Michael Shulman's Shared Notes

Powered by 🌱Roam Garden

MTS process

  • Pulling largely from @Zaccaro.Dubrow.ea2020 and @Shuffler.Jimenez-Rodriguez.ea2015 make-public

  • Behavior Processes

  • MTS Emergent States

    • Cognitive States

      • Overview:
        • shared interaction mental models = shared understanding of how teams should interact normally (Rentsch & Staniewicz, 2012)
        • transactive memory = shared knowledge of the capabilities of other teams (Moreland 1999)
        • strategic models = shared understanding of MTS mission, and links between what the teams are capable of and accomplishing the distal goal (Mathieu et al. 2001)
      • Detail:
        • Shared interaction mental models are important for all types of MTSs. Examples:
          • Internal, low CTD, physical MTSs:
            • "multiteam interaction shared mental model" --> between-team coordination --> MTS performance (Murase et al. 2014)
            • shared understanding of MTS task --> more open, unique info sharing --> MTS effectiveness (Jinenez-Rodriguez, 2012)
            • frame of reference training --> understanding of MTS problem --> between-team coordination --> MTS performance (Firth et al. 2015)
          • External, physical MTSs:
            • Lack of shared consensus on work objectives --> HURTS MTS coordination (Wijnmaalen et al. 2018) (both internal and external MTS)
              • tech_helps PM software may make these more explicit and visible to all team members - not just leaders who have the whole picture in their minds.
                • Related to
                  strategic models = shared understanding of MTS mission, and links between what the teams are capable of and accomplishing the distal goal (Mathieu et al. 2001)
          • External, high CTD MTS
            • MTS cognitive models should have accurate problem models, and shared understanding of how teams are connected and respond to different situations (Anania et al. 2017)
            • May have difficulty with overlapping lexicons, unfamiliar languages. Should try to adopt common frames for interpreting words (Waring et al. 2018).
              • Shared lexicons are a bigger issue in external, and in high CTD, MTSs.
              • tech_helps Tech could mediate this:
                • Could build a library of potential disconnects, perhaps even in direct communication between people coming from different functional backgrounds, so that the tech (AI here, really) can predict when something might get misinterpreted, and highlight that and give what the term means to the person sending the message.
                • In a group meeting, it can listen in and pop up the meaning of difficult words or acronyms, or yin-yang words that could mean different things to different people there
            • Likely to be more important to have transactive memory systems in external MTSs, especially those with high CTD, where are likely to have different org knowledge, functional expertise, disciplinary expertise
              • (Studies where TMS were important were almost all external and moderate to high CTD: Caldwell 2005, Healey et al. 2009, Henry et al. 2016, Liang & Jin 2010)
        • Physical vs. intellectual MTSs - will need different cognitive models:

    • 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)

      • 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?
        • 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?
      • psychological safety = climate that promotes willingness to speak up within the collective (Edmondson 2003)
      • cohesion = Strength of bonds holding team to MTS (Gross & Martin 1952)
        • MTS-AI_challenge How is cohesion affected if other teams in the MTS are machines?
          • How does the presence of machines in an MTS affect entitativity?
      • goal commitment = shared willingness of team to allocate effort towards distal goal (DeChurch & Zaccaro 2010)
      • 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)
        • MTS-AI_challenge For MTSs with AI, have to also consider trust as how we trust machines - that's a big, existing field in AI literature
      • climate for information sharing (Shuffler et al. 2015)
      • Perceived advantages for information sharing (Shuffler et al. 2015)

    • Interpersonal processes:

  • From @Shuffler.Jimenez-Rodriguez.ea2015
  • Repeated for diagram
MTS process