The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7592.htm

TPM
13,7/8

Transactive memory processes

that lead to better team results
Natalia Martin Cruz, Victor Martin Perez and
Yolanda Fernandez Ramos

192

University of Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain

Received September 2006
Revised March 2007
Accepted September 2007

Abstract
Purpose The objective of this paper is to evaluate dynamically those transactive memory
processes that help to improve team results. Thus, the paper analyzes the processes by which
transactive memory systems are created and we evaluate their effect on team results.
Design/methodology/approach To reach this objective, a quasi-experiment was conducted with
167 students from the School of Business in a Spanish University during 2004-2005. This experiment
consisted of a business game where students had to make decisions in 44 teams.
Findings Transactive memory can help to understand differences in team results.
Research limitations/implications The limitations of our analysis are related to the short
period of the quasi-experiment.
Originality/value For courses which involve team learning, teachers would promote some specific
practices and ways to work.
Keywords Memory, Team performance, Business performance, Simulation, Spain
Paper type Research paper

Team Performance Management

Vol. 13 No. 7/8, 2007
pp. 192-205
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1352-7592
DOI 10.1108/13527590710842529

Introduction
The question with respect to which teams obtain the best results when they are given
the same task and/or have the same objective has been studied from distinct theoretical
perspectives which place emphasis on different aspects of the team. One set of theories
focuses on the static aspects of the group. Thus, the upper-echelon theory considers
that the teams that obtain better results are those that have a greater heterogeneity
from an anthropological point of view. Another set of theories, on the other hand,
considers the working aspects of the team as determining their results. The group
learning approach focuses on the learning processes of the teams and studies how the
teams which work in a certain way in different contexts achieve different results and,
finally, from the perspective of the transactive memory the importance is recognised of
generating group transactive memory stocks in order to take good decisions and,
therefore, to obtain good team results[1].
When homogeneous groups are compared from an anthropological point of view (as
is the case in the majority of the student work teams in the university) it is more
sensible to study the differences in terms of ways of working or in the working
processes of the team so as to be able to explain the difference in the results obtained. In
this way, the transactive memory offers an adequate theoretical framework when it
deals with the question of explaining the differing success achieved by teams which
are created for a specific aim and which, once the task is finished, will be dissolved. It is
recognised that the teams which want to attain better results must create transactive
memory stocks. This is justified because these teams are able to combine their

members knowledge in such a way that it is the person who knows the most who takes
the decisions. For this to occur, all the team members must accurately know what
knowledge each person possesses. The team that learns to use those transactive
memory processes which lead to greater transactive memory stocks will obtain better
results.
Using the transactive memory approach, our objective is to evaluate dynamically
those transactive memory processes which help to improve team results. Thus, we
analyze the processes by which transactive memory systems are created and we
evaluate their effect on team results. This paper is divided into five sections: first, we
present the hypotheses related to the internal processes and team results according to
the theory of transactive memory systems; second, we describe the methodology the
sample, variables, empirical model and econometric methods; then, we present our
results; finally, we explain the main conclusions, implications and limitations of our
research.
Transactive memory
The transactive memory concept refers to a group of individual memory systems
that combines individual and team knowledge in order to solve problems or make
decisions (Wegner, 1986). Transactive memory stresses heterogeneity in relation to the
task-related expertise possessed by team members. The idea is that the specialization
of the members within the team could reduce individual cognitive duties and, thus,
members can easily and efficiently coordinate and rely on the others knowledge
(Hollingshead, 1998; Lewis, 2003; Wegner, 1995). Therefore, experience is the
fundamental variable in the transactive memory, since a greater degree of experience
and knowledge will promote the discussion of unshared information. All of this will
lead to more efficient learning (Wegner, 1986, 1995). The storage of information, the
ability to remember and the recovery of information will be the essential elements for
avoiding unnecessary efforts and for obtaining better results.
From empirical research in transactive memory, it is understood that teams with
members who know the experience and knowledge of the rest will achieve better
results in their activities (Kraut et al., 2002; Mohammed and Dumville, 2001). This
claim is based on the idea that members will have costless access and more information
simply by asking the rest of the members (Hollingshead, 1998; Moreland, 1999;
Moreland et al., 1996; Wegner, 1986). For this purpose, the preparation of briefings and
reports will help the teams learning, since these documents will reveal information
that would otherwise be hidden. Thus, team members could evaluate new ways of
doing things and new ways of thinking with this explicit information (Kasl et al., 1993;
Venney-Tiernan et al., 1994; Whitmore, 1994).
The potential benefits of transactive memory for a work groups performance are
clear. When group members know more about each other, they can plan work more
sensibly by assigning tasks to the people who will best perform them. Coordination
ought to improve as well, because workers can anticipate, rather than simply reacting
to each others behaviour. As a result, they can work together more efficiently, even if
task assignments are unclear. Finally, problems should be solved more quickly and
easily when workers know more about one another, because they can then match any
problems with the people who are most likely to be able to solve them. Once these

Transactive
memory
processes
193

TPM
13,7/8

194

people are identified, they can either be asked for help, or the problems can simply be
given to them to be solved.
The dimensions of transactive memory systems
The definition of transactive memory (Wegner, 1986) contains two parts on the one
hand, a combination of individual knowledge and, on the other, the awareness of who
knows what within the team.
Recent studies of team transactive memory systems focus on the second part of the
definition: knowledge of who knows what within the team. Moreland (1999) identified
three dimensions in order to know the awareness of the interpersonal knowledge of
others:
(1) accuracy;
(2) agreement; and
(3) complexity.
In particular, he described complexity in terms of the specialization of experience
within the group and of the level of detail which the team members use when they
describe the experience of others.
All these ideas regarding the dimensions of transactive memory have been
developed in other more recent contributions. Lewis (2004) suggested a scale of 15
items for measuring the dimensions of the TMS, including specialization, credibility
and coordination. For his part, Austin (2003) establishes the existence of four
dimensions in the concept of transactive memory in the team:
(1) the teams stock of knowledge (the combination of individual knowledge);
(2) the consensus about knowledge sources (agreement) and
(3) specialization of the experience; and
(4) accuracy in the identification of the knowledge.
These last three dimensions have an interpersonal nature.
Our work relies on the latter definition of transactive memory. Although the four
dimensions of the group transactive memory system are derived from previous
research, they have not been tested empirically. In order to better understand the
dynamics of these relations, in this study each element of the group transactive
memory system has been separately measured.
Stock of knowledge
The first of the dimensions (the teams stock of knowledge) refers to the construction of
the transactive memory from the stocks of individual knowledge. If a team attempts to
resolve a problem by using only the knowledge available within the team, then the
teams stock of knowledge is an important determining factor of the teams success.
Many laboratory studies of knowledge sharing in teams are designed to control the
knowledge stock which supplies the same information for each team (Gruenfeld et al.,
1996; Stasser et al., 1995). In studies in which the knowledge stock is not controlled, the
researchers often measure it by asking the team members individually in order to
determine their level of experience (Henry, 1993; Libby et al., 1987; Littlepage and
Silbiger, 1992). In our case, we have carried out tests to measure the individual

knowledge stock of each of the team members, which allows us to propose the
following hypothesis:
H1. The increase in stocks of knowledge within the team will have a positive
impact on team results.
The three interpersonal dimensions of transactive memory (consensus, specialization
and accuracy) are derived from repeated interactions between the team members.
The consensus about knowledge sources
From the original definition by Wegner (1986), consensus has been seen as an
important component of transactive memory. The consensus of the transactive
memory is the scope for which the members of the team are in agreement about who
has what knowledge. The consensus component of transactive memory provides a
research link in the team mental models. A team mental model is an organized
understanding of relevant knowledge which is shared by the team members
(Mohammed and Dumville, 2001). The consensus of the transactive memory is a team
mental model regarding the distribution of knowledge within the team. The scope for
which the knowledge is shared and the implications of this in the team process and
performance is the central feature of research into the team mental model. The
similarity of the team mental model has shown that it affects team process and
performance (Mathieu et al., 2000; Stout et al., 1999), although the force and the
mechanisms of these effects remain unclear.
The transactive memory consensus may increase at the same time as the team
members acquire experience by working with the others. By means of team
discussions, the members of the team learn that other members have at hand the
knowledge necessary for the task. In the same way as the team works by means of
collective multiple tasks, the transactive memory consensus can strengthen the
understanding of the team members with respect to the skills of each of the other
members:
H2. The increase in consensus within the team will have a positive impact on team
results.
The specialization of expertise
Wegner (1995) proposed that specialization of expertise is greater in teams with
well-developed transactive memory systems. Specialization makes it possible for the
individual team members to make better use of each members expertise because they
can construct a more profound knowledge base in a narrowly defined area of
experience.
Specialization can also make it possible for a consensus of accuracy and transactive
memory to exist because it is easier to identify other peoples experience in a team
composed of specialists. The research by Hollingshead (1998, 2000) into the retrieval
processes in transactive memory systems has shown that specialization can reduce the
duplication of effort and make better access possible for a great variety of experiences.
The specialization of expertise may also increase by means of repeated interactions
in the team. If a team member demonstrates competence in an area of knowledge, such
as marketing, other members of the team may begin to rely on this team member to
solve problems related to marketing.

Transactive
memory
processes
195

TPM
13,7/8

196

As a result of this process, other members of the team may begin to develop their
own marketing expertise, leading to an increase in the specialization within the team
and, consequently, to improved team results. In this way, we consider that team results
are positively affected by specialization:
H3. The increase in specialization of the members of the team will have a positive
impact on team results.
Accuracy
The accuracy of transactive memory means the degree in which the individuals
identified by the others in the team as possessors of a specific expertise really do
possess that knowledge. Libby et al. (1987) and Littlepage and Silbiger (1992) found
that this type of team accuracy leads to better team performance in problem-solving
tasks.
Transactive memory accuracy is similar to Henrys (1993, 1995) concept of
judgement accuracy, in which the estimations of the members of the teams in the trivia
test scores of their team colleagues are compared with the actual test scores. In a study
of newly formed teams of students placed in groups to construct AM radios, Moreland
(1999) found that teams that trained together developed greater accuracy of the
transactive systems. Moreover, teams that trained together exhibited more transactive
memory and better team performance.
Thus, we consider that team results are positively affected by accuracy:
H4. The increase in the accuracy of knowing what within the members of the team
will have a positive impact on team results
Methodology
We present the research methodology, the sample selection, the construction of the
variables, the empirical model and the econometric techniques. We used the team as
the unit of analysis, as in previous works by Argote et al. (1995), Devadas and Argote
(1995), Edmondson (1999), Cannon and Edmondson (2001), Kraut et al. (2002) and
Espinosa (2001).
Research design and sample
Following the previous literature (Argote et al., 1995; Devadas and Argote, 1995;
Edmondson, 1999; Espinosa, 2001; Kraut et al., 2002) we proceeded to prepare a
quasi-experiment which was performed with 167 students (in 44 teams) from the
School of Business in the fifth year of their degree during the academic course
2004/2005. The experiment was voluntary for students with the aim of contributing to
an open-minded process of debate and to making decisions in uncertain and dynamic
environments (Marsick and Kasl, 1997). This same spirit of promoting students
learning led us to evaluate their participation in the experiment with a generic and
positive evaluation rather than a quantitative grade.
The experiment was carried out with the business game created by Thompson and
Stappenbeck (1999), called Business Strategy Game 6.0, marketed by McGraw-Hill
Irwin in Spain. In order to have a greater control of the quasi-experiment, the
instructors created eight industries in which the teams participated on a five/six team
competition basis. Each group was the CEOs team of a company that produces and

markets sports shoes in North America, Europe and Asia. Each team had to decide
about marketing (4Ps), production, human resources and finance on a year-by-year
basis for a total period of five years (corresponding to one decision per week).
Variables
Our dependent variable is the result of the teams decisions in competition with the rest
of the teams (companies). This measure is calculated by the computer program as a
weighted mean of the following variables: sales, after-tax earnings, EPS, liabilities,
book-to-value and strategy rating the latter value is calculated with the information
related to the scope of the product, quality, company reputation, costs, market share,
price relative to competitors and the depth of the products[2] (Thompson and
Stappenbeck, 1999). This ratio (RESULT) allows us to value team results regarding
strategy, synergies, competitors, industry, and the global environment among other
variables of corporate strategy. This measure allows us to compare teams in terms of
their results when a firm is managed in the long term, by using a business strategy
game. This variable is measured accumulatively in each period to avoid possible
changes related to one period.
The first of the transactive memory dimensions is the stock of knowledge (STOC),
which we measured at the beginning of each period (week) using a test composed of ten
questions related to the key concepts that they have to know. Thus, the value of this
variable ranges from 0 to 10. We use this variable for each team, calculated as the mean
value of the individuals stock of knowledge within the team (Espinosa, 2001; Neuman
and Wright, 1999; Steiner, 1972).
Based on previous research (Edmondson, 1999; Hollingshead, 1996; Kasl et al., 1993;
Kilduff et al., 2000; Kraut et al., 2002; Larson et al., 1994; Stasser et al., 1995), we
measured the dimensions of consensus (CONS) and specialization (SPEC) using a
questionnaire (see the Appendix) which we issued to our students at the beginning of
each period/week. We aggregated the information for each team using the mean values
of its members and then we performed a factor analysis with a principal component
model to account for the two dimensions: CONS and SPEC (Table I).
For the accuracy dimension, we created a measure (ACCU) and we used a dummy
variable to indicate the participation of each member of the team in each session, which
could be interpreted that the abandonment of some of the members of the team during
the session does not affect the process of the teams learning as a consequence of the
team memory. We use this variable for each team calculated as the mean value of the
individuals participation.
We use three groups of control variables: first, the psychological safety[3] (PSYC),
and the communication between the members of the team (COMM). Both these
variables are thought to be positively related to the performance of the team. We
calculate the mean values of the measures (see the Appendix) for each team, and then
we perform a factor analysis with a principal component model to account for those
two variables (Table I).
The second group of control variables are those that might affect the results of the
team in the business strategy game. The strategy variable (STRAT) that accounts for
the consistency of the whole decisions of the team is calculated with the information
related to the scope of the product, quality, company reputation, costs, market share,
price relative to competitors and the depth of the products. The bond variable (BOND)

Transactive
memory
processes
197

Table I.
Matrix of components of
the factor analysis
0.902
0.925
0.930
0.556
0.78
2.84
71.02

SPEC1 (Q.1)
SPEC2 (Q.2)
SPEC3 (Q.3)
SPEC4 (Q.4)
KMO
Eigenvalue
Percentage variance

0.713
0.763
0.620
0.797
0.56
1.54
51.12

COMM1 (Q.1)
COMM2 (Q.2)
COMM3 (Q.3)
COMM4 (Q.4)
KMO
Eigenvalue
Percentage variance

0.673
0.792
0.529
0.248
0.67
2.24
56.06

0.684
0.715
0.745
0.61
1.53
51.12

KMO
Eigenvalue
Percentage variance

Psychological safety
PSL1 (Q.1)
PSL2 (Q.2)
PSL3 (Q.3)

Control variables

198

CONS1 (Q.1)
CONS2 (Q.2)
CONS3 (Q.3)
CONS4 (Q.4)
KMO
Eigenvalue
Percentage variance

Composition of the matrix of components (correlations)

Transactive memory variables
Consensus
Specialization
Communication

TPM
13,7/8

that incorporates the value of the companys long-term debt is measured with the
Altman index (ranging from AAA:7 to C:1) and, finally, the ROE variable is measured
as the quotient between the after-tax earnings and net assets. All three internal
variables are measured accumulatively to avoid any possible changes relating to one
period.
Finally, the third control group includes the environmental influences that affect
each team: the changes in the S&P index (SP), the predicted demand for the next period
(DEMAND) in thousands of pairs of sports shoes and the changes in the import tariffs
(TARIFFS) from the USA to the two other regions (Europe or Asia) is measured with a
dummy variable.
Empirical model and econometric analysis
The empirical analysis is conducted by using a panel data analysis. We estimate one
equation in which we evaluate the relationship between transactive memory processes
and team results over time. This equation is the following:
RESULTit a0 b1 STOCit b2 CONSit b3 SPECit b4 ACCUit mit
i 1-44; t 1-5;

where RESULT is the accumulated result of each team in each period (i.e. the
dependent variable), and STOC, CONS, SPEC and ACCU are the transactive memory
dimensions of each team in each period.
Results
The results of the panel estimations confirm only some of the hypotheses related to the
relationship between transactive memory dimensions and team results. We estimate
two models in which we add the control variables to the independent dimensions
stocks of knowledge, consensus, specialization and accuracy. As can be seen in Table II,
there are no improvements to the model when we include the control variables. The
main effect on team results is the different internal processes over the five periods of
the business game.
The stock of knowledge (STOC) has no significant influence on team results. Thus,
we cannot confirm our first hypothesis (H1). The short period of time in which we
conducted our experiment could be the reason for this result. The variable
specialization (SPEC) is positive and significant in Model 1 but not in Model 2. We can
therefore partially confirm H2. That means that there is a positive effect on
specialization on team results.
The negative sign of the variable consensus (CONS) indicates that the best results
are those for teams with a leader and members that do not need to reach a consensus in
order to decide. This result is the opposite of what we hypothesized because the theory
suggests that when the team tries to reach a consensus, the results will be better.
However, our students obtain better results when they make decisions individually and
there is a member who leads the team. Thus, we cannot confirm the third of our
hypotheses (H3). Finally, the accuracy (ACCU) is not significant, and thus we cannot
confirm our fourth hypothesis (H4).
The results of our data with the control variables confirm the positive relationship
between psychological safety and team results. The relationship indicates that the

Transactive
memory
processes
199

TPM
13,7/8

Dependent variable
Independent variables
STOCK
CONS

200

SPEC
ACCU
PSYC
COMM

LNRESULT
Model 1 with PSYC and COMM

LNRESULT
Model 2 all variables

0.14050
(0.591779)
20.114329 * * *
(23.80329)
0.051945 *
(1.93418)
20.221400
(21.62355)
0.067278 * *
(2.36132)
0.080027 * *
(2.54436)

0.22762
(0.936462)
20.121155 * * *
(23.89411)
0.042229
(1.52436)
20.184890
(21.32126)
0.074066 * *
(2.54434)
0.087720 * * *
(2.70808)
20.012525
(20.384591)
20.016306
(20.990111)
0.322269
(1.21325)
20.00383
(20.066020)
0.067523
(0.615241)
20.555027
(21.49175)
3.48861 * * *
205
0.0000
0.1264
0.674833

LNSTRAT
BOND
ROE
TARIFFS
LNDEMAND
SP
C
n
Test F ( p-value)
Test Hausman ( p-value)
Adjusted R 2
Table II.
Results of the model
estimation (LNRESULT)

4.15824 * * *
207
0.0000
0.1447
0.679899

Notes: In the regression, the Hausman test does not reject the hypothesis of no correlation between the
individual effects and the independent variables, so that the most efficient estimation is the random
effects one

safer the members feel when they work together, the better the team results will be.
This means that members will take more risky decisions, they are not afraid to commit
mistakes, and they feel valued in the team. Finally, the more the members
communicate their knowledge with each other, the better results they achieve. The
other control variables do not have a significant influence on the learning process. The
variables STRAT, BONDS, ROE have no significant relationships with team results,
neither do the variables TARIFFS, DEMAND and SP have any significant influence on
team results.
Conclusions
Transactive memory can help in understanding differences in team results. Our first
result shows that increases in the stock of knowledge during the game had no impact

on team results, and we can affirm that a short period of five weeks is not enough to
perceive fundamental changes in team knowledge which could have an impact on
results. Our second result is also interesting because consensus does not improve
results. We can argue that the existence of leaders within the team is positive and not
reaching a consensus is not mandatory to achieve better team results. Specialization is
important for results: this dimension makes the team members knowledge explicit
regarding who knows what and improves team results. Finally, the accuracy of
knowing who knows what has no impact on results which means that members can
take good decisions without having a wide knowledge of the rest of the members.
However, communication positively affects team results, which means that teams
who meet, spend their time together and discuss, will improve their results.
Psychological safety explains why some teams have better results than others. The
reason is that feeling safe within the team, members will act in a more efficient manner
and will help the team to achieve better results.
The implications of our results are interesting for educators because they give them
ideas on how to get teams to improve their results. In particular, for courses in which
learning must be done in teams, teachers could promote some practices and ways of
working. One question that teachers ask themselves is whether a course must have
laboratories. This research gives insights about the validity of these kinds of methods
whenever it is possible to control the correct performance of the teams during the
simulation.
The implications for the workplace are also appealing. In fact, the role of leaders is
important for the improvement of results, and thus the role of the boss in a production
team could be essential for the achievement of higher levels of productivity. Moreover,
specialization in particular areas is very useful for the firm since qualified employees
are going to perform better in a team. However, it is not necessary that employees must
acknowledge the kind of expertise the other members of the team have. We think that
team learning (increasing the stock of knowledge) is related to the long term, which
means that employees must be working in the same team for a long time to obtain
better results. Finally, the firm should create a good atmosphere in which employees
can share ideas, information, and opinions and knowledge with a high degree of
freedom, because this sharing process is related to higher levels of team performance.
We cannot conclude this paper without explaining some of the limitations of our
work. In the future, we could simultaneously value the relationship between internal
processes and team results. Moreover, we could enlarge the period of the
quasi-experiment in order to value team knowledge and observe whether the time
variable is as important for accumulating knowledge within the teams as we had
thought. Finally, we could improve the questionnaire by including more questions
related to each of the transactive memory dimensions.
Notes
1. For the team definition we are assuming that these have a specific task and objectives.
2. For a more detailed explanation of this measure, see Thompson and Stappenbeck (1999,
pp. 75-8).
3. Psychological safety will appear when trust and mutual respect among members generate
the necessary atmosphere to make members reveal their mistakes, uncertainties or ask for
help without fear of being punished (Edmondson, 1999).

Transactive
memory
processes
201

TPM
13,7/8

202

References
Argote, L., Insko, C.A., Yovetich, N. and Romero, A.A. (1995), Group learning curves: the effects
of turnover and task complexity on group performance, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 512-29.
Austin, J. (2003), Transactive memory in organizational groups: the effects of content,
consensus, specialization, and accuracy on group performance, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 878-86.
Cannon, M.D. and Edmondson, A.C. (2001), Confronting failure: antecedents and consequences
of shared beliefs about failure in organizational work groups, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 22, pp. 161-77.
Devadas, S. and Argote, L. (1995), Collective learning and forgetting: the effects of turnover and
group structure, paper presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago,
IL.
Edmondson, A.C. (1999), Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44, pp. 350-83.
Espinosa, J.A. (2001), Shared mental models and coordination in large-scale, distributed
software development, paper presented at the 22nd International Conference on
Information Systems, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Gruenfeld, D.M., Mannix, E.A., Williams, K.Y. and Neale, M.A. (1996), Group composition and
decision making: how member familiarity and information distribution affect process and
performance, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 67, pp. 1-15.
Henry, R.A. (1993), Group judgment accuracy: reliability and validity of postdiscussion
confidence judgments, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 56,
pp. 11-27.
Henry, R.A. (1995), Improving group judgment accuracy: information sharing and determining
the best member, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 62,
pp. 190-7.
Hollingshead, A.B. (1996), Information suppression and status persistence in group decision
making: the effects of communication media, Human Communication Research, Vol. 23,
pp. 193-219.
Hollingshead, A.B. (1998), Communication, learning, and retrieval in transactive memory
systems, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 34, pp. 423-42.
Hollingshead, A.B. (2000), Perceptions of expertise and transactive memory in work
relationships, Group Processes Intergroup Relations, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 257-67.
Kasl, E., Dechant, K. and Marsick, V.J. (1993), Living the learning: internalizing our model of
group learning, in Boud, D., Cohen, R. and Walker, D. (Eds), Using Experience for
Learning, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press,
Buckingham, pp. 143-56.
Kilduff, M., Angelmar, R. and Mehra, A. (2000), Top management, team diversity and firm
performance: examining the role of cognitions, Organization Science, Vol. 11, pp. 21-34.
Kraut, R.E., Fussell, S.R., Lerch, F.J. and Espinosa, A. (2002), Coordination in teams: evidence
from a simulated management game, unpublished manuscript.
Larson, J.R.J., Fishman, P.G.F. and Keys, C.B. (1994), Discussion of shared and unshared
information in decision making groups, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 67, pp. 446-61.
Lewis, K. (2003), Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: scale development and
validation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 587-604.

Lewis, K. (2004), Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: a longitudinal study

of transactive memory systems, Management Science, Vol. 50 No. 11, pp. 1519-33.
Libby, R., Trotman, K.T. and Zimmer, I. (1987), Member variation, recognition of expertise, and
group performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 81-7.
Littlepage, G.E. and Silbiger, H. (1992), Recognition of expertise in decision-making groups:
effects of group size and participation patterns, Small Group Research, Vol. 23, pp. 344-55.
Marsick, V. and Kasl, E. (1997), Factors that affect the epistemology of group learning:
a research-based analysis, paper presented at the the Annual Adult Education and
Research Conference, Stillwater, OK.
Mathieu, J., Goodwin, G.F., Heffner, T.S., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2000), The
influence of shared mental models on team process and performance, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 273-83.
Mohammed, S. and Dumville, B.C. (2001), Team mental models in a team knowledge framework:
expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, Special Issue, pp. 89-106.
Moreland, R.L. (1999), Transactive memory: learning who knows what in work groups and
organizations, in Thompson, L.L., Levine, J.M. and Messick, D.M. (Eds), Shared Cognition
in Organizations: The Management of Knowledge, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ, pp. 3-32.
Moreland, R.L., Argote, L. and Krishnan, R. (1996), Socially shared cognition at work:
transactive memory and group performance, in Brower, A.M. (Ed.), Whats Social about
Social Cognition? Research on Socially Shared Cognition in Small Groups, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 57-84.
Neuman, G.A. and Wright, J. (1999), Team effectiveness: beyond skills and cognitive ability,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84, pp. 376-89.
Stasser, G., Stewart, D.D. and Wittenbaum, G.W. (1995), Expert roles and information exchange
during discussion: the importance of knowing who knows what, Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 31, pp. 244-65.
Steiner, I. (1972), Group Process and Productivity, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Stout, R.J., Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Salas, E. and Milanovich, D.M. (1999), Planning, shared mental
models, and coordinated performance: an empirical link is established, Human Factors,
Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 61-71.
Thompson, A. and Stappenbeck, G. (1999), The Business Strategic Game 6.0, McGraw-Hill Irwin,
New York, NY.
Venney-Tiernan, M.D., Goldband, A., Rackham, L. and Reilly, N. (1994), Creating collaborative
relationships in a co-operative inquiry group, in Reason, P. (Ed.), Participation in Human
Inquiry, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 120-37.
Wegner, D.M. (1986), Transactive memory: a contemporary analysis of the group mind, in
Mullen, B. and Goethals, G.R. (Eds), Theories of Group Behavior, Springer-Verlag, New
York, NY, pp. 185-208.
Wegner, D.M. (1995), Transactive memory, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Psychology,
Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 654-6.
Whitmore, E. (1994), To tell the truth: working with oppressed groups in participatory
approaches to inquiry, in Reason, P. (Ed.), Participation in Human Inquiry,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 82-98.

Transactive
memory
processes
203

TPM
13,7/8

204

Further reading
Argote, L. (1995), Group versus organizational learning, paper presented at the Academy of
Management Meetings, Vancouver.
Argote, L. (1999), Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge,
Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.
Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Salas, E. and Converse, S. (1993), Shared mental models in expert team
decision making, in Castellan, N.J. (Ed.), Individual and Group Decision Making, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Hollingshead, A.B. (2001), Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in
transactive memory, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 1080-9.
Thomas, J.B., Gioia, D.A. and Ketchen, D.J.J. (1997), Strategic sense-making: learning through
scanning, interpretation, action and performance, in Shivastava, P., Huff, A.S. and
Dutton, J.E. (Eds), Advances in Strategic Management, JAI Press, London.
Walsh, J.P. (1995), Managerial and organizational cognition: notes from a trip down memory
lane, Organizational Science, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 280-321.
Weick, D. and Roberts, K. (1993), Collective mind and organizational reliability: the case of flight
operations in an aircraft carrier deck, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38, pp. 357-81.

Transactive
memory
processes

Appendix
Independent variables
Consensus (CONS)
CONS1. In general, you have made the production decisions
(1: individually, each member with his part, 3: voting and the majority
criteria, 5: trying to reach a consensus)
CONS2. In general, we have made the marketing decisions (1: individually,
each member with his part, 3: voting and the majority criteria, 5: trying to
reach a consensus)
CONS3. In general, we have made the financial decisions (1: individually,
each member with his part, 3: voting and the majority criteria, 5: trying to
reach a consensus)
CONS4. In the team, there is a leader in the decision process (1: never, 5:
always)
Specialization (SPEC)
SPEC1. You have understood the relationships between the variables with
which you have to decide (1: yes, each one separately, 5: yes, when we
meet all members)
SPEC2. At the end of each meeting, we make schemas and briefings about
discussions and decisions (1: no, never, 5: yes, always)
SPEC3. You have improved working in your group from the beginning
(1: no, nothing, 5: yes, a lot)
SPEC4. Individually, I have worked with the business strategy game this
week (1: less than an hour, 5: more than five hours)
Control variables
Communication (COMM)
COMM1. When have you contacted the other members of the team (by
phone, e-mail . . .) (1: never, 5: several times every day)
COMM2. When have you met the other members of the team (1: never,
5: several times every day)
COMM3. Each meeting of the members of the team lasted (1: less than ten
minutes, 5: more than two hours)
COMM4. The decisions introduced in the computer have been made (1: the
previous six days, 5: all, the day of the computer session)
Psychological safety (PSYC)
PSYC1. When a member makes a mistake, the rest of the members have a
hostile reaction (1: no hostile reaction, 5: a strong hostile reaction)
PSYC2. When you have taken risky decisions: did you feel threatened?
(1: nobody has ever taken risky decisions, 5: there is always somebody who
takes risky decisions)
PSYC3. My talent and worth are valued in the team (1: never, 5: always)

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

Corresponding author
Natalia Martin Cruz can be contacted at: ambiela@eco.uva.es
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

205

Table AI.