Affective/Motivational States

• Overview:
  • goal commitment = shared willingness of team to allocate effort towards distal goal (DeChurch & Zaccaro 2010)
  • social identity or collective identity = strength of commitment of team members to team/MTS/both (Connaughton & Williams 2012)
    • MTS-AI_challenge This will mean something different for machines. How to program them? - support what the team desires, or what's best for the MTS distal goal? Which of these is more important?
  • cohesion = Strength of bonds holding team to MTS (Gross & Martin 1952)
  • collective efficacy or efficacy = shared confidence that teams can work together and achieve distal goal (Bandura 1997)
  • trust = Shared, felt reliability that interactions and behaviors will occur. Especially in ambiguous or threatening situations (Lewicki & Bunker 1996)
  • psychological safety = climate that promotes willingness to speak up within the collective (Edmondson 2003)
• Detail:
  • goal commitment
    • internal, moderate CTD, physical MTS linked to positive outcomes *Hoegl et al. 2004)
    • external, high CTD, intellectual MTS - willingness to exhibit / grant leadership to others; and that focusing on team goals over MTS hurt overall performance (Carter, 2016)
    • training together increased task cohesion and overall goal commitment (McGuire, 2016).)
  • trust and psychological safety
    • Internal, physical MTS: trust --> between-team info sharing, development of MTS TMS, MTS performance
    • External, high CTD, physical MTS: lower trust --> info hoarding within teams (Cianciolo & DeCostanza, 2012)
    • psychological safety within team (but not between team) --> more speaking up across teams (Bienenfeld & Grote, 2014)(b)
  • social identity or collective identity
    • Group boundaries around team and MTS will each foster identity. Develop multilevel identification with both team & MTS
      • can be challenging for external, high CTD MTSs where members more likely to identify with team than with MTS
    • MTS identity, or team identity?
      • Lack of identity with MTS hurts effectiveness - "particularly by inhibiting information sharing and communication processes and/or increasing between-team conflict (e.g.,, Cianciolo & DeCostanza 2012, Cuijpers et al. 2016, Wijnmaalen et al., 2018)" (p. 492 quote)
      • On the other hand - study with internal, low CTD, physical MTS argued that identifying with MTS increased ambiguity and uncertainty for component teams; thereby raising cognitive loads and using resources otherwise needed for goal attainment; thereby hurting MTS performance. Especially when task complexity was high. (Porck et al. 2019)
        • tech_helps If lack of identity hurts MTS effectiveness through mediators, can tech help address those mediators? - it sounds like it's helpful to have team-level identity, but that it hurts via mediators.
      • In other words - team vs. MTS identity tension leads to countervailing forces (DeChurch & Zaccaro, 2013)