A framework for the analysis of implicit team knowledge is developed based on action regulation theory and concepts of individual implicit knowledge. We argue that the explication and reflection on implicit knowledge in and of teams supports an individual understanding and a shared mental model of the task which in turn should enhance team innovation. In an experimental study, 48 students of mechanical engineering in 16 groups worked on a product development task. Experimental conditions were explication versus no explication and individual versus collective explication. Individual as well as collective explication enhanced the overall outcome quality, but not the originality of solutions. The positive effects of collective explication were stronger than the effects of individual explication. Group processes and contents of explication were in line with the assumption from action regulation theory that reflecting on goals and strategies facilitates performance of complex tasks.
Arrow, H., McGrath, J.E., & Berdahl, J.L. (2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development, and adaptation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
2.
Benzécri, J.-P. (1992). Correspondence analysis handbook. New York: Marcel Dekker.
3.
Büssing, A., & Herbig, B. (2003). Implicit knowledge and experience in work and organizations. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 18, 239-280.
4.
Büssing, A., Herbig, B., & Ewert, T. (2001). Implizites und explizites Wissen. Einflüsse auf Handeln in kritischen Situationen [Implicit and explicit knowledge: Influences on action in critical situations]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie , 209, 174-200.
5.
Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Salas, E., & Converse, S.A. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan , Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp. 221-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
Carter, S.M., & West, M.A. (1998). Reflexivity, effectiveness, and mental health in BBC-TV production teams. Small Group Research, 29, 583-601.
7.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
De Dreu, C. (2002). Team innovation and team effectiveness: The importance of minority dissent and reflexivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 285-298.
9.
Dienes, Z., & Berry, D. (1997). Implicit learning: Below the subjective threshold . Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 3-23.
10.
Dienes, Z., & Perner, J. (1999). A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 22, 735-755.
11.
Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation . European Journal of work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 105-123.
12.
Gollwitzer, P.M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), The handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 53-92). New York: Guilford Press.
13.
Hacker, W. (2003). Action regulation theory: A practical tool for the design of modern work processes? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 105-130.
14.
Hackman, J.R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
15.
Hackman, J.R., & Morris, C.G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: a review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 45-99). New York: Academic Press.
16.
Herbig, B., & Büssing, A. (2004). The role of explicit and implicit knowledge in work performance. Psychology Science, 46, 408-432.
17.
Herbig, B., Müller, A., Petrovic, K., Pecquet, N., Graebsch, M., & Kreimeyer, M. (2006). Implicit knowledge in the product innovation process: Method development and first results. (Research Report No. 83). Munich: Technical University München, Chair of Psychology .
18.
Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action. Berlin : Springer.
19.
Hutchins, E. (1991). The social organizations of distributed cognition . In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasly (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 283-307). Washington, DC: APA.
20.
Kelly, G.A. (1991). The psychology of personal constructs (Vol. 1 & 2). London: Routledge. (Original work published in 1955)
21.
Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20, 403-437.
22.
Kramer, S.H., & Rosenthal, R. (1999). Effect sizes and significance levels in small sample research. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistic strategies for small sample research (pp. 59-79). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
23.
Lewicki, P., Czyzewska, M., & Hoffmann, H. (1987). Unconscious acquisition of complex procedural knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 523-530.
24.
Lindemann, U., & Baumberger, C. (2004). Bewertung von Innovationsleistungen in der Unternehmung-Ein Konzept für das Benchmarking von Innovationsprozessen [Evaluation of innovative performance in enterprise-a concept for benchmarking innovation processes]. ZWF-Zeitschrift für wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb, 99, 368-375.
25.
Miles, M.M., & Huberman, A.M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. New York : Doubleday.
27.
Pyhel, N. (1980). Distribution-free r sample tests for the hypothesis of parallelism of response profiles. Biometrical Journal, 22, 703-714.
28.
Reber, A.S. (1989). Implicit learning and implicit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 219-235.
29.
Schippers, M.C., Den Hartog, D., Koopman, P.L., & Wienk, J.A. (2003). Diversity and team outcomes: The moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity and the mediating effect of reflexivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 779-802.
30.
Tschan, F. (2000). Produktivität in Kleingruppen: Was machen produktive Gruppen anders und besser? [Productivity in small groups: What do productive groups do different and better?]Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
31.
Tschan, F., & von Cranach, M. (1996). Group task structure, processes, and outcome. In M. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 96-121). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
32.
von Cranach, M., Ochsenbein, G., & Tschan, F. (1987). Actions of social systems: Theoretical and empirical investigations. In G. R. Semin & B. Krahé. (Eds.), Issues in contemporary German Social psychology (pp.119-155). London: Sage.
33.
von Cranach, M., Ochsenbein, G., & Valach, L. (1986). The group as a self active system: Outline of a theory of a group action. European Journal of Social Psychology , 16, 193-229.
34.
Wason, P.C., & Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1972). Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content. London: Batsford.
35.
Wegge, J., & Haslam. S.A. (2005). Improving work motivation and performance in brain-storming groups: The effects of three group goal-setting strategies. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 14, 400-430.
36.
West, M.A. (1996). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: A conceptual integration. In M. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 555-579). Chichester , UK: Wiley.
37.
West, M.A. (1997). Developing creativity in organizations. Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society.
38.
West, M.A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355-387.
39.
West, M.A., & Anderson, N.R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 680-693.
40.
West, M.A., Hirst, G., Richter, A., & Shipton, H. (2004). Twelve steps to heaven: Successfully managing change through developing innovative teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 269-299.
41.
Winkel, G.H. (1987). Implications of environmental context for validity assessments. In D. Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 71-97). New York: Wiley.
