The Concept of Team Transactive Memory Systems
Developing an Extended Model for Organizational Contexts
Volker Wagner
Chair for Human Resource Management, University of Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 5, Hamburg, Germany
Keywords: Transactive Memory Systems, Knowledge Sharing, Team Processes, Shared Knowledge Structures.
Abstract: There is an ongoing research debate about how to conceptualize transactive memory systems and how they
can potentially influence team performance in organizational contexts. Current research mostly seems to
focus on the meta-knowledge about the team’s expertise distribution in combination with the transactive
processes for encoding, storage, and retrieval of information. However, there is still confusion about the
interrelations between different components of transactive memory systems. We discuss current issues and
develop an extended model of team transactive memory systems which integrates shared task
representations and interrelations between individual components to explain how and why teams manage
knowledge for a specific task.
1 INTRODUCTION
The ability of a team to efficiently create, share, and
utilize knowledge is regarded as a dynamic
capability that enables an organization to gain a
lasting competitive advantage (Argote and Ren,
2012). Consequently, if we could thoroughly
understand this knowledge management within
teams, we would gain an invaluable insight into how
teams coordinate and use knowledge to accomplish
specific tasks. With this knowledge, it would be
possible to explain performance differences between
knowledge worker teams and to identify issues of
low performing teams.
One of the more extensively used constructs to
capture this form of knowledge management is the
notion of Transactive Memory Systems (TMS)
originally developed by Wegner and colleagues
(1985). After almost 30 years of research, there is
still an ongoing debate about how to conceptualize
team TMSs and the stored knowledge, how to
outline the transactive processes to encode, store,
and retrieve information, and how teams use TMSs
to manage and apply their knowledge (as discussed
in current reviews, e.g., Peltokorpi, 2008; Ren and
Argote, 2011; Lewis and Herndon, 2011).
Knowledge management in a team can be
understood as a form of team knowledge
coordination for a specific task. So, it is surprising to
find little consideration of the task type and shared
task representations, and their influence on
knowledge differentiation and information sharing in
conceptual development, as well as direct empirical
assessment in TMS research. Published articles
show the basic concept of TMS to be somewhat
reduced in scope to storing differentiated knowledge
and meta-knowledge about the team’s expertise
distribution without a shared representation of the
team characteristics or the underlying task structure
(e.g., Ren and Argote, 2011).
We argue that this simplification does not capture
the value of the TMS concept for organizational
research and that on this account the TMS concept
should be extended. By considering the
organizational context, the role of shared task
representations, and TMS component interrelations,
our extended model aims to support research in
explaining differences in the relationship between
applied TMS measures and team performance in
different organizational contexts. While the
proposed model is by no means final, we want to
offer our early findings to initiate a discussion about
the role of shared task representations in TMS
research.
The following short paper is thus structured as
follows: First, we briefly explain the original
concept of TMS and the specifics of the dyadic
research context. Second, some of the current issues
in TMS research are discussed on this theoretical
basis. Finally, we integrate our first findings into an
319
Wagner V..
The Concept of Team Transactive Memory Systems - Developing an Extended Model for Organizational Contexts.
DOI: 10.5220/0005149903190325
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing (KMIS-2014), pages 319-325
ISBN: 978-989-758-050-5
Copyright
c
2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
extended model of team TMS in organizational
contexts.
2 THEORETICAL OVERVIEW
2.1 The Original Concept of
Transactive Memory Systems
TMSs were first proposed by Wegner and colleagues
(1985) to explain how cognitively interdependent
couples manage knowledge entering their dyad. In
theory, a TMS consists of a content component and
a process component.
The content component is called Transactive
Memory (TM), which is “an organized store of
knowledge that is contained entirely in the
individual memory systems of group members”
(Wegner et al., 1985, p. 256). TM is called
transactive, because sharing information between
individual memories depends on social interaction
(Lewis, 2003). It can contain both differentiated and
integrated knowledge.
Integrated knowledge in a TM is shared between all
group members. This can either be explicit
information about a specific topic (lower-order
information) or higher-order information about the
expertise distribution within the group (location of
knowledge). An example of shared higher-order
information would be the knowledge shared between
all group members that one individual is an expert in
the field of tax accounting. Theoretically, this shared
higher-order information would allow all group
members to reduce search processes since the
individual with expertise in a specific topic is easily
identifiable.
In contrast to integrated knowledge, differentiated
knowledge is not shared between the team members,
but theorized to be unique to each group member
(following our example, this would be explicit
knowledge about tax accounting). The proposition
here is that a differentiated knowledge structure
would positively influence the group’s ability to
store relevant knowledge since individual memory is
limited and thus redundant information should be
avoided. Following this, a group would likely
develop a differentiated knowledge structure for
lower-order information with experts for specific
topics.
While Wegner and colleagues mention a dyad’s
tendency towards an integration of all relevant
knowledge (higher-order and lower-order), they
make no statement about the optimal distribution of
knowledge in a group or team.
The process component of a TMS consists of this
social interaction or so called transactive processes.
These processes enable the encoding, storage and
retrieval of information through the group’s
communication in for example discussions and
electronic conversations (Hollingshead, 2010).
Accordingly, the quality of sharing information
within the group should depend on how efficiently
group members can communicate.
As explained in the first section, there is still no
conceptual clarity as to how to define these
transactive processes and how to integrate explicit
communicative interactions into TMS research (see
Peltokorpi, 2008).
2.2 Research Assumptions in the
Dyadic Context
To understand the differences between the dyadic
context and different organizational contexts (and
the according performance implications), one must
be aware of the implicit assumptions in this intimate
couple research:
Couples here are assumed to be cognitively
interdependent and to be aware of this
interdependence;
Individuals in couples are assumed to implicitly
trust each other;
Their task of interest here is to manage
knowledge entering the dyad as efficiently as
possible. Wegner and colleagues were interested
in how and why couples divide their cognitive
labor.
Not all of those assumptions can be directly
transferred to an organizational setting with teams
and team members as units of interest. This seems to
be one possible explanation as to why we still cannot
completely explain how TMSs influence team
performance. To further understand the relationship
between TMS and team performance in
organizational contexts, we discuss conceptual
issues in TMS research on this theoretical basis in
the next section.
3 CONCEPTUAL ISSUES IN
TRANSACTIVE MEMORY
RESEARCH
In this section, three conceptual issues in TMS
research are briefly elaborated. These issues are the
foundation for developing the extended TMS model
in the fourth section. A full list of issues discussed in
KMIS2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing
320
current TMS research can be found in recent TMS
reviews (e.g., Peltokorpi, 2008; Ren and Argote,
2011; Lewis and Herndon, 2011) and will be further
analyzed and integrated into our ongoing study.
3.1 Discrepancies in Defining
Transactive Memory Systems
In their recent review, Lewis and Herndon (2011)
discussed one possible explanation for differences in
TMS research and performance implications.
Researchers define the concept and its components
according to their specific research question. While
it is important to consider the specifics of the studied
team, task and organization, this conceptual
fragmentation hinders the comparability of empirical
studies.
In some studies, the terms TMS and TM have
however been used interchangeably and the concept
of TMS reduced to the shared knowledge about the
group’s expertise distribution (see Peltokorpi, 2008).
This definition fails to incorporate the dynamic
nature of team member’s sharing information and
specializing in different fields of expertise.
Peltokorpi also promoted the reintegration of
communicative processes into TMS research.
3.2 The Role of Shared Task
Representations
Another issue mentioned in TMS research is the role
of task types, and, more specifically, the role of
shared task representations in team TMSs (e.g.,
Peltokorpi, 2008; Lewis and Herndon, 2011; Ren
and Argote, 2011). While there seems to be a
growing consensus about the role of the task types in
moderating the relationship between TMSs and team
performance, there are few studies in which the role
of shared task representations has been directly
measured and analyzed. One particular example of
this is the study by Brandon and Hollingshead
(2004). They conceptualized Task-Expertise-Person
(TEP) units as the basis for storing information in
the integrated part of a TMS.
This consideration is similar to the concept of shared
mental models (SMM). SMMs are defined as
“knowledge structures held by members of a team
that enable them to form accurate explanations and
expectations for the task” (Cannon-Bowers et al.,
1993, p. 228). Research on SMMs of the task and
the team has focused on analyzing the positive
relationship between these types of SMMs and team
performance (e.g., Mohammed et al., 2010).
However, the current conceptualization of TMS in
organizational settings does not include a shared
understanding of the task (Peltokorpi, 2008; Ren and
Argote, 2011).
3.3 The Relationship between
Knowledge Differentiation and
Team Performance
The general performance hypothesis in TMS
research is based on the assumption that a
differentiated knowledge structure is positively
related to team performance. In theory, advantages
of a working TMS in dyads and groups would be the
ability to store a larger amount of information
through reduced redundancy and a quicker access to
this information through the hierarchically structured
storage (Wegner, 1987). TMSs are seen as a
cooperative division of labor for learning,
remembering, and communicating knowledge,
which theoretically would lead to this differentiation
of knowledge (Ren and Argote, 2011). Research in
laboratory settings has shown that a differentiated
knowledge structure can have a positive effect on
performance in memory recall or assembly tasks
(e.g., Hollingshead, 1998a, 1998b). However, recent
studies suggest that tasks which depend on group
discussions and problem-solving might benefit from
an integrated knowledge structure (Gupta and
Hollingshead, 2010; Lewis and Herndon, 2011). In
this context, there is still no conceptual clarity about
the influence of differentiated and integrated team
knowledge structures in organizational settings.
4 MODELLING TRANSACTIVE
MEMORY SYSTEMS IN
ORGANIZATIONAL TEAMS
To differentiate between couples (or groups) and
teams in an organizational setting, a clear definition
of what constitutes a team is needed.
Following Mathieu and colleagues (2008), we adopt
Kozlowski and Bell’s (2003, p. 334) definition of
teams as collectives "(a) who exist to perform
organizationally relevant tasks, (b) share one or
more common goals, (c) interact socially, (d) exhibit
task interdependencies, (e) maintain and manage
boundaries, (f) and are embedded in an
organizational context that sets boundaries,
constrains the team, and influences exchanges with
other units in the broader entity.” As such, teams are
understood as complex, social systems consisting of
TheConceptofTeamTransactiveMemorySystems-DevelopinganExtendedModelforOrganizationalContexts
321
individual team members in an organizational
context (McGrath et al., 2000).
This understanding leads to a different perspective
on the assumptions Wegner and colleagues made to
describe cognitive interdependence in dyads. The
underlying questions here are: 1) Why do team
members share their knowledge, 2) what are the
components of a team TMS, and 3) how would this
TMS enhance team performance in a given task?
4.1 Reasons for Knowledge Sharing in
a Team
Regarding the first question, teams have to
accomplish tasks where knowledge matching the
specific task such as problem-solving, decision-
making, or simpler administrative tasks is needed
(Lewis & Herndon, 2011). Following this, teams
“are often composed of members with
heterogeneous expertise so that the group can benefit
from a larger knowledge pool than any individual
member possesses” (Wittenbaum and Stasser, 1996,
p. 15).
To be able to assess the specific knowledge needed,
team members must have an understanding of the
task requirements and expertise needed to
accomplish the task. In contrast to interdependent
couples which consist of fewer individuals, they
would otherwise have no efficient coordination
strategy for sharing each other’s expertise (Brandon
and Hollingshead, 2004).
This shared task understanding should entail an
awareness of the team members' interdependence to
accomplish the task. Without this awareness, the
information sharing in teams would likely be
hindered because team members could simply
follow their individual goals or agendas (Stasser et
al., 2000). The awareness of interdependence could
be established through a common goal or
interdependent performance measure (Lewis and
Herndon, 2011).
Furthermore, the distributed expertise and the
knowledge embedded within the individuals must be
exchanged, discussed, and integrated in a so called
communicative process of information elaboration
(van Knippenberg et al., 2004). In this elaboration,
team members would be made aware of additional
expertise or new strategies of expertise combination
that individuals gained over time.
4.2 Proposed Components of Team
Transactive Memory Systems
Based on this short discussion about important
aspects of team members sharing knowledge, it is
possible to develop a preliminary extended model of
team TMS in organizational contexts. In contrast to
the basic model, the shared task representations, an
awareness of interdependence, and the knowledge of
how to access each other’s knowledge have been
integrated.
Therefore, a team TMS should have at least the
following components:
Individual expertise and knowledge embedded
in this expertise; this expertise would be
differentiated or integrated to some degree
according to the task structure (and the shared
task representation)
A shared understanding of the team’s
expertise distribution embedded in the
individuals’ memories to utilize individual
knowledge; this understanding should also
contain the knowledge about how to access an
individual team member’s knowledge
depending on individual characteristics
A shared understanding about the task and its
knowledge requirements; this understanding
enables team members to evaluate their
potential interdependence to accomplish the
task
An awareness of the team’s cognitive
interdependence developed through the shared
task understanding; this awareness should be
shared between team members
Social interaction (communication) between
the team members to share and combine their
individual knowledge to create new
knowledge; this interaction is also important
to align and update the shared understanding
about the expertise distribution and changing
task requirements over time; also, this
interaction constitutes the transactive
processes in a TMS.
A team TMS in this form should develop over time
by working together, discussing about how to
accomplish the task, and sharing information as
Wegner and colleagues (1985) initially proposed.
Here, the focus would not exclusively lie on
knowledge differentiation, but also on the influence
of integrated knowledge structures matching the
specific task requirements. Another important
consequence of this definition would be that teams
can have multiple TMSs matching different tasks.
This proposition has already been made (e.g.,
Austin, 2003; Brandon and Hollingshead, 2004) and
should be further integrated in TMS research.
KMIS2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing
322
4.3 Influence of Team Transactive
Memory Systems on Team
Performance and Processes
Our model of team TMS leads us to the final
question of how a working team TMS can
potentially enhance task performance, despite
possible negative effects of knowledge
differentiation. In theory, a TMS should enhance the
memory performance of a team (see the discussion
section 3.3). While this general performance
hypothesis is quite basic, we propose that the
relationship between a team TMS and team
performance may be more complex than a direct
influence on knowledge differentiation and possible
coordination mechanisms.
Although the following performance propositions
have been mentioned individually in TMS research,
we argue that a holistic approach is needed to
capture the interrelations between different TMS
components in an organizational setting.
4.3.1 Positive Performance Implications
One possible explanation for a higher performance
of teams with a working TMS in this form is that a
team TMS would lead to a more efficient
coordination between team members because team
members would make less errors in task
assumptions, communication, and sharing of
knowledge (e.g., Liang et al., 1995; Moreland and
Myaskovsky, 2000). Lewis (2003) integrated this
explanation into indirect measurements of memory
differentiation, task credibility, and task
coordination, which could potentially indicate a
working TMS without directly measuring the TMS
structure and processes. These coordination
mechanisms have also been studied in research on
implicit coordination mechanisms (e.g. Jarvenpaa
and Keating, 2011; Mohammed and Dumville,
2001) and expertise coordination (Faraj and Sproull,
2000).
Another advantage of a team TMS would be the
possibility to transfer the team’s developed
strategies for knowledge combination and
information sharing developed to other task contexts
(Lewis et al., 2005). The hierarchical structure of the
shared knowledge which leads to an arrangement of
information in the context of other knowledge
(Wegner et al., 1985) in combination with the
experience of linking this knowledge to a specific
task would possibly lead team members to
understand the underlying principles of specific task
contexts. This in turn could minimize transaction
costs of adapting to new task contexts.
Furthermore, as Wegner and colleagues (1985)
proposed, the improved discussion of unshared
information could lead to team members integrating
explicit information in other expertise dimensions
into their own memory and combine these
dimensions to create new information. This
integrated structure has also been discussed in TMS
research (e.g., Baumann and Bonner, 2011; Gupta
and Hollingshead, 2010; Hollingshead, 2001; van
Ginkel and van Knippenberg, 2008) and could
potentially enable team members to further
understand each other’s perspective (Nonaka, 1994).
The ability to understand different perspectives
could in turn lead to more efficient group
discussions and task coordination.
4.3.2 Interrelations between TMS
Components
One of the effects of team members specializing in
different fields of expertise is the growing
knowledge diversity within the team (this effect
would also exist in new teams consisting of experts).
Whereas this specialization is assumed to have
beneficial effects in dyads or groups, research has
shown that knowledge diversity in an organizational
setting can lead to a team discussing previously
shared information in favor to new or more relevant
information, preventing unshared and perhaps more
relevant information to be discussed (Stasser et al.,
1989). This favoring of shared information could
thus have a negative influence on creativity and
group decision-making.
Here, the sharedness of task-relevant information
and a team’s expertise distribution in the team TMS
could counter this effect through a validation of
knowledge and lead to a discussion of new and
unshared information in favor of already shared
information (Alavi and Leidner, 2001).
Another possible negative effect of knowledge
diversity is the influence on trust and the
psychological safety within a team (Edmondson and
Roloff, 2009). Psychological safety is defined as a
team’s property that “facilitates the appropriate
conditions to release individual knowledge,
ultimately stimulating learning behavior” (ibid., p.
201). If a safety climate within a team is not present,
knowledge diversity can potentially lead to issues in
sharing this knowledge because team members
would not trust each other’s intentions (e.g.
Edmondson, 1999). Shared task representations in
combination with the awareness of the team’s
TheConceptofTeamTransactiveMemorySystems-DevelopinganExtendedModelforOrganizationalContexts
323
cognitive interdependence could have positive
effects on the team’s psychological safety. This
proposition is in line with research which analyzed
the positive effects of shared task understanding on
the team’s expectations and trust (e.g., Ilgen et al.,
2005; Borgatti and Cross, 2003; Mathieu et al.,
2008; van Ginkel and van Knippenberg, 2008).
These possible implications of the extended model
are by no means final and lead us to believe in a
more complex nature of TMS dimensions and
performance effects than depicted in current TMS
frameworks.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Although in a preliminary form, our extended model
offers a different explanation as to how team TMSs
can potentially enhance a team’s performance in an
organizational setting compared to the general TMS
performance hypotheses. The further proposed
components of this model and the interrelations
between different TMS components enable research
to adapt the model to specific task and
organizational contexts and in turn render it possible
to compare future team TMS studies.
Despite the fact that this discussion and the proposed
model represent a brief theoretical contribution, a
review of research in adjacent fields - such as team
mental models, agency behavior, the role of team
leaders, social network theory, or task type
differentiations - shows empirical results to be in
line with the proposed component interrelations. Our
aim is to integrate this research and empirical results
to draw further implications for the extended team
TMS model.
REFERENCES
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), Review: Knowledge
management and knowledge management systems:
Conceptual foundations and research issues, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107–136.
Argote, L. and Ren, Y. (2012), Transactive memory
systems. A microfoundation of dynamic capabilities,
Journal of Management Studies JMS, Vol. 49 No. 8,
pp. 1375–1382.
Austin, J.R. (2003), Transactive memory in organizational
groups: The effects of content, consensus,
specialization, and accuracy on group performance,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp.
866–878.
Baumann, M.R. and Bonner, B.L. (2011), The effects of
expected group longevity and expected task difficulty
on learning and recall: Implications for the
development of transactive memory, Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 15
No. 3, pp. 220–232.
Borgatti, S.R. and Cross, R. (2003), A relational view of
information seeking and learning in social networks,
Management Science, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 432–445.
Brandon, D.P. and Hollingshead, A.B. (2004), transactive
memory systems in organizations: Matching tasks,
expertise, and people, Organization Science, Vol. 15
No. 6, pp. 633–644.
Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Salas, E. and Converse, S. (1993),
Shared mental models in expert team decision making,
in Castellan, N.J. (Ed.), Individual and Group
Decision Making: Current Issues, L. Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, N.J, pp. 221–246.
Edmondson, A. (1999), Psychological safety and learning
behavior in work teams, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 350–383.
Edmondson, A.C. and Roloff, K.S. (2009), Overcoming
barriers to collaboration: Psychological safety and
learning in diverse teams, in Salas, E., Goodwin, G.F.
and Burke, C.S. (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex
organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and
approaches, The Organizational Frontiers Series,
Routledge, New York, pp. 183–208.
Faraj, S. and Sproull, L. (2000), Coordinating expertise in
software development teams, Management Science,
Vol. 46 No. 12, pp. 1554–1568.
Gupta, N. and Hollingshead, A.B. (2010), Differentiated
versus integrated transactive memory effectiveness: It
depends on the task, Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 384–398.
Hollingshead, A.B., Transactive memory systems, in
Levine (Ed.) 2010 – Encyclopedia of Group Processes
& Intergroup Relations, pp. 931–933.
Hollingshead, A.B. (1998a), Communication, learning,
and retrieval in transactive memory systems, Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp.
423–442.
Hollingshead, A.B. (1998b), Retrieval processes in
transactive memory systems, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 659–670.
Hollingshead, A.B. (2001), Cognitive interdependence and
convergent expectations in transactive memory,
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, Vol. 81
No. 6, pp. 1080–1089.
Ilgen, D.R., Hollenbeck, J.R., Johnson, M. and Jundt, D.
(2005), Teams in organizations: From input-process-
output models to IMOI models, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 517–543.
Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Keating, E. (2011), Hallowed
grounds: The role of cultural values, practices, and
institutions in TMS in an offshored complex
engineering services project, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 786–
798.
Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Bell, B.S. (2003), Work groups
and teams in organizations, in Borman, W.C. and
Weiner, I.B. (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology:
KMIS2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing
324
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12,
Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 333–375.
Lewis, K. (2003), Measuring transactive memory systems
in the field: scale development and validation, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 587–603.
Lewis, K. and Herndon, B. (2011), Transactive memory
systems: Current issues and future research directions,
Organization Science, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 1254–1265.
Lewis, K., Lange, D. and Gillis, L. (2005), Transactive
memory systems, learning, and learning transfer,
Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 581–598.
Liang, D.W., Moreland, R. and Argote, L. (1995), Group
versus individual training and group performance: The
mediating role of transactive memory, Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 384–
393.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T. and Gilson, L.
(2008), Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of
recent advancements and a glimpse into the future,
Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 410–476.
McGrath, J.E., Arrow, H. and Berdahl, J.L. (2000), The
study of groups: Past, present, and future, Personality
and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 95–
105.
Mohammed, S. and Dumville, B.C. (2001), Team mental
models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding
theory and measurement across disciplinary
boundaries, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.
22 No. 2, pp. 89–106.
Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L. and Hamilton, K. (2010),
Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team
mental model construct, Journal of Management, Vol.
36 No. 4, pp. 876–910.
Moreland, R.L. and Myaskovsky, L. (2000), Exploring the
performance benefits of group training: Transactive
memory or improved communication?, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82, pp.
117–133.
Nonaka, I. (1994), A dynamic theory of organizational
knowledge creation, Organization Science, Vol. 5 No.
1, pp. 14–37.
Peltokorpi, V. (2008), Transactive memory systems,
Review of General Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp.
378–394.
Ren, Y. and Argote, L. (2011), Transactive memory
systems 1985-2010: An integrative framework of key
dimensions, antecedents, and consequences, Academy
of Management Annals, Vol. 5, pp. 189–229.
Stasser, G., Taylor, L.A. and Hanna, C. (1989),
Information sampling in structured and unstructured
discussions of three- and six-person groups, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp.
67–78.
Stasser, G., Vaughan, S.I. and Stewart, D.D. (2000),
Pooling unshared information: The benefits of
knowing how access to information is distributed
among group members, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 102–
116.
van Ginkel, W.P. and van Knippenberg, D. (2008), Group
information elaboration and group decision making:
The role of shared task representations,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes
, Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 82–97.
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, Carsten K. W. and
Homan, A.C. (2004), Work group diversity and group
performance: An integrative model and research
agenda, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 6,
pp. 1008–1022.
Wegner, D.M. (1987), Transactive memory: A
contemporary analysis of the group mind, in Mullen,
B. and Goethals, G.R. (Eds.), Theories of Group
Behavior, Springer series in social psychology,
Springer, New York, NY, pp. 185–208.
Wegner, D.M., Giuliano, T. and Hertel, P.T. (1985),
Cognitive interdependence in close relationships, in
Ickes, W.J. (Ed.), Compatible and Incompatible
Relationships, Springer series in social psychology,
Springer, New York, NY, pp. 253–276.
Wittenbaum, G.M. and Stasser, G. (1996), Management of
information in small groups, in Nye, J.L. (Ed.), What's
Social about Social Cognition?: Research on Socially
Shared Cognition in Small Groups, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, pp. 3–28.
TheConceptofTeamTransactiveMemorySystems-DevelopinganExtendedModelforOrganizationalContexts
325
