Search results

The growing research literature on cognitive diversity in teams has multidisciplinary and international relevance. However, the varied conceptual and operational definitions restrict theory development and comparisons of empirical results. The purpose of the present article is to provide guidance for the systematic study of cognitive diversity and team functioning. We demonstrate that organization of the literature is necessary and offer an organizing heuristic based on the stability of the cognitive diversity conceptualization. Using this framework, we review the empirical findings for the effects of cognitive diversity on team criteria. Then, we address methodological issues and describe the manners in which cognitive diversity has been composed to the team level. Following each section we offer summary findings, critique the state of the literature, and offer guidance for future research. There are opportunities for researchers to enhance precision in theory and measurement and for integration across disciplines.

This article seeks to promote the advancement of empirical research on team mental models by (a) highlighting the conceptual work that must precede the selection of any measurement tool, (b) delineating measurement standards for group-level cognitions, and (c) evaluating a set of techniques for measuring team mental models. Pathfinder, multidimensional scaling, interactively elicited cognitive mapping, and text-based cognitive mapping are critiqued and compared according to their treatment of content and structure, as well as their psychometric properties. We conclude that these four techniques hold promise for measuring team mental models and illustrate the variability in measurement options. However, careful attention to the research question and research context must precede the selection of any measurement tool.

Team members with different levels of experience may understand the process of teamwork very differently and if these differences were identified, team training, team management, and team performance may be enhanced. In the present study, representations of teamwork knowledge as a function of team experience were investigated. Teamwork knowledge structures, or teamwork schemas, were assessed using multidimensional scaling and "freehand" concept maps. Consistent with contemporary expert-novice literature, the results revealed that higher experience team members conceptualized teamwork more concisely and in more abstract terms than did lower experience team members. In addition, results from the two methodologies converged to a greater degree for higher experience individuals than for lower experience individuals suggesting that higher experience individuals can express consistently what they understand about teamwork. The results suggested that team training should be designed based on trainees' prior team experiences and teamwork knowledge. Team managers might also keep in mind potential team members' experience levels when making team assignments.

Problem-solving teams composed of members possessing unique knowledge tend to be ineffective because of impediments that limit information sharing, including the sampling advantage of common information and differential schema structures among team members. Teams using a team training strategy aimed at ameliorating these impediments were expected to experience knowledge building and high performance. Data were collected from 40 teams of three co-located members, which were randomly assigned to a training or control condition. All teams completed a realistic military-based hidden profile problem-solving task. Teams in the training condition were trained to build knowledge using an information board (which served as a knowledge object) accompanied with schema-enriched communication. Teams in the control condition operated as typical co-located problem-solving teams and did not use an information board or receive the training. All hypotheses were supported. Teams experiencing the training strategy had higher knowledge transfer, interoperable knowledge, cognitive congruence, and performance than control teams. The training strategy appears to be effective in aiding teams to ameliorate communication impediments. Apparently, teams externalized their knowledge by communicating aspects of their schemas for task knowledge and visually representing and collaboratively structuring that knowledge.

Team knowledge building requires teams to discuss all available pertinent task information. However, teams tend to extract information ineffectively due to impediments including the sampling advantage of common information and differential schema structures among team members. In addition, distributed teams have difficulty building knowledge due to constraints associated with low-bandwidth computer-mediated communication. Therefore, we tested a team training strategy aimed at facilitating team knowledge building in distributed teams. Data were collected from 40 teams of three distributed members. Teams were assigned to a training or control condition, and they completed a realistic problem-solving task. Training condition teams were trained to build knowledge by creating a knowledge object integrated with schema-enriched communication behaviors in text chat. Control condition teams communicated using chat only and received no training. Results indicated trained teams, relative to untrained teams, shared more unique information, transferred more knowledge, developed higher cognitive congruence, and produced higher quality solutions.

This study examined knowledge sharing and problem solving in teams that included teammates who were deaf or hard of hearing (DHH). Eighteen teams of four students were comprised of either all deaf or hard of hearing (DHH), all hearing, or two DHH and two hearing postsecondary students who participated in group problem-solving. Successful problem solution, recall, and recognition of knowledge shared by team members were assessed. Hearing teams shared the most team knowledge and achieved the most complete problem solutions, followed by the mixed DHH/hearing teams. DHH teams did not perform as well as the other two types of teams.