Despite the oft touted benefits of having differences in how people think about a task, teams often are not able to capitalize on their heterogeneity. The problem, we demonstrate, is that representational gaps—fundamental incompatibilities in the way that team members conceptualize the problem and solution space—degrade the knowledge synthesis capabilities of teams. We show that rGaps degrade team processes and thus have a unique effect on performance above and beyond mere differences in cognition. In two laboratory studies, we find that representational gaps hurt verbal and nonverbal communication and increased relationship conflict. Relationship conflict, in turn, mediated the negative relationship between rGaps and performance. We discuss possible interventions when rGaps are present.
AggarwalI.WoolleyA. W. (2019). Team creativity, cognition, and cognitive style diversity. Management Science, 65(4), 1586–1599. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.3001
2.
AndersenP. A.AndersenJ. F. (2005). Measurements of perceived nonverbal immediacy. In The sourcebook of nonverbal measures: Going beyond words (pp. 113–126).
3.
ArgoteL.GuoJ. M. (2016). Routines and transactive memory systems: Creating, coordinating, retaining, and transferring knowledge in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.002
4.
Baker-BrownG.BallardE. J.BluckS.de VriesB.SuedfeldP.TetlockP. E. (1990). Coding manual for conceptual/integrative complexity. University of British Columbia and University of California.
BechkyB. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science, 14(3), 312–330. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.3.312.15162
7.
BrodbeckF. C.KerschreiterR.MojzischA.Schulz-HardtS. (2007). Group decision making under conditions of distributed knowledge: The information asymmetries model. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 459–479. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24351441
8.
BurgessH.BurgessG. (2006). Intractability and the frontier of the field. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 24(2), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.166
9.
CarlileP. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953
10.
ChatmanJ. A.GoncaloJ. A.KennedyJ. A.DuguidM. M. (2012). Political correctness and group composition: A research agenda. In Looking back, moving forward: A review of group and team-based research. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
CoanJ. A.GottmanJ. M. (2007). The specific affect coding system (SPAFF). In Handbook of emotion elicitation and assessment (p. 267).
13.
Cohen-ChenS.CrispR. J.HalperinE. (2017). A new appraisal-based framework underlying hope in conflict resolution. Emotion Review, 9(3), 208–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073916670023
14.
ColquittJ. A. (2008). Publishing laboratory research in AMJ: A question of when, not if. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4), 616–620. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.33664717
15.
CroninM. A.BezrukovaK. (2019). Conflict management through the lens of system dynamics. The Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 770–806. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0021
16.
CroninM. A.LoewensteinJ. (2018). The craft of creativity. Stanford University Press.
17.
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
18.
CroninM. A.WeingartL. R. (2019). Conflict across representational gaps: Threats to and opportunities for improved communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), 7642–7649. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805866116
19.
DeChurchL. A.Mesmer-MagnusJ. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 32–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017328
20.
De DreuC.van KnippenbergD. (2005). The possessive self as a barrier to conflict resolution: Effects of mere ownership, process accountability, and self-concept clarity on competitive cognitions and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(3), 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.345
21.
De DreuC. K. W.WeingartL. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
22.
de WitF. R. C.GreerL. L.JehnK. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024844
23.
DoughertyD. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.2.179
24.
EigenbrodeS. D.O’RourkeM.WulfhorstJ. D.AlthoffD. M.GoldbergC.S.MerrillK.Bosque-PerezN. A. (2007). Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. BioScience, 57(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1641/b570109
25.
EkmanP.FriesenW. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17(2), 124.
26.
ElfenbeinH. A.AmbadyN. (2002). On the universality and cultural specificity of emotion recognition: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128(2), 203–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.2.203
27.
EllsworthP. C.SchererK. R. (2003). In DavidsonR. J. (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion. Oxford University Press.
28.
FiolC. M.PrattM. G.O’ConnorE. J. (2009). Managing intractable identity conflicts. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 32–55. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.35713276
29.
FirthB. M.HollenbeckJ. R.MilesJ. E.IlgenD. R.BarnesC. M. (2015). Same page, different books: Extending representational gaps theory to enhance performance in multiteam systems. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 813–835.
30.
FisherRUryWPattonB (2006). Getting to yes (2nd ed.). Penguin Putnam.
31.
GilsonL. L.DavisW. D. (2019). Managing in an age of complexity and uncertainty group. Organization Management, 44(2), 243–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601119836545
32.
GottmanJ. M.LevensonR. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.221
33.
GottmanJ. M.McCoyK.CoanJ.CollierH. (1995). The Specific Affect Coding System (SPAFF) for observing emotional communication in marital and family interaction.
34.
GrometD. M.KunreutherH.LarrickR. P. (2013). Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(23), 9314–9319. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1218453110
35.
HalperinE.PoratR.TamirM.GrossJ. J. (2013). Can emotion regulation change political attitudes in intractable conflicts? From the laboratory to the field. Psychological Science, 24(1), 106–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612452572
36.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
HinszV. B.TindaleR. S.VollrathD. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43
39.
HomanA. C.GündemirS.BuengelerC.van KleefG. A. (2020). Leading diversity: Towards a theory of functional leadership in diverse teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(10), 1101–1128. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038315
40.
HumphreyS. E.AimeF. (2014). Team microdynamics: Toward an organizing approach to teamwork. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 443-503. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.904140
41.
JehnK. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393638.
42.
JohnsonA.NguyenH.GrothM.WhiteL. (2018). Reaping the rewards of functional diversity in healthcare teams: Why team processes improve performance. Group and Organization Management, 43(3), 440–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601118769192
43.
KahanD. M. (2015). Climate science communication and the measurement problem. Political Psychology, 36(S1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12244.
44.
KearneyE.GebertD.VoelpelS. C. (2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members’ need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 581–598. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.41331431
45.
LaveJ. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge University Press.
46.
LebretonJ. M.BurgessJ. R. D.KaiserR. B.AtchleyE. K.JamesL. R. (2003). The restriction of variance hypothesis and interrater reliability and agreement: Are ratings from multiple sources really dissimilar?Organizational Research Methods, 6(1), 80–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428102239427
47.
LeBretonJ. M.SenterJ. L. (2007). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642
48.
LovelaceK.ShapiroD. L.WeingartL. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 779–793. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069415
49.
LuL.NorderK. A.SawhneyA.EmichK. J. (2023). Setting the programmatic agenda: A comprehensive bibliometric overview of team mechanism research. Journal of Business Research, 154, 113297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.09.002
50.
MaozI.McCauleyC. (2008). Threat, dehumanization, and support for retaliatory aggressive policies in asymmetric conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(1), 93–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002707308597
51.
MarksM. A.MathieuJ. E.ZaccaroS. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4845785
52.
MartinsL. L.SohnW. (2022). How does diversity affect team cognitive processes? Understanding the cognitive pathways underlying the diversity dividend in teams. The Academy of Management Annals, 16(1), 134–178. https://doi.org/10.5465%2Fannals.2019.0109
53.
McGregorI.MarigoldD. (2003). Defensive zeal and the uncertain self: What makes you so sure?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 838–852. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.838
54.
MehrabianA. (1969). Significance of posture and position in the communication of attitude and status relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 71(5), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027349
55.
MelloA. L.RentschJ. R. (2015). Cognitive diversity in teams: A multidisciplinary review. Small Group Research, 46(6), 623–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496415602558
56.
Mesmer-MagnusJ. R.CarterD. R.AsencioR.DeChurchL. A. (2016). Space exploration illuminates the next frontier for teams research. Group and Organization Management, 41(5), 595–628. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116668763
57.
MohammedS.RicoR.AlipourK. K. (2021). Team cognition at a crossroad: Toward conceptual integration and network configurations. The Academy of Management Annals, 15(2), 455–501. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0159
58.
NewellA.SimonH. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Prentice Hall.
59.
OcB.BashshurM. R.MooreC. (2019). Head above the parapet: How minority subordinates influence group outcomes and the consequences they face for doing so. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(7), 929–945. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000376
60.
O'ConnorE. J.AnnisonM. H. (2002). Building trust and collaboration between physicians and administrators. Physician Executive, 28(2), 48–52.
61.
OlabisiJ.LewisK. (2018). Within- and between-team coordination via transactive memory systems and boundary spanning. Group and Organization Management, 43(5), 691–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601118793750
62.
ParkS.GrosserT. J.RoebuckA. A.MathieuJ. E. (2020). Understanding work teams from a network perspective: A review and future research directions. Journal of Management, 46(6), 1002–1028. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320901573
63.
PearsallM. J.VenkataramaniV. (2015). Overcoming asymmetric goals in teams: The interactive roles of team learning orientation and team identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 735–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038315
64.
PerriginoM. B.ChenH.DunfordB. B.PrattB. R. (2021). If we see, will we agree? Unpacking the complex relationship between stimuli and team climate strength. The Academy of Management Annals, 15(1), 151–187. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2019.0067
65.
RichesonJ. A.TrawalterS. (2005). Why do interracial interactions impair executive function? A resource depletion account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 934. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.934
66.
RicoR.Sánchez-ManzanaresM.AntinoM.LauD. (2012). Bridging team faultlines by combining task role assignment and goal structure strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025231
67.
RohH.ChunK.RyouY.SonJ. (2019). Opening the black box: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of top management team diversity on emergent team processes and multilevel contextual influence. Group and Organization Management, 44(1), 112–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601118799475
68.
SalazarM. R.LantT. K.FioreS. M.SalasE. (2012). Facilitating innovation in diverse science teams through integrative capacity. Small Group Research, 43(5), 527–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412453622
69.
SantosC. M.UitdewilligenS.PassosA. M.Marques-QuinteiroP.MaynardM. T. (2021). The effect of a concept mapping intervention on shared cognition and adaptive team performance over time. Group and Organization Management, 46(6), 984–1026.
70.
SchmeichelB. J.VohsK. D.BaumeisterR. F. (2003). Intellectual performance and ego depletion: Role of the self in logical reasoning and other information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.33
71.
ShufflerM. L.CarterD. R. (2018). Teamwork situated in multiteam systems: Key lessons learned and future opportunities. American Psychologist, 73(4), 390–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000322
72.
SohrabS. G.WallerM. J.KaplanS. (2015). Exploring the hidden-profile paradigm: A literature review and analysis. Small Group Research, 46(5), 489–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496415599068
73.
SorrellJ. (2012). Ethics: The patient protection and affordable care act: Ethical perspectives in 21st century health care. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.3912/OJIN.Vol18No02EthCol01
74.
StokolsD.MisraS.HallK.TaylorB.MoserR. (2008). The ecology of team science: Understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), 96–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.002
75.
StricklandA. A.TaberC. S.LodgeM. (2011). Motivated reasoning and public opinion. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 36(6), 935–944. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-1460524
TetlockP. (1986). A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(4), 819–827. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.50.4.819
78.
TsaiM. H.BenderskyC. (2016). The pursuit of information sharing: Expressing task conflicts as debates vs. disagreements increases perceived receptivity to dissenting opinions in groups. Organization Science, 27(1), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1025
79.
UitdewilligenS.WallerM. J.RoeR. A.BollenP. (2021). The effects of team mental model complexity on team information search and performance trajectories. Group and Organization Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011211023219
80.
van KleefG. A.CôtéS. (2018). Emotional dynamics in conflict and negotiation: Individual, dyadic, and group processes. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 437–464. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104714
WangS. (2015). Emotional intelligence, information elaboration, and performance: The moderating role of informational diversity. Small Group Research, 46(3), 324–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496415578010
83.
WeberK. D.PattersonB. R. (1996). Construction and validation of a communication based emotional support scale. Communication Research Reports, 13(1), 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099609362072
84.
WeingartL. R.CroninM. A.HouserC. J. S.CaganJ.VogelC. M. (2005). Functional diversity and conflict in cross-functional product development teams: Considering representational gaps and task characteristics. Research Management, 4, 89–110.
85.
WieseC. W.BurkeC. S.TangY.HernandezC.HowellR. (2022). Team learning behaviors and performance: A meta-analysis of direct effects and moderators. Group and Organization Management, 47(3), 571–611. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011211016928
86.
YuanY.van KnippenbergD. (2020). From member creativity to team creativity? Team information elaboration as moderator of the additive and disjunctive models. PLoS ONE, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/4vrez
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.
