Theoretical Model of Reflexivity and SA and TMS Cognitive Behaviors

Reflexivity applies to behaviors that are similar to those of cognitive activities such as „questioning, planning, exploratory learning, analysis, diversive exploration, making use of knowledge explicitly, planfulness, learning at a meta-level, reviewing past events with self- awareness, and coming to terms over time with a new awareness“ (West, 2000, p.4). Thus, team reflexivity may aid in stimulating the development of cognitive behaviors SA and TMS that might be observable in team communication.

Current research supports these propositions, as reflexivity was found to be a moderator on the development of TMS and better decision making (Van Ginkel & Van Knippenberg, 2009). The authors examined three person teams to function as an independent advisory committee and three stores in making a decision about four interrelated issues. The advisory committee manipulated reflexivity by means of written instructions that asked participants to think about the group task, and what would lead to high or low team performance because of their experience during their task. Results of the study identified building of knowledge of who knows what (i.e. TMS) and sharing distributed information is more likely to occur when team members engage in reflexivity. The study has shown the first positive effects of reflexivity on TMS development, which might also hold true for SA development. Particular as training interventions for passing on information and providing feedback on the outcome of an action where found to result in higher SA levels (Kaber & Endsley, 1998). As both SA and TMS cognitive behaviors during reflexivity communication reflect content between team members exchanged, the application of a communication based approach seems justified and promising. Especially, since recent research suggest that the fundamental construct of reflexivity lies on the communication content and is not inferable by the frequency of overall communication in teams (e.g., Ellis et al., 2014, Schippers et al., 2014). Hence, this research proposes a theoretical model focusing on the social interactive team processes in relation to the emergent states (cognitive constructs, Konradt et al., 2015).

These complex socio-technical environments bear situations which are novel and unpredictable to teams and in which no pre-existing rules are available to guide action (Rosen et al., 2008). Instead it involves the generation and adaptation of rules to these novel

situations by combining, aggregating and visualizing information to support team members in handling uncertainty and building new knowledge and informational relationships (Letsky, Warner, Fiore, Rosen, & Salas, 2007; Rosen et al., 2008). Thus, both coordination regarding information acquisition as well as behavioral coordination is quintessential (e.g., Entin &

69

Serfaty, 1999; Rosen et al., 2008). During such phases, the externalization of these cognitive processes in form of cognitive behaviors in communication may generate new team

understanding. Reflexivity may therefore develop SA and TMS cognitive processes, observable in form of cognitive behaviors in communication, in that reflexivity supports:

1. referring back to SA and TMS representations to reflect on the situation or team members’ expertise and update their old representation with the newly attained information to either revise or continue with their strategy as planned,

2. developing SA based on data and viable information in the environment as well as about TMS on team members’ role and specialization,

3. integrating individually held SA or TM in to team SA or TMS for a common team representation of the problem and the team,

4. projecting current team knowledge about the situation into the near future of team actions - SA - and coming to a team consensus on team members’ specialization - TMS cognitive behavior - for further coordination,

5. gaining and updating SA for team understanding of the developed situation and retrieving updated knowledge from their TMS for locating valid information from other team members specialization or coordination efforts for adapting or

implemented strategies.

Reflexivity can therefore catapult communication processes in teams, and then mitigate information-processing failures (e.g., caused by language diversity) for teams in complex socio-technical systems such as ad-hoc or virtual teams, or teams that designed for a short lifecycle (e.g., Alge, Wiethoff & Klein, 2003; Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk & Gibson, 2004; Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1999, Schippers et al., 2014). Thus, team reflexivity may increase the amount of cognitive behaviors in communication leading to higher team effectiveness. Examining whether reflexivity externalizes major cognitive processes and behaviors will provide major insight in describing the effectiveness of reflexivity on cognition and team processes. At the same time, reflexivity might minimize the effect caused by team diversity that too often leads to information- processing failures (Schippers et al., 2014). Hence, new questions are arising as to how reflexivity is changing or augmenting team cognitive behavior communication in complex socio-technical systems and to whether reflexivity improves cognitive behavior communication that lead to improved virtual team performance.

70

The theoretical model proposes reflexivity as one construct that is comprised of iterative processes of reflexivity transition and action phases (Schippers et al., 2007).

Although, Konradt and colleagues (2015), considered one component ‘reflection’ during the transition phase, the theoretical model considers reflection as two separate indicators: review (e.g., review of prior task performance and mission analysis) and strategy development (e.g., planning and formulating strategies). Viewing the transition phase as two separate

components not only aligns with the aforementioned reflexivity model by West (2000), but also, may provide a better understanding of the reflexivity transition phase and the reflexivity construct. The action phase of reflexivity will thus represent strategy implementation and adaptation of prior developed strategies and actions performed (Marks, Mathiue, & Zaccaro, 2001). Three indicators of review, strategy development and strategy implementation

together present the reflexivity construct.

A theoretical model captures possible influences of team reflexivity intervention on cognitive constructs, team processes (i.e., communication and reflexivity), and performance. The underlying process relationships of the proposed constructs, which may elicit positive influence on team outcome, are also in the theoretical model. Moreover, relationships between individual constructs and performance gain better understanding of the interplay of the cognitive and team process variables. Further, possible negative influences of diversity, on communications, or team outcomes, reside within the proposed theoretical model. The theoretical model, displaying proposed relationships is illustrated in Figure 5.

Underlying the proposed relationships in the theoretical model, the model proposed the following effects of team reflexivity intervention on team communication, cognitive processes, and performance outcomes:

Hypothesis 3.1: Team reflexivity intervention exerts positively increases overall communication volume.

Hypothesis 3.2: Team reflexivity intervention positively influences reflexivity

communication regarding review, strategy development, and strategy implementation.

Hypothesis 3.3: Team reflexivity intervention positively influences cognitive behaviors SA and TMS.

Hypothesis 3.4: Team reflexivity intervention decreases diversity in teams. Hypothesis 3.5: Team reflexivity intervention positively increases performance.

71

Figure 5. Proposed Theoretical Model and Sets of Hypotheses (H).

Given that, communication exhibits certain indicators regarding reflexivity phases such as review, strategy development, and strategy implementation that might direct task activities in teams leading to higher performance outcomes, the following is hypothesized in the theoretical model:

Hypothesis 3.6: Reflexivity exert a positive influence on communication volume; in that the volume of communication increases with an increase in communication regarding the reflexivity indicators review, strategy development and strategy implementation.

Hypothesis 3.7: Reflexivity positively influences cognitive behaviors SA and TMS, in that more cognitive behaviors are displayed with an increase in reflexivity.

Hypothesis 3.8: Reflexivity positively influences performance.

Based on previous reviewed literature on cognitive behaviors, SA, and TMS affect overall team outcomes, support the following hypothesis in the model:

72

During reflexivity communication certain SA and TMS cognitive behaviors may be exhibited that are proposed to have a direct effect on performance. Although, reflexivity research argues direct relationships of reflexivity on team performance, it seems to limit the reflexivity construct, given that cognitive processes during reflexivity my affect or mediate the outcome (Konradt, et al., 2015; Salas, Fiore, & Letsky, 2012). Therefore, the effect of reflexivity on performance may be mediated through the exhibition of the cognitive behaviors in team communication. The following mediator effect is predicted in the theoretical model:

Hypothesis 3.10: SA and TMS cognitive behaviors mediate the influence of reflexivity on team performance.

Prior research identified high communication volumes to decrease performance, as the act of communication prohibits teams from taking action (see e.g., Yoo &

Kanawattanachai, 2001). Therefore, the following was predicted regarding the effect of communication on other processes and outcomes within the theoretical model:

Hypothesis 3.11: Higher communications volume will negative impact performance. Hypothesis 3.12: Communication increases the exhibition of SA and TMS cognitive

behaviors.

Although, reflexivity communication will exhibit certain SA and TMS cognitive behavior, the exhibition of these SA and TMS cognitive behaviors in communication may be mediated by communication volume (i.e., how much team members communicated during reflexivity). Thus, the following mediator effect is proposed:

Hypothesis 3.13: Communication mediates the relationship reflexivity amd the cognitive behaviors SA and TMS.

The theoretical model proposes negative influences of diversity on other constructs and outcomes, and predicts the following:

Hypothesis 3.14: Diversity negatively influences communication volume. Hypothesis 3.15: Diversity negatively influences performance.

Although the theoretical model captures major theoretical propositions, additional investigations of the effect of team reflexivity intervention on individual constructs and

73

indicators can increase researches understanding of 1) effectiveness of team reflexivity intervention, 2) occurrence of reflexivity indicators during team reflexivity intervention, and 3) identification of essential cognitive behavior indicators in reflexivity communication observed during the intervention. These results may fill the gap in research in providing understanding of how team reflexivity intervention drives communication regarding the reflexivity construct (review, strategy development, and strategy implementation). It further may provide understanding of which reflexivity indicators mark high performance teams. Based on the literature previewed, the following is hypothesized:

Hypothesis 4.1: Team reflexivity intervention will improve team performance. Hypothesis 4.2: Teams engaging in the team reflexivity intervention will show more reflexivity in communication during the intervention.

Hypothesis 4.3: Teams engaging in the team reflexivity intervention will show more cognitive behaviors in reflexivity phases during the intervention.