Emerging multi-disciplinary theoretical perspectives in team cognition: an overview

1. Overview

Over the past 20 years, team cognition has emerged as an important driver of team performance. A growing body of research illustrates that what team members hold in ‘their heads’ matters in team functioning (Salas and Fiore 2004). But, what has also surfaced are the many facets and complexities comprising team cognition. It is, indeed, a dynamic, multi-level and multi-layer set of minds embedded in an interdependent team, which forms the core of study. This complexity has highlighted the need for a range of more sophisticated and richer multi-disciplinary approaches to understanding team cognition–and this is the motivation behind this special issue. Our goal was to showcase different conceptual approaches to team cognition–approaches spanning differing levels of analysis. We set out to bring together a group of scholars who provide different perspectives, with explanatory mechanisms from different disciplines, so as to create a forum that we hope will motivate thinking and research in team cognition (see also Fiore and Salas 2006a). Towards this end, in this special issue, we present a set of eight papers that articulate conceptual and theoretical drivers for understanding, from unique views, the characteristics and defining features of team cognition. As noted, each of these provides a different disciplinary lens; some discuss new perspectives while others go deeper into some well-established theoretical notions. And still others showcase initial conceptualisations of tools for the development of team cognition.

2. Multi-disciplinary theoretical perspectives in team cognition

First, Fiore, Smith-Jentsch, Salas, Warner and Letsky develop a foundation for a model of macrocognition in the context of collaborative problem-solving, along with a measurement framework for studying macrocognitive processes. Their focus of macrocognition in teams is on the building of new knowledge at the individual and team levels. The dimensions of the framework were generated based on prior theories of cognition and collaboration and are intended to capture the multi-dimensional nature of macrocognition in teams. They discuss the dimensions of their model, including: individual knowledge building, team knowledge building, internalised knowledge, externalised knowledge and problem solving outcomes. Further, for these dimensions, they identify candidate measurement methods, indices and examples of each of the components and sub-components.

Second, Keyton and Asbury explore the benefits of a communication perspective on the investigation of macrocognition arising in collaborative contexts. With a thoughtful view on process, they suggest that some group researchers often oversimplify the communications perspective as a simple sender → receiver or information sharing model. From their perspective, interaction and shared meaning is more complicated, represented as a sender ↔ receiver model where both roles are filled simultaneously and the meaning is derived in the interaction. They note that this perspective does not take the place of other models, rather, it is complementary and explains processes that are often oversimplified. For example, from a cognitive perspective, information sharing is the transfer of knowledge based primarily on individual unit analysis. But, from a communication perspective, information sharing is the creation of knowledge based on individual units as well as team-level analysis where interaction is treated as interdependent.

Third, Rentsch, Mello and Delise offer a set of propositions based on what they have termed the ‘Collaboration and Meaning Analysis Process (C-MAP)’. This involves the conscious externalisation of knowledge (knowledge that is observable and evidenced through interactions). These propositions are expected to be most relevant to intense problem-solving teams (distributed teams with high problem complexity) whose primary challenge is to integrate knowledge from each member in order to generate the innovated knowledge (collaboratively created knowledge) necessary to solve the problem. Specifically, they address how knowledge interoperability, innovated knowledge and cognitive similarity develop among team members as they work to achieve solutions. Within their C-MAP approach, the cognitive activity is viewed as macrocognitive processes. Here they describe, for example, how teams use schema enriched communication and knowledge objects as mechanisms for externalising cognition to support the collaborative process.

Fourth, Klein, Wiggins and Dominguez describe team sensemaking as a macrocognitive function. This ‘team sensemaking’ is defined as a process by which teams manage and coordinate efforts to explain the current situation and also to anticipate future situations, specifically, under uncertain or ambiguous conditions. Also discussed are emergent strategies (such as, selecting a frame, questioning a frame and replacing of choosing a frame) and emergent requirements (such as, seeking and synthesising data, monitoring the quality of data and interpretations, resolving disputes, disseminating inferences and managing coordination costs for these activities) of sensemaking. In order to make concrete their discussion of this complex macrocognitive function, a number of examples are used to illustrate sensemaking in action and emergent strategies and requirements are described. They conclude with a discussion of potential research methods that can be adopted to study team sensemaking.

Fifth, Pfaff and McNeese propose a framework to provide structure to, and offer an approach for, systematically studying the relationship between specific stressors, mood states and aspects of distributed team cognition. The framework is predicated on a relationship between mood, stress and team cognition. Further, they relate stress to task performance and discuss how these interactions can be mediated by mood. In support of their theorising, the authors describe two longitudinal experiments conducted to validate this framework. From these we see convergent and overlapping findings suggesting that mood does play a role distinct from stress in affecting team cognition.

Sixth, Kennedy and McComb present a framework that connects mental model convergence processes and communication transmission. Within their framework, these are critical macrocognitive processes foundational to team development. Building upon research and theory in cognitive science, communication and on team mental models, this framework represents an important interdisciplinary integration to understand collaborative cognition. Specifically, they posit that by mapping communication onto the mental model convergence process, a demonstration of how verbal communication facilitates the macrocognitive process can be shown. Their framework, a combination of Shannon and Weaver's (1949) model of communication transmission mapped onto McComb's (2007) mental model convergence framework, illustrates how attending to communication processes and outcomes can be informative to our understanding of team performance.

Seventh, Wallace and Hinsz posit that macrocognition demonstrates one way in which teams are a technology to enhance performance. As an aid to understanding the impact of macrocognition in team performance, this article describes combination-of-contributions theory and the ideal group model of signal detection theory. A discussion of three macrocognitive processes (stimulated cognition, transactive knowledge systems and information sharing) from the group and team literature follows to highlight the breadth of collaborative cognitive processes that can be observed. A combination of the empirical evidence regarding these specific macrocognitive processes and the results of a ‘thought experiment’ are used to illustrate that macrocognition is not always beneficial to team performance on cognitive-based tasks and that researchers need to be aware of this when looking to macrocognition to produce quality outcomes in teams. As a cautionary tale, they suggest that a deeper understanding of macrocognition is necessary to effectively implement teams as technology.

Eighth, Handley and Heacox applied macrocognitive concepts to the development of a knowledge management and decision support tool to provide a task-oriented application within a collaborative environment. Their web-based Multinational Crisis Action Planning (MCAP) tool was developed to improve synchronisation of distributed decision-making and information management among coalition planners. The MCAP tool is designed as a tool to support the macrocognitive processes of individual knowledge building, team knowledge building and developing shared problem conceptualisation. By adapting some of the extant thinking of macrocognition in teams, they illustrate how theoretical constructs can be appropriately integrated into technologies so as to aid complex collaborative cognition.

3. Conclusion

In the concluding chapter to their edited volume on team cognition, Fiore and Salas (2004) noted that conceptualisations of team cognition could fit under a general theme of awareness or communication (see also Fiore and Salas 2006b). Specifically, they argued that researchers sometimes viewed team cognition as a type of knowledge-based awareness which binds the action of team. Others see communication processes, both implicit and explicit, as the means of developing and supporting team cognition. What we see in this special issue is not only the emergence of awareness and communication as a critical part of team cognition, but an even richer kaleidoscope of constructs making up this complex area of inquiry. As such, we hope the reader takes away from this special issue an appreciation of the breadth of disciplinary approaches necessary to help us understand the processes involved when individuals and teams engage in complex cognitive endeavours. In short, we see this special issue as only the beginning of a rich dialogue–a dialogue needed across many disciplines, to understand, measure and improve team cognition. We hope it inspires more debate, exchanges and cross-fertilisation as team cognition researchers continue their examination of team processes within and across individuals. Of course, we recognise that only time will tell…