000). Group learning in organizations. In TurnerM. (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research (pp. 369–411). Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
AustinJ. R. (2003). Transactive memory in organizational groups: The effects of content, consensus, specialization and accuracy on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 866–878.
6.
BanduraA. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
7.
BanduraA. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
8.
BayerM.LewisK. (2013, August). Cross-understanding, coordination, and performance. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL.
9.
BirnbaumM. H.StegnerS. E. (1979). Source credibility in social judgment: Bias, expertise, and the judge’s point of view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 48–74.
10.
BonnerB. L.BaumannM. R. (2008). Informational intra-group influence: The effects of time pressure and group size. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 46–66.
11.
BonnerB. L.BaumannM. R. (2012). Leveraging member expertise to improve knowledge transfer and demonstrability in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 337–350.
12.
BonnerB. L.BaumannM. R.DalalR. S. (2002). The effect of member expertise on group decision making and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 719–736.
13.
BonnerB. L.GonzalezC.SommerD. (2004). Centrality and accuracy in group quantity estimation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 155–165.
14.
BonnerB. L.SoderbergA. T.RomneyA. C. (2016). In the same group but moving in different directions: Coordination effects in tasks with simultaneous intellective and judgmental performance criteria. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22, 471–487. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000099
15.
BottgerP. C. (1984). Expertise and air time as bases of actual and perceived influence in problem-solving groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 214–221.
16.
BresmanH.Zellmer-BruhnM. (2013). The structural context of team learning: Effects of organizational and team structure on internal and external learning. Organization Science, 24(4), 1120–1139.
17.
ChoiH. S.ThompsonL. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 121–132.
18.
CroninM. A.WeingartL. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 761–773. https://doi.org/10.5465/Amr.2007.25275511
19.
CroninM. A.WeingartL. R. (2019). Conflict across representational gaps: Threats to and opportunities for improved communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(16), 7642–7649. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805866116
20.
DavisJ. H. (1996). Group decision making and quantitative judgments: A consensus model. In WitteE. H.DavisJ. H. (Eds.), Understanding group behavior, Vol. 1: Consensual action by small groups (pp. 35–59). Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
EdmondsonA. C. (2012). Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. Jossey-Bass.
22.
EllisA. P. J.HollenbeckJ. R.IlgenD. R.PorterC. O. L. H.WestB. J.MoonH. (2003). Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 929–948.
23.
FleissJ. L.LevinB.PaikM. C. (2003). The measurement of interrater agreement. In Statistical methods for rates and proportions (3rd ed., pp. 598–676). Wiley.
24.
FrenchJ. R. P.RavenB.Jr. (1959). The bases of power. In CartwrightD. P. (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
25.
GardnerH. K.GinoF.StaatsB. R. (2012). Dynamically integrating knowledge in teams: Transforming resources in performance. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 998–1022.
26.
GinoF.ArgoteL.Miron-SpektorE.TodorovaG. (2010). First, get your feet wet: The effects of learning from direct and indirect experience on team creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111, 102–115.
27.
GoldsteinI. (1993). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, evaluation. Brooks-Cole.
28.
HackmanJ. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In LorschJ. (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Prentice Hall.
29.
HaskellR. E. (2000). Transfer of learning: Cognition, instruction, and reasoning. Academic Press.
30.
HastieR.KamedaT. (2005). The robust beauty of majority rules in group decisions. Psychological Review, 112, 494–508.
31.
HayesA. F.PreacherK. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, 451–470.
32.
HindsP. J.CarleyK. M.KrackhardtD.WholeyD. (2000). Choosing work group members: Balancing similarity, competence, and familiarity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 226–251.
33.
HinszV. B.TindaleR. S.VollrathD. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43–64.
34.
HollingsheadA. B. (1998). Retrieval processes in transactive memory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 659–671.
35.
HollingsheadA. B.BrandonD. P. (2003). Potential benefits of communication in transactive memory systems. Human Communication Research, 29, 607–615.
36.
HuberG.LewisK. (2010). Cross understanding: Implications for group cognition and performance. Academy of Management Review, 35, 6–26.
37.
HuckmanR. S.StaatsB. R. (2011). Fluid tasks and fluid teams: The impact of diversity in experience and team familiarity on team performance. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 13, 310–328.
38.
HuckmanR. S.StaatsB. R.UptonD. M. (2009). Team familiarity, role experience, and performance: Evidence from Indian software services. Management Science, 55, 85–100.
39.
KaneA. A. (2010). Unlocking knowledge transfer potential: Knowledge demonstrability and superordinate social identity. Organization Science, 21, 643–660.
40.
KaneA. A.ArgoteL.LevineJ. M. (2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 56–71.
41.
KanterR. M. (1979). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review, 57, 65–75.
KordeR.PaulusP. B. (2017). Alternating individual and group idea generation: Finding the elusive synergy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.11.002
44.
KrugerJ.DunningD. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing competence and incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121
45.
LangfredC. W.MoyeN. A. (2004). Effects of task autonomy on performance: An extended model considering motivational, informational, and structural mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 934–945.
46.
LaughlinP. R. (1980). Social combination processes of cooperative problem-solving groups on verbal intellective tasks. In FishbeinM. (Ed.), Progress in social psychology (pp. 127–155). Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
LaughlinP. R. (2011). Group problem solving. Princeton University Press.
48.
LaughlinP. R.BarthJ. M. (1981). Group-to-individual and individual-to-group problem solving transfer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1087–1093.
49.
LaughlinP. R.BonnerB. L. (1999). Collective induction: Effects of multiple hypotheses and multiple evidence in two problem domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1163–1172. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1163
50.
LaughlinP. R.BonnerB. L.MinerA. G. (2002). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 605–620.
51.
LaughlinP. R.CareyH. R.KerrN. L. (2008). Group-to-individual problem solving transfer. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11, 319–330.
52.
LaughlinP. R.EllisA. L. (1986). Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 177–189.
53.
LaughlinP. R.SweeneyJ. D. (1977). Individual-to-group and group-to-individual transfer of learning in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, 246–254.
54.
LePineJ. A. (2005). Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: Effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1153–1167.
55.
LewisK. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 587–604.
56.
LewisK.HerndonB. (2011). Transactive memory systems: Current issues and future research directions. Organization Science, 22, 1254–1265.
LiangD. W.MorelandR. L.ArgoteL. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 384–393.
59.
LittlepageG. E.HollingsheadA. B.DrakeL. R.LittlepageA. M. (2008). Transactive memory and performance in work groups: Specificity, communication, ability differences, and work allocation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12, 223–241.
60.
LittlepageG. E.RobisonW.ReddingtonK. (1997). Effects of task experience and group experience on performance, member ability, and recognition of expertise. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 69, 133–147.
61.
MannixE.NealeM. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 62(2), 31–55.
62.
MathieuJ. E.HeffnerT. S.GoodwinG. F.SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273–283.
63.
McGrathJ. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Prentice Hall.
64.
McGrathJ. E.KellyJ. R.MachatkaD. E. (1984). The social psychology of time: Entrainment of behavior in social and organizational settings. Applied Social Psychology Annual, 5, 21–44.
65.
Mesmer-MagnusJ. R.DeChurchL. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 535–546.
66.
MorelandR. L.LevineJ. M. (1992). The composition of small groups. In LawlerE. J.MarkovskyB.RidgewayC.WalkerH. A. (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 9, pp. 237–280). JAI Press.
67.
NemethC. J. (2016). Psychological basis of quality decision making. In AugierM.TeeceD. (Eds.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94848-2_510-1
68.
NemethC. J.KwanJ. (1985). Originality of word associations as a function of majority vs. minority influence processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 277–282.
69.
NersessianN. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In GiereR. (Ed.), Minnesota studies in philosophy of science: Vol. 15. Cognitive models of science (pp. 3–44). University of Minnesota Press.
70.
O’LearyM. B.MortensenM.WoolleyA. W. (2011). Multiple team membership: A theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams. Academy of Management Review, 361, 461–478.
71.
OliveraF.StrausS. G. (2004). Group-to-individual transfer of learning. Small Group Research, 35, 440–465.
72.
OrasanuJ.SalasE. (1993). Team decision making in complex environments. In KleinG. A.OrasanuJ.CalderwoodR.ZsambokC. E. (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 327–345). Ablex.
73.
ReagansR.ArgoteL.BrooksD. (2005). Individual experience and experience working together: Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Management Science, 51, 869–881.
74.
ShaferS. M.NembhardD. A.UzumeriM. V. (2001). The effects of worker learning, forgetting, and heterogeneity on assembly line productivity. Management Science, 47, 1639–1653.
75.
StasserG.StewartD.WittenbaumG. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 57, 244–265.
76.
SteinerI. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. Academic Press.
77.
SzulanskiG. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 9–27.
78.
TannenbaumS. I.MathieuJ. E.SalasE.CohenD. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough?Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 2–24.
79.
TaylorA.GreveH. (2006). Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 723–740.
80.
TindaleR. S.KamedaT. (2000). Social sharedness’ as a unifying theme for information processing in groups. Group Processes Intergroup Relations, 3(2), 123–140.
81.
van DijkH.van EngenM. L.van KnippenbergD. (2012). Defying conventional wisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related diversity relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119, 38–53.
82.
VollrathD. A.SheppardB. H.HinszV. B.DavisJ. H. (1989). Memory performance by decision-making groups and individuals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 289–300.
83.
WeberM. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations. Free Press.
84.
WegnerD. M. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In MullenB.GoethalsG. R. (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). Springer-Verlag.
85.
WoodW.LundgrenS.OuelletteJ.BuscemeS.BlackstoneT. (1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 323–345.
86.
WoolleyA. W.GerbasiM. E.ChabrisC. F.KosslynS. M.HackmanJ. R. (2008). Bringing in the experts: How team composition and collaborative planning jointly shape analytic effectiveness. Small Group Research, 39, 352–371.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
