Developing Transactive Memory Systems: Theoretical Contributions From a Social Identity Perspective

http://gom.sagepub.com/Management

Group & Organization

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/37/2/204The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1059601112443976

2012 37: 204Group & Organization ManagementJenny Liao, Nerina L. Jimmieson, Anne T. O'Brien and Simon L. D. Restubog

From a Social Identity PerspectiveDeveloping Transactive Memory Systems: Theoretical Contributions

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Group & Organization ManagementAdditional services and information for

http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/37/2/204.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Apr 24, 2012Version of Record >>

by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013gom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://gom.sagepub.com/

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/37/2/204

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://gom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/37/2/204.refs.html

http://gom.sagepub.com/content/37/2/204.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml







































Group & Organization Management37(2) 204 –240

© The Author(s) 2012Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1059601112443976

http://gom.sagepub.com

443976 GOM37210.1177/1059601112443976Liao et al.Group & Organization Management© The Author(s) 2012

1The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia2University of Exeter, Exeter, UK3The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

Corresponding Author:Jenny Liao, The University of Queensland, McElwain Building, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Brisbane 4072, Australia Email: [email protected]

Developing Transactive Memory Systems: Theoretical Contributions From a Social Identity Perspective

Jenny Liao1, Nerina L. Jimmieson1, Anne T. O’Brien2, and Simon L. D. Restubog3

Abstract

Transactive memory system (TMS) theory explains how expertise is rec-ognized and coordinated in teams. Extending current TMS research from a group information-processing perspective, our article presents a theoretical model that considers TMS development from a social identity perspective. We discuss how two features of communication (quantity and quality) impor-tant to TMS development are linked to TMS through the group identification mechanism of a shared common team identity. Informed by social identity theory, we also differentiate between intragroup and intergroup contexts and outline how, in multidisciplinary teams, professional identification and perceived equality of status among professional subgroups have a role to play in TMS development. We provide a theoretical discussion of future research directions aimed at testing and extending our model.

Liao et al. 205

Keywords

transactive memory system, social identity theory, communication, team identification, professional identification

Team-based work structures are an important job design feature in organiza-tions, with the bringing together of each team members’ specialized knowl-edge regarded as a principal form of competitive advantage for organizations (Argote & Ingram, 2000; Faraj & Sproull, 2000). However, while the rationale is that the knowledge and expertise embedded in teams will be efficiently shared, capitalized, and brought to use by its members to make more informed and collaborative decisions (Lin, 2010; Sonnentag & Volmer, 2009), team members often fail to share and integrate each others’ unique pieces of infor-mation (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002; Cronin & Weingart, 2007; Wittenbaum & Stasser, 1996). One reason why teams struggle to effectively pool together distributed knowledge is that, for individually held information to be stored, retrieved, and processed by the group as a whole, there needs to be a recogni-tion of each others’ areas of expertise, before creating a shared information repository that enables optimal team functioning and performance (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Stasser, Stewart, & Wittenbaum, 1995). Wegner’s (1986) transactive memory theory is one theoretical framework that has been used to explain how team members can learn and coordinate the expertise residing in the team for accomplishing collective goals.

A transactive memory system (TMS) is a shared cognitive system for encoding, storing, and retrieving knowledge uniquely held by individuals, based on having a collective awareness of each others’ specialized knowl-edge domains (Hollingshead, 1998a). In a similar way to how individuals supplement their own internal memory systems by storing information in external devices (e.g., recording information into a database), it is proposed that other people are relied on as external memory aids for obtaining and pro-cessing information. As such, a well-developed TMS is argued to facilitate information exchange and coordination, while also reducing cognitive work-load burdens in the team (Hollingshead, 1998b; Moreland, 1999). In support, laboratory studies using ad hoc groups demonstrate that group members make better use of each others’ expertise and perform better on recall tasks when there are high levels of TMS (Liang, Moreland, & Argote, 1995; Moreland & Myaskovsky, 2000). Field studies also show that TMS offers benefits to teams, including high levels of team viability (i.e., likelihood that teams will continue to work together and function effectively; Lewis, 2004), improved team performance (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010; Faraj &

206 Group & Organization Management 37(2)

Sproull, 2000; Peltokorpi & Manka, 2008; Rau, 2005; Zhang, Hempel, Han, & Tjosvold, 2007), high levels of team satisfaction (Michinov, Olivier-Chiron, Rusch, & Chiron, 2008; Pearsall & Ellis, 2006), and reduced acute stress over time (Ellis, 2006).

While the positive effects of TMS are well established in the literature, research on how TMS is formed in groups is lagging, especially in relation to the motivational social factors underpinning its development (Peltokorpi, 2008; Ren & Argote, 2011). TMS development research has primarily been grounded and conducted through the lens of a group information-processing framework, which adopts a cognitive-based approach to how expertise is transmitted, shared, and used among team members (Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath, 1997; Jackson & Klobas, 2008; Rulke & Rau, 2000). In this respect, team members are viewed as information processors who encode and store information about “who knows what in the team” to create a TMS (Wegner, 1986). In addition, TMS is argued to facilitate expertise coordination because members are able to retrieve or access specialized domains of knowledge, anticipate each others’ behaviors, and also engage in better problem solving (Hollingshead, 1998c; Moreland, 1999). While Wegner (1995) initially used the analogy of computers downloading information about the database of other computers as a way of describing TMS, more recently, there is a grow-ing recognition that developing and maintaining a system for expertise shar-ing is not simply a cognitive exercise of processing information (Ren & Argote, 2011). In accord, we argue that TMS is a social cognitive phenome-non, whereby its development and how it unfolds in the team context also is influenced by the nature of the social interactions. Informed by social identity and self-categorization theories (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), we develop arguments for consid-ering group identification processes in TMS development. Such a perspective makes three novel contributions to the TMS literature.

First, although TMS research has identified communication as an impor-tant predictor of TMS development (Hollingshead, 1998a), we extend previ-ous research by drawing attention to aspects of communication critical to TMS development. We view communication not only in terms of information transfer but also in terms of signaling information about relationships and building social capital for individuals in the team, as well as for the group as a whole. In considering communication as the central antecedent to how team members can build a TMS structure and engage in TMS processes, we pro-pose that, along with communication quantity, the quality of communication determines how team members create and foster a shared cognitive structure for expertise recognition and coordination.

Liao et al. 207

Second, we contribute to the TMS literature by explaining the mechanism through which communication leads to TMS development. Specifically, we argue that team identification underpins the relationship between communi-cation and TMS development. According to social identity theory, a person’s identification with a group shapes how individuals behave with, and respond to, other group members (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987). Despite social psychology research being implicated in TMS theory (Haslam, 2001) and group performance (Ellemers, deGilder, & Haslam, 2004), there is lim-ited theorizing on how team identification facilitates TMS development. Applying a social identity perspective provides valuable insights into TMS research because it addresses the identity mechanisms explaining why mem-bers within a team are motivated to share and coordinate each others’ expertise.

Third, despite the relevance and applicability of TMS in multidisciplinary teams (i.e., multidisciplinary teams are often formed with the purpose of bringing together a group of experts to contribute to specific aspects of an organization’s work), how TMS develops when individuals contribute to team goals and team tasks as members of distinct professional groups remains largely unexplored. Although TMS has been applied to emergent response teams where team members come from diverse disciplinary backgrounds (Faraj & Xiao, 2006; Majchrzak, Jarvenpaa, & Hollingshead, 2007), to our knowledge, there has been no research investigating how identifying with multiple groups (i.e., the team and the profession) can influence TMS devel-opment. Given that the development of a common team identity is influenced by team members’ unique identity with their own professional subgroup memberships, we draw again from the social identity approach to conceptual-ize the development of a team identity (and subsequent TMS development) in multidisciplinary teams as operating within an inter-group context. We discuss the relevant intergroup processes for TMS development in multidis-ciplinary teams, including the moderating roles of professional identification and perceived equality of status among professional groups.

Accordingly, the overarching aim of our article is to provide a comple-mentary lens that systematically explores the role of communication and two types of group identification processes through which knowledge is dis-tributed and integrated among team members who interact within an intra-group context (e.g., in typical teams where a collection of individuals work together toward common goals) and an intergroup context (e.g., in multidis-ciplinary teams where individuals from different professional disciplines work together toward common goals). We do so by integrating social iden-tity theory with TMS research to first describe a process model of how TMS


develops in typical teams, before considering the intergroup processes specific to multidisciplinary teams requiring interprofessional collaboration. Our approach is consistent with a substantive body of research that recog-nizes the important contributions of identity and identification processes to organizational phenomenon (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002; Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Haslam, 2001). While we recognize that the social identity perspec-tive is only one approach to understanding identity in the organizational context, such an approach adds breadth to the understanding of TMS and, importantly, is one that complements—rather than competes with—current conceptualizations of how individual expertise is located and harnessed within a team.

Our article is structured as follows. First, we begin by reviewing research on TMS development. Our intention here is not to provide an exhaustive review of the TMS literature (for a recent review of TMS antecedents and consequences, see Ren & Argote, 2011) but to highlight key conceptual issues in TMS theory and, moreover, to demonstrate that current conceptual-izations need to be broadened to reflect the group identification mechanisms influencing team cognitions and behaviors. Next, we present our conceptual model in which we extend Wegner’s (1986) theory to discuss how social identification processes play a role in TMS development. Focusing on iden-tifying the key factors in TMS development, we then present a theoretical process model to describe TMS development in both typical and multidisci-plinary teams. We describe our theoretical model with a series of testable propositions to guide future research in the area and raise additional issues for future researchers to consider when testing the model.

TMSsInitially developed to explain aspects of behavior in dyadic intimate couples (Wegner, 1986; Wegner, Erber, & Raymond, 1991), TMS theory has since been extended to the group-level to examine the structure and processes underpinning how teams coordinate information and expertise (e.g., Liang et al., 1995; Moreland, Argote, & Krishnan, 1996), with some researchers also applying it to learning at the organization level (e.g., Anand, Manz, & Glick, 1998; Nevo & Wand, 2005). Wegner (1986) originally argued that the linking of individual memories and the development of a TMS for knowledge coordination occurs through the interactions and communication taking place between individuals. Although it involves individuals engaging in information processing and learning, TMS is not traceable to any of the individuals alone but, instead, lies within the processes occurring among individuals. Reflecting

Liao et al. 209

this, Kozlowski and Klein (2000) conceptualize TMS as a group-level emer-gent cognitive state. Individuals’ distributed memories and knowledge repre-sentations are transformed into a property of the group because holding metaknowledge of what another person knows allows team members to effectively tap into each others’ memories. Research on collective cognitions also highlights that a group “mind” is located in the patterns of connections among individuals, such that it is present in the interrelationships and pro-cesses contributed to by group members (Sandelands & Stablein, 1987).

TMS comprises two components: a structural component (i.e., a shared mental map directory or representation of “who knows what” in the team) and a processing component (i.e., a set of transactive interactions and com-munication processes relating to acquiring, encoding, storing, and retrieving information; see Hollingshead, 1998c; Wegner, 1986). The two components are linked because they operate in a cycle to ensure that expertise is brought to bear on the task (Lewis, Lange, & Gillis, 2005; Rulke & Rau, 2000). Thus, for TMS to develop and function effectively in a team, group members need to build on, leverage, and refine the TMS structure by engaging in three TMS processes: (a) directory updating (i.e., the continual learning and updating of where specialized areas of knowledge are distributed within the team), (b) information allocation (i.e., the matching and assigning of new incoming information resources to the relevant people for storage), and (c) retrieval coordination (i.e., the process of obtaining knowledge resources from rele-vant people through the shared mental map directory). Current conceptual-izations of TMS adopt a group information-processing perspective to understand how distributed knowledge and expertise is learned and combined by the team (Wegner, 1995). From this perspective, team members are seen as information processors who download and upgrade where information is located and distributed. TMS is typically measured in terms of memory spe-cialization (groups having differentiated knowledge domains and delegating responsibility), task coordination (groups coordinating their work efficiently based on knowing what others know), and task credibility (groups’ beliefs about the competence and expertise of group members; e.g., Lewis, 2003; Liang et al., 1995).

A Social Identity Lens to Understanding TMS DevelopmentTheorizing about the motivational social factors driving TMS development in teams is lagging in the literature (Peltokorpi, 2008; Ren & Argote, 2011). Implicit in the conceptualization of TMS as an emergent group cognition


manifesting from group members engaging in the three TMS processes (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) is the notion that the nature of the interactions and relationships among individuals are integral to TMS creation and func-tioning. However, as previously noted, the main framework for TMS research has been grounded in the group information-processing perspective, with limited theoretical discussion on how interactions during TMS develop-ment are bound up in social identification processes. In response, we focus on communication as the main antecedent, and provide a social identity perspective to understand how TMS develops. Our conceptual extensions complement current TMS understandings, incorporating group identification mechanisms relevant to intragroup processes (in typical teams; see Figure 1) and intergroup processes (in multidisciplinary teams; see Figure 2).

We draw attention to four main points. First, according to Wegner (1986, 1995), expertise and memory residing in individuals are coordinated because a shared TMS structure is built, refined, and enacted through team members engaging in TMS processes. The two components are, therefore, intertwined because TMS processes allow for group members to form a TMS structure and, importantly, a TMS structure provides the basis for team members to engage in TMS processes of accessing and using the expertise residing in individuals (Brandon & Hollingshead, 2004). In Figures 1 and 2, we depict a joint relationship between the two components of the TMS structure (i.e., a mental map directory of where expertise is distributed and located) and the TMS processes (i.e., directory updating, information allocation, and retrieval coordination). Each of the three team members (i.e., Persons A, B, and C) is shown to hold specialized knowledge domains and expertise that are impor-tant for other team members to access during task completion and to ensure that they are brought to bear on the task at hand. Moreover, the TMS structure is used by each team member to locate where the relevant expertise and knowledge required for the task reside in the team. For example, Person A may identify that Person C holds the relevant knowledge, before inquiring about the extent of Person C’s knowledge, so that, where possible, he or she can retrieve and coordinate relevant information from Person C. The enact-ment of both TMS structure and TMS processes ensures that Person C’s rel-evant expertise is brought to bear on the task, while also subsequently refining the initial TMS structure of “who knows what.”

Second, TMS is transactive in nature because both TMS components unfold in a social context of team member interactions (Wegner, 1986, 1995). Specifically, the TMS structural component is created and refined through communications and declarations about knowledge domains and, further-more, the associated set of TMS processes play out via the transactions

Liao et al. 211

between team members (Hollingshead, 1998a). In Figures 1 and 2, we depict the central role of communication in TMS development (i.e., the transactive and interactive nature of how TMS forms and operates in teams) with arrows that symbolize the communication pathways between Persons A, B, and C.

Third, when individual team members are interacting and communicating to learn about each others’ specialized domains of expertise, they do so within the context of interacting with each other as members of the team, which provides the basis for team identification to develop. Figure 1 lists the intra-group processes associated with team identification, each affecting how team members interact with each other. The process of shared group membership results from Persons A, B, and C identifying themselves as belonging to the same social group and, as such, their interactions will be characterized by perceiving each other as fellow in-group members. Interactions among Persons A, B, and C also will be characterized by shared group goals such that interactions will be geared toward achieving common goals. Importantly,

TMS PROCESSESDirectory updating

Information allocation Retrieval coordination

INTRA-GROUP PROCESSES- Shared group membership - Shared group goals - Psychological and affective ties to group

TMS STRUCTURE(Mental map directory of

where expertise is distributed and located)

Person A’s Expertise

TEAM IDENTIFICATION

Person B’s Expertise

Person C’s Expertise

Figure 1. A conceptual model of transactive memory system development in an intragroup context: Consideration of team identification mechanism


identification with the team entails both psychological and affective ties to the group, which provides the motivational basis for Persons A, B, and C to think, behave, and interact with each other in a manner that is consistent with the group goals and norms.

Fourth, in multidisciplinary teams where members of a team also belong to different professional groupings, their interactions can be viewed as pri-marily being intergroup in nature because team members engage in TMS processes and use the TMS structure, as representatives of their own profes-sional subgroup. Consequently, our article addresses the issue of multiple social identities (i.e., both team identification and professional identification) in the development of TMS for multidisciplinary teams. As depicted in Figure 2, we extend the basic tenets of Figure 1 to consider how TMS development in multidisciplinary teams is influenced by intergroup processes associated with the salience of professional identification and the intragroup processes of a

TMS PROCESSESDirectory updating

Information allocation Retrieval coordination

PROFESSIONAL IDENTIFICATION OF

GROUP A

TMS STRUCTURE(Mental map directory of

where expertise is distributed and located)

TEAM IDENTIFICATION

INTRA-GROUP PROCESSES- Shared common superordinate identity - Shared common goals

INTER-GROUP PROCESSES- Subgroup identity threat - In-group biases - Perception of equality of status

among professional subgroups

Person A’s Expertise

Person B’s Expertise

Person C’s Expertise

PROFESSIONAL IDENTIFICATION OF

GROUP B

Figure 2. A conceptual model of transactive memory system development in an intergroup context: Consideration of professional identification and team identification mechanisms

Liao et al. 213

shared superordinate team identity. For example, in a health care multidisci-plinary team, Person A is a consultant doctor and Person B is a resident doctor, with both belonging to the same medical professional subgroup (Group A), whereas Person C is a physiotherapist and belongs to the allied-health profes-sional subgroup (Group B). Our view is that communication and interactions among members from different professional subgroups (e.g., Persons A and C) are affected by intergroup processes relating to (a) threats to subgroup identities, in that Person A and Person C are each motivated to retain and preserve the positive distinctiveness of their professional subgroup identities, (b) in-group biases that can be triggered when interactions make salient a “we versus them” perspective, and (c) perception of status equality among professional subgroups, which occurs when professional subgroups are viewed as having equal status and contributing equally to decision making. Furthermore, in recognition of the existence of a dual identity in multidisci-plinary teams, Persons A, B, and C also may identify themselves as belong-ing to a shared common superordinate group of the health care team, whereby their interactions are guided by shared common goals.

Based on the above, we have derived a theoretical process model describ-ing the key factors predicting TMS development (see Figure 3). Using com-munication as our primary antecedent of interest, we aim to capture the relevant group identification processes in TMS development for both typical

TYPICALTEAMS

MULTIDISCIPLINARYTEAMS

Inter-group Processes• Professional Identification • Perceived Equality of Professional Subgroup Status

Communication• Quantity • Quality

a

bc

Intra-group Processes

• Team Identification

TransactiveMemory System

Figure 3. A theoretical process model of transactive memory system (TMS) development for typical and multidisciplinary teams


and multidisciplinary teams. In the next section, we present the propositions associated with our proposed framework, with a focus on clarifying and broadening current understandings of TMS antecedents.

TMS AntecedentsIn a recent comprehensive review of TMS literature, Ren and Argote (2011) examined a whole host of antecedents and found that a long tradition of empirical research has focused on identifying the team and task character-istics predicting TMS. For example, Hollingshead (2001) showed that dyads developed better TMSs when the task involved high levels of cognitive interdependence and when partners had high convergent expectations of each others’ expertise. Similarly, in a field study with high-technology firms, high levels of task interdependence, cooperative goal interdepen-dence, and teams’ support for innovation were associated with better TMS formation (Zhang et al., 2007). Team members’ dispositional assertiveness also has been found to predict TMS creation (Pearsall & Ellis, 2006). Another line of research has focused on the role of group member charac-teristics and interactions in TMS development. For example, TMS has been found to be positively associated with team tenure (Lewis, 2003), group training on tasks (Liang et al., 1995), group training on team skills (Prichard & Ashleigh, 2007), team stability (Akgun, Byrne, Keskin, Lynn, & Imamoglu, 2005), declaration of areas of expertise (Rulke & Rau, 2000), and face-to-face (FTF) communication (Lewis, 2004) whereas negatively associ-ated with group membership change (Lewis, Belliveau, Herndon, & Keller, 2007; Moreland & Argote, 2003).

Although TMS can develop from access to information about team mem-bers’ skills (Moreland & Myaskovsky, 2000) or by sharing information about roles and responsibility (Pearsall, Ellis, & Bell, 2010), Hollingshead (1998a) argued that, beyond an awareness of expertise distribution and shared experi-ences with the other person, communication cues are central to how people learn and pool information from others. Broader research on information sharing also suggests that effective communication leads to better utilization of individual expertise and decision-making practices in groups (Stasser & Titus, 2003). Communication is argued to play a critical role in TMS devel-opment because it provides opportunities for information about each others’ expertise to be encoded, stored, and retrieved at the group level (Hollingshead, 1998a). Indeed, judgments of expertise are better formed through exchanges of ideas, self-disclosures, and public declarations of expertise (Hollingshead & Brandon, 2003).

Liao et al. 215

Distinguishing Between Communication Quantity and Quality

Reflecting that communication with group members may occur within a task-focused as well as a social rapport–building context, we view commu-nication as the exchange of task-related information as well as relational information. Whereas communication has been identified to be the vehicle through which the team can learn to construct a TMS structure and engage in TMS processes (Hollingshead, 1998a), a social identity framework refo-cuses attention to a consideration of what aspects of communication create and foster a system for encoding, storing, and retrieving expertise. We pay particular attention to distinguishing between two aspects of communication: quantity and quality. We define communication quantity as a combination of volume and frequency to reflect the notion that teams can frequently or infre-quently have large or small amounts of interactions with each other. In con-trast, we refer to communication quality as the extent to which the communication is perceived as informative, helpful, important, and meaning-ful for the task at hand (i.e., quality pertaining to the information exchange) as well as whether the experience of the interaction was evaluated as positive and enjoyable (i.e., quality regarding the relational aspects of communication).

Communication quantity. Research has provided support for the positive effects of communication quantity on TMS. For example, in a sample of child care work groups, Peltokorpi and Manka (2008) demonstrated that, along with supportive supervision and group potency, frequent communication pre-dicted TMS development. Lewis (2004) found that, controlling for task demands and prior familiarity with team members, frequent FTF communi-cation predicted TMS levels for project management teams. Extending these positive effects to virtual teams, studies also have shown that the frequency and volume of task-oriented communication through emails and web posts also predict TMS development (Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2007; Yoo & Kanawattanachai, 2001). Using a social network approach, Palazzolo, Serb, She, Su, and Contractor (2006) demonstrated that higher communication density (i.e., the percentage of actual communication compared with the total possible number of communication ties) during information allocation and retrieval improved accuracy levels of expertise recognition, as well as differ-entiating the team’s knowledge structure. Overall, communication quantity is important in predicting TMS development.

Communication quality. In line with Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis outlining how cooperative intergroup outcomes depend on the nature of con-tact (i.e., contact should be experienced as pleasant, meaningful, cooperative,


and egalitarian), we suggest that beyond communication quantity, the per-ceived quality of communication is an important antecedent in TMS develop-ment. In TMS research, the quality of communication has typically been studied through the mode or channel of communication and inferences are made about the richness of communication experiences (e.g., Hollingshead, 1998b; Jarvenpaa & Majchrzak, 2008; Lewis, 2004). In comparing across studies on the effects of communication mode on TMS, Lewis (2004) found evidence to suggest that FTF communication is more beneficial than non-FTF communication, although Yoo and Kanawattanachai’s (2001) study on virtual teams demonstrated that non-FTF communication also can lead to TMS development. In another study, Jarvenpaa and Majchrzak (2008) found that engaging in multiple FTF and non-FTF communication channels (includ-ing in-person meetings, phone calls, conferences, group emails, and portal login) allowed team members to establish rules of conversation and dialogue, which improved knowledge collaboration across professionals. The quality of communication in TMS development also has been examined in studies that train teams to engage in effective team skills (e.g., Prichard & Ashleigh, 2007; Rulke & Rau, 2000). For example, Prichard and Ashleigh (2007) found that teams trained on a range of team skills developed better TMS than teams that were not trained, and, moreover, these teams reported higher quality interactions, such as more positive feedback, more sharing of information, and overall better team interactions.

We suggest that key aspects of communication quality may be categorized as pertaining to (a) the information being presented and how it is cognitively evaluated for the task (e.g., is the communication useful?) or (b) the affective experience of the interaction (e.g., is the communication positive?). In defin-ing communication quality as such, we allow for the possibility that these two dimensions of quality (i.e., the utility and the affective experience) may not always be aligned. We suggest it is the perception of positive and meaningful communication experiences that allows team members to develop better rap-port with each other and correctly assess the information provided by others to build a TMS. Indeed, team member familiarity and interpersonal trust (that presumably arises as a consequence of high-quality interaction) are posi-tively associated with well-developed TMSs (Akgun et al., 2005). Knowledge disclosure between parties, the evaluation of knowledge distribution and gaps in the team, and the coordination and allocation of responsibilities have been argued to occur when interactions with in-group team members are characterized by enhanced mutual trust and liking (Ashleigh & Prichard, 2012; McEvily, Peronne, & Zaheer, 2003). Perceiving communication to be of high quality allows people to be more receptive and trusting of each others’

Liao et al. 217

ideas and contributions for knowledge integration purposes because trust increases disclosure of knowledge and grants access to each others’ knowl-edge (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; McEvily et al., 2003).

Proposition 1: In TMS development, team members form and refine a TMS structure and engage in TMS processes through communica-tion with group members. As such, high quantity of communication (frequency and amount) and high perceived quality of communi-cation (utility and affective-based evaluations) positively predict a well-developed TMS.

Social Identity and TMS Development: Consideration of Intragroup ProcessOur rationale for integrating social identity research into TMS development is to recognize that, because workplace teams stay intact for an extended period of time, and team members also interact with each other in the context of team work, social identities are likely to form during these interactions and subsequently shape how expertise is coordinated. Importantly, Haslam (2001) noted that TMS should develop in conjunction with a sense of a shared common social identity (i.e., a team identity). However, to our knowl-edge, there has been no explicit theoretical development of propositions outlining the relationships between social identification processes and how they play out in the development of TMS. Indeed, in their comprehensive review, Ren and Argote (2011) noted that considerations of group identifica-tion processes as a motivational factor have been underrepresented in TMS research, although they speculated that identifying with the group will enable team members to invest in developing specialized divisions of labor. Reflecting this theoretical gap, there also has been a lack of empirical work on the role of social identity processes in TMS formation. When social iden-tity has been empirically assessed in laboratory studies, it was used to rule out the alternative explanation that the positive effects of group training on team performance were due to social identification processes instead of TMS effects (e.g., Liang et al., 1995; Moreland et al., 1996). However, such find-ings do not dismiss a role for team identification in the development of a TMS, especially because people interact with each other not only in terms of their individual identities but also in terms of social identities that are cued by the context (Haslam, 2001).

A core premise of the social identity perspective (consisting of both social identity theory and self-categorization theory) is that individuals’ self-concepts


are derived, in part, from identification with valued groups and the emotional significance attached to those group memberships (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987). Identification with social groups provides meaning for the self, including self-esteem needs and distinctiveness needs. Such a perspective has important implications for understanding both intra-group and intergroup behavior and has been used to explain how people respond to and behave with others in group contexts. In particular, it is argued that shared group goals can develop when people belong to the same group and have psychologically meaningful attachments to the group (Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994). Depending on the salience of particular social cat-egorizations, social identities can guide a person’s attitudes and behaviors to become more aligned with the group’s norms and goals because individuals are motivated to behave and think in a manner that is consistent with being a prototypical in-group member. Although the theory has made contributions to intergroup relationships research on reducing prejudice and hostility (e.g., Brewer & Brown, 1998; Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002), it is also of rele-vance to an intra-group context, such as in the case of how communication within a team is shared and attended to for team collaboration (Morton, Wright, Peters, Reynolds, & Haslam, in press). Indeed, categorizing the self as a mem-ber of a social group influences a range of intragroup processes and outcomes, such as coordinated group activity (Haslam, 2001), decision making in groups (Hogg, 1996), and group performance (van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 2003).

Based on the social identity perspective, we argue that team identification serves as a mechanism through which communication leads to better TMS development. Considering that team members interact and communicate with each other in the context of working on a common task, communication should lead to the development of a salient team identity, especially if team members communicate to seek and integrate information for the task at hand (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Indeed, Postmes, Spears, Lee, and Novak (2005) view communication as the interface that cues and builds team-oriented behaviors relating to the development of a shared team identity and shared cognitions. In support of the positive link between communication and team identification, Postmes, Haslam, and Swaab (2005) argue that a primary function of communication in small groups is the alignment of attitudes and perspectives to generate shared group perceptions. Demonstrating that com-munication predicts the salience of social identities and also the interactions enabling identity formation, Postmes, Tanis, and de Wit (2001) find that ver-tical communication in organizations (i.e., direct communication in manage-ment) enhances organizational identity salience and identification. Postmes, Spears, and Lea (2000) also find that project-based email interactions over a

Liao et al. 219

4-month period lead to team members converging on the stylistic form and content of emails, with email interactions becoming more distinct from other groups, even in the absence of a clearly defined intergroup context. These findings are consistent with the view that communication is central to cohe-sive group behaviors because communication invites people to cognitively represent themselves as belonging to the same group (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Postmes, 2003).

In support of the link between team identification positively predicting TMS development, the social identity perspective also suggests that group identification leads to better coordinated and organized group action (Ellemers et al., 2004; Hogg & Terry, 2000). This is because the shared sense of “we-ness” and the psychological and affective ties from identifying with the team can motivate team members to better attend to information provided by other team members (Haslam, 2001; Turner et al., 1987). In support of team identity predicting TMS development, Kane (2010) found that when a shared common identity was made salient, groups were more able to capitalize and transfer each others’ knowledge through better consideration of others’ knowledge. There is also evidence suggesting that teams are more receptive to embracing newcomers’ prior knowledge and more likely to adopt suggestions for work methods when they share a common social identity (Kane, Argote, & Levine, 2005).

Thus, team identification explains how communication with other team members can lead to the effective development of a TMS. Developing a shared common identity from interactions with other team members encour-ages individuals in the team to see a stake in each others’ goals and learn about each others’ domains of knowledge. Moreover, individuals are moti-vated to learn about each others’ expertise because they share the same col-lective goals and interests of developing a TMS for improving team coordination and information-sharing behaviors. Drawing on research sug-gesting the positive role of communication in predicting team identification (e.g., Postmes, 2003; Postmes et al., 2000) and the positive role of team iden-tification in predicting TMS (e.g., Kane, 2010), we propose that team identi-fication is the mechanism through which communication among team members can build and foster a group cognitive system for exchanging knowledge resources and expertise.

Proposition 2: Team identification is the underlying mechanism medi-ating the positive effects of communication quantity and communi-cation quality on TMS.


Consideration of recursive feedback loops. Whereas social identity theory depicts team identification as the mechanism through which team members are able to consider, unlock, and capitalize on the knowledge residing in the team for better information-sharing practices (Kane, 2010; Kane et al., 2005), a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of expertise coordination involves capturing the dynamic and temporal nature of team development and functioning (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). The need to consider temporal issues in TMS development is because TMS construction is an iterative process of constant directory updat-ing and refinement (Brandon & Hollingshead, 2004). In fact, Lewis and col-leagues (2005) suggested that team learning involved in TMS formation at Stage 1 affects following learning processes at Stage 2. Thus, a consideration of recursive feedback loops may be appropriate for understanding the predic-tive roles of communication and group identification on TMS development over time. Recursive feedback loops are consistent with Cronin, Weingart, and Todorova’s (2011) notion of self-reinforcing feedback loops, whereby there is a circular relationship of group behaviors reinforcing individual behaviors and individual behaviors reinforcing group behaviors. As shown in Figure 3, we outline three potential recursive feedback loops in TMS devel-opment and suggest that bidirectional relationships between variables can take place at any point in our linear process model to shape the construction and refinement of a TMS.

As shown with Pathway A, earlier developments of a team’s TMS can reinforce subsequent communication among team members that, in turn, can lead to better refinement of the TMS structure and processes through the bolstering of team identification. Indeed, Postmes and colleagues suggest that while social identities (e.g., a team identity) can orient team members to develop shared group cognitions (e.g., a TMS), shared group cognitions may also inductively construct a sense of shared identity through determining how group members interact with each other (Postmes, Haslam, et al., 2005; Postmes, Spears, et al., 2005). The combination of being able to rely on each other for information access and being able to coordinate differentiated knowl-edge in the early stages can encourage team members to engage in better com-munication behaviors, which can subsequently strengthen team identification and later refinement of the TMS. Similarly, as reflected in Pathway B, earlier developments of TMS also can later reinforce team membership ties and iden-tification. This bidirectional relationship is consistent with research con-ducted by Swaab, Postmes, Van Beest, and Spears (2007), who found that group identification can be both a catalyst and result of shared cognition

Liao et al. 221

development. Finally, as represented by Pathway C, earlier developments of team identification can reinforce the interaction patterns among team mem-bers that, in turn, can again lead to the refinement of a TMS. Indeed, affective and psychological ties to the group may propel and reinforce the existing communication patterns among team members (Oakes et al., 1994; Postmes, Haslam, et al., 2005). Thus, we implore future researchers to adopt longitudi-nal research designs to test these potential recursive feedback loops and pro-vide a more comprehensive understanding of how identification mechanisms unfold over time in TMS development.

The Case of Multidisciplinary Teams: Consideration of Intergroup ProcessesA key aspect of the social identity approach, and in particular self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987), is the recognition that identity is not only a function of the individual but also of the social context, with the psychological salience or meaningfulness of a group identity being cued by the context. Furthermore, people can hold multiple social identities, although one social identity is usu-ally more cued than the other. For example, research has demonstrated differ-ent forms of identification in organizations, such as team identity, organizational identity, and corporate identity (Ashforth & Johnson, 2001; Cornelissen, Haslam, & Balmer, 2007). Importantly, identities also can be “nested” in rela-tion to each other, such that a single superordinate identity may encompass and contain a number of different subgroup identities. However, depending on the salience of contextual cues, one social identity can become more cued than another, particularly under conditions of perceived threat.

A multidisciplinary (or cross-functional) team is an example of a team in which employees are likely to interact based on multiple social subgroup identities within the context of a salient superordinate identity. Health care teams and project management teams are examples of multidisciplinary teams, whereby team members work together in the same team, although they come from distinct professional backgrounds. The application of TMS is especially relevant in these types of teams which are concerned with leverag-ing and integrating a professionally diverse range of distributed knowledge (Akgun et al., 2005; Faraj & Xiao, 2006; Jarvenpaa & Majchrzak, 2008; Majchrzak et al., 2007). However, we note that team members do not simply come together to work on team tasks as a collection of individuals, but instead, individuals also interact as representatives of their own professional disci-plinary group. In this way, individuals in multidisciplinary teams can be thought of as interacting within an inter-group environment that involves


cutting across professional group boundaries to exchange knowledge bases and expertise. Thus, we draw attention to understanding identity dynamics that are of relevance in multidisciplinary teams. The next two sections will explore the interplay between professional identification and perceived equality of status between professional groups in how multidisciplinary teams build a team identity for TMS formation.

Moderating role of professional identification. From a social identity perspec-tive, team members in multidisciplinary teams can form a shared common identity with others in the team, while also simultaneously identifying with their own unique professional subgroups. The team identity represents a shared common in-group identity, whereby individuals identify themselves as belonging to part of a more inclusive superordinate group (e.g., “I am part of this multidisciplinary healthcare team”; see Hornsey & Hogg, 2000a, 2000b; van Dick, 2001). When a superordinate team identity is made salient, people view all other team members as in-group members and perceive a stake in the team’s outcomes. In contrast, the identification of distinct profes-sional groups is referred to as a subcategory or subgroup identity (e.g., “I am a physiotherapist”). As individuals take on specific roles and responsibilities that promote and cue the salience of their own distinct profession, members in multidisciplinary teams often hold multiple social identities (Ashforth & Johnson, 2001; Pratt & Rafaeli, 1997).

When professional identity is made salient, the interaction among team members may be conceived as intergroup in nature because individuals engage and respond to each other as members of different social groups. According to the common in-group identity model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993), positive inter-actions among members of different groups can facilitate the development of a common shared identity because contact brings about a transformation in the cognitive representation of the self and others to belong to one superordi-nate group, as opposed to two separate groups. However, because profes-sional identities are often important components of people’s self-concepts and are reinforced by the functional role that individuals occupy in the team, eliminating these subgroup professional identities is both counterproductive and challenging (see Brown & Hewstone, 2005). The common in-group iden-tity model acknowledges this by proposing that categorizing oneself in terms of a dual identity (e.g., when group members retain their distinct professional subgroup identity within a more inclusive shared superordinate identity) facilitates more positive intergroup relationships (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kafati, 2000; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000a). The mutual intergroup differentiation model also suggests that each group’s areas of

Liao et al. 223

expertise should be recognized and valued to reduce threats to the subgroups’ positive distinctiveness (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Validzic, 1998).

Providing support for the importance of retaining subgroup identities within a broader shared superordinate identity, Hornsey and Hogg (2000a) found across two experiments that intersubgroup relationships between humanities and math–science students during a decision-making task were the most harmonious when participants were exposed to both strong sub-group identity salience (i.e., identifying with a humanity group or a math–science group) and strong superordinate group salience (i.e., identifying with the university group). Interestingly, participants exhibited the highest levels of intergroup bias when only the superordinate group identity was made salient. This is because a dual identity representation creates positive intergroup out-comes by initiating cognitive and affective reevaluations of out-group mem-bers, while also protecting the distinctiveness of the subgroup identity (Gaertner et al., 1993; Pettigrew, 1997). In fact, in their review of the inter-group literature, Hornsey and Hogg (2000b) suggested that harmony between groups is best achieved by maintaining subgroup identities and ensuring that the subgroup identity is located within the context of a shared superordinate identity (see also Haslam, Eggins, & Reynolds, 2003). In terms of TMS devel-opment, holding distinct professional identities within a larger common team identity allows for mutual positive intergroup differentiation to occur between professional subgroups (Hewstone & Brown, 1996). In relation to TMS development, this ensures that team members can focus on working collab-oratively together by being able to recognize and access the multiple knowl-edge sets available to the team.

However, there are challenges to forming a shared identity (and thus a TMS) among diverse groups. Professional diversity may disrupt group infor-mation processing and decrease the effectiveness of group interaction because individuals who align themselves as part of distinct professional groups are more susceptible to intergroup biases (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). For instance, in multidisciplinary health care teams, a common phenomenon is the professional tension and conflict among doctors, nurses, and allied health staff. Most notably, the professional group divisions in these teams result in miscommunication due to having different disciplinary styles of communica-tion and a reluctance to express viewpoints to those in higher status positions (Leonard, Graham, & Bonacum, 2004; Watson, Hewett, & Gallois, 2012). In a study with interprofessional surgical teams, Lingard, Reznick, DeVito, and Espin (2002) found that professional identities lead to misinterpretation and oversimplification of other team members’ roles and motives during tense communication scenarios. Other research also shows that the ability to


integrate diverse knowledge domains is negatively influenced by occupational background, individual training, and expectations about work relationships (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002; Cronin & Weingart, 2007). Indeed, people are less open to trusting the information provided by others as well as psychologi-cally accepting the work goals, methods, and contributions of others who do not share a common language framework (Mackie & Goethals, 1987).

As argued by van Knippenberg and colleagues, although team diversity may have positive effects on creative decision making and performance, diversity can also have negative effects on relational or affective responses to the group because of social categorization processes relating to intergroup biases (van Knippenberg, deDreu, & Homan, 2004; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Reconciling these opposing findings across two studies, van Knippenberg, Haslam, and Platow (2007) found that beliefs about the perceived value of diversity to work group functioning moderated the rela-tionship between diversity and team identification, with benefits of diverse teams being realized only when group members valued heterogeneity in work groups. These findings are in accord with research on TMS develop-ment. In particular, Borgatti and Cross (2003) found that information-seeking behaviors involved knowing and valuing the expertise held by other team mem-bers, whereas Jarvenpaa and Majchrzak (2008) found that, in a sample of secu-rity personnel recruited from both public and private sectors, the sharing and usage of specialized knowledge was impeded in interorganizational collabora-tions because of having different allegiances to different employers.

Taken together, these findings highlight how professional group identifi-cation in multidisciplinary teams may act as a double-edge sword in TMS formation. On one hand, professional identification could elicit in-group biases characteristic of an intergroup context and, therefore, reinforce the unique professional identity at the expense of integrating with other group members. In this way, professional identification can serve as a barrier for building a team identity that is necessary for team members to develop a TMS. On the other hand, strong professional identification encompassed within a broader shared common team identity protects the positive distinc-tiveness of subgroup identities and may assist team members to contribute uniquely and harmoniously to the knowledge base of the team. We suggest that whether professional identification strengthens or impedes the effects of communication on team identification (and subsequent TMS development) is dependent on the perceived equality of professional subgroup status.

Moderating role of perceived equality of professional subgroup status. Similar to how valuing diversity can mitigate the negative effects of diversity on team functioning (van Knippenberg et al., 2007), we draw attention to perceived

Liao et al. 225

equality of status between professional groups as a key intergroup factor determining whether a shared common team identity can be formed in multi-disciplinary teams for TMS development purposes. Valuing each others’ con-tribution and the diversity within the team requires subgroups to be equal in status (Dovidio et al., 1998). When social hierarchies exist within a group, dominant groups pay less attention to information and suggestions from low-status members (Alexander, Chizhik, Chizhik, & Goodman, 2009). Minority group members who are lower in status also tend to evaluate the intergroup contact as less favorable and productive than majority group members (Islam & Hewstone, 1993). Saguy, Dovidio, and Pratto (2008) found across two studies on ethnic groups in Israel that those who identified highly with a dis-advantaged ethnic group tended to focus more on differences between the two groups and had a stronger desire to talk about power differences during inter-group interactions due to a need to create change for group equality. In fact, disadvantaged group members show greater trust and group commitment within an organization when they feel that their subgroup identity is respected (Dovidio, Saguy, & Schnabel, 2009; Huo & Molina, 2006). Research on mul-tidisciplinary health care teams further reinforce the notion that interprofes-sional collaborations are most effective when teams are able to balance achieving shared goals, as well as satisfying competing professional group agendas (Lingard, Espin, Evans, & Hawryluck, 2004). Thus, we argue that perceptions about status equality among professional subgroups is an addi-tional factor of importance in determining whether professional identity is beneficial or detrimental for building a shared common team identity (and subsequent TMS development).

In terms of developing a shared common identity in an intergroup context, research suggests that it is important to take into account perceived group status differences for a more comprehensive understanding of dual identities. For example, Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bachman, and Anastasio (1996) exam-ined status differences between ethnic subcategories and found that those who viewed their ethnic subgroup as lower in status (minority group) were less likely to form a superordinate American identity than those who perceived their group as higher in status (majority group). Other research examining the role of status in organizational merger contexts also highlight group status as an important factor to consider when the aim is to bring people from distinct subgroups to form one superordinate group identity (e.g., Terry & Callan, 1998; Terry & O’Brien, 2001). From this research, we suggest if group mem-bers perceive status equality among professional groups, then issues relating to status and power differences do not pose a threat to subgroup identities and, therefore, do not function as an obstacle during the development of team


identification. Instead, when there is perceived equality of status, interactions between group members is characterized by valuing the contribution of members from different professional groups (Dovidio et al., 2009). Where status among professional groups is seen as unequal, and when professional identity is salient, people in the lower status group may interpret their profes-sional contributions as undervalued by the team. Accordingly, these individu-als may be more motivated to preserve the positive distinctiveness of their own professional subgroup identity at the expense of identifying strongly with the team.

To summarize, while TMS develops due to the intragroup process of team identification, developing a shared common team identity in multidisciplinary teams is influenced by additional intergroup processes relating to (a) individu-als’ level of professional group identification and (b) individuals’ level of per-ceived equality of status among professional groups within the team context. In line with research on status differences (e.g., Gaertner et al., 1996), when group members perceive equality of status among professional groups, then professional identification will enhance the positive effects of communica-tion on team identification, which will subsequently lead to better TMS development. This relationship is because those who identify strongly with their professional groups will respond to situations and interact with others as members of their own distinct professional groups, and a shared group iden-tity can only be developed when group members do not feel threatened by an inequality of status among professional groupings. These individuals should be more motivated to work toward the same collective goals and interests of developing a TMS for expertise coordination purposes. In contrast, individu-als who identify strongly with their professional groups and perceive status inequality between professional groupings are more likely to experience inter-group biases. As such, when group members perceive inequality of status between professional groups, then individuals’ professional group identifica-tion will weaken the positive effects of communication on team identification and, subsequently, will lead to lower TMS development.

Proposition 3: In the prediction of TMS development for multi-disciplinary teams, individuals’ professional identification will strengthen the positive effects of communication on team identifica-tion to the extent that individuals perceive equality of status between professional groups, but individuals’ professional identification will weaken the positive effects of communication on team identification to the extent that individuals perceive inequality of status between professional groups.

Liao et al. 227

Discussion

In this article, we presented a theoretical process model identifying key fac-tors predicting TMS development to understand how distributed knowledge structures in workplace teams are collectively organized and coordinated. As a main tenet, we proposed that a knowledge sharing system is not simply constructed from individuals’ cognitive-based efforts of encoding, storing, and retrieving information. Instead, TMS emerges from a set of social inter-actions among individuals, especially considering that TMS structure and processes are developed and enacted in the context of group members inter-acting with each other. Thus, we conceptualized TMS from a social identity perspective and discussed the roles of group member interactions and group identification processes.

Our contribution focuses on how TMS stems from the communication patterns and psychological and affective ties to a shared common group. Specifically, we viewed team identification as the underlying mechanism linking the relationships between communication quantity, communication quality, and TMS development. This view marks a notable departure from previous research by addressing the social identification mechanisms that have been underrepresented since Wegner’s (1986) original conceptualiza-tion of TMS. It also addresses concerns that the TMS body of research has largely neglected to describe how affect influences information sharing (see Huang, 2009) because the social identity approach suggests that the emo-tional and the psychological attachment toward the group and its goals are integral to explaining how communication can motivate people to accept, attend to, and use information provided by other team members. Although our propositions depict TMS development at a given point in time, we high-light how these propositions may be extended with longitudinal research designs to examine potential feedback loops in the continual construction and updating of TMS structures and processes once an initial TMS has already been developed.

We also explored TMS development in the case of multidisciplinary teams, which we viewed as operating within an inter-group context of team members interacting with each other as representatives of their own profes-sional subgroup. We proposed that strong identification with professional subgroups may either be beneficial or detrimental in building a shared team identity for TMS development, depending on the perceived equality of status between professional subgroups. Much of the TMS literature assumes that teams usually work toward a single common goal, although some researchers have begun to challenge this idea (e.g., Jarvenpaa & Majchrzak, 2008). Our


contributions are, therefore, highlighting additional intergroup processes that can either enable, or challenge, the ability of these teams to build a collective team identity for TMS development.

Further Theoretical Considerations in TMS DevelopmentConsideration of other group factors. While team identification facilitates

and mobilizes the sharing and coordination of knowledge resources because team members are more receptive and trusting of each others’ expertise (Kane et al., 2005), we implore future researchers to consider instances when other group factors that are closely linked to team identification can discourage team members from developing a TMS. For instance, team identification may induce high levels of trust and create group norms centered on team cohesion that may discourage team members from engaging in adaptive task conflict behaviors and, subsequently, lead to inaccurate developments of TMS structures as well as poor enactments of TMS processes. Indeed, team identification has been shown to result in less task conflict because there is more trust in peers (Han & Harms, 2010). Ashleigh and Prichard (2012) pro-posed that although trust is beneficial, excessive amounts may limit the like-lihood that evaluations of others’ expertise will be made through a reflective scrutiny and thorough discussion of the validity of the declared specialized knowledge in the team. In this respect, excessive trust may not necessarily be advantageous for TMS refinement as team members may assume that new incoming information will be appropriately handled and digested by those who are perceived as experts in that area (McEvily et al., 2003). Thus, teams may form the illusion that there is no knowledge gap in the team and become complacent about the accuracy of their initial TMS structure and the effi-ciency of existing TMS processes. This inaccuracy may be more present when there are time constraints on work completion, such that team members do not have time or motivation to engage in prolonged discussions intended for TMS refinement.

Similarly, as team members interact more, group norms focused on retain-ing a sense of team cohesion (i.e., norms that prioritize harmonious relation-ships within the team over and above engaging in task conflict for improving performance outcomes) may lead to a lack of TMS refinement and updating. From a social identity perspective, group norms guide the behaviors and cog-nitions of those who identify highly with the group. As such, norms promot-ing team cohesion can discourage team members from engaging in adaptive task conflict for updating accurate TMS structures. In support of the role of group norms impacting on knowledge sharing behaviors, Mitchell, Boyle,

Liao et al. 229

and Nicholas (2009) demonstrated that openness to cognitive diversity posi-tively facilitates knowledge creation and innovation through the emergence of behavioral patterns that support open rigorous discussions. We envisage that norms on team cohesion can block access to integrating new informa-tion. In addition to the positive role of team identification, we call for future researchers to consider how other group factors may limit team identification positively influencing TMS development.

Consideration of group membership change. Changes during the group life-time can trigger qualitatively different patterns of behavior in response to the change (Arrow, Poole, Henry, Wheelan, & Moreland, 2004). In a scenario whereby newcomers are introduced to the team, the TMS process of directory updating is critical to ensuring that newcomers’ knowledge is integrated and updated into the existing TMS structure and, moreover, that TMS processes of information allocation and retrieval coordination further reflect any changes to the TMS structure. The experience of membership change may create changes in norms and identity formations, which have effects on how expertise is coordinated in teams. Supporting this notion that group identifi-cation mechanisms are powerful in the development of TMS during group membership change, Kane and colleagues (2005) found that a shared sense of team identification enabled production teams experiencing membership change to capitalize on the new team members’ routine and knowledge, espe-cially when the newcomers’ knowledge is superior to the existing knowledge in the team. In another study on group membership change, Lewis et al. (2007) found that teams experiencing partial membership change did not per-form well because they tended to hold onto the existing TMS structure, thereby creating inefficient TMS processes. Thus, future research may unpack the role of team identification in these instances where newcomers were found to assimilate and “fit in” their expertise to the existing TMS.

Consideration of other identification mechanisms. Beyond typical and multi-disciplinary teams, there are other forms of organizational job design in which knowledge is coordinated across departmental units with other teams. Indeed, TMS research has already been applied to understanding expertise coordination in boundary spanning roles (Faraj & Yan, 2009). For the model of TMS development to be applicable to these types of teams, the proposi-tions can be extended to consider other group identities operating in the workplace of relevance to TMS development, such as departmental identities and organizational identities (Ashforth & Johnson, 2001; Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Indeed, there is research suggesting that intergroup contact and orga-nizational identification processes interact with boundary spanners’ group identification to determine intergroup conflict and productivity (Richter,


West, van Dick, & Dawson, 2006). In this respect, future empirical investiga-tions may extend our propositions by examining how other identification processes determine TMS development in different team contexts.

Practical ImplicationsTMS research describing how knowledge specialization occurs within the team, and how such knowledge can be integrated and coordinated to produce better team outcomes, have important implications for managers who want to ensure that the knowledge employees bring to the table are being appro-priately shared and used. Based on our propositions regarding how TMS develops in typical teams, we suggest that managers should not only encour-age frequent and large amounts of communication but also focus on improv-ing the quality of group member interactions through rapport-building exercises and team-building initiatives. Importantly, training should focus on strategies promoting a shared common team identity. For example, trainers could implement team-building activities that establish a process of psycho-logical contract formation outlining a shared understanding of what to expect in the team, as well as defining the team’s identity (Rousseau, 1995). Applying TMS to multidisciplinary teams is especially relevant, as these teams arise from knowledge-intensive work requiring specialized domains of knowledge. We recommend encouraging team members to identify with their own dis-tinct professional subgroups, although this approach needs to be supported by breaking down professional group barriers. For instance, managers can structure team activities that promote the recognition and valuing of each professional group’s contribution, while also ensuring that members are aware of collective team goals.

ConclusionNothwithstanding our additional further considerations, we believe that, overall, our model provides a useful theoretical framework for outlining TMS development in the intragroup context for typical teams and in the intergroup context for multidisciplinary teams, with a particular focus on outlining a set of testable propositions that describe the roles of group iden-tification mechanisms. From the theoretical model, we recommend that future researchers employ longitudinal designs to test the first two proposi-tions on the process through which TMS develops as a function of time. Researchers may track newly formed intact teams from the initial stages of team formation until the end of the team life cycle to examine whether initial

Liao et al. 231

communication predicts team identification and later TMS development. Moreover, the use of longitudinal designs will permit an investigation of potential recursive feedback loops in TMS development and refinement. We also call on future researchers to examine the role of professional identifica-tion by conducting field studies on multidisciplinary teams, such as with health care teams. The challenge for future researchers will be to know when to assess and capture the constructs as well as the time intervals between measurement points, and, thus, we reiterate the importance of study replica-tions for meaningful interpretation. Future research also may unpack other group factors relevant to TMS development (e.g., group norms focused on team cohesion), investigate the role of team identification in the adaptation of TMS during group membership change, and assess other social identities relevant to a variety of team contexts (e.g., the role of departmental identity for coordinating expertise across teams in different departmental units). It is envisioned that the present article will inspire researchers to empirically tease apart and assess the propositions across a variety of teams and contexts over time as well as to advance the current conceptualization of TMS from a social identity perspective.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by an Australian Research Council Grant (LP0882135) awarded to the second and fourth authors.

References

Alexander, M. G., Chizhik, A. W., Chizhik, E. W., & Goodman, J. A. (2009). Lower-status participation and influence: Task structure matters. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 365-381.

Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2002). Identity regulation and organizational control:

Producing the appropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 619-644.Akgun, A. E., Byrne, J., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S., & Imamoglu, S. Z. (2005). Knowl-

edge networks in new product development projects: A transactive memory per-spective. Information and Management, 42, 1105-1120.


Anand, V., Manz, C. C., & Glick, W. H. (1998). An organizational memory approach to information management. Academy of Management Review, 23, 769-809.

Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage of firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 150-169.

Arrow, H., Poole, M. S., Henry, K. B., Wheelan, S., & Moreland, R. L. (2004). Time, change, and development: Temporal perspectives on groups. Small Group Research, 35, 73-105.

Ashforth, B. E., & Johnson, S. A. (2001). Which hat to wear? The relative salience of multiple identities in organizational contexts. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 31-48). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Acad-emy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.

Ashleigh, M. J., & Prichard, J. S. (2012). An integrative model of the role of trust in transactive memory development. Group & Organization Management, 37, 5-35.

Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learn-ing in social networks. Management Science, 49, 432-445.

Brandon, D. P., & Hollingshead, A. B. (2004). Transactive memory systems in organi-zations: Matching tasks, expertise and people. Organization Science, 15, 633-644.

Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Inter-group relations. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 281-302). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Brown, R., & Hewstone, H. (2005). An integrative theory of inter-group contact. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255-343). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Processes and performance effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 875-893.

Cornelissen, J. P., Haslam, S. A., & Balmer, J. M. T. (2007). Social identity, organi-zational identity and corporate identity: Towards an integrated understanding of processes, patternings and products. British Academy of Management, 18, 1-16.

Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information process-ing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32, 761-773.

Cronin, M. A., Weingart, L. R., & Todorova, G. (2011). Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet? Academy of Management Annals, 5, 571-612.

DeChurch, L., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 32-53.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Orga-nization Science, 12, 450-467.

Liao et al. 233

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Kafati, G. (2000). Group identity and inter-group relations: The common in-group identity model. In S. R. Thye, E. J. Lawler, M. W. Macy, & H. A. Walker (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 17, pp. 1-34). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Validzic, A. (1998). Inter-group bias: Status, dif-ferentiation, and a common in-group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 109-120.

Dovidio, J. F., Saguy, T., & Schnabel, N. (2009). Cooperation and conflict within groups: Bridging intra-group and inter-group processes. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 429-449.

Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and group performance at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group per-formance. Academy of Management Review, 29, 459-478.

Ellis, A. P. J. (2006). System breakdown: The role of mental models and transactive memory in the relationship between acute stress and team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 576-589.

Faraj, S., & Sproull, L. (2000). Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science, 46, 1554-1568.

Faraj, S., & Xiao, Y. (2006). Coordination in fast response organizations. Manage-ment Science, 52, 1155-1169.

Faraj, S., & Yan, A. (2009). Boundary work in knowledge teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 604-617.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing inter-group bias: The common in-group identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common in-group identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of inter-group bias. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1-26). London, UK: Wiley.

Gaertner, S. L., Rust, M. C., Dovidio, J. F., Bachman, B. A., & Anastasio, P. A. (1996). The contact hypothesis: The role of a common in-group identity on reduc-ing inter-group bias among majority and minority group members. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? (pp. 230-260). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Han, G.-H., & Harms, P. D. (2010). Team identification, trust, and conflict: A media-tion model. International Journal of Conflict Management, 21, 20-43.

Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London, UK: SAGE.

Haslam, S. A., Eggins, R. A., & Reynolds, K. J. (2003). The ASPIRe model: Actual-izing social and personal identities resources to enhance organizational outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 83-113.


Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1996). Contact is not enough: An inter-group perspec-tive on the “contact hypothesis.” In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in inter-group encounters (pp. 1-44). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Inter-group bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575-604.

Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43-64.

Hogg, M. A. (1996). Inter-group processes, group structure and social identity. In W. P. Robinson (Ed.), Social groups and identities: Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel (pp. 65-93). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-140.

Hollingshead, A. B. (1998a). Communication, learning and retrieval in transactive memory systems. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 423-442.

Hollingshead, A. B. (1998b). Distributed knowledge and transactive processes in groups. In M. A. Neale, E. A. Mannix, & D. H. Gruenfeld (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (pp. 105-125). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Hollingshead, A. B. (1998c). Retrieval process in transactive memory systems. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 659-671.

Hollingshead, A. B. (2001). Cognitive interdependence and convergent expecta-tions in transactive memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1080-1089.

Hollingshead, A. B., & Brandon, D. P. (2003). Potential benefits of communication in transactive memory systems. Human Communication Research, 29, 607-615.

Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000a). Subgroup relations: A comparison of the mutual inter-group differentiation and common in-group identity models of preju-dice reduction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 242-256.

Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000b). Assimilation and diversity: An integra-tive model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 143-156.

Huang, M. (2009). A conceptual framework of the effects of positive affect and affective relationships on group knowledge networks. Small Group Research, 40, 323-346.

Huo, Y. J., & Molina, L. E. (2006). Is pluralism a viable model for diversity? The benefits and limits of subgroup respect. Group Processes & Inter-group Rela-tions, 35, 237-254.

Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organiza-tions: From input-process output models to IMOI models. In S. T. Fiske, A. E. Kasdin, & D. L. Schacter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 56, pp. 517-543). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Liao et al. 235

Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of inter-group anxiety, perceived out-group variability and out-group attitude: An integra-tive model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700-710.

Jackson, P., & Klobas, J. (2008). Transactive memory systems in organizations: Implications for knowledge directories. Decision Support Systems, 44, 409-424.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Majchrzak, A. (2008). Knowledge collaboration among profes-sionals protecting national security: Role of transactive memories in ego-centered knowledge networks. Organization Science, 19, 260-276.

Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2007). The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Quarterly, 31, 783-808.

Kane, A. A. (2010). Unlocking knowledge transfer potential: Knowledge demonstra-bility and superordinate social identity. Organizational Science, 21, 643-660.

Kane, A. A., Argote, L., & Levine, J. M. (2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organi-zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 56-71.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organiza-tions (pp. 3-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Leonard, M., Graham, S., & Bonacum, D. (2004). The human factor: The critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13, 85-90.

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

Lewis, K. (2004). Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: A lon-gitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management Science, 50, 1519-1533.

Lewis, K., Belliveau, M., Herndon, B., & Keller, J. (2007). Group cognition, mem-bership change, and performance: Investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 159-178.

Lewis, K., Lange, D., & Gillis, L. (2005). Transactive memory systems, learning, and learning transfer. Organization Science, 16, 581-598.

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

Lin, C.-P. (2010). Learning task effectiveness and social interdependence through the mediating mechanisms of sharing and helping: A survey of online knowledge workers. Group & Organization Management, 3, 299-328.


Lingard, L., Espin, S., Evans, C., & Hawryluck, L. (2004). The rules of the game: Interprofessional collaboration on the intensive care unit team. Critical Care, 8, 403-408.

Lingard, L., Reznick, R., DeVito, I., & Espin, S. (2002). Forming professional identi-ties on the health care team: Discursive constructions of the “other” in the operat-ing room. Medical Education, 36, 728-734.

Mackie, D. M., & Goethals, G. R. (1987). Individual and group goals. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 144-166). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Majchrzak, A., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Hollingshead, A. B. (2007). Coordinating expertise among emergent groups responding to disasters. Organization Studies, 18, 147-161.

McEvily, B., Peronne, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Orga-nization Science, 14, 91-103.

Michinov, E., Olivier-Chiron, E., Rusch, E., & Chiron, B. (2008). Influence of trans-active memory on perceived performance, job satisfaction and identification in anaesthesia teams. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 100, 327-332.

Mitchell, R., Boyle, B., & Nicholas, S. (2009). The impact of goal structure in team knowledge creation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 639-651.

Moreland, R. L. (1999). Transactive memory: Learning who knows what in work groups and organizations. In L. L. Thompson, J. M. Levine, & D. M. Messick (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? (pp. 57-84). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Moreland, R. L., & Argote, L. (2003). Transactive memory in dynamic organizations. In R. S. Peterson & B. Mannix (Eds.), Leading and managing in the dynamic organization (pp. 135-162). Mehwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (1996). Training people to work in groups. In R. S. Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards, E. Posavac, R. B. Bryant, Y. Suarez- Balcazar, E. Henderson-King, & J. Myers (Eds.), Theory and research on small groups (pp. 37-60). New York, NY: Plenum.

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

Morton, T., Wright, R., Peters, K., Reynolds, K., & Haslam, S. A. (in press). Social identity and the dynamics of organizational communication. In H. Giles (Ed.), Handbook of intergroup communication. New York: Routledge.

Nevo, D., & Wand, Y. (2005). Organizational memory information systems: A trans-active memory approach. Decision Support Systems, 39, 549-562.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Liao et al. 237

Palazzolo, E. T., Serb, D. A., She, Y., Su, C., & Contractor, N. S. (2008). Co-evolution of communication and knowledge networks in transactive memory systems: Using computational models for theoretical development. Communication Theory, 16, 223-250.

Pearsall, M. J., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2006). The effects of critical team member assertive-ness on team performance and satisfaction. Journal of Management, 32, 575-594.

Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Bell, B. S. (2010). Building the infrastructure: The effects of role identification behaviors on team cognition development and perfor-mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 192-200.

Peltokorpi, V. (2008). Transactive memory systems. Review of General Psychology, 12, 378-394.

Peltokorpi, V., & Manka, M. L. (2008). Antecedents and the performance outcome of transactive memory in daycare work groups. European Psychologist, 13, 103-113.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized inter-group contact effects on prejudice. Person-ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 173-185.

Postmes, T. (2003). A social identity approach to communication in organizations. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 81-97). Phil-adelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.

Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Swaab, R. (2005). Social influence in small groups: An interactive model of social identity formation. European Review of Social Psy-chology, 16, 1-42.

Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The formation of group norms in computer-mediated communication. Human Communication Research, 26, 341-371.

Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lee, T., & Novak, R. (2005). Individuality and social influ-ence in groups: Inductive and deductive routes to group identity. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 89, 747-763.

Postmes, T., Tanis, M., & de Wit, B. (2001). Communication and commitment in organizations: A social identity approach. Group Processes & Inter-group Rela-tions, 4, 227-246.

Pratt, M., & Rafaeli, A. (1997). Organizational dress as a symbol of multilayered social identities. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 863-898.

Prichard, J. S., & Ashleigh, M. J. (2007). The effects of team-skills training on trans-active memory and performance. Small Group Research, 38, 696-726.

Rau, D. (2005). The influence of relationship conflict and trust on the transactive memory: Performance relation in top management teams. Small Group Research, 36, 746-771.

Ren, Y., & Argote, L. (2011). Transactive memory systems 1985-2010: An integra-tive framework of key dimensions, antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 189-229.


Richter, A., West, M. A., van Dick, R., & Dawson, J. F. (2006). Boundary spanners’ identification, inter-group contact and effective inter-group relations. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1252-1269.

Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Rulke, D. L., & Rau, D. (2000). Investigating the encoding process of transactive memory development in group training. Group & Organization Management, 25, 373-396.

Saguy, T., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2008). Beyond contact: Inter-group contact in the context of power relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 432-445.

Sandelands, L. E., & Stablein, R. E. (1987). The concept of organization mind. In S. Bacharach & N. DiTomaso (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 5, pp. 135-161) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Sonnentag, S., & Volmer, J. (2009). Individual-level predictors of task-related team-work processes: The role of expertise and self-efficacy in team meetings. Group & Organization Management, 34, 37-66.

Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert roles and informa-tion exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244-265.

Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2003). Hidden profiles: A brief history. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 304-313.

Swaab, R., Postmes, T., Van Beest, I., & Spears, R. (2007). Shared cognition as a product of, and precursor to, shared identity in negotiations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 187-199.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychol-ogy of inter-group relations. London, UK: Academic Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of inter-group conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of inter-group relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Terry, D. J., & Callan, V. J. (1998). Inter-group differentiation in response to an orga-nizational merger. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 67-81.

Terry, D. J., & O’Brien, A. T. (2001). Status, legitimacy, and in-group bias in the context of an organizational merger. Group Processes & Inter-Group Relations, 4, 271-289.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Redis-covering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

van Dick, R. (2001). Identification in organizational contexts: Linking theory and research from social and organizational psychology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3, 265-283.

Liao et al. 239

van Knippenberg, D., deDreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diver-sity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008-1022.

van Knippenberg, D., & Ellemers, N. (2003). Social identity and group performance: Identification as the key to group-oriented efforts. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knip-penberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 29-42). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

van Knippenberg, D., Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2007). Unity through diversity: Value-in-diversity beliefs as moderator of the relationship between work group diversity and group identification. Group Dynamics, 11, 207-222.

van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515-541.

Watson, B. M., Hewett, D. G., & Gallois, C. (2012). Intergroup communication and healthcare. In H. Giles (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of intergroup communica-tion (pp. 293-305). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Wegner, D. M. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185-208). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Wegner, D. M. (1995). A computer network model of human transactive memory. Social Cognition, 13, 319-339.

Wegner, D. M., Erber, R., & Raymond, P. (1991). Transactive memory in close rela-tionships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 923-929.

Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organization Behavior, 20, 77-140.

Wittenbaum, G. M., & Stasser, G. (1996). Management of information in small groups. In J. L. Nye, & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? Social cognition research in small groups (pp. 3-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Yoo, Y., & Kanawattanachai, P. (2001). Developments of transactive memory systems and collective mind in virtual teams. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9, 187-208.

Zhang, Z. X., Hempel, P. S., Han, Y. L., & Tjosvold, D. (2007). Transactive memory links work team characteristics and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1722-1730.

Bios

Jenny Liao is studying a PhD in Industrial/Organizational Psychology in the School of Psychology at The University of Queensland (Australia). Her research interest is concerned with how teams effectively coordinate expertise in the workplace, focusing on the development of transactive memory systems, and its effects on team-related outcomes.


Nerina L. Jimmieson is an Associate Professor in the School of Psychology at The University of Queensland (Australia). Employing a range of methodologies, her research interests are concerned with stress and coping in the workplace and employee adjustment to organizational change. Her research is well-supported by national competitive grants and industry partners, with publications appearing in journals and books in the areas of management and organizational psychology.

Anne T. O’Brien is a Lecturer at the Centre for Leadership Studies in the Business School at The University of Exeter (UK). With a background in social psychology, her research investigates the contribution of intergroup factors and social identities to understanding issues of organisational change, leadership processes, cross-team cooperation, and workplace stress. Anne is currently working on research to develop the capacity of cross-sector partnerships, with a particular focus on the contribution of group-based identities in partnership work.

Simon Lloyd D. Restubog is a Professor of Management in the Research School of Management at The Australian National University. His research interests include antecedents and maintenance of psychological contracts; measurement and prediction of abusive supervision and workplace deviance; and the role of support and barriers in career development. His work has appeared in publications such as the Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Vocational Behavior, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, among other outlets.

Developing Transactive Memory Systems: Theoretical Contributions From a Social Identity Perspective

Documents

Transcript of Developing Transactive Memory Systems: Theoretical Contributions From a Social Identity Perspective