Modeling team knowledge sharing and team flexibility: The role of within-team competition

He, Hongwei; Baruch, Yehuda; Lin, Chieh‐Peng

doi:10.1177/0018726713508797

Cited by 82 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 139 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies have shown that teams plagued with a hidden-profile issue have problems combining the knowledge held by individual members (Stasser & Stewart, 1992). To make matters more complicated, team members cannot be forced to integrate their knowledge inputs (Staples & Webster, 2008;He, Baruch, & Lin, 2014). i For purpose of brevity, internal knowledge integration will be referred to as knowledge integration in the paper.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge Integration and Team Effectiveness: A Team Goal Orientation Approach

Mehta

2017

Decision Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge integration is critical to achieving both objective and subjective team effectiveness goals. Integrating knowledge resources, however, is a challenging activity for teams. Converging the theories of team goal orientation and knowledge integration, in this study we examine how team goal orientation impacts a team's internal knowledge integration, and how knowledge integration, in turn, affects multiple dimensions of team effectiveness. Data were collected from 90 self‐directed teams engaged in an extended business simulation, where each team acted as a top management team of a business firm. Results indicated that both learning and performance‐prove goal orientations positively influenced team knowledge integration, and knowledge integration impacted both objective and subjective dimensions of team effectiveness. We also found partial support for a mediating role of internal knowledge integration. The study recommends a goal orientation approach to integrating knowledge in teams and proposes that this approach has significant implications for both research and practice.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge Integration and Team Effectiveness: A Team Goal Orientation Approach

Mehta

2017

Decision Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A lack of commitment to team goals reduces feelings of investment and can derail action. This might be especially problematic in complex domains, where 'hypercompetition' between subteams can arise (Brown, Crawford, & Darongkamas, 2000;He, Baruch, & Lin, 2014). This occurs when intrateam members favour in-group goals over collective interteam goals and so will prioritize the goals of their own team.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Offence or defence? Approach and avoid goals in the multi‐agency emergency response to a simulated terrorism attack

Power

Alison

2016

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When operating in multiteam settings, it is important that goals are cohesive between team members, especially in high‐stakes, risky, and uncertain environments. This study explored goal consistency during a multiteam emergency response simulation. A total of n = 50 commanders from the UK Police Services, Fire and Rescue Services, and Ambulance Services took part in a simulated terrorism exercise, who were split into n = 13 teams. Each team responded to the same simulated terrorist event, which was based on a ‘Marauding Terrorist Firearms Attack’ (MTFA) at a city centre train station. Data were collected using electronically time‐stamped ‘decision logs’ and post‐incident questionnaires that measured team members’ self‐reported goals. Goals that were ‘attack’ focussed (e.g., ‘treat patients’) were coded as ‘approach’ (i.e., focussed on achieving positive outcomes) and goals that were ‘defence’ focussed (e.g., protect emergency responders) were coded as ‘avoid’ (i.e., focussed on avoiding negative outcomes). It emerged that different agencies prioritized different goal types; Fire commanders initially prioritized avoid goals but then increased approach orientations, Ambulance commanders were consistently approach oriented, and Police commanders showed goal conflict (tensions between adopting approach and avoid goals). Despite goal differences, participants rated that their interagency goals were consistent in a post‐scenario questionnaire, suggesting that commanders were unaware of the nuanced differences between their agency‐specific objectives. At the multiteam level, teams who predominantly held attack/approach goals were significantly faster at decision logging early in the incident, yet defend/avoid teams were faster at decision logging later into the incident. Implications for multiteam coordination are discussed. Practitioner points The ‘save life’ goal in multiteam emergency response settings is vague and open to interpretation. This can impede coordination when agencies assume that they are working towards the same ‘save life’ goal, but are actually focussed on different and role‐specific objectives with regard to how they will achieve it. A joint decision model that helps to clarify agency‐specific tactical priorities may be more useful in multiteam contexts than one that uses ambiguous and abstract (i.e., ‘save life’) interagency goals. A focus on achieving positive outcomes (attack/approach goal; e.g., ‘treat patients’) can speed up decision‐making during the early stages of an incident, but when the situation becomes more complex and dynamic, then a focus on avoiding negative outcomes (defend/avoid goal; e.g., protect emergency responders from harm) might lead to faster action. When responding to complex emergencies, practitioners should focus on satisficing to achieve ‘least‐worst’ outcomes rather trying to maximize gains.

show abstract

“…This aspect was not studied in this project and is worth further study, partly because there is some degree of inherent competition within teams in knowledge intensive organizations and partly because there is contradictory data in the literature that relates to how significantly affected team performance would be (He et al, 2013). …”

Section: Limitations and Future Research Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Team Innovation in the Research and Development (R&D) Organization: Critical Determinants of Team Effectiveness

Krishna

2015

Ther Innov Regul Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teams are the principal vehicle in developing new drug development strategy and executing the tasks required to accomplish those objectives. This project evaluated the key drivers for team innovation performance (defined as outcomes). Team outcomes included new information creation, compression of development time, expansion of image, learning, capability development, growth satisfaction, and overall effectiveness.The two key research questions related to how team innovation performance are assessed in the branded pharmaceutical industry, and what the drivers for optimal team performance outcomes were. Results revealed that while good correlations individually existed between team outcomes (dependent variable) and tested independent variables (autonomy, coaching, climate, proactive personality, empowering leadership, and transactive memory systems), the best predictors identified through multivariate regression analysis were leader and peer coaching and transactive memory systems.The implications of these findings are examined and specific recommendations proposed. The limitations and avenues for further research are elaborated.

show abstract

Modeling team knowledge sharing and team flexibility: The role of within-team competition

Cited by 82 publications

References 139 publications

Knowledge Integration and Team Effectiveness: A Team Goal Orientation Approach

Knowledge Integration and Team Effectiveness: A Team Goal Orientation Approach

Offence or defence? Approach and avoid goals in the multi‐agency emergency response to a simulated terrorism attack

Managing Team Innovation in the Research and Development (R&D) Organization: Critical Determinants of Team Effectiveness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About