Search

Abundant research supports a cognitive foundation to teamwork. Team cognition describes the mental states that enable team members to anticipate and to coordinate. Having been examined in hundreds of studies conducted in board rooms, cockpits, nuclear power plants, and locker rooms, to name a few, we turn to the question of moderators: Under which conditions is team cognition more and less strongly related to team performance? Random effects meta-analytic moderator analysis of 107 independent studies ( N = 7,778) reveals meaningful variation in effect sizes conditioned on team composition and boundary factors. The overall effect of team cognition on performance is ρ = .35, though examining this effect by these moderators finds the effect can meaningfully vary between ρ = .22 and ρ = .42. This meta-analysis advances team effectiveness theory by moving past the question of “what is important?” to explore the question of “when and why is it important?” Results indicate team cognition is most strongly related to performance for teams with social category heterogeneity ( ρ = .42), high external interdependence ( ρ = .41), as well as low authority differentiation ( ρ = .35), temporal dispersion ( ρ = .36), and geographic dispersion ( ρ = .35). Functional homogeneity and temporal stability (compositional factors) were not meaningful moderators of this relationship. The key takeaway of these findings is that team cognition matters most for team performance when—either by virtue of composition, leadership, structure, or technology—there are few substitute enabling conditions to otherwise promote performance.

The relationships among the percentage of women in a team and women’s sense of team identification and collective efficacy as well as team performance was examined. We explored these relationships in a sample of student teams conducting a semester-long social science research project within the context of science and technology-focused university. Findings with 95 U.S. college students (43 women) show that women experience higher team identification and collective efficacy as the percent of women teammates increases. Additionally, women’s team identification and collective efficacy mediate the relationship between the percentage of women on the team and overall team performance. Interestingly, the number of men on the team did not influence men’s sense of team identification, collective efficacy, or team performance. This research has implications for team composition. Specifically, when navigating diversity in teams, managers and leaders should aim to build teams that are composed of multiple women versus an approach that divides women up among various teams. In doing so, managers can better secure conditions for the development of positive teamwork experiences and, ultimately, performance.

There is remarkable convergence in perceptions of working in space – the work is highly scheduled, intensive, and interdependent. These perceptions are clear from interviews, diaries, and other accounts of those who have lived and worked in space. In designing work in space, it is important to consider the overall flow of work from one task to another. There are switching costs and flow advantages to be gained by designing work schedules so that tasks are grouped and sequenced in ways that are more natural for astronauts. In this chapter, we summarize five factors that affect how work is experienced and the ease with which astronauts can transition from one task to another: task characteristics, social relations, technology affordances, individual differences, and situational constraints. The first three factors affect work engagement and can be used to design work schedules. We report on perceptions of these factors in ISS astronauts and analog crews. Lastly, we conclude by describing a computer model of task switching, CREST, that we developed to assist with generating recommendations for designing astronaut schedules that minimize switch costs and maximize flow advantages. Taken together, these interventions provide promising directions for improving the experience of working in space.

Purpose Team cognition is known to be an important predictor of team process and performance. DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus (2010) reported the results of an extensive meta-analytic examination into the role of team cognition in team process and performance, and documented the unique contribution of team cognition to these outcomes while controlling for the motivational dynamics of the team. Research on team cognition has exploded since the publication of DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus’ meta-analysis, which raises the question: to what extent do the effect sizes reported in their 2010 meta-analysis still hold with the inclusion of newly published research? The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach The authors updated DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus’ meta-analytic database with newly published studies, nearly doubling its size, and reran their original analyses examining the role of team cognition in team process and performance. Findings Overall, results show consistent effects for team cognition in team process and performance. However, whereas originally compilational cognition was more strongly related to both team process and team performance than was compositional cognition, in the updated database, compilational cognition is more strongly related to team process and compositional cognition is more strongly related to team performance. Originality/value Meta-analyses are only as generalizable as the databases they are comprised of. Periodic updates are necessary to incorporate newly published studies and confirm that prior findings still hold. This study confirms that the findings of DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus’ (2010) team cognition meta-analysis continue to generalize to today’s teams.

Leadership is pivotal to the success of teams and multiteam systems (MTSs). MTSs require leadership bridges be built within and between teams, some of whom have competing interests. We explore thre...