| Pinning Down Collective Cognition |
| | Johnson, Phyllis | Cranfield U. | P.Johnson@cranfield.ac.uk | 00+44 1604 592 822 |
| | This paper focuses on the concept of collective cognition. First, it establishes how prevalent the use of the concept has been in the MOC and wider strategy and TMT literatures. It then goes on to highlight the lack of clarity that surrounds the concept in terms of; theoretical underpinning, operationalisation and relationships to behaviour in organisations (e.g. consensual decision making). However, the bulk of the paper is concerned with the extrapolation of four possible explanations of the nature of collective cognition and its relationship to collective behaviour in organisations from the extant literature. Several literatures are reviewed, these include; cognitive science, socio-cognition, MOC, human factors (cockpit ergonomics) and group decision making. The four explanations are then used to suggest a set of research questions for future research. |
| | Keywords: Collective ; Cognition |
| On Team Mental Models: The Role of Cognitive Convergence in Problem Solving and Team Cohesiveness |
| | Monier, Eric Lee | U. of Tennessee, Knoxville | emonier@utk.edu | (423) 946-7744 |
| | This study examined how the emergence of team mental models was related to
two team effectiveness criteria: performance on a problem solving task, and
perceptions of team cohesiveness. Participants' mental models of the task
were assessed using a cognitive mapping technique (Pathfinder Analysis).
Cognitive convergence was defined as the development of similar cognitive
structures among team members over time. It was hypothesized that cognitive
convergence would be positively related to both team effectiveness criteria.
Measured at the individual level (n = 85), cognitive convergence was
positively correlated with team solution quality. When measured at the team
level (n = 17), however, this correlation failed to reach significance.
Regression models conducted at both the individual and team levels showed
that cognitive convergence was important in predicting team performance
after controlling for prior task knowledge and cognitive similarity. In
addition, an ANOVA model revealed that, on average, individuals who
displayed cognitive convergence (as opposed to divergence, or no change)
tended to belong to high performing teams. Analyses of team cohesiveness
ratings yielded mixed results. Cohesiveness failed to correlate
significantly with cognitive convergence at both the individual and team
levels. Regression analyses also failed to achieve significance. However,
a mixed-level ANOVA revealed that teams displaying cognitive convergence
had significantly higher cohesiveness ratings than teams displaying
cognitive divergence. Overall, these findings suggest that the most
effective teams contained members who exhibited diverse mental models at
first, but showed cognitive convergence over time. |
| | Keywords: problem solving; team mental model; cohesiveness |
| Changing Collective Cognition, Theories in Action, Paradigms, or Schemas: A Process Model for Strategic Change |
| | Mezias, John M. | U. of Miami | jmezias@miami.edu | (305)-284-1073 |
| | Grinyer, Peter | New York U. | pgrinyer@stern.nyu.edu | (212)-998-0200 |
| | Guth, William | New York U. | wguth@stern.nyu.edu | (212)998-0214 |
| | Firms face increasing pressures to change their strategies and adjust to rapidly changing environmental threats and opportunities. Successful strategic change requires cognitive reassessment of organizational competencies, environments, threats, and opportunities. During the last decade there has been an increasing use of cognitive processes for helping top management teams to overcome outdated beliefs and develop a new collective understanding to better facilitate strategic change. Such processes facilitate team learning, better understanding of changing strategic conditions, and shared ownership of new strategic visions, directions, and initiatives. This paper focuses on a central feature of such processes, the facilitated strategic workshop with the top management team, and draws upon the theoretical literature to explain successful change facilitation practices from Europe and the United States. |
| | Keywords: Reorientation; Facilitation; Cognition |
| Perspective Taking Among Distributed Workers: The Effect of Distance on Shared Mental Models of Work |
| | Hinds, Pamela J. | Stanford U. | phinds@leland.stanford.edu | (650)723-3843 |
| | The expansion of the Internet provides an increasing number and variety of
opportunities for people to be geographically distant from the artifacts on which
they are working and from their teammates. But, little is known about how these
distributed work arrangements effect teams' ability to develop a shared perspective
on a work task and coordinate action. This study examined the effect of geographic
distance and unshared context on shared mental models of work. In an experiment,
47 dyads were co-located or distributed as they gathered information needed for a
joint decision. Based on individual summaries explaining their decision rationale,
participants' mental models were captured using cognitive mapping techniques and
compared within dyads. Analyses examined how distance (co-located versus
distributed dyads) and shared context (using the same technology versus different
technology) affected the extent to which participants had a common image of the
work task. The data suggest that distributed workers have less overlap in their
representation of the task and are less cohesive than co-located workers. Co-located
and distributed workers also had less overlap in their representation of the work context.
Further examination indicated that contextual information is rarely discussed amongst
distributed workers. Implications for managing distributed workers and designing technology
are discussed. |
| | Keywords: distributed work; shared mental models; perspective-taking |