This research provides and validates a field survey measure of team mental models (TMMs) on the location of team member expertise. The measure integrates two important aspects into the expertise location TMM Index: (a) the quality of meta-knowledge about experts within the team, and (b) team consensus regarding within-team expertise. Complementary to content-specific TMM approaches, this measure can be applied across different team and task types as a screening indicator in organizational surveys. To validate the TMM Index, an experimental study (n = 120, 40 teams) and a longitudinal field study (n = 130, 37 teams) were conducted. Both studies provide evidence that the TMM Index is a reliable screening indicator that corresponds to content-specific accuracy and consensus scores. Multilevel analyses revealed that the TMM Index predicts team performance (self- and other ratings), team coordination, and individual variables such as knowledge credibility and self-efficacy over time.
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. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.866
2.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
3.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
4.
BlieseP. D.HalversonR. R. (1998). Group consensus and psychological well-being: A large field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 563-580. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01720.x
5.
BrislinR. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In TriandisH. C.LonnerW. (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology (pp. 389-444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
6.
BrownR. D.HauensteinN. M. A. (2005). Interrater agreement reconsidered: An alternative to the rWG indices. Organizational Research Methods, 8, 165-184. doi:10.1177/1094428105275376
7.
BurkeM. J.DunlapW. P. (2002). Estimating interrater agreement with the average deviation index: A user’s guide. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 159-172. doi:10.1177/1094428102005002002
8.
BurkeM. J.FinkelsteinL. M.DusigM. S. (1999). On average deviation indices for estimating interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 49-68. doi:10.1177/109442819921004
9.
BurkeW. W. (2011). Organization change: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
10.
Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE.ConverseS. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In CastellanN. J.Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp. 221-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
ChinR.BenneK. D.BennisW. G. (1985). General strategies for effecting changes in human systems. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
12.
ChouL.WangA.WangT.HuangM.ChengB. (2008). Shared work values and team member effectiveness: The mediation of trustfulness and trustworthiness. Human Relations, 61, 1713-1742. doi:10.1177/0018726708098083
13.
CookeN. J.SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ. A.StoutR. J. (2000). Measuring team knowledge. Human Factors, 42, 151-173. doi:10.1518/001872000779656561
14.
DeChurchL. A.Mesmer-MagnusJ. R. (2010a). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 32-53. doi:10.1037/a0017328
15.
DeChurchL. A.Mesmer-MagnusJ. R. (2010b). Measuring shared team mental models: A meta-analysis. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14, 1-14. doi:10.1037/a0017455
16.
EbyL. T.MeadeA. W.ParisiA. G.DouthittS. (1999). The development of an individual-level teamwork expectations measure and the application of a within-group agreement statistic to assess shared expectations for teamwork. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 366-394. doi:10.1177/109442819924003
17.
EllwartT.BiemannT.RackO. (2011). Measurement of team knowledge in the field—Methodological advantages and limitations. In BoosM.KolbeM.KappelerP.EllwartT. (Eds.), Coordination in human and primate groups (pp. 155-176). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
18.
EllwartT.BuendgensS.RackO. (2014). Managing knowledge exchange and identification in age diverse teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28, 950-972. doi 10.1108/JMP-06-2013-0181
19.
EllwartT.KonradtU. (2007). Wissensverteilung und Wissenskoordination in Gruppen: Überprüfung deutschsprachiger Skalen unter computergestützter Gruppenarbeit [Knowledge distribution and knowledge coordination in groups: An examination of German-language scales in computer-mediated teamwork]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 51, 128-135. doi:10.1026/0932-4089.51.3.128
20.
EspinosaJ. A.LerchJ.KrautR. (2004). Explicit vs. implicit coordination mechanisms and task dependencies: One size does not fit all. In SalasE.FioreS. M. (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 107-129). Washington, DC: APA Books.
21.
FarajS.SproullL. (2000). Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science, 46, 1554-1568. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.12.1554.12072
22.
GeisterS.KonradtU.HertelG. (2006). Effects of process feedback on motivation, satisfaction, and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 37, 459-489. doi:10.1177/1046496406292337
23.
GeorgeJ. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 107-116. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.75.2.107
24.
GlickW. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Journal, 10, 601-616. doi:10.5465/AMR.1985.4279045
25.
HertelG.DeterC.KonradtU. (2003). Motivation gains in computer-mediated work groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2080-2105. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01876.x
26.
HertelG.KonradtU.OrlikowskiB. (2004). Managing distance by interdependence: Goal setting, task interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 13, 1-28. doi:10.1080/13594320344000228
27.
HoeglM.GemuendenH. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and success of innovative projects. Organization Science, 12, 435-449. doi:10.1287/orsc.12.4.435.10635
28.
HofmannD. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23, 723-744. doi:10.1177/014920639702300602
29.
HollingsheadA. B. (1998). Distributed knowledge and transactive processes in decision-making groups. In NealM. A.MannixE. A.GruenfeldD. H. (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (pp. 103-123). Stanford, CA: JAI Press.
30.
HollingsheadA. B.GuptaN.YoonK.BrandonD. P. (2012). Transactive memory theory and teams: Past, present and future. In SalasE.FioreS. M.LetskyM. P. (Eds.), Theories of team cognition: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 421-455). New York, NY: Routledge.
31.
JamesL. R.DemareeR. G.WolfG. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.69.1.85
32.
JannsenO. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287-302. doi:10.1348/096317900167038
33.
KingW. R.ClelandD. I. (1988). Life-cycle management. In KingW. R.ClelandD. I. (Eds.), Project management handbook (2nd ed., pp. 191-230). New York, NY: van Nostrand Reinhold.
34.
KleinK. J.ConnA. B.SmithD. B.SorraJ. S. (2001). Is everyone in agreement? An exploration of within-group agreement in employee perceptions of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 3-16. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.3
35.
KlimoskiR. J.MohammedS. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor?Journal of Management, 20, 403-437. doi:10.1177/014920639402000206
36.
KozlowskiS. W. J.BellB. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In BormanW. C.IlgenD. R.KlimoskiR. J. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 12. Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333-375). London, England: Wiley.
37.
KozlowskiS. W. J.ChaoG. T. (2012). The dynamics of emergence: Cognition and cohesion in work teams. Managerial and Decision Economics, 33, 335-354. doi:10.1002/mde.2552
38.
KozlowskiS. W. J.IlgenD. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77-124. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x
39.
Langan-FoxJ.CodeS.Langfield-SmithK. (2000). Team mental models: Techniques, methods and analytic approaches. Human Factors, 42, 242-271. doi:10.1518/001872000779656534
40.
LevesqueL. L.WilsonJ. M.WholeyD. R. (2001). Cognitive divergence and shared mental models in software development project teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 135-144. doi:10.1002/job.87
41.
LewisK. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 587-604. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.587
42.
LittlepageG. E.MuellerA. (1997). Recognition and utilization of expertise in problem-solving groups: Expert characteristics and behavior. Group Dynamics, 1, 324-328. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.1.4.324
43.
MarksM. A.SabellaM. J.BurkeC. S.ZaccaroS. J. (2002). The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 3-13. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.1.3
44.
MarksM. A.ZaccaroS. J.MathieuJ. E. (2000). Performance implications of leader briefings and team-interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 971-986. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.971
45.
MathieuJ. E.HeffnerT. S.GoodwinG. F.Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE. (2005). Scaling the quality of teammates’ mental models: Equifinality and normative comparisons. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 37-56. doi:10.1002/job.296
46.
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. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.85.2.273
47.
MohammedS.FerzandiL.HamiltonK. (2010). Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model construct. Journal of Management, 36, 876-910. doi:10.1177/0149206309356804
48.
MohammedS.KlimoskiR. J.RentschJ. R. (2000). The measurement of team mental models: We have no shared schema. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 123-165. doi:10.1177/109442810032001
49.
MohammedS.TeslerR.HamiltonK. (2012). Time and shared cognition: Towards greater integration of temporal dynamics. In SalasE.FioreS.LetskyM. P. (Eds.), Theories of team cognition: Cross disciplinary perspectives (pp. 87-116). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
50.
MorelandR. L.MyaskovskyL. (2000). Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory or improved communication?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 117-133. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2891
51.
PetersonE.MitchellT.ThompsonL.BurrR. (2000). Collective efficacy and aspects of shared mental models as predictors of performance over time in work groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 296-316. doi:10.1177/1368430200033005
52.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
53.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
54.
RentschJ. R.MotI. R. (2012). Elaborating cognition in teams: Cognitive similarity configurations. In SalasE.FioreS. M.LetskyM. P. (Eds.), Theories of team cognition: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 145-170). New York, NY: Routledge.
55.
RentschJ. R.SmallE. E.HangesP. J. (2008). Cognitions in organizations and teams: What is the meaning of cognitive similarity? In SmithB. (Ed.), The people make the place: Exploring dynamic linkages between individuals and organizations (pp. 127-156). London, England: Routledge.
56.
SalasE.FioreS. M. (Eds.). (2004). Team cognition—Understanding the factors that drive process and performance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
57.
SalasE.FioreS. M.LetskyM. P. (2012). Theories of team cognition: Cross-disciplinary perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
58.
ShroutP. E.FleissJ. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
59.
SrivastavaA.BartolK. M.LockeE. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1239-1251. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.23478718
60.
StasserG. (1992). Pooling of unshared information during group discussion. In WorchelS.WoodW.SimpsonJ. (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 48-57). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
61.
StasserG.StewartD. D.WittenbaumG. M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244-265. doi:10.1006/jesp.1995.1012
62.
StoutR. J.Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE.MilanovichD. M. (1999). Planning, shared mental models, and coordinated performance: An empirical link is established. Human Factors, 41, 61-71. doi:10.1518/001872099779577273
63.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
64.
WagemanR. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 145-181.
65.
WebberS. S.ChenG.PayneS. C.MarshS. M.ZaccaroS. J. (2000). Enhancing team mental model measurement with performance appraisal practices. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 307-322. doi:10.1177/109442810034001
66.
WegnerD. M. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In MullenB.GoethalsG. R. (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185-205). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
67.
WegnerD. M. (1995). A computer network model of human transactive memory. Social Cognition, 13, 319-339. doi:10.1521/soco.1995.13.3.319
68.
WiedowA.KonradtU.EllwartT.SteenfattC. (2013). Direct and indirect effects of team process improvement on team outcomes: A multiple mediation analysis. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice., 17, 232-251.
