Investigating the Relation Between Team Learning and the Team Situation Model

Abstract

The development of a team situation model (TSM), a shared understanding of the current situation developed by team members moment by moment, and its impact on team effectiveness have received minor attention in team research. This study investigates a moderated mediation model including the relationship between the team learning processes of co-construction and constructive conflict, the TSM, and team effectiveness. Forty-seven emergency management command-and-control teams participated in this field study. Their task was to manage a realistic emergency simulation developed and organized by field experts. The multi-rater approach included ratings of team members, researchers, and field experts. Results show that co-construction is related to the TSM under the condition of high constructive conflict. The TSM predicts team effectiveness in terms of the quality of actions at the incident scene.

Keywords

team learning team cognition team situation model team effectiveness emergency management command-and-control

Complex cognitive tasks are often conducted by teams (Cooke, Salas, Cannon-Bowers, & Stout, 2000). A team collectively possesses more knowledge and diversity in expertise than an individual, which can be beneficial for cognitively complex tasks. However, not all teams are able to benefit from this diversity (Jehn, Greer, & Rupert, 2008). To be able to solve problems, teams face the challenge of integrating the different knowledge, experiences, and values present. The capability of creating a shared mutual understanding among team members is assumed to be crucial (Salas, Cooke, & Rosen, 2008; Salas & Fiore, 2004).

During the last 20 years, diverse research efforts aimed at clarifying the role of shared understanding of the task among team members for team performance (e.g., Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 2001; Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000; Smith-Jentsch, Mathieu, & Kraiger, 2005). Researchers have explored the value of both the team mental model (TMM), which refers to collectively owned long-term task-relevant knowledge that team members bring to a situation, and the team situation model (TSM), containing shared task-knowledge concerning the current situation developed by the team members moment-by-moment (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Blickensderfer, 1999; Cooke et al., 2000). In this respect, we observe that although the long-term TMM is widely studied, only a few studies have been addressing the short-term TSM (e.g., Cooke, Kiekel, & Helm, 2001).

This study aims to investigate the role of the TSM for team effectiveness in the setting of emergency management teams, which deal with disaster situations. These teams are characterized by a dynamic environment, high task demands, and a scarce amount of time available to communicate and strategize. Due to these circumstances, the teams are expected to benefit from a TSM; a shared understanding of the emerging situation and collective actions required (Stout, Cannon-Bowers, & Salas, 1996) for this could foster implicit coordination (Rico, Sánchez-Manzanares, Gil, & Gibson, 2008).

Several authors point at the value of team learning processes for teams to reach a mutual understanding and agreement (e.g., Decuyper, Dochy, & Van den Bossche, 2010; Edmondson, 2003; Van den Bossche, Gijselaers, Segers, & Kirschner, 2006; Van den Bossche, Gijselaers, Segers, Woltjer, & Kirschner, 2011; Wilson, Goodman, & Cronin, 2007). However, given the time constraints emergency management teams face, we question whether, compared with their role in establishing a TMM, team learning processes play the same role in predicting TSM and, in turn, team effectiveness. We investigate a moderated mediation model in the context of emergency management command-and-control teams (Figure 1). To place our argumentation in this context, we first describe the main characteristics of emergency management command-and-control teams, and especially the multidisciplinary on-scene-command-team (OSCT) as an illustrative example, and the specific setting of this study.

Figure 1.

Moderated mediation model of the relations between team learning processes, the team situation model (TSM) and team effectiveness (quality of actions, goal achievement, and error rate).

Emergency Management: The OSCT

When a community is shocked by an incident, such as a traffic accident involving multiple cars and a truck containing flammable gas, multidisciplinary emergency management is required. Commanding representatives of the fire department, the police, and the medical assistance unit on call form an ad hoc multidisciplinary OSCT.

The OSCT members are responsible for individually managing the mono-disciplinary actions of their own assistance unit and collectively coordinating the multidisciplinary cooperation of the different assistance units at the scene. The team members together create an overview of the emergency situation, determine the required actions at the scene, assign them to the person or unit responsible, and report on the actions (Helsloot, Martens, & Scholtens, 2010). The team exists for about 2 to 8 hr and will be replaced by a new team if the incident requires continuing OSCT coordination (Helsloot et al., 2010).

The multidisciplinary OSCT contains a representative of each assistance unit present at the scene and thus has high expertise diversity: Team members are specialists in different knowledge and skill domains as a result of their work experience and education (Van der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005). The team has low team tenure because it is ad hoc composed; the officer on call is expected to show up. Moreover, in many occasions, the team members may have never or rarely worked together before. The critical nature of the OSCT task implies working under time pressure (Baker, Day, & Salas, 2006; Helsloot et al., 2010; Klein, Ziegert, Knight, & Xiao, 2006; Rasker, Post, & Schraagen, 2000; Salas, Wilson, Murphy, King, & Salisbury, 2008; Thorstensson, Axelsson, Morin, & Jenvald, 2001), facing a regularly changing situation, and dealing with high task complexity asking for the input of different disciplines. To accomplish the task, the team members sequentially initiate OSCT meetings, between which they coordinate their own units.

As the OSCT consists of individuals who have high levels of skills and abilities, are specialized in their respective duties, and come together for a short period of time to work interdependently toward a common valued goal, it is a typical command-and-control team (Salas, Burke, & Samman, 2001).

The Value of the TSM

The TMM of the task (shared long-term task-relevant knowledge applicable to multiple situations and which team members bring to a specific situation; Mohammed, Ferzandi, & Hamilton, 2010), shared situation awareness (SSA; “the perception of the elements in the environment within a volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future”; Endsley, 1995, p. 36), and the TSM (shared task-knowledge concerning the current specific situation developed by the team members moment-by-moment; Cooke et al., 2000) are intertwined. Team members have been developing TMMs containing preexisting and relatively long-lasting knowledge during former team training, earlier experiences, or team discussions (i.e., the set meeting structure or protocols used for decision making about when to create an up scaled emergency management structure). During cooperation, the team develops an idea of the meaning and projected status of environmental events (Wellens, 1993), which is referred to as SSA. The TMM and the SSA focus on shared knowledge and not so much on how this knowledge evolves over time. Gorman, Cooke, and Winner (2006) pointed to this issue when they state that SSA should not be approached as a product, but as a continuous perception–action process. The TSM acknowledges this dynamic nature of the knowledge a situation and the response to that situation comprehend.

The TSM develops while a team is engaged in a task and reflects the team’s collective understanding of the specific situation at that moment (Cooke et al., 2000). Preexisting TMMs support the development of a dynamic view of the situation (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1999; Cooke et al., 2001). The TSM can thus be seen as the dynamic and evolving product of an integration of the TMM and SSA in a specific situation, which involves the team’s assessment (i.e., perception, comprehension, and projection) of the situation including the surrounding, the task, and the team itself (Cooke, Stout, & Salas, 1997). The TSM contains knowledge about the situation and how the team responds to that situation, for instance, the area that is threatened by the fire and the number of ambulances present at the incident scene.

These constructs have in common that the members have a certain level of knowledge similarity. This similarity refers to the extent to which the cognitive content of individuals is the same (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008; Rentsch, Small, & Hanges, 2008). Such a shared mutual understanding among team members is assumed to be crucial for successful team performance (Salas, Cooke, & Rosen, 2008; Salas & Fiore, 2004). The value of similarity in task-knowledge for team performance, merely the TMM, is studied across different types of field teams (Mohammed et al., 2010), such as Air Force Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) teams (Cooke et al., 2001), air traffic control teams (Smith-Jentsch et al., 2005), military combat teams (Lim & Klein, 2006), community league basketball teams (Webber, Chen, Payne, Marsh, & Zaccaro, 2000), student teams performing a regular research task (Peterson, Mitchell, Thompson, & Burr, 2000), as well as in laboratories with student teams performing a simulated task (e.g., Edwards, Day, Arthur, & Bell, 2006; Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Cannon-Bowers, & Salas, 2005; Van den Bossche et al., 2011; see Table 1).

Table 1.

The Relevance of Similarity in the Task-Understanding Among Team Members.

Author and year	Team type	Task dynamics	Lab/field	TMM/TSM	Method TMM/TSM	Performance indicator	Value similarity for team performance
Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas, and Cannon-Bowers (2000)	56 two-person student teams; flight simulator task	Time pressure, changing situation.	Lab	TMM	Paired comparisons ratings/Pathfinder; UCINET	Points per mission objective	ns
Webber, Chen, Payne, Marsh, and Zaccaro (2000)	24 five- to twelve-person basketball teams; community league	Time pressure, task complexity.	Field	TMM	Critical incidents questionnaire/Cue-strategy associations	Winning percentage and points	ns
Peterson, Mitchell, Thompson, and Burr (2000)	26 two- to eight-person student teams; research project	Task complexity	Field	TMM	Concept mapping	Project grade	β = −.43, p < .05 (disagreement).
Cooke, Kiekel, and Helm (2001)	11 three-person Air Force ROTC teams; synthetic task of controlling an uninhabited air vehicle (UAV).	Task complexity, time pressure, changing situation.	Field	TSM	Answering two queries during the task concerning the current moment.	Result of mission variables	r = .72, p ≤ .05
Cooke, Kiekel, Salas, and Stout (2003)	36 three-person student teams; cross-training and a military team task	Task complexity, time pressure, changing situation.	Lab	TMM	Relatedness ratings / Pathfinder	Mission completion rate	β = .35, p < .05
Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Cannon-Bowers, and Salas (2005)	74 two-person student teams; flight simulator task	Task complexity, time pressure, changing situation.	Lab	TMM	Paired comparisons ratings / Pathfinder; UCINET	Points per mission objective	ns
Smith-Jentsch, Mathieu, and Kraiger (2005)	47 air traffic control tower teams	Task complexity, time pressure, changing situation.	Field	TMM	Critical incidents questionnaire / Cue-strategy associations	Safety and efficiency	ns
Lim and Klein (2006)	71 seven- or eight-person military combat teams; small unit operations	Task complexity, time pressure, changing situation.	Field	TMM	Paired comparisons ratings / Pathfinder	Externally rated team efficiency measure	B = .32, p < .01
Edwards, Day, Arthur, and Bell (2006)	83 two-person student teams; space fortress video game	Task complexity, time pressure, changing situation.	Lab	TMM	Paired comparisons ratings / Pathfinder	Average of the total scores	Time 1: β = .20, p < .05; Time 2: ns
Resick, Dickson, Mitchelson, Allison, and Clark (2010)	67 two-person student teams; simulated search and capture task	Task complexity, time pressure, changing situation.	Lab	TMM	Mental model questionnaire	Goal accomplishment (total number of points)	ns
Van den Bossche, Gijselaers, Segers, Woltjer, and Kirschner (2011)	27 three-person student teams; business simulation game	Task complexity.	Lab	TMM	Concept mapping	Mean equity and goodwill	Varying from β = .43, p < .05 to β = .51, p < .01.

Note. TMM = team mental model; TSM = team situation model; ROTC = Reserve Officers’ Training Corps.

The research findings about the influence of shared knowledge in terms of a TMM and of the TSM are diverse (see Table 1). Whether there is an effect on team performance does not seem to depend on the number of teams involved, task characteristics in terms of complexity, time pressure, a changing situation, a field or a lab study, the TMM/TSM measurement method, or the team performance measurement. Lim and Klein (2006) explained why they found significant results in contrast with Mathieu et al. (2000; Mathieu et al., 2005) by arguing that the team context matters. Teams that have to perform under high stress and intense time pressure have very little time for explicit coordination and communication and therefore need a shared understanding of the emerging situation and collective action required much more than teams with ample time for discussion (Stout et al., 1996).

In this respect, Waller, Gupta, and Giambatista (2004) as well as Comfort (2007) theorized that such teams are served by developing a shared idea of the situation and its risks, a shared idea of the team goal that follows from this situation, and a shared idea of how to act toward this goal together in an efficient way. “Knowing what is going on” is important for decision making in complex situations such as emergencies, that are often uncertain, unpredictable, and stressful (McGuiness, 2007). It is about developing a common view of what is happening, what is likely to happen next, why it is happening, and what needs to be done. In this respect, the study of Cooke et al. (2001) is interesting (see Table 1). The TSM of 11 teams (consisting of 3 interdependent members each) that had to deal with a dynamic task (a simulated Air Force’s Predator uninhabited air vehicle [UAV] operation) was measured. Results showed that the TSM played a significant role for team effectiveness.

Based on the aforementioned studies, we expect that teams with a complex task, such as coordinating the emergency management processes at the scene of an incident, will benefit from the shared knowledge stored in a TSM because it supports the use of implicit coordination (i.e., “when team members anticipate the actions and the needs of their colleagues and task demands and dynamically adjust their own behavior accordingly, without having to communicate directly with each other or plan the activity”; Rico et al., 2008, p. 164). Implicit coordination is extremely useful in situations where teams have little or no time for explicit coordination. The TSM is the basis for anticipating and executing actions (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). It enables teams to adapt to novel elements in the situation, and the actions or needs of the colleagues at the scene (Uitdewilligen, Waller, & Zijlstra, 2010) and thus influences team effectiveness.

Team effectiveness in the context of emergency management command-and-control is a multidimensional concept (cf. Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; Hackman, 1987; Tannenbaum, Beard, & Salas, 1992). It reflects the results of the response at the scene of the incident in terms of the quality of actions (e.g., justified, coordinated, safe), the level of goal achievement (e.g., control, stabilization of the situation), and the error rate concerning the victims and damage and how the media will report on the process and results (Van der Haar, Segers, & Jehn, 2013). This is a team performance effectiveness outcome, and not a behavioral outcome (e.g., absenteeism) or an attitudinal outcome (e.g., team member satisfaction; Cohen & Bailey, 1997).

Relating Team Learning, the TSM, and Team Effectiveness

With this study, we intend to add to the experimental research of Cooke et al. (2001) by testing whether the significant effect of the TSM on team effectiveness they found in a synthetic task environment with 11 teams could be confirmed in 47 realistic emergency management teams dealing with high task complexity, time pressure, high risks, and a continuously changing situation in a realistic simulation exercise environment. Although the queries used by Cooke et al. (2001) investigated the TSM in terms of expected success on the task and the person(s) to communicate with, we focused on the TSM in terms of the emergency management processes required at the scene of the incident. Moreover, Cooke and colleagues (2001) studied the direct effect of team processes and the TSM on team effectiveness separately. We investigate the indirect effect of team processes on team effectiveness through the TSM (see Figure 1).

The TSM emerges due to interaction processes between team members such as exchanging information, affect and resources, sharing ideas, and communicating feelings and moods (Rico et al., 2008) while the team is engaged in the task (Cooke et al., 2000). In this respect, Mohammed and Dumville (2001) referred to the role of team learning in the development, modification, and reinforcement of sharedness. Team learning is a dynamic behavioral process of interaction and exchange among team members (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006) that generates change or improvement for teams, team members, organizations, and so on (Decuyper et al., 2010). In this case, the change concerns the development of similarity among team members’ knowledge as stored in the TSM.

Earlier empirical research has shown the value of team learning processes for TMMs and, in turn, for team effectiveness (Van den Bossche et al., 2006; Van den Bossche et al., 2011). More concretely, Van den Bossche and colleagues (2006; Van den Bossche et al., 2011) referred to co-construction and constructive conflict as two team learning processes, which are also indicated as key in the most recent team learning review written by Decuyper et al. (2010). Co-construction refers to the process in which team members share facts they know and ideas they have and build meaning by refining, building on, or modifying the original input; it facilitates the exchange of information and ideas (Van den Bossche et al., 2006; Van den Bossche et al., 2011). Being an interaction process, co-construction incorporates process behaviors such as describing the problem situation, sharing information and ideas, active listening and tuning into other team members, and trying to grasp explanations and intentions.

Constructive conflict refers to the critical but constructive behaviors of handling differences of opinions by addressing them directly, acting on comments given on ideas, and verifying opinions and ideas of team members by asking each other critical questions (Van den Bossche et al., 2006; Van den Bossche et al., 2011). Constructive conflict is different from conflict. While constructive conflict refers to the process of handling differences of opinion, conflict refers to the perceptual state of tension, disagreement, and conflict of ideas as an outcome of team interaction (DeChurch, Mesmer-Magnus, & Doty, 2013). According to De Dreu and Weingart (2003), conflict as the emergence of differences in opinion does not guarantee conceptual advancement. It may be taken as a paradox and resolved by ignoring one of the elements or as a personal, emotional rejection and as such can interfere with productive team behavior (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Therefore, disagreement in itself seems to be less important than the fact that it generates communication among peer members (Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye, & O’Malley, 1996).

Van de Vliert, Nauta, Giebels, and Janssen (1999) explained that a response to a conflict or disagreement can be problem solving (reconciling both parties’ interests), forcing (furthering one’s own interests in a direct way), or a combination of both. When a response to a conflict starts with forcing and is followed by problem solving, it may be seen as constructive controversy (Van de Vliert et al., 1999), which refers to the constructive discussion of different views (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 1998). Constructive controversy is beneficial for effectiveness (Van de Vliert et al., 1999), as is constructive conflict (Van den Bossche et al., 2006; Van den Bossche et al., 2011). This indicates that people need to share what they think, need, and want to engage in a constructive discussion that leads to a certain level of agreement. Bolstad and Endsley (1999) also pointed to the relevance of questioning assumptions and checking each other for conflicting information or perceptions.

The value of this interaction is also shown in teams that experience process conflict and manage solving their disagreements on how to approach the task. This appears to be beneficial for the experienced trust, respect, and cohesion (Jehn, Greer, & Rupert, 2008), which in turn enhances team effectiveness (Jehn, Greer, Levine, & Szulanski, 2008). Moreover, former research showed that conflict about the content and the output of the task being performed can be beneficial in decision making teams and project teams (De Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012), however, as long as it generates further exchange among team members (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Dillenbourg et al., 1996). This may also indicate that teams in task conflict express disagreements and use constructive interaction to get to an agreement.

The question is whether the constructive interaction, in terms of sharing information and co-construction of meaning, as well as constructive conflict, is valuable for emergency management command-and-control teams. These teams face continuously changing situations, and team members have multiple perspectives on the complex task. This forces the team members to share relevant information and collectively create an idea of what is going on and what needs to be done (TSM) under time pressure. Because the task is full of risks, the members cannot afford to make mistakes. Therefore, sharing what they know is not enough (co-construction); they need a critical attitude toward individual contributions and collectively developed ideas (constructive conflict). Only then can team members develop a TSM that supports task completion in terms of emergency control and prevention of victims and damage. We therefore hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1 (H1; Moderation Hypothesis): Constructive conflict moderates the positive relationship between co-construction and the TSM, such that if constructive conflict is high, the relationship between co-construction and the TSM is positively strengthened.

Past research has shown that team learning directly influences team performance. In her field study at a manufacturer of office furniture (including functional teams in sales, manufacturing, and staff services, self-managed teams in manufacturing and sales, cross-functional product development teams, and cross-functional project teams), Edmondson (1999) evidenced that teams using team learning behaviors such as seeking information, discussing errors, and seeking feedback from each other and customers have better team performance than teams that do not. Van der Vegt and Bunderson (2005) confirmed this finding for a setting with multidisciplinary teams of an oil and gas industry composed of scientists, engineers, and technicians and responsible for research and development functions. The researchers of both studies used a comparable perception measure for team learning and external ratings for team performance.

In addition, the research of Van den Bossche and colleagues (2006; Van den Bossche et al., 2011) with student teams participating in a business game indicated the existence of an indirect effect of team learning on team effectiveness through mutually shared cognition. They found that TMMs partially mediated the relationship between team learning processes and the perceived performance (Van den Bossche et al., 2006; Van den Bossche et al., 2011), as well as the actual performance in terms of goodwill (Van den Bossche et al., 2011). The question is whether these findings are also valid for the TSM instead of TMMs and for emergency management command-and-control teams.

We propose that the complex and risky task of multidisciplinary emergency management command-and-control teams and the discipline specific perspectives of the different team members necessitate them to integrate the perspectives and bridge the differences to be effective in the response to the incident. To create a TSM that benefits team effectiveness, they need to co-construct knowledge about the present changing situation and to constructively deal with differences in perspectives (constructive conflict). In line with our earlier argumentation, we propose that constructive conflict has a strengthening effect on the positive relationship between co-construction and the TSM (Figure 1). Therefore, we propose a moderated mediation model (Figure 1):

Hypothesis 2 (H2): The TSM mediates the positive relationship between co-construction and the quality of actions, in which the relationship between co-construction and the TSM is moderated by constructive conflict.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): The TSM mediates the positive relationship between co-construction and goal achievement, in which the relationship between co-construction and the TSM is moderated by constructive conflict.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): The TSM mediates the positive relationship between co-construction and the error rate, in which the relationship between co-construction and the TSM is moderated by constructive conflict.

Method

Setting

We collected data¹ during realistic OSCT simulation exercises organized by five different safety regions in the Netherlands. Such multidisciplinary exercises are frequently organized by the disciplines (i.e., fire department, police, medical assistance unit) to prepare team members for emergency management tasks. Regular participation is required.

The task for the OSCT members was to individually manage the mono-disciplinary actions of their assistance unit and to collectively manage the multidisciplinary cooperation of the different assistance units at the scene following realistic procedures. The members were provided with relevant information about the development of the incident and were expected to coordinate their cooperation among themselves, using regular team meetings.

The exercises were realistic in the way that the teams had a representative team composition. Each team consisted of at least one representing officer each from the fire department, the police, and the medical assistance unit. Depending on the severity of the incident, a team leader was expected to be invited by the key members to join the team as a new member from the second team meeting. The members were not informed about their composition, or about the incident scenario beforehand. The incident scene was projected using virtual reality so that the scene could be explored by every team member using a joy stick. Communication with the OSCT colleagues was done face-to-face or with a walkie-talkie. The team members got additional information about the development of the incident and as a response to their actions from response trainers during the exercise. These trainers gave information about the incident development from the perspective of a key player, such as the first ambulance driver or the fire department commander at the scene. In doing so, they developed an opinion about the effectiveness of the emergency response during the simulation.

Procedure

First, the members got a face-to-face exercise briefing by the training staff. Then, at the start of the exercise, they individually received the initial on-call notice after which they called-in using a walkie-talkie to receive additional general and discipline specific information. The team members immediately started coordinating the assistance at the scene by collecting information via the virtual reality and the role-playing trainers, and giving orders to the own unit. After about 20 min, the team members were expected to initialize their first face-to-face meeting with an average duration of 8 to 10 min. Each team had time for two or three meetings during the exercise, depending on how the team organized their processes. After each meeting, they returned to coordinating the own unit and they received new information about the development of the incident. The training staff gave the call for the end of the exercise when the exercise time of 75 min (on average) ran out.

The team members as well as the external raters filled out questionnaires before the exercise started, after each meeting during a short time-out, and immediately after finishing the exercise. In this study, we focused on the second team meeting, which we viewed as a transition moment in time (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). Although in the first meeting the three key members shortly come together to share their first impressions and share information about mono-disciplinary actions (e.g., fire extinction, or traffic management) that might affect other disciplines, the second meeting is more elaborate. The focus shifts to the multidisciplinary dilemmas and approach. The members share relevant information on their mono-disciplinary actions, judge this information from a multidisciplinary perspective, explore different possible scenarios and their consequences, decide on actions, and divide them. For this meeting and beyond, the team often invites a team leader. So the TSM development starts with a more mono-disciplinary oriented TSM in Meeting 1 to a more multidisciplinary TSM in Meeting 2. Therefore, we refer to Meeting 2 as a transition from mono-disciplinary first reactions to a multidisciplinary structured approach.

Participating Teams

Forty-seven teams² participated in this field study, including 206 team members (3 to 7 members per team, on average 4 members per team, 19% women). Each team participated in a simulation exercise organized by one out of five different safety regions in the Netherlands. The local organizers put the teams together and did not inform the team members about the participants beforehand. Each team had a representative team composition, including members from the fire department, the police, and the medical assistance unit. Two teams lacked a person from the medical unit due to practical circumstances (i.e., illness). In sum, 23 teams had a formal team leader participating from Meeting 2. Table 2 provides an overview of the disciplines and composition by team. The team members had a mean age of 45 years, SD = 8.95 and 64% had higher education. The average experience of individuals working with real-life emergencies in practice was 13 times, SD = 17.32; range 0 to150, and in exercises 13 times, SD = 17.32; range 0 to 75.

Table 2.

Team Member Roles and Compositions (N = 47).

Profile number	No. of teams	Fire	Police	Medical	Team leader	Local government	Plotter/information manager	Public relationships	Advisor on chemical substances	Military on-scene commander	National Police Services Agency commander	Professional role player	Missing	No. of members
1	20^a	x	x	x										3
2	1	x	x	x	x									4
3	1	x	x	x						x				4
4	1	x	x		x								x^a	5
5	3	x	x	x						x	x			5
6	7	x	x	x	x	x								5
7	1	x	x	x	x			x						5
8	1	x	x	x	x				x					5
9	2	x	x	x	x	x		x						6
10	4	x	x	x	x	x	x							6
11	1	x	x	x	x	x							x	6
12	2	x	x	x	x		x		x					6
13	1	x	x	x	x			x	x					6
14	1	x	x		x	x	x					x		6
15	1	x	x	x	x	x	x					x		7
Sum	47	47	47	45	23	17	8	4	4	4	3	2	3	206

Note. Of the 34 teams that responded to the Team Situation Model, only 8 had Profile 1, and Profile 14 was not present.

Team 36 with five members had two members with missing values on team role.

Measures

Team learning processes

The rating scale with a response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) consisted of the nine items of the Van den Bossche et al.’s (2006) Team Learning Beliefs and Behavior Scale. Example items are “Team members elaborate on each other’s information and ideas” (co-construction) and “Opinions and ideas of team members are verified by asking each other critical questions” (constructive conflict). All 47 teams were externally rated by 3 different educational researchers of which 1 (34 teams) or 2 (13 teams) raters were present by each team (1.28 raters per team on average). The raters were aged 27, 32, and 34, and had an academic educational background. The results of the exploratory factor analysis (maximum likelihood, direct oblimin) revealed a two-factor model with all items loading above .4: co-construction (six items, for example, “During this meeting all relevant information and ideas were shared”; M = 5.91, SD = .77, α = .91), and constructive conflict (three items, for example, “Opinions and ideas of team members are verified by asking each other critical questions”; M = 4.85, SD = .86, α = .79). We aggregated the individual scores to a team score (Table 3 contains the aggregation indices).

Table 3.

Mean Within-Group Agreement (rWG) and Intra-Class Correlation Coefficients (ICC).

	rWG	ICC (1)^a	ICC (2)	F statistic	p
External ratings: Response trainers
Team effectiveness
Quality of actions	.97	.55	.43	1.755	.017
Goal achievement	.87	.54	.41	1.707	.022
Error rate	.75	.53	.38	1.624	.034
External ratings: Researchers
Team learning processes
Co-construction	.97	.13	.16	1.19	.381
Constructive conflict	.93	.81	.84	6.32	.001

The ICC (1) values are calculated using Bliese and Halverson’s (1998) equation for unequal group size.

TSM

We used team member similarity ratings of predefined categories of emergency management processes (e.g., rescue and technical support, traffic control, medical assistance; see the appendix) for the measure of the TSM (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010). We were not able to use this instrument with the first 13 teams and therefore, the sample size for this measure was 34 teams. All members of these teams individually marked the emergency management processes (priority or not a priority) on a list of at least 15 choices³ that should get priority at the scene after the second OSCT meeting. This task-specific and task-embedded measure was short enough to minimize fatigue or boredom effects and to prevent disturbing the flow of the task (Cooke, Salas, Kiekel, & Bell, 2004).

As this list of processes is commonly used in reality and training situations, OSCT members are trained to know them by heart. The processes can be approached as a category of main activities that could be executed by the fire department, the police, or the medical assistant unit. Their function is that all members know which assistance unit has what responsibilities in general and, accordingly, which discipline has what expertise and needs what information. During their meetings, the OSCT members discuss the situation and the possible consequences, and decide on the required actions. These actions link with the different processes but are not the same. Actions are explicitly mentioned during meetings, whereas the processes they relate to, not necessarily. The idea that each team member has about which processes are and will be occurring at the scene is therefore a result of the integration of the discussed situation, decisions made, and required actions. At the end of a team meeting, this understanding is reflected in the emergency management processes that the team members expect to be started or continued at that moment. The processes thus characterize the understanding of the specific situation at that moment (Cooke et al., 2000). Therefore, we approach our initial measure as the individual situation model.

To create a team level TSM measure, we aggregated the individual data (situation models) by determining the level of dispersion (Cooke et al., 2004). First, we determined the extent to which members of a team marked the same emergency management processes as relevant. To this end, we transformed individual team members’ selected processes into a dichotomous matrix (1 = given priority; 0 = not given priority). Second, we calculated the diversity scores by process at the team level using the Blau’s Index (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Third, we reversed the results to gain similarity scores. Fourth, we summed the similarity scores of all processes by team and transformed them into percentages of the possible maximum similarity score (a score of 100% indicated that all team members indicated the exact same processes having priority at the scene after the meeting). The TSM measure thus indicates the extent to which team members had a TSM reflecting the processes they thought had priority and they expected to be executed at the scene in the phase following the team meeting, n = 34, M = 0.79, SD = .11.

Team effectiveness

In this field study, team effectiveness was externally rated by response trainers with experience in emergency management at the scene. These trainers provided on-scene information about the development of the incident to the team members from the perspective of a key player, such as the first ambulance driver or the fire department commander at the scene. In sum, we included 51 raters in our analyses who provided 115 team effectiveness ratings (1 to 5 raters per team, 4% women, 49% higher educated, aged 31 to 61 years, M = 47, SD = 8.9, tenure of 3 to 45 years, M = 14.05, SD = 10.15, and working at different organizations: 53.1% fire department, 10.2% police, 21.9% medical disaster management, 9.4% government, 3.1% safety region, and 2.3% other; for example, consultancy). Different sets of raters scored team effectiveness for each exercise. The raters had at least 3 years of experience in a function related to emergency management so that we could expect them to have a professional opinion about emergency management. Besides that, each rater had a function in emergency management on scene (e.g., on-scene commander) or was educated for such a function but presently had a related function in practice (e.g., policy development, training). The raters without such a function or education profile had a higher education level.

We used the formerly validated emergency management team effectiveness rating scale (Van der Haar et al., 2013) that consists of three factors: quality of actions (e.g., “The actions at the scene are adequate”; M = 5.70, SD = 0.74, α = .92), goal achievement (e.g., “The crisis is controlled”; M = 5.36, SD = 0.84, α = .93), and error rate (e.g., “There are no unnecessary victims”; M = 5.06, SD = 0.79, α = .64). The response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). We aggregated the individual judges’ ratings into team scores. This decision was supported by the Rwg scores, the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) (1) and (2) scores, and the significance of the F scores (Table 3). These scores indicated high inter-rater agreement (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984, 1993) and acceptable inter-rater reliability (Bliese, 2000; LeBreton & Senter, 2008).

Control Measures

Team leadership, number of meetings, number of team members

Data were collected real-time, during regular exercises organized by field practitioners. The teams had two (n = 21) or three (n = 26) meetings during the exercise. Teams differed in the number of members (three members, n = 20; four members, n = 2; five members, n = 13; six members, n = 11; and seven members, n = 1) with an average of four members per team. In Meeting 1, each team appointed an informal leader; in Meeting 2, 23 teams replaced their informal leaders with formal leaders who are trained to chair an OSCT from a multidisciplinary perspective. We included these factors as control variables.⁴

Stress, responsibility, and risk

Each team participated in one of nine different scenarios. To compare these scenarios, we measured the level of perceived stress, responsibility, and risk using a context-specific 10-item Likert-type scale that we developed in communication with field practitioners (see the appendix). Participants responded to such statements as “I experienced as much stress as I would have if the incident was real” and “The responsibility I had in this exercise was realistic” ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The F scores—stress: F = 1.403, p = .067; responsibility: F = 1.444, p = .053; risk: F = 1.099, p = .330—revealed that teams participating in different exercises did not differ significantly in their scores on each of the three variables. Therefore, we concluded that scenarios were comparable.

Analyses

Concerning H2, we predicted the conditional indirect effect of co-construction on team effectiveness (H2 quality of actions, H3 goal achievement, H4 error rate) through TSM as a mediator variable, and conditional on the moderator constructive conflict of the path from co-construction to the TSM. This has been termed a conditional indirect effect (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007) and is alternatively known as moderated mediation. Accordingly, we considered the possibility of a statistically significant indirect effect being contingent on the value of the proposed moderator. To test H2, H3, and H4, we utilized PROCESS, an SPSS macro designed by Preacher and colleagues (2007), which facilitates the implementation of bootstrapping methods and provides a method for probing the significance of conditional indirect effects at different values of the moderator variable. Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics, inter-correlations, and internal consistencies of the scales.

Table 4.

Means, Standard Deviation, and Correlations for the (Aggregated) Study Variables.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Team leader presence	1.49	0.51	—
2. Number of members	4.38	1.31	.86**	—
3. Number of meetings	1.55	0.50	02	−.16	—
4. (Co-) construction	5.00	0.74	−.23	−.16	−.12	(.90)
5. Constructive conflict	4.89	0.90	−.17	−.14	−.22	.59**	(.79)
6. Team situation model	.78	0.11	−.17	−.24	.11	.11	.24	—
7. Quality of actions	5.70	0.74	−.33*	−.23	.16	−.02	−.04	.43*	(.93)
8. Goal achievement	5.36	0.84	−.32*	−.16	−.02	.06	−.01	.26	.82**	(.93)
9. Error rate	5.06	0.06	−.30*	−.18	−.06	.11	−.06	.06	.64**	.82**	(.64)

Note. Cronbach’s alphas of the individual measures are in parentheses along the main diagonal. N = 47; for the Team Situation Model, n = 34.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Results

Test of Moderation

With regard to H1, we predicted that the positive relationship between the team learning process of co-construction and the TSM would be strengthened by the occurrence of the team learning process of constructive conflict. Results of a hierarchical regression analysis (Table 5) indicated that the cross-product term between co-construction and constructive conflict on TSM was significant, β = −.51, p = .05. We applied conventional procedures for plotting simple slopes (Aiken & West, 1991) at one standard deviation above and below the mean of the constructive conflict measure (see Figure 2). Consistent with our expectations, we found marginally significant support for the negative slope of the relationship between co-construction and the TSM for teams high in constructive conflict, simple slope = −0.12, t = −1.74, p = .09, whereas there was no significant support for the slope for teams low in constructive conflict, simple slope = 0.41, t = 1.297, p = .20. These results partially support H1 in the sense that co-construction only has a predictive value for the TSM in case of high constructive conflict.

Table 5.

Hierarchical Regression Analyses of the Relationship Between Team Learning Processes and the Team Situation Model (TSM).

	Step 1			Step 2			Step 3
	B	SE	β	B	SE	β	B	SE	β
Constant	.85	.11		.81	.11		.89	.11
Team leader presence	.02	.08	.10	.02	.09	.09	.02	.08	.08
Number of members	−.03	.03	−.31	−.02	.03	−.27	−.03	.03	−.41
Number of meetings	.01	.04	.06	.03	.05	.12	.03	.04	.13
Co-construction				−.01	.04	−.06	−.04	.04	−.28
Constructive conflict				.03	.03	.28	.08	.04	.68*
Co-construction × constructive conflict							−.08	.04	−.51*
R ²	.064			.121			.254*
R² change	.064			.057			.133*
F	0.611			0.607			1.559
p	.614			.638			.271

p < .05. **p < .01.

Figure 2.

Effect of constructive conflict on the relationship between co-construction and the team situation model (TSM).

Tests of Moderated Mediation

We predicted that the TSM mediates the positive relationship between co-construction and team effectiveness in terms of quality of actions (H2), goal achievement (H3), and error rate (H4), in which the relationship between co-construction and the TSM is moderated by constructive conflict. Results of the hierarchical regression analysis (Table 6) show that the TSM has a predictive value for quality of actions, β = .40, p = .05. A 1% increase of the TSM can result in 2.70 points higher quality of actions on a 1 to 7 scale. Overall, the model explains 37% of the variances in quality of actions, R² = .37, p = .05. We did not find any significant results for goal achievement or error rate. Then, we used PROCESS (Hayes, 2013) to examine the conditional indirect effect of co-construction on quality of actions, through the mediator TSM, at three values of constructive conflict (n = 31): the mean (0.00), one standard deviation above the mean (.66), and one standard deviation below the mean (−.66). Normal-theory tests indicated that none of the three conditional direct or indirect effects was significantly different from zero. Bootstrap confidence intervals (CI) corroborated these results. Thus, H2 was not supported, indicating that the indirect and positive effect of co-construction on quality of actions through TSM was not observed when levels of constructive conflict were low, moderate, or high and the sample included 31 teams. As we did not find significant results for goal achievement or error rate, we rejected H3 and H4 as well.

Table 6.

Hierarchical Regression Hypothesis 2a; Team Effectiveness Measured by Quality of Actions.

	Step 1			Step 2			Step 3			Step 4
	B	SE	β	B	SE	β	B	SE	β	B	SE	β
Constant	5.66	0.67		5.73	0.72		6.11	0.75		3.71	1.36
Team leader presence	−0.99	0.53	−.68	−1.03	0.554	−.70	−1.04	0.54	−.71	−1.09	0.51	−.74*
Number of members	0.22	0.21	.39	0.22	0.22	.40	0.17	0.21	.30	0.26	0.21	.46
Number of meetings	0.35	0.28	.24	0.34	0.29	.23	0.36	0.29	.24	0.28	0.27	.19
Co-construction				−0.09	0.23	−.09	−0.25	0.25	−.24	−0.13	0.24	−.13
Constructive conflict				−0.00	0.19	−.00	0.23	0.24	.28	0.01	0.25	.01
Co-construction × constructive conflict							−0.39	0.27	−.36	−0.17	0.27	−.16
TSM										2.70	1.30	.40*
R ²	.175			.183			.248			.367*
R² change	.175			.008			.065			.119*
F	1.905			1.118			1.319			1.906
p	.153			.376			.287			.115

Note. We used centralized scores to avoid problematic multicollinearity effects between the independent variable and the moderator, and the interaction terms (Aiken and West [1991], cited in Holmbeck, 1997). N = 47 in Steps 1 and 2; n = 34 in Steps 3 and 4. The model fit of Step 4 increases, F = 2.254, p = .08, when the presence of the team leader is used as the only control variable. TSM = team situation model.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Conclusion and Discussion

The aim of this study was to shed light on how team learning processes in terms of co-constructing knowledge and engaging in constructive conflict influence the extent to which teams have a shared understanding of what is going on and needs to be done at a certain moment during task performance (TSM) and, in turn, how this influences team effectiveness. The study is conducted with OSCTs, multidisciplinary command-and-control emergency management teams operating at the scene of an incident while dealing with work and time pressure. With this study, we add to the relatively small amount of research on team learning outside the laboratory (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006) and to team cognition research on the TSM.

Houghton, Simon, Aquino, and Goldberg (2000) expressed the concern that similarity may discourage a critical attitude toward the input information with a negative impact on team performance. On the contrary, we found that it is not that similarity suppresses a critical attitude; a critical attitude supports similarity. The team learning process of constructive conflict (discussing differences in interpretation by arguments and argumentations; Van den Bossche et al., 2006) is a prerequisite, as we found a relation between the team learning process of co-construction (sharing facts and ideas and build meaning; Van den Bossche et al., 2006) and the TSM on the condition of high constructive conflict (H1). More specifically, a high level and a low level of co-construction result in the TSM under the condition of high constructive conflict.

In the context of emergency management, this result indicates that it is not so much the question of whether all information is shared in a team learning process of co-construction during the meeting to get to a shared idea of what will be the response to the emergency situation. We see several possible explanations for this. First, in teams working under such pressure as the OSCT, it is expectable that the members do not wait with sharing relevant information, for instance about new threats, until a meeting but also share this information in between meetings. Co-construction could thus not be limited to the meetings and therefore appear to be less strong according to the measures. Second, team members do not have to share everything they know during a meeting, but only the things relevant for the multidisciplinary coordination. Therefore co-construction should even be limited. In this sense, Stanton, Salmon, Walker, and Jenkins (2009) referred to distributed situation awareness that explains that successful teams have just a partially shared image of the situation, and therefore do not share everything they know, which implies that co-construction is only important to a limited extent. Third, teams that use an extensive part of their limited time for co-construction may lack time to really discuss the meaning of facts and ideas. These teams that merely engage in co-construction and not constructive conflict do not negotiate their knowledge and ideas and therefore are less capable of discovering disagreements and developing agreements. This could result in a phenomenon such as groupthink (Janis, 1972).

We also found that teams that engage in a lot of co-construction as well as high constructive conflict have less similarity in their TSM. This may indicate that these teams do not get to the point. They may keep on sharing facts and arguing about them. Another option could be that these teams did not get to a mutual understanding and agreement on what was going on and needed to be done. In both cases, time is used inefficiently.

Our results indicate that it is important that team members dare to question input information, to comment on ideas, and to act on those to get on the same page. This extends the earlier findings of Van den Bossche and colleagues (2006; Van den Bossche et al., 2011) that constructive conflict is required to reach mutual agreement. Because they studied the more long-term knowledge construct of shared mental models of student teams participating in a business game, the value of constructive conflict seems to be generalizable to other team types and to the short-term knowledge construct TSM as well. Moreover, the finding is in line with the research of Van de Vliert et al. (1999), Alper et al. (1998), Van den Bossche et al. (2006; Van den Bossche et al., 2011), Bolstad and Endsley (1999), and Jehn, Greer, and Rupert (2008), that constructive interaction in which disagreements are expressed and agreements are developed is important.

We examined the TSM during task execution, in contradiction to studies of the TMM, and we thus created insights into the shared knowledge that emerged during cooperation instead of before the cooperation. The results of the study confirmed the earlier finding (Cooke et al., 2001) that a TSM is beneficial for team effectiveness. More precisely, it is beneficial for the eventual quality of the actions at the scene of an incident if the OSCT members have a shared idea of what the different disciplines will be occupied with at the scene. Because the TSM refers to the shared understanding of the situation in terms of emergency management processes to start or continue at the scene at a specific moment in time, we suppose it is logical that this construct relates more to quality of actions than to goal achievement and error rate. Goal achievement refers to controlling the crisis, source diminishment, and stabilization, and error rate to unnecessary victims and damage.

This result supports the theory (Comfort, 2007; Lim & Klein, 2006; Stout et al., 1996) that field teams dealing with time constraints and high task demands operating in non-routine situations need shared knowledge of actions needed during task completion for anticipating actions needed and making quick decisions. It may enable teams to adapt to novel elements in the situation and to the actions or needs of colleagues at the scene (Uitdewilligen et al., 2010). The results encourage future research to examine the influence of the TSM in other field teams dealing with high task complexity, time pressure, and a changing situation.

Limitations and Issues for Future Research

Given the fact that we studied real teams in a field setting and had measures that excluded common method bias, the fact that we found two statistically significant paths in our model is promising. This study revealed that team learning processes support the development of the TSM and the TSM enhances the quality of actions at the emergency scene in terms of justification, safety, and adequacy. However, we did not find that the TSM mediates the relation between the team learning processes and team effectiveness. This is in contradiction with the studies of Edmondson (1999) and Van der Vegt and Bunderson (2005) that show that team learning processes enhance team performance. In addition, Van den Bossche and colleagues (2006; Van den Bossche et al., 2011) found that mutually shared knowledge partially mediates the relationship between team learning processes and team performance.

We suppose that the reason for the lack of support for the moderated mediation model can be found in the sample size. A consequence of a field study such as ours is that the ability to control the sample is limited, especially because the team worked under time pressure. This has led to missing values and thus to an unequal number of teams per variable (TSM: n = 34, co-construction: n = 44, constructive conflict: n = 46, quality of actions: N = 47, goal achievement: N = 47, error rate: N = 47, control variables N = 47). Therefore, the sample size decreased in each step in the hierarchical regression analyses. The impact of this reducing sample size implies a loss of power with each step, with the eventual impact being unpredictable. As a consequence, the regression coefficients of the different models are difficult to compare. This can explain why we did find a confirmation for H1 in the regression model, but not for H2, H3, and H4.

That the results of the PROCESS analyses do not confirm what is suggested by the results found with the hierarchical regressions can also be explained by the sample size. PROCESS only takes into account teams without any missing value. Therefore, this analysis relies on 31 teams. Apparently, the 16 teams that were not taken into account in the PROCESS analyses had an impact on the results of the hierarchical regression concerning the influence of the interaction term of co-construction and constructive conflict. For future research, this means that we need to include more teams in our sample to be able to confirm our moderated mediation model. The fact that we found proof for two paths of the model indicates that there is an indirect relation between team learning processes and team effectiveness (quality of action).

The results of our study show different directions for future research. First, in this study, we focused on the similarity of the TSM, not on its accuracy indicating that the shared understanding is based on the right facts (Mathieu et al., 2000). In the literature, there is a discussion about whether the accuracy of the TMM has a positive impact on team performance, and whether there is a combined effect of TMM similarity and accuracy on team performance (Mathieu et al., 2005; Mathieu et al., 2000; Mathieu et al., 2008; Mohammed et al., 2010; Resick, Dickson, Mitchelson, Allison, & Clark, 2010). The importance of TMM accuracy is evidenced by some researchers (e.g., Cooke et al., 2001; Edwards et al., 2006; Lim & Klein, 2006; Mathieu et al., 2005), but could not be confirmed in other studies (Mohammed et al., 2010; Webber et al., 2000). Moreover, it is unclear how the accuracy of the TSM plays a role. We therefore suggest including a measure of this accuracy in future research, to reveal how it is related to the TSM similarity and team effectiveness.

Second, given the significant role of the TSM for the quality of actions and given that the TSM is an emerging construct, we recommend future studies to adopt a temporal research design to study how TSM similarity and accuracy evolve over time (Wildman et al., 2012). In such a design, it is possible to explore the role team learning processes play over time and investigate whether and how the development of team learning processes relates to the development of the TSM and, in turn, to team effectiveness (e.g., Edmondson, Dillon, & Roloff, 2006; Knapp, 2010; Wilson et al., 2007).

Third, in this study, team learning processes were rated by external observers using rating scales. To get a more in-depth understanding of the content of the interactions between team members, we suggest developing a coding scheme to analyze the frequency and content of team learning processes over time. Fourth, for future research, we recommend training teams of raters to judge team effectiveness so that the inter-rater reliability (ICC(2)) could be higher. Finally, it is advisable to cross-validate the moderated mediation model with a larger sample of emergency management teams in different, however, comparable situations again to verify whether the mediating role of the TSM can be identified.

Practical Implications

The results of this study indicate that highly dynamic multidisciplinary teams working under time pressure can benefit from collaboratively constructing knowledge about which processes are initiated by whom in between team coordination meetings. If teams regularly share and summarize what every member will be doing at a certain moment in time, for instance by including it in the meeting agenda, this will benefit the quality of actions. Moreover, given the complexity and risks of their task, team members should be critical toward the contributions of others, and open to criticism themselves during their meetings and constructively deal with conflicting perspectives. Team training programs should focus on making team members aware of the importance of co-construction and constructive conflict as well as on offering opportunities to practice these team learning processes. Moreover, training team members in knowing who is responsible for what processes will be supportive for the team’s ability to develop a TSM. To learn from experience, the evaluation of team effectiveness should address how teams co-construct knowledge about the situation at hand and how they manage to integrate different perspectives on the same situation to develop a shared understanding of what has to be done at a specific moment in time (TSM).

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Selma van der Haar (PhD, Leiden University) is an assistant professor at Maastricht University, the Netherlands, investigating team learning and team cognition, especially in command-and-control teams. Her articles appeared in journals such as Educational Research Review, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, and International Journal of Emergency Management.

Mien Segers (PhD, Maastricht University) is a professor of corporate learning at Maastricht University, the Netherlands, investigating collaborative learning and developmental assessment. Her articles appeared in journals such as International Journal of Human Resource Management and Development, Educational Research Review, European Journal of Psychology of Education, and Instructional Science.

Karen Jehn (PhD, Northwestern University) is a professor of management (organizational behavior) at Melbourne Business School, Australia, investigating conflict and lying in organizations. Her articles have appeared in journals such as Academy of Management, Administrative Science Quarterly, Organization Science, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, and Journal of Applied Psychology.

Piet Van den Bossche (PhD, Maastricht University) is an associate professor of learning in organizations at Maastricht University, the Netherlands, and University of Antwerp, Belgium, investigating learning and cognition in collaborative environments. His articles have appeared in journals such as Small Group Research, Review of Educational Research, and Instructional Science.

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Alper

Tjosvold

Law

K. S.

(1998). Interdependence and controversy in group decision making: Antecedents to effective self-managing teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74, 33-52. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2748

Baker

D. P.

Day

Salas

(2006). Teamwork as an essential component of high-reliability organizations. Health Services Research, 41(Pt. II), 1576-1598. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00566.x

Bliese

P. D.

(2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability. Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bliese

P. D.

Halverson

R. R.

(1998). Group size and measures of group-level properties: An examination of eta-squared and ICC values. Journal of Management, 24, 157-172. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80058-0

Bolstad

C. A.

Endsley

M. R.

(1999). Shared mental models and shared displays: An empirical evaluation of team performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 43, 213-217.

Cannon-Bowers

J. A.

Salas

(2001). Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 195-202. doi:10.1002/job.82

Cannon-Bowers

J. A.

Salas

Blickensderfer

(1999). Toward an understanding of shared cognition. Unpublished manuscript, Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division, Orlando, FL.

Cohen

S. G.

Bailey

D. E.

(1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290. doi:10.1177/014920639702300303

10.

Comfort

L. K.

(2007). Crisis management in hindsight: Cognition, communication, coordination, and control. Public Administration Review, 67, 189-197. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00827.x

11.

Cooke

N. J.

Kiekel

P. A.

Helm

E. E.

(2001). Measuring team knowledge during skill acquisition of a complex task. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 5, 297-315. doi:10.1207/S15327566IJCE0503_10

12.

Cooke

N. J.

Kiekel

P. A.

Salas

Stout

(2003). Measuring team knowledge: A window to the cognitive underpinnings of team performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 179-199. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.7.3.179

13.

Cooke

N. J.

Salas

Cannon-Bowers

J. A.

Stout

(2000). Measuring team knowledge. Human Factors, 42, 151-173. doi:10.1518/001872000779656561

14.

Cooke

N. J.

Salas

Kiekel

P. A.

Bell

(2004). Advances in measuring team cognition. In Salas

Fiore

(Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 83-107). Washington, DC: APA Books.

15.

Cooke

N. J.

Stout

Salas

(1997). Expanding the measurement of situation awareness through cognitive engineering methods. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 41, 215-219.

16.

DeChurch

L. A.

Mesmer-Magnus

J. R.

(2010). Measuring shared team mental models: A meta-analysis. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14, 1-14. doi:10.1037/a0017455

17.

DeChurch

L. A.

Mesmer-Magnus

J. R.

Doty

(2013). Moving beyond relationship and task conflict: Toward a process-state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 559-578. doi:10.1037/a0032896

18.

Decuyper

Dochy

Van den Bossche

(2010). Grasping the dynamic complexity of team learning: An integrative model for effective team learning in organisations. Educational Research Review, 5, 111-133. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.02.002

19.

De Dreu

C. K. W.

Weingart

L. R

. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741-749. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741

20.

De Wit

F. R. C.

Greer

L. L.

Jehn

K. A

. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 360-390.

21.

Dillenbourg

Baker

Blaye

O’Malley

(1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In Spada

Reiman

(Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189-211). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

22.

Edmondson

A. C.

(1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383. doi:10.2307/2666999

23.

Edmondson

A. C.

(2003). Managing the risk of learning. In West

M. A.

Tjosvold

Smith

K. G.

(Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working (pp. 255-275). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

24.

Edmondson

A. C.

Dillon

J. R.

Roloff

K. S.

(2006). Three perspectives on team learning: Outcome improvement, task mastery, and group process. The Academy of Management Annals, 1, 269-314. doi:10.1080/078559811

25.

Edwards

B. D.

Day

E. A.

Arthur

Bell

S. T.

(2006). Relationships among team ability compositions, team mental models, and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 727-736. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.727

26.

Endsley

M. R.

(1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 32-64. doi:10.1518/001872095779049543

27.

Gorman

J. C.

Cooke

N. J.

Winner

J. L.

(2006). Measuring team situation awareness in decentralized command and control environments. Ergonomics, 49, 1312-1325. doi:10.1080/00140130600612788

28.

Guzzo

R. A.

Dickson

M. W.

(1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review Psychology, 47, 307-338. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.307

29.

Hackman

J. R.

(1987). The design of work teams. In Lorsch

(Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). New York, NY: Prentice Hall.

30.

Harrison

D. A.

Klein

K. J.

(2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199-1228. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.26586096

31.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

32.

Helsloot

Martens

Scholtens

(2010). Basisboek regionale crisisbeheersing. Een praktische reader voor functionarissen in de regionale crisisorganisatie [Base book regional crisis management. A practical reader for officials in the regional crisis organization]. Arnhem: Nederlands Instituut Fysieke Veiligheid Nibra.

33.

Holmbeck

G. N.

(1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599-610. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.65.4.599

34.

Houghton

Simon

Aquino

Goldberg

(2000). No safety in numbers: Persistence of biases and their effects on team risk perception and team decision making. Group & Organization Management, 25, 325-353. doi:10.1177/1059601100254002

35.

James

R. L.

Demaree

R. G.

Wolf

(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

36.

James

R. L.

Demaree

R. G.

Wolf

(1993). Rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306-309. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306

37.

Janis

I. L.

(1972). Victims of group think. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

38.

Jehn

K. E.

Greer

L. L.

Levine

Szulanski

(2008). The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17, 465-495. doi:10.1007/s10726-008-9107-0

39.

Jehn

K. E.

Greer

L. L.

Rupert

(2008). Diversity, conflict, and its consequences. In Brief

(Ed.), Diversity at work (pp. 127-174). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

40.

Klein

K. J.

Ziegert

J. C.

Knight

A. P.

Xiao

(2006). Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and de-individualized leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 590-621. doi:10.2189/asqu.51.4.590

41.

Knapp

(2010). Collective (team) learning process models: A conceptual review. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 285-299. doi:10.1177/1534484310371449

42.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Ilgen

D. 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

43.

LeBreton

Senter

J. L.

(2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815-852. doi:10.1177/1094428106296642

44.

Lim

Klein

K. J.

(2006). Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 27, 403-418. doi:10.1002/job.387

45.

Marks

M. A.

Mathieu

J. E.

Zaccaro

S. J.

(2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376. doi:10.5465/AMR.2001.4845785

46.

Mathieu

J. E.

Heffner

T. S.

Goodwin

G. F.

Cannon-Bowers

J. A.

Salas

(2005). Scaling the quality of teammates’ mental models: Equifinality and normative comparisons. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 37-56. doi:10.1002/job.296

47.

Mathieu

J. E.

Heffner

T. S.

Goodwin

G. F.

Salas

Cannon-Bowers

J. 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

48.

Mathieu

J. E.

Maynard

M. T.

Rapp

Gilson

(2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410-476. doi:10.1177/0149206308316061

49.

McGuiness

(2007). Signal detection theory and the assessment of situation awareness. In Cook

Noyes

Masakowski

(Eds.), Decision making in complex environments (pp. 299-310). Hampshire, UK: Ashgate.

50.

Mohammed

Dumville

B. C.

(2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 89-106.

51.

Mohammed

Ferzandi

Hamilton

(2010). Methaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model construct. Journal of Management, 36, 876-910. doi:10.1177/0149206309356804

52.

Peterson

Mitchell

T. R.

Thompson

Burr

(2000). Collective efficacy and aspects of shared mental models as predictors of performance over time in work groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relationships, 3, 296-316. doi:10.1177/1368430200033005

53.

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

Hayes

A. F.

(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227. doi:10.1080/00273170701341316

54.

Rasker

P. C.

Post

W. M.

Schraagen

J. M. C.

(2000). Effects of two types of intra-team feedback on developing a shared mental model in command & control teams. Ergonomics, 43, 1167-1189. doi:10.1080/00140130050084932

55.

Rentsch

J. R.

Small

E. E.

Hanges

P. J.

(2008). Cognitions in organizations and teams: What is the meaning of cognitive similarity? In Smith

(Ed.), The people make the place: Exploring dynamic linkages between individuals and organizations (pp. 127-155). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

56.

Resick

C. J.

Dickson

M. W.

Mitchelson

J. K.

Allison

L. K.

Clark

M. A.

(2010). Team composition, cognition, and effectiveness: Examining mental model similarity and accuracy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14, 174-191. doi:10.1037/a0018444

57.

Rico

Sánchez-Manzanares

Gil

Gibson

(2008). Team implicit coordination processes: A team knowledge-based approach. Academy of Management Review, 33, 163-184. doi:10.5465/AMR.2008.27751276

58.

Salas

Burke

C. S.

Samman

S. N.

(2001). Understanding command and control teams operating in complex environments. Information, Knowledge, Systems Management, 2, 311-323.

59.

Salas

Cooke

J. C.

Rosen

M. A.

(2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors, 50, 540-547. doi:10.1518/001872008X288457

60.

Salas

Fiore

S. M.

(2004). Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

61.

Salas

Wilson

K. A.

Murphy

C. E.

King

Salisbury

(2008). Communicating, coordinating, and cooperating when lives depend on it: Tips for team work. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 34, 333-341.

62.

Smith-Jentsch

K. A.

Mathieu

J. E.

Kraiger

(2005). Investigating linear and interactive effects of shared mental models on safety and efficiency in a field setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 523-535. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.523

63.

Stanton

N. A.

Salmon

P. M.

Walker

G. H.

Jenkins

(2009). Genotype and phenotype schemata as models of situation awareness in dynamic command and control teams. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39, 480-489. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2008.10.003

64.

Stout

R. J.

Cannon-Bowers

J. A.

Salas

(1996). The role of shared mental models in developing team situational awareness: Implications for training. Training Research Journal, 2, 85-116.

65.

Tannenbaum

S. I.

Beard

R. L.

Salas

(1992). Team building and its influence on team effectiveness: An examination of conceptual and empirical developments. In Kelly

(Ed.), Issue, theory, and research in industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 117-153). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

66.

Thorstensson

Axelsson

Morin

Jenvald

(2001). Monitoring and analysis of command post communication in rescue operations. Safety Science, 39, 51-60. doi:10.1016/S0925-7535(01)00025-X

67.

Uitdewilligen

Waller

M. J.

Zijlstra

F. R. H.

(2010). Team cognition and adaptability in dynamic settings: A review of pertinent work. In Hodgkinson

G. P.

Ford

J. K.

(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 293-353). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

68.

Van den Bossche

Gijselaers

Segers

Kirschner

P. A

. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments: Team learning beliefs & behaviors. Small Group Research, 37, 490-521. doi:10.1177/1046496406292938

69.

Van den Bossche

Gijselaers

Segers

Woltjer

Kirschner

P. A

. (2011). Team learning: Building shared mental models. Instructional Science, 39, 283-301. doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9128-3

70.

Van der Haar

Segers

Jehn

K. A

. (2013). Measuring the effectiveness of emergency management teams: Scale development and validation. International Journal of Emergency Management, 3(3), 258-275. doi:10.1504/IJEM.2013.058547

71.

Van der Vegt

G. S.

Bunderson

J. S

. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 532-547. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005.17407918

72.

Van de Vliert

Nauta

Giebels

Janssen

(1999). Constructive conflict at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 475-491. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.1997.4980933

73.

Waller

M. J.

Gupta

Giambatista

R. C.

(2004). Effects of adaptive behaviors and shared mental models on control crew performance. Management Science, 50, 1534-1545. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1040.0210

74.

Webber

S. S.

Chen

Payne

S. C.

Marsh

S. M.

Zaccaro

S. J.

(2000). Enhancing team mental model measurement with performance appraisal practices. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 307-322. doi:10.1177/109442810034001

75.

Wellens

A. R.

(1993). Group situation awareness and distributed decision making: From military to civilian applications. In Castellan

N. J.

Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp. 267-291). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

76.

Wildman

J. L.

Thayer

A. L.

Pavlas

Salas

Steward

J. E.

Howse

W. R.

(2012). Team knowledge research: Emerging trends and critical needs. Human Factors, 54, 84-111. doi:10.1177/0018720811425365

77.

Wilson

J. M.

Goodman

P. S.

Cronin

M. A.

(2007). Group learning. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1041-1059. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.26585724