Metaphor No More a 15-year Review of the Team Mental Model Construct

Squad Mental Models

Katherine Hamilton

• LAST MODIFIED: 31 July 2019
• DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199846740-0165

Introduction

Team mental models have been referred to as one of the most well-developed squad-level cerebral constructs studied in applied psychology and organizational behavior. They represent the system of shared knowledge among team members. Empirical results on team mental models have varied on the ground of the content and property of the mental model examined. Content has typically focused on taskwork and teamwork mental models in which taskwork mental models represent shared knowledge on procedures, strategies, the surroundings, and squad equipment, whereas teamwork mental models stand for shared knowledge on the coordination of team responsibilities and team members' cognition, skills, and abilities. More-specific forms of content are often discussed in the literature; these have included temporal, situational, strategic, squad goal, and squad membership mental models. Examining team mental models at a higher level of granularity has oft uncovered significant effects that are masked when simply focusing on taskwork or teamwork content. The property of squad mental models varies on the footing of its focus on similarity or accuracy. Similarity represents the degree of overlap in cognition amid team members, whereas accurateness represents the overlap between each team member and an expert. Results have shown that oftentimes the event of team mental model similarity on team effectiveness is chastened by its accuracy. Empirical results also vary on the basis of how the construct is measured and indexed. The nearly popular measurement technique is paired comparison ratings due to its ability to evaluate both content and construction. Other measurement types include concept maps, menu-sorting tasks, questionnaires, text analysis, and interviews. Indexing refers to the method used to aggregate ratings from the individual to the team. These methods can be classified as capturing either consistency (due east.g., the closeness index used in Pathfinder) or agreement (e.1000., Euclidean distances). Consistency metrics have been shown to more than consistently predict team effectiveness but researchers should match their research question to their indexing approach. A variety of variables have been shown to predict team mental models, such as team-training interventions, team member characteristics, attributes of the work environment, and other team emergent states. Team mental models have also been linked to a host of outcomes, including increased team operation, innovation, collective efficacy, decision quality, and squad learning. Key research needs for the field include the examination of the construct over time and the differentiation of the construct from other forms of team cognition.

Full general Overviews

There take been many reviews on the team mental model construct. These reviews span from the early 1990s to 2010. Cannon-Bowers, et al. 1993 helps ascertain the construct, introduces the four different content types of team mental models, and highlights primal areas for hereafter inquiry. Klimoski and Mohammed 1994 describes how team mental models are different from individual mental models. This commodity helps reduce the ambiguity around the amorphous nature that the construct has taken on in the field. Mohammed and Dumville 2001 distinguishes team mental models from similar forms of collective cognition. Mohammed, et al. 2010 provides an update on the review in Klimoski and Mohammed 1994. The authors highlight the key changes in the field and provide new theoretical and methodological needs. Mohammed, et al. 2000 reviews different measurement types and emphasizes the importance of matching the measurement blazon to the research question asked. Langan-Flim-flam, et al. 2000 and Kraiger and Wenzel 1997 highlight the pros and cons of unlike measurement approaches.

• Cannon-Bowers, Janis A., Eduardo Salas, and Sharolyn Converse. "Shared Mental Models in Practiced Team Determination Making." In Individual and Grouping Decision Making: Current Issues. Edited past N. John Castellan Jr., 221–246. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1993.

  This is a foundational commodity on team mental models. The chapter is often referenced for its breakup of team mental models into four central content domains and for its clarification of methodological and theoretical inquiry needs. Many of these research needs are still relevant in the early 21st century.

• Klimoski, Richard, and Susan Mohammed. "Team Mental Model: Construct or Metaphor?" Journal of Direction 20.two (1994): 403–437.

  DOI: x.1177/014920639402000206

  This article provides a clear description of what a team mental model is and what it is non. Information technology was written in response to the ambiguity surrounding the construct in the early 1990s. Virtually chiefly, it explains how a team mental model is different from an indvidual mental model.

• Kraiger, Kurt, and Lucy Wenzel. "Conceptual Evolution and Empirical Evaluation of Measures of Shared Mental Models every bit Indicators of Team Effectiveness." In Team Functioning Assessment and Measurement: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Edited by Michael T. Brannick, Eduardo Salas, and Carolyn West. Prince, 63–84. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.

  Classifies team mental model measures co-ordinate to their abilities to assess how teams process information, organize information, share attitudes, and share expectations. The authors besides suggest a prepare of antecedents and outcomes of squad mental models. The antecedents range from environmental to private-level predictors.

• Langan-Fox, Janice, Sharon Lawmaking, and Kim Langfield-Smith. "Team Mental Models: Techniques, Methods, and Analytic Approaches." Homo Factors 42.two (2000): 242–271.

  DOI: 10.1518/001872000779656534

  The authors review a wide variety of measurement approaches and depict their strengths and weaknesses. They as well present a set of guidelines describing when to utilize each approach, on the basis of one'due south enquiry question, sample, and theoretical assumptions.

• Mohammed, Susan, and Brad C. Dumville. "Team Mental Models in a Squad Knowledge Framework: Expanding Theory and Measurement across Disciplinary Boundaries." Journal of Organizational Behavior 22.2 (2001): 89–106.

  DOI: 10.1002/job.86

  This review helps position team mental models inside the collective knowledge construct domain. It does this past illustrating how they differ from ordinarily studied forms of commonage cognition, such equally information sharing, transactive memory, grouping learning, and cognitive consensus. The authors also propose how researchers can integrate these topics.

• Mohammed, Susan, Lori Ferzandi, and Katherine Hamilton. "Metaphor No More: A xv-Year Review of the Team Mental Model Construct." Journal of Management 36.4 (2010): 876–910.

  DOI: 10.1177/0149206309356804

  This article highlights the theoretical and empirical developments on squad mental models since the seminal review in Klimoski and Mohammed 1994. One of the most valuable contributions of this paper is the areas of time to come research proposed regarding the conceptualization, measurement, outcomes, and predictors of team mental models.

• Mohammed, Susan, Richard Klimoski, and Joan R. Rentsch. "The Measurement of Squad Mental Models: We Have No Shared Schema." Organizational Research Methods 3.2 (2000): 123–165.

  DOI: 10.1177/109442810032001

  In this review, the authors highlight the nuances associated with measuring team mental models. They employ several criteria to compare Pathfinder, multidimensional scaling, interactively elicited cerebral mapping, and text-based cognitive mapping measures. Nearly chiefly, they underscore the need to friction match the measurement type to the research question asked.

dorsum to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login.

How to Subscribe

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here.

montgomeryslosicessir.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199846740/obo-9780199846740-0165.xml

Share this post