IJSEP, 2006, 4, 369-375 © 2006 West Virginia University
Team Cognition and Expert Teams: Developing Insights from Cross-Disciplinary Analysis of Exceptional Teams Stephen M. Fiore
and
Eduardo Salas
University of Central Florida
Abstract
The sports sciences have long been involved in investigations of team process and performance; nonetheless, there is a surprising paucity of cross-disciplinary interaction between researchers in team cognition and sports psychology. The overarching purpose of this invited special issue is to redress this problem by providing an outlet for leading researchers in the field of team cognition to discuss their own and related work in the context of sports psychology. The cognitive processes arising during the complex and dynamic interaction of teams are the focus of this special issue. In order to ground these discussions, in this lead article to our special issue we discuss some of the key concepts emerging from the literature on team cognition. First, we briefly describe the study of cognition in teamwork and then we discuss the etymology of a subset of key concepts emerging from this study. Our goal is to highlight the utility of such discussions and provide some initial insights for how to strengthen cross-disciplinary research.
The sports sciences have long been involved in investigations of team process and performance, nonetheless, there is a surprising paucity of cross-disciplinary interaction between researchers in team cognition and sports psychology. The overarching purpose of this invited special issue is to redress this problem by providing an outlet for leading researchers in the field of team cognition to discuss their own and related work in the context of sports psychology. The cognitive processes arising during the complex and dynamic interaction of teams are the focus of this special issue. Specifically, regardless of the context, team members must have a requisite set of knowledge enabling them to perform their team tasks, and our goal is to discuss how theoretical and empirical approaches can inform one another across domains. Contributors to this special issue discuss how it is that team process and performance are impacted by inter-individual and intra-individual factors and discuss this in the context of sports teams. To ground this, in this introduction to our special issue we discuss some of the key concepts emerging Corresponding author: Dr. Stephen Fiore, University of Central Florida, 3100 Technology Parkway, Orlando, FL 32826; Email:
[email protected]
369
IJSEP-4-4.indb 369
11/15/06 8:49:15 AM
S. M. Fiore, E. Salas from the literature on team cognition (Salas & Fiore, 2004). We describe the study of cognition in teamwork and then discuss some of the concepts emerging from this study. Our goal is to highlight the rationalization for this special issue via analysis of some of the key terms emerging from this research.
Team Cognition
In the summary to their recent volume on team cognition, Fiore and Salas (2004) noted that there was continuing discussion of the need to understand team coordination. Within the numerous views of team cognition, implicit in each was the notion that the manifestation of cognition within teams is the seamless execution of coordinated behaviors. They argued that team coordination may indeed be the overarching goal of team cognition. Within this context, Fiore and Salas (2004) noted that conceptualizations of team cognition could fit under a general theme of awareness or communication. In particular, researchers have viewed team cognition either as a type of awareness that is used to bind a team’s actions and/or they have considered team communication, either implicit or explicit, as the vehicle through which team cognition is developed or scaffolded in order for coordination to result. Given the cross-disciplinary nature of what we are trying to achieve with this special issue, we lead it off with a brief consideration of the etymological origins of these concepts. In cross-disciplinary work there is often much discussion of language and terminology (see Fiore, Rosen, Garfield, & Finkelstein, 2005) and the need to build a common ground for terminology so that successful communications can occur. As such, it is sometimes informative to examine not only the usage of terms, but also their origins. Following the classic purpose of etymology, we can garner “insights into the current usage of a word... gained from a full knowledge of the word’s history” (Merriam-Webster, 1986, p.xii). From this, “a better understanding of language generally can be achieved from knowing how words are related to other words” (p. xii). Within this context, at the outset of this special issue, we consider the etymology of a subset of the common terms used in team cognition research (refer to Table 1 below for the etymology of these terms). First, consider the word aware, which as Fiore and Salas (2004) noted, awareness in general, and shared awareness in particular, consistently emerges as a key concept in team cognition research. Essentially, team cognition researchers speak of the general need for shared awareness within teams. This includes concepts such as team metacognition (e.g., Hinsz, 2004) or mutual understanding of team knowledge and capabilities (e.g., Rentsch & Woehr, 2004) as well as how tools and methods can sometimes be developed to build shared awareness (e.g., Fiore & Schooler, 2004; Gutwin & Greenberg, 2004). Interestingly, the word aware originates from wary and cautious, but, when considering the origin of the word wary, where alert and attentive are combined, we can begin to see its relevance to team cognition. In particular, we could state that effective teams develop their awareness via alert and attentive consideration of their environment. From this we can see the relevance of our second term, communication, another factor highlighted by Fiore and Salas (2004) in
370
IJSEP-4-4.indb 370
11/15/06 8:49:15 AM
Team Cognition and Expert Teams the conclusion to their volume on team cognition. For example, communication has been described as a “window to team cognition” (Cooke, Salas, Kiekel, & Bell, 2004) and may be the method whereby individual cognitive components actually become integrated within the team. Communication’s Latin origins are communicare, which means “to impart, share” and literally, “to make common.” Thus, one could state that it is through team processes such as communication that teams come to share or make common the awareness (cf. Fussell & Krauss, 1989) that has been collected through their alert and attentive monitoring of the environment. Next we have coordination, as discussed, perhaps one of the most prevalent terms used in team cognition research. But it is useful to juxtapose this important word with other similar terms often used in the context of teamwork. Specifically, we can examine the etymology for collaborate and cooperate, two components of teamwork that are often used interchangeably with coordination, and see some useful distinctions. Both cooperation and collaboration have a similar origin in that they are derived from a combination of words meaning “work” and “together.” Formally, the word cooperate means to work together for mutual benefit or in compliance (Merriam-Webster, 1986). It has as its original Latin derivation com, which means “with,” and operari, which means “to work.” Similarly, the term collaborate means to “labor together,” and although from Late Latin, similarly derives from com but with laborare, which means “to labor.” But it is coordination that is unique in that it has to do essentially with some form of harmonious functioning of distinct parts or to produce a common action or movement in a smooth way (Merriam-Webster, 1986). Furthermore, it is etymologically distinct from the others in that it is derived from three separate concepts—“arrange,” “order,” and “together.” Thus, coordination was derived independent of anything to do with human interaction, and perhaps most cogently captures what we mean by effective teamwork—the appropriate sequencing and integration of team inputs.
Teamwork Term
Etymology1
Aware
“1095, gewær, from ge- intens. prefix + wær “wary, cautious,” from P.Gmc. *ga-waraz (see wary - 1552, from O.E. wær “prudent, aware, alert, wary,” from P.Gmc. *waraz (cf. O.N. varr “attentive”).”
Communication
“c.1384, from O.Fr. communicacion, from L. communicationem (nom. communicatio), from communicare “to impart, share,” lit. “to make common,” from communis (see common).”
Collaboration
“1871, back-formation from collaborator (1802), from Fr. collaborateur, from L. collaboratus, pp. of collaborare “work with,” from com- “with” + labore “to work.””
Cooperation
“1398, from L.L. cooperationem “a working together,” from cooperari “to work together,” from com- “with” + operari “to work”.”
Coordination
“1605, from L.L. coordinationem (nom. coordinatio), from L. coordinare “to set in order, arrange,” from com- “together” + ordinatio “arrangement,” from ordo “order.””
All etymologies taken directly from the Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved July 20, 2006, from http://www.etymonline.com
1
371
IJSEP-4-4.indb 371
11/15/06 8:49:16 AM
S. M. Fiore, E. Salas In short, we have presented this brief etymological analysis not as an academic exercise, but rather to clarify the meaning of such foundational concepts through an understanding of their origins. With these concepts as our stepping off point, we invited researchers who have studied team cognition through the lenses of coordination, awareness, and communication. Contributors discuss these and related factors in an attempt to highlight how the underlying cognitive factors manifest themselves in dynamic team activities and how these activities subsequently alter the cognitive processes. Specifically, we have invited team researchers to provide their unique insights into the potential for cross-fertilization of theory, and methods from team cognition to sports teams research. In our first contribution, Reimer, Park, and Hinsz provide a review of how the informationprocessing approach to teams can inform both our understanding of shared cognition in sports teams as well as coordination in sports. In this they discuss a number of relevant empirical and theoretical issues surrounding team process and provide guidance for improving such factors in sports teams. Next, Rentsch and Davenport provide a review of the theoretical and empirical issues surrounding team member schema similarity and its utility in understanding team performance in sports. In their discussion they highlight a number of important constructs from the team process and performance literature and describe their potential relevance to sports teams. Pedersen and Cooke then describe some of the similarities between military command and control environments and “battles” on the field of American football. They use this as a stepping off point to discuss how methods and measures from team research using synthetic task environments may be able to inform improved diagnostic techniques for sports researchers. Finally, Cannon-Bowers and Bowers take a slightly different approach and suggest a more prudent path for generalizing from work teams to sports teams. They discuss the issues surrounding generalization of two important theoretical factors, that of interdependence and the opportunity to coordinate. Our special issue concludes with a commentary from researchers well-versed in sports psychology research. Ward and Eccles evaluate the contributions to this special issue from the standpoint of how theory and methods from team cognition research may be applicable to sports teams and what developments must precede the efficacious adaptation of this research to sports.
Summary
In sum, teamwork, by its very definition, is achieved when members interact interdependently and work together toward shared and valued goals. Further, expert teamwork involves the adaptation of coordination strategies (e.g., back-up behavior) through closed-loop communication and a sense of collective orientation so that they can reach these goals (e.g., Cannon-Bowers, & Salas, 2001; Eccles & Tenenbaum, 2004). As such, teamwork is more than work accomplished by a group of individuals, and we submit that teamwork can be viewed as the result of collective cognitive, behavioral, and attitudinal activity. Cognitive science has substantially influenced this study of teams, and it has been over a decade since the original applications of constructs from cognitive psychology were utilized to foster the development of the team cognition movement (e.g., CannonBowers & Salas, & Converse, 1993; Hutchins, 1991; Levine, Resnick, & Higgins, 1993;
372
IJSEP-4-4.indb 372
11/15/06 8:49:16 AM
Team Cognition and Expert Teams Orasanu & Salas, 1993; Thorsden & Klein, 1989; Weick & Roberts, 1993). Since then, much cross-disciplinary attention has focused on determining how cognitive processes contribute to effective team performance. What is invariant across these disciplines is the notion that shared information processing among group members has both inter- and intra-individual outcomes whereby constructs such as encoding, storage, and retrieval of information are thought to be equally applicable to both individuals and groups (e.g., Bowers, Salas, & Jentsch, 2006; Engestrom & Middleton, 1996; Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath, 1997; Larson & Christensen, 1993; Prietula, Carley, & Gasser, 1998; Stahl, 2006; Salas & Fiore, 2004; Thompson, Levine, & Messick, 1999; Tindale & Kameda, 2000). As our understanding of the team cognition construct matures we can now pursue the development of theoretically driven and empirically based guidelines for designing, managing, and developing expert teams. We suggest that, as the science of teams and team training matures, we must examine how these theories and findings apply to differing domains. Only in this way can we hope to address the variety of needs surrounding dynamic team functioning. This special issue represents one step toward integrating theories and methods across disciplines so as to lead to a better understanding of learning and performance at exceptional levels. Specifically, in order for team cognition research to achieve the broad power and scope that is necessary for it to benefit our understanding and improvement of team work, it is important for findings in one domain to be tested in a variety of domains. Toward this end, we hope this special issue promotes collaboration among research and practice and advances a dialogue between team researchers from differing disciplines.
R eferences
Bowers, C. A., Salas, E., & Jentsch, F. (Eds.). (2006). Creating high-tech teams: Practical guidance on work performance and technology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.), Current issues in individual and group decision making (pp. 221-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cannon-Bowers, J. A. & Salas, E. (2001). Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 195-202. Cooke, N. J., Salas, E., Kiekel, P. A., & Bell, B. (2004). Advances in measuring team cognition. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 83-106). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Eccles, D. W., & Tenenbaum, G. (2004). Why an expert team is more than a team of experts: A cognitive conceptualization of team coordination and communication in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, 542-560. Engestrom, Y. & Middleton, D. (Eds.). (1996). Cognition and communication at work. New York: Cambridge University Press. Fiore, S. M., & Salas, E. (2004). Why we need team cognition. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.)., Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 235-248). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Fiore, S. M., & Schooler, J. W. (2004). Process mapping and shared cognition: Teamwork and the development of shared problem models. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.)., Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 133-152). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
373
IJSEP-4-4.indb 373
11/15/06 8:49:16 AM
S. M. Fiore, E. Salas Fiore, S. M., Rosen, M., Garfield, K., & Finkelstein, N. (2005). Developing an interdisciplinary language for human-agent teams. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Fussell, S., & Krauss, R. (1989). The effects of intended audience on message production and comprehension: Reference in a common ground framework. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 203-219. Gutwin, C., & Greenberg, S. (2004). The importance of awareness for team cognition in distributed collaboration. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 177-201). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hinsz, V. B. (2004). Metacognition and mental models in groups: An illustration with metamemory of group recognition memory. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 33-58). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43-64. Hutchins, E. (1990). The technology of team navigation. In J. Galegher & R. E. Kraut (Eds.), Intellectual teamwork: Social and technological foundations of cooperative work (pp. 191-220). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 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. L., Resnick, L. B., & Higgins, E. T. (1993). Social foundations of cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 585-612. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (9th ed.). (1986). Springfield, MA: Merriam Webster. Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved July 20, 2006, from http://www.etymonline.com/index. php Orasanu, J., & Salas, E. (1993). Team decision making in complex environments. In G. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, & C. E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 327-345). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Prietula, M. J., Carley, K., & Gasser, L. (Eds.) (1998). Simulating organizations: Computational models of institutions and groups. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press/The MIT Press. Rentsch, J. R., & Woehr, D. J. (2004). Quantifying congruence in cognition: Social relations modeling and team member schema similarity. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 133-152). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Salas, E. & Fiore, S. M. (Eds.) (2004). Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance. Washington, D.C., America Psychological Association. Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Johnston, J. H. (1997). How can you turn a team of experts into an expert team? Emerging training strategies. In C. Zsambok & G. Klein (Eds.), Naturalistic decision-making (pp.359-370). Hillsdale, NJ:LEA. Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Boston: MIT Press. Thompson, L., Levine, J. M., & Messick, D. M. (Eds.) (1999). Shared cognition in organizations: The management of knowledge. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Thordsen, J. L., & Klein, G. A. (1989). Cognitive processes of the team mind. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Proceedings, 1, 46-49. Tindale, R. S., & Kameda, T. (2000). Social sharedness as a unifying theme for information processing in groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 123-140. Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357-381.
374
IJSEP-4-4.indb 374
11/15/06 8:49:16 AM
Team Cognition and Expert Teams
Acknowledgements
Creation and development of this special issue and the writing of this article was partially supported by Grant Number SBE0350345 from the National Science Foundation and by funding by Grant Number N000140610118 from the Office of Naval Research. The opinions and views of the authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the University of Central Florida, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, or the U.S. Government.
375
IJSEP-4-4.indb 375
11/15/06 8:49:16 AM
