Becoming Team Players: Team Members\u2019 Mastery of Teamwork
Knowledge as a Predictor of Team Task Proficiency and Observed
Teamwork Effectiveness

The authors explored the idea that teams consisting of members who, on average, demonstrate greater mastery of relevant teamwork knowledge will demonstrate greater task proficiency and observed teamwork effectiveness. In particular, the authors posited that team members\u2019 mastery of designated teamwork knowledge predicts better team task proficiency and higher observer ratings of effective teamwork, even while controlling for team task proficiency. The authors investigated these hypotheses by developing a structural model and testing it with field data from 92 teams (1,158 team members) in a United States Air Force officer development program focusing on a transportable set of teamwork competencies. The authors obtained proficiency scores on 3 different types of team tasks as well as ratings of effective teamwork from observers. The empirical model supported the authors\u2019 hypotheses.

Numerous statistics point to substantial investments by employ- ers in employee training and development, thereby suggesting that managers widely regard employees\u2019 workplace learning as a key factor for occupational competence (Goldstein & Ford, 2002). The knowledge that individuals attain in the workplace produces rele- vant intellectual resources that employees can rely on for making decisions and taking actions in their organizational roles (Noe, Colquitt, Simmering, & Alvarez, 2003). As part of a comprehen- sive study, Schmidt and Hunter (2004) underscored the acquisition of job knowledge (i.e., learning) as the key explanatory factor through which individuals\u2019 general mental ability translates into individual success in the world of work. Simply put, individuals who learn better in their organizational roles most often perform better in them.

Although it has been established that individuals\u2019 mastery of job knowledge predicts their individual success in the workplace, many organizations now emphasize performance at the team level (Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999). Teams are commonly regarded as struc- tured sets of people who pursue collective performance objectives

within larger organization systems and who require coordinated interactions to successfully accomplish relevant tasks (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Forsyth, 1999). Because teams are often assembled to take on multifaceted and complex endeavors, team tasks present a range of knowledge-intensive challenges to team members (McIntyre & Salas, 1995; Mohrman, 2003). As such, scholars have theorized that team members\u2019 ongoing intellectual development contributes to collective performance (e.g., DeNisi, Hitt, & Jack- son, 2003; London & Mone, 1999). In other words, greater work- place learning by team members should translate into better team performance, as long as what is being learned is relevant (Austin, 2003; Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, & Smith, 1999). We investigated this general idea by specifically assessing team members\u2019 mastery of teamwork knowledge presented in a personnel development program and testing relationships between those scores and differ- ent indicators of team performance.

To test whether an individual-level intellectual resource (in whatever form) predicts team-level performance, researchers must designate the individual resource of relevance, measure it, and then aggregate scores of team members to the team level. After the aggregate variable is formed, researchers then test its relationship to variables representing team performance. It is important that this process be guided, from the outset, by multilevel theory and appropriate methodological considerations, insofar as there are different ways in which a team-level phenomenon may emerge from a corresponding individual-level phenomenon (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Chan (1998) provided a typology of five composi- tion models that specify the functional relations among phenomena or factors that refer to the same content domain, yet that differ qualitatively across levels of analysis (e.g., individual vs. team). For each form of functional relationship (or lower-to-higher-level

Robert R. Hirschfeld, Department of Management, University of Geor- gia; Mark H. Jordan, Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership, United States Air Force Academy; Hubert S. Feild, William F. Giles, and Achilles A. Armenakis, Department of Management, Auburn University.

Robert R. Hirschfeld and Mark H. Jordan contributed equally to this research. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the United States government.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Robert R. Hirschfeld, Department of Management, Terry College of Business, Uni- versity of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-6256. E-mail: rhirschf@uga.edu

emergence), Chan provided an operational process by which a lower-level variable (e.g., an individual-level resource) may be combined to form a higher-level factor (e.g., a resource pool within a team).

In an additive composition model, a team-level factor is a summation of individual-level units, whereas the variance among the individual-level units (within teams) is of no theoretical or operational concern (Chan, 1998). For example, a team\u2019s resource pool may be described as high or low irrespective of the extent to which individual team members possess the same resource. There- fore, to create a construct representing a resource pool within a team, individuals\u2019 resource levels (scores) are simply summed or averaged (without concern for within-team similarity) to represent the team-level factor (a team\u2019s resource pool). Having used an additive composition model, a number of studies have shown that teams consisting of members with higher scores on mental ability tests learn and perform better as teams (e.g., Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Ellis et al., 2003; LePine, 2003; Terborg, Castore, & DeNinno, 1976; Tziner & Eden, 1985). Similarly, Austin (2003) examined the existing knowledge stock of cross- functional business groups by additively aggregating individual team members\u2019 scores on a situational judgment test. Austin\u2019s results indicated that group knowledge stock was positively related to overall group performance.

In the studies referenced above, the tests taken by individuals were those that measured broad intellectual resources acquired over many years and through various means (i.e., enduring mental ability). Those results, therefore, have implications for personnel selection in team settings. Although we used additive aggregation, we did so to examine team members\u2019 mastery of teamwork con- cepts presented in a development program as a predictor of team performance. As such, the focus of our study has meaningful implications regarding the development of individuals\u2019 intellectual resources specifically for optimizing team performance. This study represents a constructive replication (e.g., Eden, 2002; Lykken, 1968) of previous research that has explored the general notion that team members\u2019 intellectual resources, in various forms, pre- dict team performance.

For much of the 20th century, efforts to facilitate learning in the workplace focused on technical knowledge or skill so that each individual\u2019s task proficiency would be optimized (Howard, 1995). Scholars have emphasized that to achieve overall competence in today\u2019s team-oriented world of work, individuals must also de- velop a sophisticated understanding of how they are connected to others in the workplace and how they can build better working relationships (e.g., Campbell, 1999; Lankau & Scandura, 2002; Mohrman, 2003; Murphy & Jackson, 1999). This understanding is analogous to amental model of teamwork. Smith-Jentsch, Camp- bell, Milanovich, and Reynolds (2001) explained that a mental model of teamwork is an individual\u2019s understanding of the team- work components that facilitate effective team performance, as well as the understanding of how these components are related in a scheme of teamwork. Mental models of teamwork are abstract and transcend team membership in that they are conceptual rep- resentations of effective team processes that may be learned by

Mohammed and Dumville (2001) have theorized that for teams to achieve optimal effectiveness, it is important for all team mem- bers to learn an appropriate model of teamwork. Toward that end, Smith-Jentsch et al.\u2019s (2001) findings suggest that it may be useful to design training that uniformly guides team members toward understanding and adopting an expert model of teamwork, desig- nated by the organization to function as a normative frame of reference. Through such developmental guidance, team members\u2019 mental models of teamwork become more accurate and more compatible, insofar as they develop a correct understanding of what effective teamwork entails (Smith-Jentsch et al., 2001). We propose that for team members in training to ultimately function well together in performing team tasks, they must individually master the expert model of teamwork presented. In this study we explored the idea that teams consisting of members who, on average, demonstrate greater mastery of designated teamwork knowledge (in a personnel development program), demonstrate better team task proficiency (assessed objectively), and receive higher observer ratings of effective teamwork.

The focus of our study is onpooled teamwork knowledge within teams which translates from the individual to the team level by way of an additive composition model and which represents the overall level (and thus, accuracy) of teamwork knowledge within teams. To the extent that members of a team, on average (addi- tively), have learned the expert model of teamwork, the team may be characterized as possessing an accurate understanding of ap- propriate teamwork (which should predict successful team perfor- mance). Yet, this overall level of mastery within a team (a team\u2019s resource pool) does not capture the extent to which the same mastery has been achieved among team members in their individ- ual understanding of each element composing the expert model of teamwork. In contrast, a shared mental model of teamwork would be centered on team members possessing convergent structures of teamwork knowledge. That is, relative to the simplicity of pooled teamwork knowledge, a shared mental model of teamwork is a complex phenomenon that emerges from within-team consensus (or isomorphism) on various aspects of an overall scheme of teamwork (see Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Marks, Zaccaro, & Mathieu, 2000; Mathieu, Heffner, Good- win, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000; Smith-Jentsch et al., 2001).

The team literature suggests that a reasonably complete model of team-level intellectual resources and effectiveness would en- compass a number of factors, to include pooled mental ability (an exogenous factor), pooled knowledge (a precursor to shared knowledge structures), shared mental models, various team pro- cesses (functioning as inputs to and outcomes of performance episodes), and team performance outcomes (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). In our research we have included several factors that would be only part of a more comprehensive model. Accordingly, our focus is relatively limited and differs somewhat from a conven- tional model of input3 process3 outcome, insofar as we do not explicitly explore team processes as mediating factors (see Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). Nevertheless, our underlying logic is that pooled teamwork knowledge engenders constructive team processes that are manifested in task proficiency and observed by external raters. We believe it is useful, therefore, to investigate the

For general guidance regarding our specific hypotheses, we also referred to the individual-level and empirically based framework presented by Schmidt and Hunter (2004) and Hunter and Schmidt (1996). Part of that framework posits that individuals\u2019 acquisition of job knowledge predicts their task proficiency (measured objec- tively using hands-on work-sample tests) and supervisor-rated performance. Moreover, these authors theorized job knowledge to predict supervisor ratings even while controlling for task profi- ciency. We submit that because the team-level factors we explored were somewhat similar (though not equivalent) to three of the individual-level factors in Schmidt and Hunter\u2019s framework (i.e., knowledge, task proficiency, and rated performance), our research may be informed by their framework (even though we do not include mental ability). Nevertheless, our research should not be viewed as a direct team-level extension.

Figure 1 presents our conceptual framework for exploring team members\u2019 teamwork knowledge, additively aggregated to the team level, as a predictor of team task proficiency and observer ratings of effective teamwork. Teams consisting of members who dem- onstrate mastery of the organization\u2019s conceptual model of effec- tive teamwork should develop superior approaches for accom- plishing team tasks and function well as teams. Therefore, as indicated in Figure 1, Hypothesis 1 states that team members\u2019 mastery of designated teamwork knowledge predicts team task proficiency. In addition, it is likely that greater mastery of team- work knowledge by team members is expressed in constructive team processes that are observable and valued by observers as indicative of effective teamwork, yet not entirely manifested in task proficiency (insofar as proficiency may also be shaped by team members\u2019 psychomotor and physical skills). Therefore, as indicated in Figure 1, Hypothesis 2 states that team members\u2019 mastery of designated teamwork knowledge predicts higher ob- server ratings of effective teamwork, even while controlling for task proficiency.

The research setting, which determined the specific task- proficiency factors that were available for inclusion in the struc- tural model, was a 5-week United States Air Force (USAF) officer development program (ODP). The ODP is designed to be a pro-

gram in which 5th- to 7th-year USAF officers step out of their specialties and acquire a transportable set of teamwork competen- cies (see Cannon-Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Volpe, 1995) as preparation for future positions involving greater responsibilities in team-centered military units that will likely face a wide variety of complex and dynamic challenges. Classroom activities and assigned readings in the ODP presented participants with informa- tion representing an expert model of USAF teamwork in general. In this type of setting, learning is tantamount to absorbing the knowledge presented (Hunter & Schmidt, 1996). In addition, teams of participants engaged in three types of tasks that under- scored the development and use of teamwork in pursuing explicit standards of accomplishment.

Field operations, which occurred on three consecutive Fridays (Weeks 1\u20133), involved three outdoor field campaigns involving competition between two teams. For each team, the field cam- paigns involved the same novel team sport, but the competitor team was different for each campaign. Teams competing against each other had the same number of members on the field at the same time, except when penalty time was levied. The field cam- paigns were dynamic in that teams had to respond promptly to the actions of their competitors.

Problem solving, which occurred on Thursday of Week 2 (one exercise) and Wednesday of Week 4 (a different exercise), encom- passed two exercises to be completed by teams within explicit time limits. Teams attempted to solve difficult problems representing realistic military scenarios (e.g., solving an enemy code by piecing together information given to each team member, while complying with specific parameters). The parameters were such that the code could not be successfully solved by only a few team members. Each of the two exercises consisted of two periods: a 45-min planning period and a 15-min execution period.

Physical task accomplishment, which occurred on Tuesday of Week 3 (7 tasks) and Thursday of Week 4 (7 tasks), encompassed a total of 14 tasks to be completed by teams within explicit time limits. The time countdown began when each task was presented. Teams were expected to quickly develop an action plan and accomplish the required task in the allotted time. An example exercise was a team given 15 min to plan and execute crossing a river, with all of its equipment, without touching the water. The only physical resources available were a piece of rope and a board.