Download Shared Mental Models and Team Problem Solving: The Role of Process Mapping and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!
PROCESS MAPPING AND SHARED
COGNITION: TEAMWORK AND
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SHARED
PROBLEM MODELS
STEPHEN M. FIORE AND JONATHAN W. SCHOOLER
As we enter the 21st century, work teams continue to be a dominant force in industry (e.g., Cannon-Bowers, Oser, & Flanagan, 1998; Guzzo & Salas, 1995). Teams are formed for a diverse range of tasks, from creating product marketing strategies to implementing change management proce- dures, and their life expectancy can vary from the duration of a given meet- ing to the duration of a corporation. Because of this prevalence of teams in industry today, many are formed without much forethought along with the expectation that only gains in productivity can result from teamwork (Hack- man, 1990). The reality is that there is little guarantee of success, as many teams fail for any number of reasons (e.g., Hackman, 1998; Tanskanen,
The views herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of their affiliated organiza- tions. Portions of the research for this chapter were funded by an Andrew Mellon Foundation Predoctoral Fellowship to Stephen M. Fiore and by Grant No. F49620-01-1-0214 from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research to Eduardo Salas, Stephen M. Fiore, and Clint A. Bowers. We thank B. Jean Ferketish, John M. Levine, Richard L. Moreland, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments or discus- sions on this chapter.
Buhanist, &. Kostama, 1998). In this chapter we link theoretical approaches from cognitive science on the nature of problem solving with research in team performance to illustrate how certain process interventions may facili- tate team performance through the development of shared problem models. The literature on team performance and shared mental models, while not lacking in theory, has far fewer methodologies that may foster their de- velopment. Only in the last few years have systematic attempts to train shared mental models been empirically examined (e.g., Marks, Zaccaro, & Mathieu, 2000; Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000; Smith- Jentsch, Campbell, Milanovich, & Reynolds, 2001). Nonetheless, in indus- try, armies of consultants continually apply any number of tools in their at- tempts to improve organizational effectiveness. Unfortunately, while the utility of such tools often seems intuitively obvious, they are typically ap- plied at a rate that vastly outpaces the research necessary to fully capitalize on their strengths while limiting their weaknesses. Because of this, the overarching problem facing many is that much ambiguity exists about not only the appropriateness of such tools but also why they may, or may not, be effective. A systematic attempt to link theory and research from cognitive and organizational psychology may assist in not only the development of new tools based on theory but also the analysis of current tools to under- stand what drives their success and limit what may be their failings. There- fore, to the degree that the research community can focus attention on this issue in an attempt to maximize the utility of and minimize the costs asso- ciated with such tools, organizational effectiveness may be better fostered. As an illustration of how this may proceed, we conduct a descriptive analy- sis of one such tool and discuss how it may be contributing to increases in team effectiveness. In this chapter we first review the problem-solving process and discuss how shared mental model theory has been applied to explain how teams can often overcome barriers to effective performance. We then discuss process mapping, a tool designed to assist problem-solving teams overcome some of the limitations that can lead to failure while, at the same time, capitalizing on factors that can lead to success. We argue that this tool, originally devel- oped to assist teams in process redesign and organizational change (e.g., Rummler & Brache, 1995), is successful because it leads to the construction of a shared mental model of the problem in question (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993). Our discussion centers on the notion that, to the degree the team task requires the construction of a shared understanding, external representational tools can act as a scaffolding to facilitate the building of that shared representation. Types and definitions of teams vary somewhat, from "interdependent collections of individuals who share responsibility for specific outcomes for their organizations" (Sundstrom, De Meuse, &. Futrell, 1990, p. 120) to "two or more people who interact dynamically, interdependently and adaptively
134 FIORE AND SCHOOLER
Problem-Solving Stages
Cognitive scientists have identified several distinct stages involved in problem solving, each of which requires unique approaches to be successfully resolved. For example, problem solving is said to involve a search through a hypothesis generation space and a hypothesis testing space (Klahr & Dunbar, 1988; Simon & Lea, 1974), and successful solution generation takes place through a number of interdependent processes (see also Klahr, Fay, & Dunbar, 1993; Schooler, Fallshore, & Fiore, 1995). Others have focused on the stages occurring prior to hypothesis generation. For example, problem identifica- tion or problem sensing involves initial apperception that a potential prob- lem exists or may shortly occur (Cowan, 1986; Klein, 1993; Klein & Pierce, 2001; Klein, Pliske, Crandall, & Woods, 1999; Moreland & Levine, 1992). In such a case, stimuli in one's environment are constantly monitored, and one scans for cues suggesting abnormalities. After this stage, one would move to the problem conceptualization stage, the stage after which a problem has been recognized and prior to attempts to generate a solution. During prob- lem conceptualization, the problem solver describes and diagnoses the prob- lem that has been recognized. We wish to clearly distinguish between the problem identification and problem conceptualization stages. Problem identification in teams is thought to occur only when the members realize that other team members are aware of the problem (Larson & Christensen, 1993; Moreland & Levine, 1992). In particular, "no meaningful interactive problem-solving activity can take place without members first becoming cognizant of the fact that others in the group perceive the problem" (Larson & Christensen, 1993, p. 9). Only then would problem conceptualization proceed appropriately. While not denying the criticality of the problem identification process, we focus on problem conceptualization specifically because a problem improperly conceptualized is unlikely to be solved.
Problem Conceptualization
The stage of problem conceptualization can be said to involve the con- struction of a problem space. Problem space theory, initially developed from information-processing theories of human problem solving (e.g., Newell & Simon, 1972), has only recently been applied to group interaction processes (e.g., Fiore, 2000; Fiore & Schooler, 2001; Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath, 1997). The problem space can be considered to be the mental space in which the problem solver must encode the
problem elements—defining goals, rules and other aspects of the situa- tion... [that] represents the initial situation presented to him, the de- sired goal situation, various intermediate states, imagined or experienced,
13 6 FIORE AND SCHOOLER
as well as any concepts he uses to describe these situations to himself. (Newell & Simon, 1972, p. 59) Constructing the problem space is a necessary, but not sufficient, factor in team problem solving. What is mandatory for effective team problem solv- ing is that this conceptualization is shared; that is, a team's comprehension of the critical problem components contains a substantial amount of overlap (e.g., Orasanu, 1994). Although one could argue that problem solving may be facilitated by differing problem conceptualizations (e.g., by bringing di- verse viewpoints into the process), we suggest that, for team problem solv- ing to take advantage of a heterogeneous group composition, they must first be in agreement as to what the problem is. Thus, we do not suggest that a team be homogeneous with respect to their problem-solving ap- proaches (Janis, 1972), rather, that they share an understanding of the criti- cal problem elements. For a team to accurately assess their problem situation, that is, adequately search their problem space, they must overcome limitations inherent in group problem solving. For example, for the team to coordinate their efforts during the problem-solving process (and be able to take advantage of diverse input), they must share a commensurate understanding of the problem itself. Al- though some literature does suggest that certain conceptualization processes such as planning are not always beneficial (e.g., Wittenbaum, Vaughan, & Stasser, 1998), these findings apply primarily to tasks requiring little coordi- nation. Similarly, some research documents that groups may engage in tacit coordination (e.g., Wittenbaum, Stasser, & Merry, 1996) rather than explic- itly coordinate their processes. But, within the context of teams engaged in complex problem solving, tacit coordination or a lack of planning could lead to the construction of either an incorrect or incomplete conceptualization of the problem. From the standpoint of team cognition, our argument is that, without a shared understanding of what the problem is, not only may a team be solving the wrong problem, but they also cannot make full use of their resources, the very reason teams are assembled in the first place. We turn next to a brief discussion of the shared mental model construct and follow this with an explication of how components of shared problem models fit well with the mental model construct. We then describe how it is that pro- cess mapping helps problem-solving teams to develop shared models for the conceptualized problem.
SHARED MENTAL MODELS AND TEAM PERFORMANCE
In this section we discuss how notions of shared cognition have been applied to explain successful team performance in a variety of task situations. Shared cognition is the term used to describe how processes at the intraindividual
PROCESS MAPPING AND SHARED COGNITION 13 7
mental model (e.g., Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993; Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994). To have a shared model for a team task means to be aware of the following: problem structure, the roles and skills of the team as they pertain to the problem, and the shared awareness that each member of the team possesses this knowledge. We suggest that the successful development of these components within problem-solving teams will facilitate the overall prob- lem conceptualization process. First is the notion of a shared problem structure. A shared problem structure can be considered to consist of overlapping organized knowledge held by team members (e.g., Resnick, 1991). This can consist of organized declarative or procedural knowledge concerning the problem and decision rules associated with the problem (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993). Thus, when a team possesses awareness of the problem structure, they are more likely to later develop an effective problem solution (e.g., Maier, 1967). Second is the notion that shared mental models consist of an under- standing of each team member's roles and skills. This has been labeled interpositional knowledge, and an absence of such knowledge is linked to fail- ures in team effectiveness (Volpe, Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Spector, 1996). Furthermore, the success of cross-training programs, or training designed to encourage compatible mental models with respect to team member roles and responsibilities, has been linked to increases in shared interpositional knowl- edge (e.g., Blickensderfer, Cannon-Bowers, & Salas, 1998; Marks et al., 2000; Mathieu et al., 2000). To the degree that the team is fully aware of member idiosyncrasies (e.g., Moreland & Levine, 1992), the unique capabilities of each team member can be fully exploited. Thus, this may help the team overcome information-sharing problems sometimes experienced during team interaction (e.g., Hollingshead, 1996; Stasser, Stewart, & Wittenbaum, 1995; Straus, 1996) and is similar to notions of "transactive memory systems" pro- posed by Moreland and colleagues (e.g., Liang, Moreland, &. Argote, 1995; Moreland & Argote, 2003; Moreland & Myaskovsky, 2000). The aforementioned issues relate directly to our third factor, specifi- cally, a shared understanding of the problem requires explicitly defining the problem (e.g., articulating plans and strategies), and it ensures that all par- ticipants are solving the same problem. This has been described as the devel- opment of a shared problem model and is linked to effective team communi- cation whereby members become equally aware that the team understands the problem (Orasanu, 1994). Furthermore, the team explicitly negotiates their shared understanding of the problem, a step argued to be critical for truly shared mental models (Levine et al., 1993).
Summary
As the brief review highlights, the development of shared mental mod- els attenuates some of the interaction problems teams sometimes experience.
PROCESS MAPPING AND SHARED COGNITION 139
In the next section we link these components of shared mental models to an instantiation of shared problem models. We do so with an example of a popular management tool and demonstrate how certain limitations inherent in team' work can be overcome through the use of this tool. Our overall goal is to show how theoretical and applied research can be productively intermixed in a way conducive to organizational effectiveness. Furthermore, while the use of problem-solving tools is continuously touted in industry, theoretical accounts of why they work (or do not work) are lacking. As such, this chap- ter represents an attempt to clarify how one such tool (i.e., process mapping) can facilitate problem conceptualization and subsequent problem solving. We now turn to a discussion of process mapping, a tool widely used in indus- try (e.g., Rummler & Brache, 1995) to help cross-functional teams on the initial stages of their problem solving.
PROCESS MAPPING AND PROBLEM-SOLVING TEAMS
Although the utility of shared mental models is clear with respect to teams operating in dynamic environments with a high degree of interdepen- dence, we suggest that such models are critical in any team environment. In particular, we argue that many teams work under the unwarranted assump- tion that they have a shared understanding of their team task. Because they may have either only partial shared understanding or an understanding lack- ing in any agreement, their ability to effectively work through a problem is severely hindered. We suggest that process mapping works as a problem-solving tool because it leads to the construction of a shared mental model of the problem. Specifically, process mapping scaffolds team cognition in that it facilitates the scanning of the problem space, ensuring that all elements are accounted for, agreed on, and thus, properly addressed. Process mapping was initially developed to assist teams in process rede- sign being implemented in the context of organizational improvement (e.g., Rummler & Brache, 1995). Essentially, the technique involves developing a representation of the work flow involved with a given process. In this con- text, a process is defined as "any combination of people, machines, materials, and methods that is aimed at manufacturing a product or performing a ser- vice" (Symons & Jacobs, 1997, p. 71). Thus, process maps are representa- tional charts that fully delineate the process and are descriptive models of a process rather than normative models (although normative models are later defined as the problem-solving process continues). Initially, process mapping requires the assembly of cross-functional teams, with members selected from every department involved in a given process. The first step is the creation of what is known as the "as is" map, a map detailing the process in its current incarnation. Such a map consists of a visual representation of the personnel or departments involved in the pro-
i 40 FIORE AND SCHOOLER
bers contribute to the map with their unique knowledge base, a detailed rep- resentation develops. Specifically, process mapping helps team members flesh out a typically limited understanding of the process in question. While indi- vidual team members may possess fairly well-developed knowledge structures with respect to their aspect of a given process, their overall knowledge is, at best, incomplete and, at worst, inaccurate. For example, after process map- ping sessions, problem-solving team members have noted, "most people think that they know the whole picture of what goes on in the company... After [cross-functional process mapping], you realize that there is a lot more to it than you thought" (Loew & Hurley, 1995, p. 58). Thus, the joint develop- ment of the map allows team members the opportunity to elaborate on their understanding of the entire process. This aspect of process mapping makes it an ideal intervention for over- coming problems due to a tendency for teams to focus more on solution gen- eration than problem conceptualization. In certain situations management may actually encourage this tendency; that is, management may desire solu- tions to their problems be identified by the team rather than a better under- standing of the problem (e.g., Anjard, 1996). But, by focusing the team on the process and the problems inherent in the process (i.e., the disconnects), process mapping teams are forced to forgo discussion of solutions. Thus, we suggest that, in the collaborative construction of the map, participants are required to explicitly define the problem, ensuring that all members are con- ceptualizing the same problem. In sum, process mapping provides an enabling structure that allows the team to capitalize on multiple inputs (see Hackman, 1990, 1998). Process mapping creates an environment in which a diverse team can share their knowledge in a way that promotes performance and teamwork. This is par- ticularly important in the context of problem-solving teams because such teams are often ad hoc and will benefit from a structure that scaffolds their communication as they construct their maps.
Team Member Roles and Skills
As the team engages in the initial phases of process mapping, the unique contribution of each individual to the process is made explicit as the map is developed. Specifically, a fundamental purpose of process mapping is to in- troduce team members to the roles and responsibilities of those involved in a process. Because teams often have the inability to realize who has the knowl- edge that is most relevant to the problem at hand and how to communicate what is important about the problem (e.g., Serfaty, Entin, & Johnston, 1998), this represents a critically effective aspect of process mapping. Research from studies in the identification of expertise (e.g., Bottger, 1984) shows that groups often fail to determine members of the group who possess critical task knowl- edge and skills. For example, when interacting teams successfully identified
] 42 FIORE AND SCHOOLER
members possessing the most task-relevant expertise, they performed at or near their full potential (Libby, Trotman, & Zimmer, 1987). Nonetheless, many studies illustrate the surprising inability of groups to identify those members possessing the most expertise (e.g., Bottger, 1984; Yetton & Bottger, 1982). Furthermore, organizations too often suffer from a limited understand- ing of the idiosyncratic skills of employees in differing departments. With process mapping, as the cross-functional team articulates the steps in the process, they are forced to identify which department (and corresponding team member) is involved in that step. This makes explicit not only the capabilities of each team member but also their responsibilities for a given stage in the process. Process mapping is additionally beneficial because it facilitates infor- mation sharing by guiding the transfer of information that takes place during group discussion. A number of studies suggest that group members are more likely to discuss the information they hold in common (i.e., transfer similar data) and not the information they hold that is unique (e.g., Hollingshead, 1996; Stasser et al., 1995; Straus, 1996). Indeed, much research demonstrates that "pooling diverse sets of data via face-to-face discussion [is] more difficult than it seems on casual reflection" (Wittenbaum & Stasser, 1996, p. 6). By means of process mapping, not only do team members pool their resources, that is, contribute their idiosyncratic knowledge, but they also are intimately aware of each other's resources. Thus, with an increase in information shar- ing, the likelihood of synergistic effects improves as unique information may be brought to bear. In sum, with process mapping the team is better able to adequately sample items for discussion, particularly when such items are not evenly dis- tributed across the team. For example, after process mapping sessions, prob- lem-solving team members have noted that the initial mapping stages pro- vide "team members a far better understanding of ... each person's role within the process. This leads to respect and often breaks down barriers that exist departmentally" (Loew & Hurley, 1995, p. 58). This identification of personnel and departmental roles along each step of the process allows team members the opportunity to appropriately acknowledge roles and skills.
Shared Problem Understanding
Overall, this collaborative construction of the process map requires that participants explicitly define their understanding of the process and associ- ated problems, thus facilitating problem conceptualization. This is analo- gous to what shared mental model theorists have described as emergent cogni- tion (e.g., Carley, 1997), or the notion that only as one articulates one's understanding or awareness of a given process does it truly become known to oneself and to others. Thus, the act of making knowledge explicit facilitates
PROCESS MAPPING AND SHARED COGNITION 143
components of shared mental models actually fit well within the context of shared problem models. We should note that our approach to shared mental model theory is somewhat unique. Essentially, we suggest that process mapping facilitates a form of team cognition whereby a shared problem model is developed as the team is forced to negotiate the construction of the map. Other approaches, for example, empirical studies assessing mental models, use methods such as concept mapping to assess underlying dimensions of mental models (e.g., Rentsch, Heffner, & Duffy, 1994) or train shared knowledge to facilitate team interaction (e.g., Blickensderfer et al., 1998; Smith-Jentsch, Zeisig, Acton, & McPherson, 1998). Thus, rather than attempting to assess a men- tal model and make a claim for its existence, we suggest that the map is the model (Jonassen, Beissner, & Yacci, 1993); that is, a process map is an ex- ternal representation that depicts the shared problem model for a problem- solving team. Essentially process mapping facilitates the aspect of initial problem solv- ing cognitive scientists have labeled the search phase (e.g., Klahr & Dunbar, 1988). In the search phase, the problem solver scans the environment ensur- ing that all elements are accounted for and addressed. We defined this as the problem conceptualization stage, or the stage that occurs after a problem has been recognized but prior to attempts at generating solutions. Process map- ping is beneficial because an adequate initial search phase can help over- come later attempts at solution generation. Process mapping forces the team to recognize deficiencies (disconnects in the "as is" map) prior to attempting to address solutions with the "should be" map. By forcing the team to make a full evaluation of the problem before any suggestions are made, all relevant elements/variables and their interactions are addressed. By diagramming the entire flow such that interconnections are clear and all repercussions are noted, process mapping provides a means with which to accurately articulate complicated processes and can overcome limitations normally experienced when teams deal with complex problems. The issue of the accuracy versus sharedness of mental models continues to be researched (e.g., Marks et al., 2000; Mathieu et al., 2000; Mohammed & Dumville, 2001), and by providing a means with which to integrate multiple perspectives, pro- cess mapping may lead to an accurate shared problem conceptualization. Thus, because process mapping encourages a thorough investigation of the prob- lem space, it may lead to more accurate models of the problem. Last, we also note the implications of the process map for later prob- lem-solving stages. After a team successfully conceptualizes the problem, they then move to solution generation. In process mapping this entails creating the idealized map (i.e., the "should be" map). The problem-solving team is tasked to "work on isolating and eliminating the irrationalities and redun- dancies that have crept into the process, attacking the most glaring sources of waste and error first" (Mason, 1997, p. 60). Thus, just as noted by shared
PROCESS MAPPING AND SHARED COGNITION 145
mental model theorists (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994), accurate shared rep- resentations of the problem are also important in the later problem-solving stages. Only when problem elements have been identified, properly concep- tualized, and agreed on can problem solving proceed effectively. Some caveats to note concerning the use of process maps include the time required for process mapping. Depending on the complexity of the is- sue, process mapping can take anywhere from one to several days. But a cru- cial benefit of process mapping is that no real training is required; the proce- dure can be learned relatively easily, often in less than a day (e.g., Selander & Cross, 1999). Nonetheless, it may require a skilled group leader or facilita- tor if the team is inexperienced in the technique. Thus, as in early research on group interaction, in which leaders or facilitators have been documented to benefit group problem solving (e.g., Fiedler, Chemers, & Mahar, 1976; Maier, 1967), process mapping requires such direction (see also Gregory & Romm, 2001). Indeed, as we have argued with respect to process maps, oth- ers note that leaders or facilitators are effective when they direct interven- tions that prompt group members to examine their current problem-solving processes (Gersick & Hackman, 1990; Maier, 1967; Oxley, Dzindolet, & Paulus, 1996), that is, focus on conceptualizing the problem or their approach, not the solution.
CONCLUSIONS
The success of process mapping in overcoming interaction problems suggests that there are tools in existence, or tools to be developed, that can begin to truly take advantage of team resources. Heretofore, teams have typi- cally been operating in an additive fashion whereby collective efforts are merely the sum of individual efforts. The question then becomes, what are other tools that are consistently applied in organizations (e.g., cause-and- effect diagrams; Pfadt, 1999), and are they successfully addressing problems experienced by problem-solving teams? Although the focus of this chapter has been in decomposing the factors that lead to effective team problem solving by means of process mapping, there are two outcomes to be taken from this analysis. The first outcome concerns the research community and how it is that similar analyses can foster a better understanding of the potential causes of performance outcomes when analyzing team cognition. In particular, a closer examination of the many tools in use in industry (e.g., Ishikawa, 1985) is warranted if we are truly going to contribute to a better understanding of organizational inter- ventions. By deconstructing the procedures associated with such tools and identifying their relation to empirically validated performance constructs, researchers may be able to suggest either improvements to existing tools or innovations that provide entirely new approaches to team interaction. Spe-
146 F1ORE AND SCHOOLER
Carley, K. M. (1997). Extracting team mental models through textual analysis. Jour- nal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 533-558. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 7—75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cowan, D. A. (1986). Developing a process model of problem recognition. Academy of Management Review, II, 763-776.
Entin, E. E., & Serfaty, D. (1999). Adaptive team coordination. Human Factors, 41, 312-325.
Fiedler, F. E., Chemers, M. M., & Mahar, L. (1976). Improving kader ship effectiveness: The kader match concept. New York: Wiley.
Fiore, S. M. (2000). Problem space andprobkm solving failure: Cognitive mechanisms in the explanation of process loss in group problem solving. Unpublished doctoral dis- sertation, University of Pittsburgh.
Fiore, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). Group dynamics and shared mental model development. In M. London (Ed.), How people evaluate others in organizations: Person perception and interpersonal judgment in industrial/organiza- tional psychology (pp. 309-336). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fiore, S. M., & Schooler, J. W. (2001). Convergent or divergent problem space search: The effect of problem structure on group versus individual problem solv- ing. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergo- nomic Society (pp. 483-487). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonom- ics Society.
Fleishman, E. A., & Zaccaro, S. J. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of team performance functions. In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and perfor- mance (pp. 31-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Gersick, C., & Hackman, J. R. (1990). Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 65-97.
Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1997). Proper analysis in the accuracy of group judgments. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 149-167.
Glaser, R., & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning theory and the study of instruction. An- nual Review of Psychology, 40, 631-666. Gregory, W. J., & Romm, W. J. (2001). Critical facilitation: Learning through inter- vention in group process. Management Learning, 32, 453—467.
Guzzo, R. A., & Salas, E. (Eds.). (1995). Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don't): Creating conditions for effective teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J. R. (1998). Why teams don't work. In R. S. Tindale (Ed.), Theory and research on small groups: Vol. 4. Social psychological applications to social issues (pp. 245-267). New York: Plenum.
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L.
] 48 FIORE AND SCHOOLER
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 45-99). New York: Academic Press.
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43-64-
Hollingshead, A. B. (1996). Information suppression and status persistence in group decision making: The effects of communication media. Human Communication Research, 23, 193-219.
Ishikawa, K (1985). Guide to quality control. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organiza- tion. Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims o/groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions andfiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high performance organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cog- nitive Science, 12, 1-48. Klahr, D., Fay, A. L., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 111-146. Klein, G. (1993). A recognition primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision making. In G. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, & C. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action (pp. 138-147). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Klein, G., & Pierce, L. G. (2001). Adaptive teams. In Proceedings of the 6th ICCRTS Collaboration in the Information Age Track 4: C2 decision-making and cognitive analysis. Retrieved on October 30, 2002 from http://www.dodccrp.org/ 6thICCRTS/ Klein, G., Pliske, R. M., Crandall, B., & Woods, D. (1999). Features of problem detection. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 133-137). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Er- gonomics Society. Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or meta- phor? Journal of Management, 20, 403-437. Larson, J. R., & Christensen, C. (1993). Groups as problem-solving units: Toward a new meaning of social cognition. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 5-30. Levine, J. M., Resnick, L. B., & Higgins, E. T. (1993). Social foundations of cogni- tion. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 585-612. Liang, D. W., Moreland, R. L., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual train- ing and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Per- sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 384-393. Libby, R., Trotman, K. T., & Zimmer, I. (1987). Member variation, recognition of expertise, and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 81-87.
PROCESS MAPPING AND SHARED COGNITION ] 49
Rentsch, J. R., Heffner, T. S., & Duffy, L. T. (1994). What you know is what you get from experience: Team experience related to teamwork schemas. Group and Organization Management, 19, 450-474. Resnick, L. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as a social practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 1-20). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Rouse, W. B. (1989). Advances in man-machine systems research (Vol. 5). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1995). Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the organization chart (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In R. W. Swezey &. E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 3-29). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Schooler, J. W., Fallshore, M., & Fiore, S. M. (1995). Putting insight into perspec- tive. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 559- 587). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Selander, J. P., & Cross, K. F. (1999). Process redesign: Is it worth it? Management Accounting, 80, 40-45. Serfaty, D., Entin, E., & Johnston, J. H. (1998). Team adaptation and coordination training. In. J. A. Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training (pp. 221-245). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Simon, H. A., & Lea, G. (1974). Problem solving and rule induction: A unified view. In L. Gregg (Ed.), Knowledge and cognition (pp. 105-128). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Campbell, G. E., Milanovich, D. M., & Reynolds, A. M. (2001). Measuring teamwork mental models to support training needs assessment, de- velopment, and evaluation: Two empirical studies [Special issue]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 179-194. Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Zeisig, R. L., Acton, B., & McPherson, J. A. (1998). Team dimensional training. In J. A. Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.), Making deci- sions under stress: Implications for individual and team training (pp. 271-297). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert roles and informa- tion exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244-265. Stout, R. J., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (1996). The role of shared mental models in developing team situational awareness: Implications for training. Train- ing Research Journal, 2, 85-116. Straus, S. G. (1996). Getting a clue: The effects of communication media and infor- mation distribution on participation and performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Small Group Research, 27, 115—142. Sundstrom, E., de Meuse, K. P., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120-133.
PROCESS MAPPING AND SHARED COGNITION 151
Slithers, D. (1998, April). Representations for scaffolding collaborative inquiry on ill- structured problems. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, San Diego, CA.
Symons, R. T., &. Jacobs, R. A. (1997). Multi-level process mapping: A tool for cross-functional quality analysis. Production and Inventory Management Journal, 38, 71-75.
Tanskanen, T., Buhanist, P., & Kostama, H. (1998). Exploring the diversity of teams. International journal of Production Economics, 56-57, 611-619.
Volpe, C. E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Spector, P. E. (1996). The impact of cross-training on team functioning: An empirical investigation. Human Fac- tors, 38, 87-100.
Wittenbaum, G. M., & Stasser, G. (1996). Management of information in small groups. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What's social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups (pp. 3-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wittenbaum, G. M., Stasser, G., & Merry, C. J. (1996). Tacit coordination in antici- pation of small group task completion, journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 129-152.
Wittenbaum, G. M., Vaughan, S. I., & Stasser, G. (1998). Coordination in task- performing groups. In R. S. Tindale & L. Heath (Eds.), Theory and research on small groups: Vol. 4. Social psychological applications to social issues (pp. 177-204). New York: Plenum.
Yetton, P. W., & Bottger, P. C. (1982). Individual versus group problem solving: An empirical test of a best-member strategy. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 29, 307-321.
15 2 FIORE AND SCHOOLER
