research-article

Productivity in an Era of Multi-Teaming: The Role of Information Dashboards and Shared Cognition in Team Performance

Authors:

Anita Williams WoolleyAuthors Info & Claims

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 2, Issue CSCW

Article No.: 62, Pages 1 - 18

https://doi.org/10.1145/3274331

Published: 01 November 2018 Publication History

Abstract

When and why do information dashboards enhance team productivity? We explore this question in the context of project teams whose members have to work across multiple teams at the same time. We expected multi-teaming, especially that involving a high variety in team members, would have a negative effect on team performance by impairing a team's transactive memory system (TMS), a critical form of shared cognition allowing members to keep track of who knows what. Further, we expected the use of an information dashboard with member skills could combat the harmful effects of high-variety multi-teaming. To test our hypotheses experimentally, we developed an online game (Knowledge Worker's Dilemma) that simulates the coordination decisions that professionals face in app development teams. Results show multi-teaming hurt team performance by reducing TMS; use of an information dashboard benefited high-variety teams and, surprisingly, hurt the performance of low-variety teams. Potential explanations and implications are discussed.

References

[1]

J. R. Austin. 2003. Transactive memory in organizational groups: The effects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 5, 866--878.

[2]

J. Baschab and J. Piot. 2007. Executives guide to Information Technology. Wiley, New York, NY.

Digital Library

[3]

F. Bertolotti, E. Mattarelli, M. Mortensen, M. O'Leary, and V. Incerti. 2013. How many teams should we manage at once? The effect of multiple team membership, collaborative technologies, and polychronicity on team performance. International Conference on Information Systems. Association for Information Systems, Milan, Italy.

[4]

F. Bertolotti, E. Mattarelli, M. Vignoli, and D. M. Macrì. 2015. Exploring the relationship between multiple team membership and team performance: The role of social networks and collaborative technology. Research Policy, 44, 4, 911--924.

[5]

W. J. Browne, H. Goldstein, and J. Rasbash. 2001. Multiple membership multiple classification (MMMC) models. Statistical Modeling, 1, 2, 103--124.

[6]

J. S. Bunderson. 2003. Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 4, 557--591.

[7]

K. A. Chan. 2014. Multiple project team membership and performance: Empirical evidence from engineering project teams. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 17, 1, 76--90.

[8]

S. Choi, H. Lee, and Y. Yoo. 2010. The Impact of Information Technology and Transactive Memory Systems on Knowledge. MIS Quarterly, 34, 4, 855--870.

Digital Library

[9]

M. A. Cronin and L. R. Weingart. 2007. Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. The Academy of Management Review, 32, 3, 761--773.

[10]

J. N. Cummings and M. R. Haas. 2012. So many teams, so little time: Time allocation matters in geographically dispersed teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 3, 316--341.

[11]

L. A. DeChurch, and J. Mesmer-Magnus. 2010. The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1, 32--53.

[12]

P. F. Drucker. 1999. Knowledge Worker Productivity: The biggest challenge. California Management Review. 41, 2, 79--95.

[13]

D. Engel, A. W. Woolley, L. X. Jing, C. F. Chabris, T. W. Malone. 2014. Reading the mind in the eyes or reading between the lines? Theory of mind predicts collective intelligence equally well online and face-to-face. PLoS ONE, 9, 12, 1--16.

[14]

S. Ferriani, G. Cattani, and C. Baden-Fuller. 2009. The relational antecedents of project-entrepreneurship: Network centrality, team composition and project performance. Research Policy, 3, 10, 1545--1558.

[15]

P. H. Gray. 2000. The effects of knowledge management systems on emergent teams: Towards a research model. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, 2, 175--191.

[16]

M. R. Haas and M. T. Hansen. 2005. When using knowledge can hurt performance: the value of organizational capabilities in a management consulting company. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 1, 1--24.

[17]

Andrew Hayes. 2013. Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press, New York, NY.

[18]

R. Hodge. 2016. How multi-teaming affects individuals and teams. Ph.D. Dissertation. Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia, USA.

[19]

A. B. Hollingshead. 1998. Retrieval processes in transactive memory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 3, 659--671.

[20]

W. J. Hopp and M. P. Van Oyen. 2004. Agile workforce evaluation: A framework for cross-training and coordination. IIE Transactions, 36, 10, 919--940.

[21]

E. H. Hwang, P. V. Singh, and L. Argote. 2015. Knowledge sharing in online communities: Learning to cross geographic and hierarchical boundaries. Organization Science, 26, 6, 1593--1611.

Digital Library

[22]

Knowledge Worker's Dilemma. 2016. An Online Team Simulation Game. Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved from https://cmukwd.herokuapp.com.

[23]

J. Koopman, M. Howe, J. Hollenbeck, and H. Sin. 2015. Small sample mediation testing: Misplaced confidence in bootstrapped confidence intervals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1, 194.

[24]

K. Lewis. 2003. Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 4, 587--604.

[25]

K. Lewis and B. Herndon. 2011. Transactive memory systems: Current issues and future research directions. Organization Science, 22, 5, 1254--1265.

Digital Library

[26]

D. W. Liang, R. Moreland, and L. Argote. 1995. Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating factor of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 21, 384--393.

[27]

J. G. March and H. A. Simon. 1958. Organizations. Wiley, New York, NY.

[28]

G. Mark, V. Gonzalez, and J. Harris. 2005. No task left behind? Examining the nature of fragmented work. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in CS (CHI '05). ACM Press, New York, NY, 321--330.

Digital Library

[29]

A. P. Massey, M. M. Montoya-Weiss, and Y. Hung. 2003. Because time matters: Temporal coordination in global virtual project teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19, 4, 129--155.

Digital Library

[30]

J. E. Mathieu, J. R. Hollenbeck, D. van Knippenberg, and D. R. Ilgen. 2017. A century of work teams in the journal of applied psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 3, 452--467.

[31]

P. R. Milgrom and J. Roberts. 1992. Economics, organization, and management. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

[32]

R. L. Moreland and L. Myaskovsky. 2000. Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory or improved communication? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 1, 117--133.

[33]

M. Mortensen, A. W. Woolley, and M. O'Leary. 2007. Conditions enabling effective multiple team membership. In K. Crowston, S. Sieber, & E. Wynn (eds.), Virtuality and Virtualization. International Federation for Information Processing. 236, 215--228. Springer US, Boston, MA.

[34]

M. B. O'Leary, M. Mortensen, and A. W. Woolley. 2011. Multiple team membership: A theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams.The Academy of Management Review, 36, 3, 461--478.

[35]

M. B. O'Leary, A. W. Woolley, and M. Mortensen. 2012. Multiteam membership in relation to multi team systems. In S. J. Zaccaro, M. A. Marks, L. DeChurch (eds.), Multiteam Systems: An Organization Form for Dynamic and Complex Environments. 141--172. Routledge, New York, NY.

[36]

T. Opsahl. 2013. Triadic closure in two-mode networks: Redefining the global and local clustering coefficients. Social Networks, 35, 2, 159--167.

[37]

M. J. Pearsall and V. Venkataramani. 2014. Overcoming asymmetric goals in teams: The interactive roles of team learning orientation and team identification. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 3, 735--748.

[38]

R Core Team. 2012. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.

[39]

J. Rasbash and H. Goldstein. 1994. Efficient analysis of mixed hierarchical and cross-classified random structures using a multilevel model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 19, 4, 337--350.

[40]

Y. Ren and L. Argote. 2011. Transactive Memory Systems 1985--2010: An Integrative Framework of Key Dimensions, Antecedents, and Consequences. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 1, 189--229.

[41]

Y. Ren, K. M. Carley, and L. Argote. 2006. The contingent effects of transactive memory: When is it more beneficial to know what others know? Management Science, 52, 5, 671--682.

Digital Library

[42]

J. S. Rubinstein, D. E. Meyer, and J. E. Evans. 2001. Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 4, 763--797.

[43]

B. Sparrow, J. Liu, and D. M. Wegner. 2011. Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333, 6043, 776--778.

[44]

E. Sundstrom, K. P. de Meuse, and D. Futrell. 1990. Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 2, 120--133.

[45]

D. Tingley, T. Yamamoto, K. Hirose, L. Keele, K. Imai. 2013. Mediation: R Package for Causal Mediation Analysis. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mediation.

[46]

A. Trockman, S. Zhou, C. Kästner, and B. Vasilescu. 2018. Adding Sparkle to Social Coding: An Empirical Study of Repository Badges in the npm Ecosystem. International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE, ACM.

Digital Library

[47]

Bogdan Vasilescu, Kelly Blincoe, Qi Xuan, Casey Casalnuovo, Daniela Damian, Premkumar Devanbu, and Vladimir Filkov. 2016. The sky is not the limit: multitasking across GitHub projects. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE '16). ACM Press, New York, NY, 994--1005.

Digital Library

[48]

Jeffrey Warshaw, Steve Whittaker, Tara Matthews, and Barton A. Smith. 2016. When Distance Doesn't Really Matter: Effects of Geographic Dispersion on Participation in Online Enterprise Communities. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '16). ACM Press, New York, NY, 335--345.

Digital Library

[49]

D. Wegner. 1987. Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (eds.), Theories of group behavior, 185--205. Springer--Verlag, New York, NY.

[50]

S. C. Wheelwright and K. B. Clark. 1992. Revolutionizing product development: Quantum leaps in speed, efficiency, and quality. Free Press, New York, NY.

[51]

A. W. Woolley, C. F. Chabri, A. Pentland, N. Hashmi, and T. W. Malone. 2010. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330, 6004, 686--688.

[52]

X. Yao, and L. P. Robert. 2017. Leveraging the Benefits of Multiple-Team Membership in Virtual Teams. Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2017), Seoul, Korea.

[53]

Y. Yoo and C. Ifvarsson. 2002. Knowledge Dynamics in Organizations. In E. Coakes, D. Willis, & S. Clarke (eds.). Knowledge management in the Socio Technical world: The graffiti continues, 52--64. Springer London, London.

Digital Library

[54]

S. J. Zaccaro, M. A. Marks, and L. DeChurch. 2012. Multiteam Systems: An Organization Form for Dynamic and Complex Environments. Routledge, New York, NY.

[55]

A. Zaheer and G. Soda. 2009. Network evolution: The origins of structural holes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 1, 1--31.

[56]

Z. Zhang, C. Charlton, R. Parker, G. Leckie, and W. J. Browne. 2012. Package 'R2MLwiN'. Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/R2MLwiN/R2MLwiN. pdf.

Cited By

Mayo AWoolley AJohn LMarch CWitchel SNowalk A(2024)Coordination in Dynamic Teams: Investigating a Learning–Productivity Trade-OffOrganization Science10.1287/orsc.2022.16729Online publication date: 14-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.16729
Yoon PHan SKim K(2024)Effects of team-building on group cohesion, group efficacy, and individual academic performance in virtual learning environmentActive Learning in Higher Education10.1177/14697874241229422Online publication date: 4-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874241229422
Kenda RMeslec NOerlemans L(2024)Single versus multiple project teams and individual performance: Do they ask for different leadership behaviors?International Journal of Project Management10.1016/j.ijproman.2024.10256342:2(102563)Online publication date: Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2024.102563
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Productivity in an Era of Multi-Teaming: The Role of Information Dashboards and Shared Cognition in Team Performance
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Collaborative and social computing
    1. Empirical studies in collaborative and social computing
2. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Management of computing and information systems
      1. Project and people management

Recommendations

Productive Interrelationships between Collaborative Groups Ease the Challenges of Dynamic and Multi-Teaming

Work organization and team membership is highly complex for modern workers. Teams are often dynamic as personnel change during a project. Dynamic team members have to be actively recruited and personnel changes make it harder for participants to retain ...
Domain engineering for generating dashboards to analyze employment and employability in the academic context
TEEM'18: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality

Data analysis is a key process to foster knowledge generation regarding particular domains or fields of study. With a strong informative foundation derived from the analysis of collected data, decision-makers can make strategic choices with the aim of ...
Job Hopping, Information Technology Spillovers, and Productivity Growth

The movement of information technology IT workers among firms is believed to be an important mechanism by which IT-related innovations diffuse throughout the economy. We use a newly developed source of employee microdata---an online resume database---to ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction Volume 2, Issue CSCW

November 2018

4104 pages

EISSN:2573-0142

DOI:10.1145/3290265

Editors:
Karrie Karahalios
University of Illinois & Adobe
,
Andrés Monroy-Hernández
Snap Inc.
,
Airi Lampinen
Stockholm University
,
Geraldine Fitzpatrick
Vienna University of Technology

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2018 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 November 2018

Published in PACMHCI Volume 2, Issue CSCW

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

17
Total Citations
View Citations
704
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)83
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)23

Reflects downloads up to 12 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Mayo AWoolley AJohn LMarch CWitchel SNowalk A(2024)Coordination in Dynamic Teams: Investigating a Learning–Productivity Trade-OffOrganization Science10.1287/orsc.2022.16729Online publication date: 14-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.16729
Yoon PHan SKim K(2024)Effects of team-building on group cohesion, group efficacy, and individual academic performance in virtual learning environmentActive Learning in Higher Education10.1177/14697874241229422Online publication date: 4-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874241229422
Kenda RMeslec NOerlemans L(2024)Single versus multiple project teams and individual performance: Do they ask for different leadership behaviors?International Journal of Project Management10.1016/j.ijproman.2024.10256342:2(102563)Online publication date: Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2024.102563
Tu SGarcia BZhu XSewell DMishra VMatin KDow A(2024)Patient care in complex Sociotechnological ecosystems and learning health systemsLearning Health Systems10.1002/lrh2.104278:S1Online publication date: 23-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1002/lrh2.10427
Woolley AGupta P(2023)Understanding Collective Intelligence: Investigating the Role of Collective Memory, Attention, and Reasoning ProcessesPerspectives on Psychological Science10.1177/17456916231191534Online publication date: 29-Aug-2023
https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231191534
Kush JAven BArgote L(2023)A Text-Based Measure of Transactive Memory System StrengthSmall Group Research10.1177/1046496423118213055:2(231-263)Online publication date: 2-Jul-2023
https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964231182130
Yoon KPiercy CKim YZhu Y(2023)Boundary Work and Transactive Memory Systems in Teams: Moderating Effects of the Visibility AffordanceManagement Communication Quarterly10.1177/0893318923119207838:2(359-385)Online publication date: 27-Jul-2023
https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189231192078
Gupta PNguyen TGonzalez CWoolley A(2023)Fostering Collective Intelligence in Human–AI Collaboration: Laying the Groundwork for COHUMAINTopics in Cognitive Science10.1111/tops.12679Online publication date: 29-Jun-2023
https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12679
Ingvarsson CHallin AKier C(2023)Project stakeholder engagement through gamification: what do we know and where do we go from here?International Journal of Managing Projects in Business10.1108/IJMPB-07-2022-017016:8(152-181)Online publication date: 6-Jul-2023
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-07-2022-0170
FANG QLUAN K(2022)Multiple team membership and its mechanismAdvances in Psychological Science10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.0114330:5(1143-1157)Online publication date: 6-May-2022
https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.01143
Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents