The purpose of this research was to develop and test a theory of decision-making performance for hierarchical teams with distributed expertise. This theory identifies 3 core team-level constructs (team informity, staff validity, and hierarchical sensitivity) and 3 constructs below the team level that are central to decision-making accuracy in hierarchical teams with distributed expertise. Two studies are presented to test the proposed theory. A total of 492 college students worked on a computerized command-and-control simulator. Results from these studies are discussed in light of the theory. Similarities and differences in results across the 2 studies are discussed, as are potential modifications of the theory considering the data. Finally, implications of the theory for applied team contexts are elaborated.Much of human behavior in organizations occurs in teams. This is particularly true at present, due in part to a shift in the 1980s and early 1990s from organizing work around individual jobs toward organizing around larger clusters of tasks assigned to teams (Ilgen, 1992). Given the ubiquity of groups or teams, it is not surprising that a great deal of research has been conducted on them. Although the amount of research activity has varied across

The authors propose (a) that team members' general cognitive ability (g) and conscientiousness are key resources for hierarchical decision-making teams with distributed expertise; (b) that a conjunctive model is most appropriate for capturing staff members' standing on these attributes; and (c) that in addition to main effects, staff attributes interact with those of the leader to determine team performance. Results from a study of 51 four-person teams performing a computerized decision-making task show that decision accuracy was highest when both the leader and staff (denned conjunctively) were high on g and conscientiousness. Post hoc analyses suggest reactions to the weakest member differed depending on whether the member was low in g or conscientiousness. Low-g members were helped, whereas low-conscientiousness members were ignored.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract