An empirical study was conducted to observe macro-cognition and interpersonal interactions between team members during a collaborative resource management task. Teams consisting of three members each were instructed to work together to complete scenario objectives in a simulated military task environment. The task scenarios were manipulated to vary the complexity of the scenario objectives. An exploratory analysis of the results revealed a mediating effect of perceived complexity on the relationship between perceived sharedness and performance. Additionally, a partial mediating effect for perceived complexity on the relationship between perceived sharedness team knowledge building was found. Results indicate that perceived complexity of a collaborative task may play a greater role in the relationship between team level factors and performance than previously thought. Implications for these results are provided alongside suggestions for future research. Specifically, we call for research to determine the mechanism through which perceptions of task complexity influence collective performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonN.R.WestM.A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 235-298.
2.
BrannickM.T.SalasE.PrinceC. (1997). Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
3.
CampbellD.J. (1988). Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 40-52.
4.
Cannon-BowersJ.A.SalasE.ConverseS. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In CastellanN.J.Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
5.
CookeN.J.GormanJ.C. (2006). Assessment of team cognition. In KarlowskiW. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors (pp.271-276). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
6.
CookeN.J.GormanJ.C.RoweL.J. (2009). An ecological perspective on team cognition. In SalasE.GoodwinG.F.BurkeC.S. (Eds.) Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
7.
CookeN.J.SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ.A.StoutR. (2000). Measuring team knowledge. Human Factors, 42, 151-173.
8.
CookeN.J.SalasE.KiekelP.A.BellB. (2004). Advances in measuring team cognition. In SalasE.FioreS.M. (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 83-106). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
9.
De DreuC.K.W.WeingartL.R. (2003). Task versus rela-tionship conflict, team performance and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741-749.
10.
EarleyC.P. (1985). Influence of information, choice, and task complexity upon goal acceptance, performance, and personal goals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 481-491.
11.
EllisA.P.J. (2006). System breakdown: The role of mental models and transactive memory in the relationship between acute stress and team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 576-589.
12.
FioreS.M.RosenM.A.Smith-JentschK.A.SalasE.LetskyM.WarnerN. (2010). Toward an understanding of macro-cognition in teams: Predicting processes in complex collaborative contexts. Human Factors, 52(2), 203-224.
13.
FioreS.M.SalasE. (2004). Why we need team cognition. In SalasE.FioreS.M. (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 235-248). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
14.
HuberV.L. (1985). Effects of task difficulty, goal setting, and strategy on performance of a heuristic task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 492-504.
LazzaraE.H.PavlasD.FioreS.SalasE. (2010). A framework to develop task complexity. In Proceed-ings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Human Fac-tors and Ergonomics Society.
17.
MatheiuJ.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(2), 273-283.
18.
MohammedS.DumvilleB.C. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary bounda-ries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 89-106.
19.
MulderI. (1999). Understanding technology mediated interaction processes: A theoretical context. Enschede, Netherlands: Telema ca Instituut.
20.
PeslakA.StantonM. (2007). Information technology team achievement: An analysis of success factors and development of a team success model (TSM). Team Performance Management, 13(1), 21-33.
21.
PreacherK.J.HayesA.F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891.
22.
SalasE.RosenM.A.BurkeC.S.NicholsonD.HowseW.R. (2007). Markers for enhancing team cognition in complex environments: The power of team performance diagnosis. Aviation, Space, and Environ-mental Medicine; 78(5), B77–85.
23.
ShawJ.D.ZhuJ.DuffyM.K.ScottK.L.ShihH.SusantoE. (2011). A contingency model of conflict and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 391-400.
24.
ShilohS.KorenS.ZakayD. (2001). Individual differences in compensatory decision-making style and need for closure as correlated of subjective decision complexity and difficulty. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 699-710.
25.
Van den BosscheP.GijselaersW.H.SegersM.KirschnerP.A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: Team learning beliefs and behaviors. Small Group Research, 37(5), 490-521.
26.
VolpeC.E.Cannon-BowersJ.A.SalasE.SpectorP.E. (1996). The impact of crosstraining on team functioning: An empirical investigation. Human Factors, 38(1), 87-100.
27.
WeaverJ.L.BowersC.A.SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ.A. (1995). Networked simulations: New paradigms for team performance research. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 27(1), 12-24.
