Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation.

Abstract

This study describes the development and validity testing of a field measure of transactive memory systems. Transactive memory systems are especially important for teams designed to leverage members' expertise, but field research has lagged because there are no adequate measures of the construct. The author developed and tested a 15-item scale in a laboratory sample of 124 teams, a field sample of 64 Master of Business Administration consulting teams, and a field sample of 27 teams from technology companies. Results from the present study demonstrate that the scale is internally consistent, related to alternative measures and hypothesized causes and effects, and unrelated to theoretically distinct constructs, providing evidence of convergent, criterion-related, and discriminant validity. Suggestions for improving the scale, future validity testing, and possible boundary conditions are discussed.

Building the infrastructure: The effects of role identification behaviors on team cognition development and performance.

“…Teams that have developed accurate mental models through role identification behaviors are better able to communicate and integrate their efforts, performing their shared task more quickly and effectively (e.g., Edwards et al, 2006;Marks et al, 2000). Similarly, as a team's transactive memory system emerges through role identification exchanges, it enhances team performance by allowing members to efficiently divide responsibility and reduce their cognitive load, while remaining able to coordinate the sharing of expertise (e.g., Austin, 2003;Ellis, 2006;Lewis, 2003;Moreland & Myaskovsky, 2000). Therefore, we argue that team-interaction mental models and transactive memory act to convey the effects of role identification behaviors onto team performance, leading to the following hypothesis:…”

“…Although significant research has focused on exploring the potential benefits of these two cognitions on outcomes such as team performance and satisfaction (e.g., Austin, 2003;Edwards, Day, Arthur, & Bell, 2006;Ellis, 2006;Lewis, 2003;Pearsall & Ellis, 2006) as well as identifying their potential antecedents (e.g., Marks, Zaccaro, & Mathieu, 2000;Marks, Sabella, Burke, & Zaccaro, 2002), the processes and developmental phases underlying their emergence in newly formed teams have yet to be explored (e.g., Ilgen et al, 2005;Kozlowski & Bell, 2003;Lim & Klein, 2006;Mohammed & Dumville, 2001). It is clear that shared cognition does not develop automatically; it requires team members to engage in purposeful interpersonal interactions directed towards understanding their teammates' roles and capabilities (see Kozlowski, Gully, Nason & Smith, 1999;Lewis, Lange, & Gillis, 2005).…”

“…Specialization refers to the level of memory differentiation within the team, credibility refers to team members' beliefs about the reliability of other members' knowledge, and coordination refers to the ability of the team members to work together efficiently (e.g., Ellis & Bell, 2005;Lewis, 2003;Moreland & Myaskovsky, 2000). As each of these three dimensions represents an indicator of the underlying latent construct, they are viewed collectively and together reflect perceptions regarding the level of transactive memory system functioning within the team (e.g., Lewis, 2003).…”

“…Transactive memory consists of three dimensions: specialization, credibility, and coordination (e.g., Lewis, 2003;Liang, Moreland, & Argote, 1995;Moreland & Myaskovsky, 2000). Specialization refers to the level of memory differentiation within the team, credibility refers to team members' beliefs about the reliability of other members' knowledge, and coordination refers to the ability of the team members to work together efficiently (e.g., Ellis & Bell, 2005;Lewis, 2003;Moreland & Myaskovsky, 2000).…”

“…Transactive memory was measured using the scale developed by Lewis (2003). The scale contains 15 items (5 items per dimension) designed to assess specialization (e.g., "Different team members are responsible for expertise in different areas"), credibility (e.g., "I trusted that other members' knowledge about the project was credible"), and coordination (e.g., "Our team worked together in a well-coordinated fashion").…”