The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1352-7592.htm

Collective
Collective orientation and its orientation and
implications for coordination its
implications
and team performance in
interdependent work contexts
Vera Hagemann Received 5 March 2020
Revised 27 August 2020
Department of Human Resource Management, Faculty of Business Studies and Accepted 31 August 2020
Economics, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany, and
Greta Ontrup and Annette Kluge
Department of Business Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to explore the influence of collective orientation (CO) on coordination and team
performance for interdependently working teams while controlling for person-related and team variables.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 58 two-person-teams participated in a simulation-based
firefighting task. The laboratory study took 2 h for each team. The effects of CO in tasks of increasing
complexity were investigated under the consideration of control variables, and the relations between CO,
coordination and team performance were assessed using a multivariate latent growth curve modeling
approach and by estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models.
Findings – Team members high on CO performed significantly better than low-scoring members. The effect
of CO on team performance was independent from an increasing task complexity, whereas the effect of CO on
coordination was not. The effect of CO on team performance was mediated by coordination within the team,
and the positive relation between CO and performance persists when including group efficacy into the model.
Research limitations/implications – As CO is a modifiable person-related variable and important for
effective team processes, additional research on factors influencing this attitude during work is assumed to be
valuable.
Practical implications – CO is especially important for highly interdependently working teams in high-
risk-organizations such as the fire service or nuclear power plants, where errors lead to severe consequences
for human beings or the environment.
Originality/value – No other studies showed the importance of CO for coordination and team performance
while considering teamwork-relevant variables and the interdependence of work.
Keywords Team performance, Simulation, Collective orientation, Interdependent teamwork,
Latent growth model, Team process
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Correspondingly, to the increased implementation of team-based structures in organizations
over the past decades, research on teams has increased (Jones et al., 2019). Such research
aims to foster the understanding of the factors that contribute to team effectiveness
(Mathieu et al., 2017). Team composition factors such as task structure or team size, team
members’ personality and values, as well as their knowledge, skills and attitudes (KSA) are Team Performance Management:
An International Journal
critical elements in relation to team performance (Antoni and Hertel, 2009; Bell, 2007; © Emerald Publishing Limited
1352-7592
Mathieu et al., 2017). Although personality and values show relations to team performance, DOI 10.1108/TPM-03-2020-0020
TPM KSA-based approaches predict team performance more reliably (Stevens and Campion,
1994). While KSAs can be influenced by training, personality traits and values cannot (Bell,
2007) or to a smaller amount. A teamwork-relevant attitude that facilitates teamwork
processes and positively affects the success of teams appears to be the collective orientation
(CO) of each team member (Driskell et al., 2010). CO is defined “as the propensity to work in a
collective manner in team settings” (p.317); people who are high in CO enjoy working with
others in a goal-oriented manner, seek others’ input, contribute to team outcomes and enjoy
team membership (Driskell et al., 2010). As CO is defined as an attitude, it may vary by
means of teamwork-related prior experience or by training and education (Eby and Dobbins,
1997; Driskell et al., 2010).
The positive influence of CO on team performance appears to unfold particularly in
complex interdependent teamwork contexts (Driskell et al., 2010; Hagemann, 2017). This
finding is similar to the varying strength of the relationship between team efficacy and team
performance depending on differing levels of interdependence among team members
(Gibson, 1999; Gully et al., 2002; Stajkovic et al., 2009). So far there is no detailed information
about an effect of teamwork context’s complexity on the relationship between CO and team
performance. Especially if this relation becomes stonger with an increase in complexity.
Teamwork research distinguishes goal, outcome and task interdependence, which are in
accordance with general process models of human action (Hertel et al., 2004). Task
interdependence affects the interaction between team members directly, as the actions of one
member have strong implications for the work process of all members (Campion et al., 1993;
Hertel et al., 2004; Shea and Guzzo, 1987).
Albeit interdependence is a defining attribute of teams (Salas et al., 2008; van de Ven
et al., 1976) and often the reason why teams are formed, different levels of task
interdependence from independent/pooled, sequential, reciprocal to intensive
interdependence are distinguished (Arthur et al., 2005; van de Ven et al., 1976). Intensive
interdependence requires coordination patterns (van de Ven et al., 1976; Wageman, 1995),
calls for mutual adjustments as well as frequent interaction and information integration
within the team (Gibson, 1999; Stajkovic et al., 2009). Therefore, to demonstrate the
effectiveness of CO on team performance and its importance in team research, the team task
in the present study shows intensive interdependence.
Many teams working highly interdependently do not exist for a long time interval and
have no time to live through different teamwork phases (Tuckman, 1965). For example, team
members of airline crews, staff work or operating room teams change their composition
from shift to shift, respectively, from incident to incident. Furthermore, because of their
responsibility for the lives of others as well as their own lives, they have to work effectively
and reliably from the outset (see, e.g. high-responsibility or high-reliability teams;
Hagemann et al., 2012; Salas and Rosen, 2013). Thus, we argue that it is important to support
their teamwork processes best to foster reliable and well-orchestrated team performance
(Parker et al., 2018). In that respect, we focus on CO as an individual contribution to
teamwork processes (Sonnentag and Volmer, 2009) and thus relevant for optimal team
performance in interdependent contexts.
Although single results concerning the influence of CO on team performance exist
(Driskell et al., 2010; Hagemann, 2017), we analyze not only the influence of CO on team
performance, but also its effect on team coordination and the team process, while
considering control variables. Therefore, we applied a laboratory-based approach with a
computer-based simulation. This simulation is a so called micro-world representing complex
and interdependent work situations and seems very promising for reliable and valid team
research under standardized conditions. The purpose of the manuscript is first to strengthen
the findings that CO contributes to successful teamwork and coordination in interdependent Collective
team contexts. Second, we examined the effect of CO on team performance and team orientation and
coordination as a function of an increase in the complexity of the task while controlling for
other variables. Third, we analyzed the underlying processes supporting teamwork and
its
tested the indirect effect of CO on team performance mediated by the teams’ coordination implications
behavior. Fourth, we sought, on the one hand, to strengthen the unique finding that the
effect of group potency on team performance vanishes when controlling for group efficacy,
whereas simultaneously, on the other hand, in this interdependent team task, the effect of
CO on team performance persists, so that CO shows incremental validity.

Collective orientation and its impact on coordination and team performance

Team performance – in research, also often used synonymously with team productivity –
means the extent to which a team or group accomplishes its mission and goals (Bell,
2007). Team performance depends on various factors. Classical input–process–outcome
(IPO) models link input factors, such as individual characteristics, e.g. knowledge, skills
or attitudes, task and group characteristics as well as environmental factors to team
processes, such as communication or coordination, which in turn influence the team
performance (Antoni and Hertel, 2009; Campion et al., 1993; Hackman, 1987; Mathieu
et al., 2008). Based on these models, team composition receives high attention in team
research as it seems that the configuration of member attributes in a team is thought to
powerfully influence team processes and outcomes (Bell, 2007; Salas et al., 2005). One of
these member attributes is the CO.
CO is defined as an attitude that enhances team performance through coordination,
evaluation and consideration of task inputs from other team members while performing a
team task (Driskell and Salas, 1992; Salas et al., 2005). It is assumed, that collectively
oriented people adapt teamwork processes adequately to the affordances of the situation and
use available resources in due consideration of the team’s goals effectively. They enjoy
working in teams when teamwork supports task accomplishment and achievement of
objectives. Nevertheless, they are also able to work effectively on their own. CO appears to
be a predictor of individual contributions to team performance (cf. Sonnentag and Volmer,
2009). Driskell et al. (2010) and Hagemann (2017) provided a sound overview of the
evidence of construct validity as well as convergent and discriminant validity of CO
compared to other teamwork-related constructs. Studies analyzing collectively and
non-collectively oriented persons’ decision-making processes showed that teams with non-
collectively oriented members performed poorly in problem-solving (Driskell and Salas,
1992). In contrast, collectively oriented members judged inputs from teammates as more
valuable and considered these inputs more frequently. Karau and Williams (1993) extended
expectancy-value models of effort to collective contexts and specified how working in a team
influences team members’ perception of the relation between their effort and expected
outcomes. With regard to their collective effort model (CEM), it seems that team members
with high CO values are more willing to exert effort on a team task and are therefore more
successful. These people seem more likely to recognize that their individual efforts are
relevant in obtaining valued outcomes. Based on the CEM, the relation between CO and
team performance might be founded on the factors, that team members with high CO values
seem more likely to see the connection between their effort and team performance
(expectancy). Furthermore, they see the link between team performance and valued
outcomes (instrumentality) and they recognize the outcome as desirable (valence). These
mechanisms may explain the above reported single empirical findings so far.
TPM Further, as introduced above, CO is assumed to enhance team performance as the team’s
coordination is improved (Driskell and Salas, 1992; Salas et al., 2005). Coordination refers to
the orchestration of the sequence and timing of interdependent actions within a team (Marks
et al., 2001). In the past, CO was equated to team-oriented or collective behavior (Driskell and
Salas, 1992; Miles, 2000; Watson et al., 1998), and aspects such as information sharing,
supporting others and mutual error correction were used as indicators. These indicators of
collective behavior should support cooperation and coordination in teams. This
hypothesized relationship is strengthened by the finding that team member value
collectivism – as a related construct – has been found to increase cooperation in teams
(Kirkman and Shapiro, 2001; Wagner, 1995). Eby and Dobbins (1997) demonstrated that CO
enhances coordination among team members and assumed it may boost team performance
through strategizing, information sharing and goal setting (Salas et al., 2005), but did not
prove that.
Moreover, research has shown that a positive relation between CO and team performance
depends on the task type (McGrath, 1984). Significant positive relations were only found in
conjunction with the task types decision-making/choosing and negotiating (Driskell et al.,
2010; Hagemann, 2017), and not with generating or executing tasks. These first mentioned
task types are characterized by much more interdependence than generating or executing
tasks. The CEM model and these single studies, focusing either on coordination or on
performance, indicate that teams containing members with high CO values might be more
successful in their teamwork processes or in task accomplishment than teams with more
individualistic and dominant people. To replicate, but especially combine the results from
single studies, we developed the following hypotheses. The first hypotheses are as follows:

H1a. Teams containing members with high CO values show a significantly higher team
performance in an interdependent task than teams containing members with low
CO values.
H1b. Teams containing members with high CO values show significantly better team
coordination in an interdependent task than teams containing members with low
CO values.

Analysis of relationships in consideration of complexity and coordination as the mediating

variable
The first two hypotheses aim at investigating the general influence of CO as a team member
attribute on team processes and outcomes, in an intensive interdependent team task. Yet, it
is not a realistic depiction of work practices to assume these relationships to be independent
from each other (Hackman, 1987; Mathieu et al., 2008). Additionally, interdependence is a
continuum rather than a static condition and it is thus indispensable to consider the
influence of varying levels of interdependence (Beal et al., 2003; Chen et al., 2001; Wood,
1986). Relevant team factors such as team efficacy have been shown to exert higher
influences on performance in situations with increased interdependence (Gibson, 1999; Gully
et al., 2002; Stajkovicet al., 2009). Yet, these dynamic influences have to be deciphered for CO
as a relevant input factor.
So far, two studies were able to show that the impact of CO on team performance appears
to unfold particularly in interdependent teamwork contexts (Driskell et al., 2010; Hagemann,
2017). The present study goes beyond this and also varies the degree of interdependence of
the team task, in four steps, to analyze if the influence of CO on team performance and
coordination is stronger for more interdependent tasks.
 To create intensive interdependent tasks that require more or less coordination Collective
patterns, the extent of the task’s complexity, leading to varying degrees of orientation and
interdependence, can be manipulated (Mathieu et al., 2017; Wood, 1986). Complex
situations are characterized by element interactivity/interconnectedness, dynamic
its
developments, non-transparency and multiple goals (Funke, 1995). As complex situations implications
are not transparent, information may be missing, may be incorrect or may already be
outdated when it reaches the decision-maker. The interconnectedness of people must be
considered, so that, for example, one person can only perform an action when he/she has
received information from the other person. Wood (1986) calls this facet coordinative
complexity and means the degree to which task variables need to be integrated between
team members with regard to timing, frequency and intensity. Furthermore, the
situations can develop dynamically and at a high speed. The people involved do not
necessarily receive direct feedback on their actions, so that they have to wait and see,
anticipate future conditions and take them into account in their further actions. They
pursue different and possibly competing goals simultaneously (Dunne et al., 2010). These
multiple facets of complex tasks place high information processing and behavioral
demands on team members (Chen et al., 2001). The manipulated complexity of the present
study is described in more detail in the Method section.
Regarding the above-mentioned demands, high-quality coordination in teams is
important for the prompt sharing of information, resources and effort between members in a
reciprocal manner (Ellington and Dierdorff, 2014). The intra-team interaction such as mutual
adjustments and frequent information integration within the team supports discussions of
what is working for the team and what is not working and how the team members might
adapt their teamwork strategies (Ellington and Dierdorff, 2014; Parker et al., 2018) and
becomes more important for effective teamwork as the task’s interdependence increases
(DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus, 2010; Gibson, 1999; Marks et al., 2001; Stajkovic et al.,
2009). People with high CO values seem to be more motivated to invest their efforts in this
intra-team interaction (Eby and Dobbins, 1997; Karau and Williams, 1993). Thus, we assume
that the positive relationships between CO and team performance and coordination are
influenced by the degree of the task complexity, because of their described demands on team
members’ actions:

H2a. The positive relationship between CO and team performance is becoming stronger
with an increase in the complexity of the task.
H2b. The positive relationship between CO and team coordination is becoming stronger
with an increase in the complexity of the task.
Based on the IPO framework (Hackman, 1987; Mathieu et al., 2008), coordination will be
analyzed as a team process variable, and it can be influenced by individual characteristics
such as knowledge or attitudes (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995; Hackman, 1987). CO as a team
members’ attitude appears to influence coordination and team performance positively (Eby
and Dobbins, 1997; Driskell and Salas, 1992; Driskell et al., 2010; Hagemann, 2017) and the
amount of high-quality coordination in a team correlates positively with the team’s
effectiveness (Dierdorff et al., 2011; Stevens and Campion, 1994). To identify how CO is able
to impact team performance, the underlying mechanisms, such as teamwork processes, need
to be further analyzed. Therefore, we focus simultaneously on coordination and on
performance and predict that the positive influence of CO on team performance is an indirect
effect and is mediated by team processes, which is the coordination among the members of
the team.
TPM H3. The effect of CO on team performance is mediated by the teams’ coordination
performance; thus, there is an indirect effect.

Analysis of relationships in consideration of control variables

The impact of CO on team performance and coordination is analyzed in conjunction with
control variables, as these may affect the relationships being investigated (Bernerth and
Aguinis, 2016). We identified three potentially relevant control variables. The first two are
specific to the experimental procedure. The team task in the study is a computer-based
simulation. Although computers and other electronic devices are pervasive in our everyday
lives, people show different attitudes to their use, and sometimes even an aversion to using a
computer. Computer aversion means “a negative affective state (discomfort or apprehension)
relating to computer technology” (Schulenberg and Melton, 2008, p. 2621). Thus, within the
scope of a computer-based team task, positive attitudes to using a computer might
positively influence the motivation for task accomplishment. Moreover, it might be able to
minimize a potential fear of working with the simulation environment, and therefore
contribute to the performance in the computer-based team task. As none of the participants
in the present study were familiar with operating the simulation, initial training concerning
the rules of the game and handling of the simulation was required. As people who have
learned more during training might be more successful in task accomplishment, the amount
of task-specific knowledge after training might influence the teams’ performance.
One study indicates that team members’ need for cognition (NFC) might also affect team
performance (Kearney et al., 2009). NFC describes an individual’s tendency to engage in and
enjoy thinking. It explains individual differences in intrinsic cognitive motivation, which
means how individuals are cognitively engaged and how they elaborate social and non-
social information from their environment (Cacioppo et al., 1996). People high in NFC prefer
complex over simple tasks (Cacioppo and Petty, 1982); they show deeper information
processing and higher memory performance (Cacioppo et al., 1983) and actively search for
new information (Verplanken et al., 1992). Kearney et al. (2009) showed that team members’
NFC was positively associated with team performance, as rated by team leaders. Thus, it
might be assumed that team members high in NFC are more motivated to find solutions to
challenging problems and to accomplish demanding tasks, and therefore show a better
performance in a team context, than people low in NFC. Thus, we control for the influences
of these three variables when investigating the effect of CO on team performance and team
coordination according to an increase in the complexity of the task.

Relationships between collective orientation, emergent states and team performance

Analyses of the relationship between CO and emergent states (DeChurch and Mesmer-
Magnus, 2010; Marks et al., 2001), such as group potency and group efficacy and outcomes
such as team performance, are rather lacking and are assumed to be considered more
thoroughly (see also Dierdorff et al., 2011). CO as an attitude can serve as an input variable,
but also an emergent state, as it is able to change during teamwork based on experiences or
training. Emergent states symbolize team members’ motivations or attitudes and are
“properties of the team that are typically dynamic in nature and vary as a function of team
context, inputs, processes, and outcomes” (Marks et al., 2001: 357). According to Marks et al.
(2001, p. 358), emergent states can be considered as input variables as well as proximal
outcomes as “they are products of team experiences and become new inputs to subsequent
processes and outcomes.” Instead of calling these variables traits, they prefer emergent
states because of their mutable qualities. These entities also characterize CO. Studies either
reside such variables at the individual or team levels of analysis (Mathieu et al., 2017). For Collective
team effectiveness, both emergent states and interaction processes are relevant (Kozlowski orientation and
and Ilgen, 2006). Emergent states dynamically enable effective teamwork (DeChurch and
its
Mesmer-Magnus, 2010) and can be discriminated from team process, which refers to
“members’ interdependent acts that covert inputs to outcomes through cognitive, verbal, implications
and behavioral activities directed toward organizing task work to achieve collective goals”
(Marks et al., 2001, p. 357).
As the positive relations between group efficacy and group potency with team
performance are empirically proved (Stajkovic et al., 2009), also under consideration of
varying inter-dependence, it is of interest for us, if the effect of CO on team performance is
strong enough when controlling for these two widely researched emergent states. In line
with the assumption made in H3 regarding CO and team process (coordination), also group
efficacy and group potency facilitate the execution of behavioral processes (e.g. planning,
coordination, backup behavior) during action phases, meaning during episodes when
members are involved in actions that focus on task work and goal accomplishment (Marks
et al., 2001). These behavioral processes, in turn, represent the team members’
interdependent actions that transform inputs to outcomes, such as team performance.
Group efficacy means the shared belief in the team’s capability to effectively perform a
specific task (Baker, 2001; Bandura, 1997). It is thought to be related to teamwork processes
insofar as team members will maintain effort for longer periods and address obstacles
related to task completion with more confidence (Bandura, 1997; Pescosolido, 2003). It is
related to group goals and group effectiveness (Prussia and Kinicki, 1996). The relation
between group efficacy and team performance depends on the degree of interdependence
and the relation is stronger for interdependent team tasks than for non-interdependent ones
(Gibson, 1999; Gully et al., 2002; Katz-Navon and Erez, 2005; Stajkovic et al., 2009).
In contrast, group potency refers to a more generalized performance of the team. It is a
generalized belief about the capabilities of team members across tasks and contexts,
meaning that it is the collective belief in a team that the team members can be effective
(Gully et al., 2002; Guzzo et al., 1993). Studies have found strong support for a positive
relation between group potency and team performance (Campion et al., 1993; Gully et al.,
2002; Guzzo et al., 1993; Stajkovic et al., 2009), but this relation seems to be independent of
the task’s interdependence (Gully et al., 2002) and the relation disappears when controlling
for group efficacy (Stajkovic et al., 2009). Therefore, on the one hand, we seek to strengthen
the finding that the effect of group potency on team performance vanishes when controlling
for group efficacy. Simultaneously, on the other hand, in this interdependent team task, we
want to show that the effect of CO on team performance persists when controlling for group
efficacy, and that CO is able to explain incremental validity and therefore important in team
process and performance research:

H4a. The positive relation between group efficacy and team performance is stronger
than the relation between group potency and team performance, so that it
disappears when including group efficacy into the regression model.
H4b. The positive relation between CO and team performance persists, when including
group efficacy into the regression model.
Treatment check and scenario validation. The scenarios are neither too difficult nor too
easy, and are sensitive enough to show performance differences. The scenarios represent
interdependent teamwork and allow the effects of CO on team performance to be analyzed.
TPM Material and methods
Participants
A total of 116 undergraduate and graduate students studying applied cognitive and media
sciences participated in the study (79 females). Their mean age was 21.17 years (SD = 3.11).
In total, 58 two-person teams were generated, by matching participants as team mates based
on the pre-measured CO values (see procedure). They were compensated with giveaways (e.g.
pencils and non-alcoholic canned drinks) and received two hourly credits as a trial subject.
Informed consent was obtained from each participant. Participants were informed about the
purpose of the study and told that they could discontinue participation at any time.

Procedure
The laboratory study was conducted at a university department for business psychology.
Prior to the experiment’s start, the participants filled in the CO instrument online (see
Figure 1). The sample was subsequently dichotomized into two groups via median split
(Md = 3.12; range: 1.69–4.06; scale range: 1–5) relating to the variable CO. Two individuals
with either high or low CO values were matched as teammates. Hence, one group of teams
(n = 29) was characterized by high CO values (M = 3.44; SD = 0.32) and one group (n = 29)
by low CO values (M = 2.79; SD = 0.35). The participants were invited to the experimental
study by e-mail three weeks after filling in the CO instrument and the investigator made
single appointments with all 58 teams. Each trial run included one team, took about 2 h, and
started with an introduction to the experimental procedure and the teams’ task. The teammates
were familiarized with the simulation, received 20 min of training and completed two practice
trials during training. After the training, participants answered a first set of questionnaires. All
control variables were assessed at this point. Especially the measurement of task-specific
knowledge was important after training and before starting the experimental scenarios
assessing coordination and performance. Following this, the first simulation scenario started
and the teams had a maximum of 15 min to perform successfully (for more information, see the
interdependent team task). Subsequently, participants worked on Scenarios 2, 3 and 4 (each
lasting for a maximum of 15 min, with increasing complexity/difficulty) and answered
questionnaires in the middle of the experiment regarding group efficacy and potency.
Communication between the teammates happened by means of a chat system. The experiment
finished with a debriefing. The overall procedure and measurement points are displayed in
Figure 1. The study was approved in advance by the university’s ethics committee.

Interdependent team task

C3Fire is a promising simulation-based task (Granlund et al., 2001) and described as an
intensive interdependence team task (Arthur et al., 2005). C3Fire is a command, control and

Figure 1.
Overview about the
experimental
procedure
communications simulation environment, which allows analyzing the teams’ coordination Collective
and communication in dynamic environments. It is a micro-world, as significant features of orientation and
the real world are transferred to a small and well-controlled simulation system. The task
environment in C3Fire is complex. That means people strive for (contradictory) goals and
its
the system processes are coupled, so that side effects of an action occur and force people implications
to choose between different courses of action. The micro-world is dynamic, as “their
current state is a function of the history of the interaction between the subject and the
system” and “they change, both as a consequence of the subject’s actions and
autonomously” (Brehmer and Dörner, 1993, p. 173). Because performed activities effect
the ongoing procedure, the sequencing of activities is free and not stringent, such as a
fixed (if A than B) or parallel (if A than B and C) sequence (Ormerod et al., 1998). This
can cause demanding conditions. The micro-world is also opaque, as people cannot
collect all relevant information, so that they have to form and test hypotheses. Based on
these characteristics, C3Fire is comparable to the tasks people typically come upon in
real-life settings, in and outside their working environment (Brehmer and Dörner, 1993).
Considering these facts, teamwork and performance can be examined within well-
controlled laboratory studies. Micro-worlds such as C3Fire are able to bridge the gap
between field studies, which have been criticized because of their small amount of
control, and laboratory studies, which might show deficits regarding ecological validity
(Brehmer and Dörner, 1993).
In C3Fire, the teams are responsible for protecting houses and saving lives and they have
to coordinate their high interdependent actions to extinguish forest fires. The simulation
contains, e.g. forest fire/s, houses, tents, gas tanks, varieties of vegetation and computer-
simulated agents such as firefighting units (Granlund, 2003). The teams in the current
simulation scenarios were two-person teams and consisted of two firefighting units, one
mobile water tank unit (accountable for re-filling the firefighting units’ water tanks that they
carry with them) and one fire-break unit (a field defended with a fire-break cannot be ignited;
the fire spreads around its ends). Four scenarios were developed in total (each lasting for
15 min). Each team member was responsible for the same two units in all scenarios, either
firefighting and water tank unit or firefighting and fire-break unit. The user interface was a
map system (40
40 square grid) with geographic information and positions of all symbols
representing tents, gas tanks, hospitals, fire-break unit and so on. The simulation was run
on desktop computers networked in a client–server configuration. Communication
happened by means of a chat system.
Items of complexity. For complexity reasons, subjects had a restricted visibility field. All
parts of the map with buildings and vegetation were noticeable for them, but not the
burning cells or other units; instead, the subjects were close to them with their own units.
Examples of the C3Fire simulation are provided in the Appendix in Figures A1–A3.
Table B1 in the Appendix shows complete information concerning the scenarios’
characteristics and therefore differences, demonstrating the increasing complexity. For
the sake of clarity, only the changes in complexity are described here, but not all the
variables have remained constant across the scenarios and have no effect on an increase
in complexity. The size of the visibility field in Scenario 1 was 5
5 cells and changed
to 3
3 cells in Scenario 2. From then on, it was kept constant. This led to increased
demands on the tactical arrangements within the team. In the third scenario, a second
fire was added. This led to the fact that the team members had to coordinate themselves
even better and also had to split up and keep up to date. The fourth scenario had also
two fires, but now the local water tank was placed on the outer edge of the map. This
means that the requirements for an effective arrangement for water refueling via the
TPM mobile water tank unit increased significantly. In sum, only one aspect changed from
scenario to scenario, insofar as the scenarios increased in complexity and
interdependence from one to four.

Measures
An overview about all applied scales is given in Table 1. Developed items specific to the
experiment were knowledge about the simulation and group efficacy.
Knowledge about the simulation environment was measured with three multiple-choice
questions (nine points maximum) and one cloze (looking for three words; three points
maximum). Points ranged between 0 (no correct answer) and 12 (all answers correct). One
example multiple-choice question is:
Which fields do not ignite? Possible answers: Fields with a house; Fields closed out; Fields with a
gas tank; Fields burned out; Fields with a fire-break; Fields without trees and bushes.
As three answers are right, a maximum of three points can be achieved for this
question.
Group efficacy was measured with five items. One item was adapted from Baker (2001).
This item was “How successful do you think your team is in firefighting in C3Fire?” The
item was rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = not successful at all to 5 = very successful).
Four items were developed by the authors and tailored to the simulation environment,
because efficacy represents task-specific expectations that a team can accomplish its goals
(Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006). These four items were also rated on a five-point Likert scale
(1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) and an example item is “I believe that we perform
successfully as a team in protecting houses against the fire.”
The team process variable, coordination, and the outcome variable, team performance,
were not based on questionnaire scales; these variables resulted from data collected during
the simulation task.

Team process variable

Team coordination. Organizing dependencies between the teams’ actions and their
resources causes effective coordination. The time the firefighting units spent without
water in the field in relation to the total scenario time was used as an indicator for
successful coordination as it represents sharing information and resources between
team members in a reciprocal manner, which are essential qualities of effective
coordination (Ellington and Dierdorff, 2014). This measure stands for the effectiveness
of resource-oriented coordination (Lafond et al., 2011) and is an action process (Marks
et al., 2001), as it represents an efficient performance regarding the water refill process
in C3Fire. This process requires coordinated activities between the two firefighting
units and one water tank unit (Lafond et al., 2011). One team member was in charge of
the mobile water tank unit and therefore responsible for filling up the water tanks of
his/her own firefighting unit as well as that of the other team member on time. To do so
successfully, the team members had to share information about, for example, their
firefighting units’ and the water tank unit’s current and future positions in the field,
their water levels and their strategies for extinguishing one or two fires to avoid
running out of water for firefighting. The underlying assumption is that a more
effective coordination process leads to fewer delays in conducting the water refill
process. Coordination was calculated by a formula and values ranged between 0 and 1,
with higher values indicating lower coordination in the team (Jobidon et al., 2012).
Coordination = time spent without water/total time spent in scenario.
Variables Author(s) No. of items Scale Example item a

Collective Driskell et al. (2010), 16 Likert (1–5) I find working on team projects to be very 0.81
Orientation Hagemann (2017) satisfying
Computer Schulenberg and 9 Likert (1–5) I enjoy using computers 0.77
Affinity Melton (2008)
Knowledge about Authors of the paper 3 multiple-choice questions (2, Points ranged Which fields do not ignite? Possible answers:
the simulation 3 and 4 points); 1 cloze (3 between 0 and 12 (all Fields with a house; Fields closed out; Fields
words, 3 points) answers correct) with a gas tank; Fields burned out; Fields with
a fire-break; Fields without trees and bushes
Need for cognition Cacioppo and Petty 9 Likert (1–5) I really enjoy a task that involves coming up 0.75
(1982) with new solutions to problems
Group efficacy Baker (2001, one 5 Likert (1–5) I believe that we perform successfully as a 0.78
item); authors of the team in protecting houses against the fire
paper (four items)
Group potency Guzzo et al. (1993) 5 Likert (1–5) This team has confidence in itself 0.85

applied scales
Overview about all
Table 1.
implications
its
orientation and
Collective
TPM Output variable
Team performance. This measure was based on a formula containing the teams’ goals
(limiting the number of burned-out cells and saving as many buildings as possible). Team
performance was calculated as the number of protected buildings, fields, bushes/trees in
relation to the number of buildings, fields and bushes/trees, respectively, which would burn
in a worst-case scenario. This formula is superior to other ones published earlier (Lafond
et al., 2011) as it takes into account that teams needing more time for firefighting also have
more burning cells and show a less successful performance than teams that are quick in
firefighting. To define the worst-case scenarios, each of the 15-minute scenarios was run
with no firefighting action taken. So, the characteristics (e.g. how many trees would burn
down if no action was taken) of each scenario were assessed. The buildings, bushes/trees
and fields were also weighted according to their differing significance, mirroring the teams’
goals. Buildings were most important to protect. Bushes/trees (middle importance) burn
faster than fields (lowest importance) and foster the spreading out of the fire. Values for
team performance ranged between 0 and 7.99. Higher values indicate a better overall
performance. Team performance was calculated as follows (see Table 2):

Team performance ¼ ðða=maxaÞ
5Þ þ ððb=maxbÞ
2Þ þ ððc=max cÞ
1Þ

Level of analysis and analytical strategy

Data structure. The study design generated longitudinal nested team data and it is therefore
important to clearly distinguish levels of investigations (Kozlowski and Klein, 2000). First,
teams were matched based on their individual-level CO, which meant that the indication of
high vs low CO in the team was constructed as a team-level variable. Second, the outcomes
of interest (performance and coordination) were repeatedly assessed/calculated at the team
level (as described above). Thus, the database for the analysis included the team’s CO (Level
2) and the teams repeatedly measured and thus nested team-level coordination and
performance scores (Level 1). The data structure is visualized in Figure 2.
Analytical strategy. Figure 2 additionally deciphers the putative longitudinal mediation
process. As described in the Introduction, CO was hypothesized to influence team
performance (H1a) and coordination (H1b) significantly and these relationships were
hypothesized to become stronger with an increase in task complexity over time (H2). The
increase in complexity was operationalized by the experimental manipulation. Further,
coordination was hypothesized to mediate the influence of CO on performance (H3). To

Symbol Explanation

a = number of protected houses (those that were not touched by fire)

b = number of protected bushes/trees
c = number of protected fields
Table 2. max a = number of affected houses in the worst case (those that are burned out, extinguished
or still on fire)
Explanation of
max b = number of affected bushes/trees in the worst case
formula for max c = number of affected fields in the worst case
calculating team 5 = weighting of houses (highest priority)
performance in each 2 = weighting of bushes/trees (middle priority)
scenario 1 = weighting of fields (lowest priority)
coherently analyze the multi-level longitudinal mediation model resulting from H1–H3, we Collective
chose a multivariate latent growth curve modeling approach (Cheong et al., 2003). Latent orientation and
growth curve modeling is used for investigating causes or determinants of change over time
(Grimm et al., 2016). In this study, CO was investigated as a determinant for the change
its
(“growth”) and interrelation of performance and coordination over time. The advantage of implications
growth models lies in their high flexibility regarding the modeling of complex multivariate
and nested longitudinal processes (Curran et al., 2010). As this study included the analyses
of a multilevel (nested team data) and conditional (analysis of CO as a predictor) dynamic
longitudinal mediation process (i.e. repeatedly measured mediator and outcome), while
taking control variables into account, the methodology was deemed useful in this case
(Grimm et al.,2016; Preacher et al., 2010). Growth models can be fit within a structural
equation or a multi-level framework (Blood and Cheng, 2011; Grimm et al., 2016) and both
approaches have been shown to yield comparable findings (Blood and Cheng, 2011); we
followed the multi-level approach in this study. We further followed the suggested parallel
process approach for investigating longitudinal mediation described by Cheong et al.(2003).
First, two separate growth models for the prediction of performance (Model 1) and
coordination (Model 2) through CO were fitted. Second, these models were combined for
evaluating the mediation effect (Model 3). In our study, the mediator and the outcome
variable are measured repeatedly over time. Mediation is supported, when the predictor (CO)
significantly influences the change of the mediator (i.e. the growth rate of coordination), and
when changes in the mediator subsequently affect changes in the outcome (i.e. the growth
rate of performance) (Cheong et al., 2003; von Soest and Hagtvet, 2011). Data were analyzed
in R studio (R Core Team, 2020); the parallel process latent growth curve model was fitted
using the package snlme (Pinheiro et al., 2020).

Results
Means, standard deviations, internal consistencies, intra-class correlations (one-way random
effects ANOVA) for team variables and correlations for all study variables are provided in
Table B1 in the Appendix. The internal consistencies of the scales as well as ICC(1) and ICC
(2) and rwg(J) proved to be satisfactory (see Table B1).

Effects of collective orientation on performance

H1a predicted that teams containing members with high CO values would show a
significantly better team performance than teams whose members had low CO values. As

Figure 2.
Resulting data
structure of team
level CO and team
level outcomes
TPM described above, we chose a latent growth curve modeling approach to test hypotheses
coherently. Assumptions for models were met in that dependent variables were
continuously measured, time spacing was the same across all teams and four measurement
occasions were included.
Following the parallel process procedure described above, we fitted a first growth model,
including CO as a time-invariant covariate for the prediction of performance over time
whilst controlling for computer affinity, knowledge and need for cognition. CO was
introduced as a dummy variable, with low CO coded as the baseline category (0). The time
points of performance measurement were modeled as nested over time (Level 1) within
teams (Level 2). For assessing model fit, we fitted models stepwise (Field, 2012). Compared
to the baseline model, model fit improved significantly by introducing random intercepts
( x 2(3) = 130.20, p < 0.001). The model further improved by including time (growth factor)
and CO (time-invariant covariate) as fixed effects ( x 2(7) = 10.73, p < 0.01) and by including
random slopes ( x 2(6) = 61.81, p < 0.001), which signaled good model fit.
Random effects are evaluated by variance estimates in the latent growth model (Curran
et al., 2010; Grimm et al., 2016). Parameter estimates for the random effects indicated
significant between-team variances for the intercept (initial performance level) (SD = 1.91;
95% CI [1.51; 2.41]) and slope (change in performance) (SD = 0.84; 95% CI [0.65; 1.08]).
Intercept and slope were negatively related (cor = 0.75, 95% CI [0.87; 0.57]), which
indicated that teams starting with higher performance were expected to further improve
their performance more slowly than teams who started with a rather low performance.
With regard to answering the hypothesis, we were mainly interested in the fixed effects.
These showed a main effect of CO on performance (see the first part of Table 3), signifying
that right from the start of the team tasks, teams with high CO performed better than teams
with low CO. This supported H1a. This further supports the treatment check; scenarios
were sufficiently sensitive to detect performance differences.
Main effects of time (that is, the effect of an increase in complexity) and the time
CO
interaction were not significant (see Table 3), meaning that although teams differed

Model 1: CO predicts team performance

b SE t-Value
Intercept 3.10 1.12 2.77*
Time (complexity) 0.05 0.18 0.27
CO 1.61 0.56 2.89*
Computer affinity 0.20 0.21 0.95
Knowledge 0.11 0.07 1.73
Need for cognition 0.14 0.19 0.70
Time (complexity)
CO 0.05 0.26 0.21
Model 2: CO predicts team coordination
Intercept 0.27 0.07 4.10*
Time (complexity) 0.004 0.01 0.43
CO 0.06 0.03 2.16*
Computer affinity 0.01 0.01 0.39
Knowledge 0.001 0.004 0.29
Need for cognition 0.01 0.01 0.42
Table 3.
Time (complexity)
CO 0.04 0.01 3.63*
Fixed effects of the
parallel process Notes: b = regression coefficient beta; SE = standard error; *p < 0.05; CO was coded as a dummy variable
growth models with 0 = low CO and 1 = high CO
significantly in their performance right from the beginning – which can be attributed to the Collective
experimental manipulation – they did not differ regarding their trajectory of change orientation and
(“growth” rate) over time. This is contrary to the expectation formulated in H2a, by which a its
stronger influence (in this framework, equaling a higher “growth rate”) between CO and
team performance was assumed over time (i.e. with increasing complexity). For a better
implications
understanding, performance scores are plotted in Figure 3. As shown by the first growth
model, teams with high CO performed constantly better than teams with low CO. Figure 3
shows a descriptive difference in how performance develops within the teams (growth rate),
in that teams with high CO maintain high performance levels over time (i.e. with an increase
in complexity) and teams with low CO show worse performance toward the end. Yet, this
difference in the trajectories was not significant. Finally, none of the control variables
showed a significant influence on team performance.

Effects of collective orientation on coordination

H1b predicted that teams containing members with high CO values would also show
significantly better team coordination than teams whose members had low CO values. We
accordingly fitted a second growth model, including CO as a time-invariant covariate for the
prediction of coordination over time. The model was specified as described above with
coordination as the outcome. Again, model fit improved compared to the baseline model by
introducing random intercepts ( x 2(3)=26.83, p < 0.001), time (growth factor) and CO (time-
invariant covariate) as fixed effects ( x 2(5)=13.79, p < 0.01) and random slopes ( x 2(6)=29.21,
p < 0.001).
Parameter estimated for the intercept (SD = 0.08, 95% CI [0.06; 0.11]) and slope (SD =
0.03, 95% CI [0.02; 0.04]) again indicated significant between-team variances. The relation
between intercept and slope was negative (r = 0.79, 95% CI [0.92; 0.53]), comparable to
the first model.

Figure 3.
Team performance
growth curves for CO
high and CO low
teams
TPM Looking at the fixed effects, the main effect of CO on coordination was significant (see
second half of Table 3). However, the effect was contrary to what we expected: teams
with high CO were predicted to show significantly lower coordination at the beginning
of the team task, as higher values indicated worse coordination behavior in this case
(high values = more time without water). This is mirrored by the average coordination
scores displayed in Figure 4. Although the main effect of time is again not significant
(see Table 3), meaning that the groups are not expected to differ in their change
trajectories (growth) in coordination over time, the interaction effect between time and
CO is significant. Thus, although both groups experience a similar kind of change in
coordination patterns (growth rates), with an increase in complexity over time, the
effect of CO on coordination changes. With an increase in time, thus with more
complexity, a more negative effect was predicted for the high CO group (see Table 3).
This negative effect signifies lower coordination values (which stand for better
coordination). This interaction effect is also apparent in Figure 4. While the pattern of
change (growth) is similar in both groups, groups with high CO achieve better
coordination in the more complex scenarios. This supports H2b in that the effect of CO
on coordination becomes stronger for the more complex scenarios. Finally, none of the
control variables showed a significant influence on team performance.
Taken together, team-level CO significantly influenced performance and
coordination in the teams. H1a was fully supported as teams with high CO performed
significantly better. H1b was partly supported, as teams with high CO showed worse
coordination in the beginning but managed to coordinate better in the more complex
scenarios. Finally, despite descriptive difference in the growth pattern of the two
groups, team performance developed similarly over time, which did not support H2a.
However, the effect of increased complexity was apparent for the coordination of the
teams, which supported H2b.

Figure 4.
Coordination growth
curves for CO high
and CO low teams
Final mediation model: coordination mediates effects of collective orientation on Collective
performance orientation and
H3 predicted that CO shows an indirect effect on team performance via the team’s
coordination behavior. Mediation is supported in the parallel-process framework, if two
its
conditions are met: 1) CO significantly influences changes (the growth rate) in coordination; implications
2) coordination influences changes (the growth rate) in the performance of the teams
(Cheong et al., 2003; Koo et al., 2016; von Soest and Hagtvet, 2011).
Because of the complexity of the resulting model, this last step was fit with the r package
lavaan (Rosseel, 2012). For this third growth model, the prediction of the growth factor of
coordination by CO (mediation path a), the prediction of the growth factor of performance by
the growth factor of coordination (mediation path b) and the prediction of the growth factor
of performance by CO (mediation path c 0 ) were included. The resulting model statistics
indicated that CO had a significant effect on the growth rate of coordination (ß = 0.09,
SE = 0.04, z = 2.48, p = 0.01) and on the growth rate of performance (ß = 0.04, SE = 0.001,
z = 68.75, p < 0.001). Yet, the growth rate of coordination did not significantly predict
performance (ß = 0.00, SE = 0.001, z = 0.01, p = 0.1). This means that changes in
coordination over time did not significantly predict changes in performance over time.
However, it must be noted that the resulting model indicated no good model fit ( x 2(3) =
444.73, p < 0.001; CFI = 1.0; RMSEA = 0.0). This might be because of the high complexity of
the model and the comparable small sample size (see Limitations section).

Supplemental analyses: mediation effect at each time point

Because a bad model fit does not allow for reliable conclusions, we additionally computed
simple mediation models for each time point, to be able to answer H3 reliably. Furthermore,
these additional analyses can give insight into the mediational processes at each time point
in addition to the overall fitter mediation model. Thus, indirect effects in simple mediation
models were estimated for each scenario (Preacher and Hayes, 2004). CO was the
independent variable, coordination the mediator and team performance the dependent
variable. The findings are illustrated in Figure 5, which indicated that CO has an indirect
effect on team performance mediated by time without water (coordination) for Scenario 3
(Table 4) and Scenario 4 (Table 5). In Scenario 3, CO had no direct effect on team
performance (b(YX)), but CO significantly predicted coordination (b(MX)). A significant
total effect (b(YX)) is not an assumption in the assessment of indirect effects, and therefore
the non-significance of this relationship does not violate the analysis (Preacher and Hayes,
2004, p. 719). Furthermore, coordination significantly predicted team performance when
controlling for CO (b(YM.X)), whereas the effect of CO on team performance was not
significant when controlling for coordination (b(YX.M)). The indirect effect was 0.40 and
significant when using normal distribution and estimated with the Sobel test (z = 1.97, p <
0.05). The bootstrap procedure was applied to estimate the effect size not based on the
assumption of normal distribution. As displayed in Table 4, the bootstrapped estimate of the
indirect effect was 0.41 and the true indirect effect was estimated to lie between 0.0084 and

Figure 5.
Indirect effects for
significant mediation
models
TPM Effects Coefficient SE T-ratio

b (YX) 00.5921 0.4047 1.4630

b (MX) 00.0365 0.0171 2.1329*
b (YM.X) 10.9712 1.9735 5.5592**
b (YX.M) 00.1920 0.3673 0.5228

Indirect effect and significance using normal distribution

Value SE LL 95 CI UL 95 CI Z
Sobel 0.4000 0.2037 0.0008 0.7993 1.9693*

Table 4. Bootstrap results for indirect effect

Mean SE LL 95 CI UL 95 CI LL 99 CI UL 99 CI
Indirect effect for
Effect 0.4134 0.2346 0.0084 0.9215 0.0924 1.0999
coordination and
team performance in Notes: Y = Team Performance Scenario 3; X = Collective orientation T0; M = Coordination (time without
Scenario 3 water in Scenario 3); Number of bootstrap resamples 5,000; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

Effects Coefficient SE T-ratio

b (YX) 1.1086 0.4999 2.2176*

b (MX) 0.0915 0.0185 4.9419**
b (YM.X) 6.5735 2.4634 2.6685**
b (YX.M) 0.5071 0.5366 0.9450

Indirect effect and significance using normal distribution

Value SE LL 95 CI UL 95 CI Z
Sobel 0.6015 0.2602 0.0915 1.1115 2.3117*

Table 5. Bootstrap results for indirect effect

Mean SE LL 95 CI UL 95 CI LL 99 CI UL 99 CI
Indirect effect for
Effect 0.6055 0.2324 0.1876 1.1014 0.0340 1.2578
coordination and
team performance in Notes: Y = Team Performance Scenario 4; X = Collective orientation T0; M = coordination (time without
Scenario 4 water in Scenario 4); number of bootstrap resamples = 5,000; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

0.9215 with a 95% confidence interval. As zero is not in the 95% confidence interval, it can
be concluded that the indirect effect is indeed significantly different from zero at p < 0.05
(two-tailed). Regarding Scenario 4, CO had a direct effect on team performance (b(YX)) and
on coordination (b(MX)). Again, time without water significantly predicted team
performance when controlling for CO (b(YM.X)), whereas the effect of CO on team
performance was not significant when controlling for coordination (b(YX.M)). This time, the
indirect effect was 0.60 (Sobel test, z = 2.31, p < 0.05). As displayed in Table 5, the
bootstrapped estimate of the indirect effect was 0.61 and the true indirect effect was
estimated to lie between 0.1876 and 1.1014 with a 95% confidence interval and between
0.0340 and 1.2578 with a 99% confidence interval. Because zero is not in the 99% confidence
interval, it can be concluded that the indirect effect is indeed significantly different from zero
at p < 0.01 (two-tailed). Summing up, the multivariate latent growth model did not indicate a
mediational process. However, this result was not reliable as model fit was evaluated poorly. Collective
Supplementary simple mediation models partially supported H3 by the results of Scenarios orientation and
3 and 4, indicating that CO has an indirect effect on team performance mediated by the
its
teams’ coordination.
The effect of group potency and efficacy on CO and performance H4a predicted that the implications
positive relation between group potency and team performance disappears, when including
group efficacy into the model, whereas the relationship between CO and team performance
persists (H4b). The correlations of group potency (r = 0.25, p < 0.01), group efficacy (r =
0.48, p < 0.01) and CO (r = 0.29, p < 0.01) with team performance were all positive and
significant (see Table B2 in the Appendix). A hierarchical regression was calculated with
group potency in the first block, with group potency and group efficacy in the second block
and with group potency, group efficacy and CO as predictors in the third block and team
performance overall (mean of team performance above all four scenarios) as criterion. The
assumption of independent errors was met, with the Q–Q-plots demonstrating randomly
distributed values and the Durbin–Watson statistic amounting to 1.16. Moreover, no
multicollinearity occurred within the data, as all variance inflation factor values were
well below 10 (1.00–1.81) and the tolerance statistics were all well above 0.2 (0.55–0.92).
The coefficients are displayed in Table 6. In the first model, group potency ( b = 0.25,
p < 0.01) was a significant predictor and accounted for 6% of the variance. In the
second model, only group efficacy ( b = 0.55, p < 0.01) was a significant predictor and
accounted for 23% of the variance. The change in R2 from Step 1 to Step 2 was
significant (p < 0.01). In the third model, group efficacy ( b = 0.50, p < 0.01) and CO
( b = 0.17, p = 0.05) were significant predictors and accounted for 26% of the variance.
The change in R2 from Step 2 to Step 3 was significant (p = 0.05). The standardized beta
value for group efficacy was bigger than that for CO, so that group efficacy had the
most impact on team performance and group potency had the least impact. Hence, H4a
and H4b were supported, indicating that the positive relation between group efficacy
and team performance is stronger than the relation between group potency and team
performance, so that it is no longer significant, whereas the relation between CO and
team performance persists.

B SE B b

Step 1
Constant 3.08 0.91
Group potency 0.69 0.25 0.25**
Step 2
Constant 1.61 0.87
Group potency 0.27 0.29 0.10
Group efficacy 1.41 0.28 0.55**
Step 3
Constant 0.12 1.15 Table 6.
Group potency 0.26 0.29 0.10 Multiple regression
Group efficacy 1.28 0.28 0.50**
for group potency,
Collective orientation 0.60 0.31 0.17*
group efficacy and
Notes: R2 = 0.06 for Step 1; DR2 = 0.18 for Step 2 (ps < 0.01); DR2 = 0.03 for Step 3 (ps = 0.05); *p < 0.05, CO on team
**p < 0.01 performance overall
TPM Discussion
The purpose of our research was first to strengthen the findings concerning the positive
impact of team members’ CO on team performance and coordination in interdependent team
contexts. Second, we sought to examine the effect of CO on team performance and team
coordination as a function of an increase in the complexity of the task while controlling for
other variables. Third, we were interested in the underlying processes supporting teamwork
and analyzed the indirect effect of CO on team performance mediated by the teams’
coordination behavior. Fourth, we sought to strengthen the unique finding that the effect of
group potency on team performance vanishes when controlling for group efficacy, whereas,
simultaneously, in this study, the effect of CO on team performance still exists, so that CO
shows incremental validity. Finally, we wished to present the micro-world C3Fire and
demonstrate its potential and the validity of the developed scenarios representing
interdependent team tasks to highlight its use for the analysis of team performance and
processes.

Collective orientation, team performance, coordination and the influence of increasing

complexity
We were able to strengthen the findings that teams containing members with high CO
values show a significantly higher team performance in an intensive interdependent team
task than teams whose members have low CO values (Driskell et al., 2010; Driskell and
Salas, 1992). Even though the growth curves did not show that team performance increases
with increasing complexity of the scenarios in the group of CO high values, it could be
shown that the performance of the teams with CO high values remained constant, whereas
the performance of the teams with CO low values decreased significantly toward the end
after an initial increase in team performance. Thus, a positive expression of the CO of team
members seems to counteract a decrease in performance in complex working environments
and helps to cope with the increased demands on teamwork. Further, the results showed
that – although teams with low CO first showed better coordination pattern at the start of
the team task – teams with higher CO were able to coordinate significantly better than
teams with low CO with increasing complexity (see Figure 4). This supports the
hypothesized positive effect of CO on team coordination (Eby and Dobbins, 1997). Moreover,
this finding was strengthened by the additional mediation analysis: the indirect effect of CO
on performance via coordination becomes apparent for the more complex scenarios (3 and 4).
As coordination refers to the orchestration of the sequence and timing of interdependent
actions, it requires mutual adjustments as well as frequent information integration within
the team (Gibson, 1999; Stajkovic et al., 2009). Team members with high CO values are more
able to fulfill these requirements (Driskell et al., 2010), as they are more able to recognize that
their individual actions are relevant in obtaining desired outcomes in the team (Karau and
Williams, 1993). It was also shown that the higher the degree of task complexity, the
stronger these requirements for coordination are.
It might seem obvious that an attitude does not directly influence team performance but
rather affects the teamwork process, which in turn contributes to successful team
performance. Thus, we also analyzed this indirect effect in H3. The time, which firefighters
spent without water in a scenario, was the indicator for high-quality coordination, because it
represents sharing information and resources between team members in a reciprocal
manner, which are essential qualities of effective coordination (Ellington and Dierdorff,
2014). In the present study, the team member who was in charge of the mobile water tank
unit was responsible for filling up the water tanks of his/her own firefighting unit as well as
that of the other team member on time. That means the team members had to share
information about, for example, their firefighting units’ current and future positions in the Collective
field, their water levels, their strategies for extinguishing one or two fires and the water tank orientation and
unit’s current and future position in the field to avoid running out of water for firefighting.
The multivariate latent growth model did not indicate an indirect effect, which might, on the
its
one hand, be because of poor model fit (see Limitations). It is also conceivable that the overall implications
latent growth mediation model did not yield a significant result, as the effect of CO on
performance was only mediated by coordination in the more complex scenarios. The
estimation of indirect effects in simple mediation models indicated that CO has an indirect
effect on team performance mediated by time without water in Scenarios 3 and 4. Thus, CO
facilitates high-quality coordination and this in turn influences team performance positively.
These results support and, more importantly, now connect single previous findings
concerning the relationships between individual attitudes, such as CO, and the team process,
such as coordination (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995; Driskell et al., 2010; Sonnentag and
Volmer, 2009) and between the team process and the team performance (Dierdorff et al.,
2011; Stevens and Campion, 1994) in one study.
The fact that significant indirect effects were found only in Scenarios 3 and 4 could be
because of the varying complexity of the scenarios. Within these two scenarios, the available
amount of water for firefighting is more important for the teams’ success than in the first
and second scenarios, because a second fire ignites during these scenarios. Likewise, the
refilling of the firefighters’ water tanks and therefore the coordination also becomes more
crucial for success. Moreover, another characteristic changed in Scenario 4 (see Table B1 in
the Appendix): the local water tank is positioned at the outside margin of the field, such that
the distance between it and the firefighting units and the mobile water tank unit increases.
Thus, the team members were able to save critical time for firefighting when they did not try
to reach the local water tank but coordinated their actions to use the mobile water tank unit
to refill their own water tanks. Considered in relation to the team performance results, this
paints an interesting picture: teams with high CO performed better right from the start of the
team task although they showed worse coordination in the start. With increased complexity,
teams with high CO were able to adapt their coordination better than teams with low CO,
which enabled them to keep up their good performance. In that regard, teams with high CO
had the potential to unlock improved coordination – a potential that low CO teams did not
seem to possess. At a high level of complexity, the resulting requirements on team members
may begin to exceed their capacities to respond, creating a condition of overload and leading
to lowered coordination behavior (Wood, 1986). As this overload will be a function of
individual skills and attitudes, CO seems to counteract this overload. These results indicate
that the relationship between CO and team performance is apparent for highly
interdependent team tasks in general (Gully et al., 2002), whereas the relationship between
CO and coordination does not only depend on the level of interdependence but also on the
degree of complexity in an interdependent team task.

Relationships between collective orientation, emergent states and team performance

Emergent states, which represent properties of the team such as attitudes or motivations
(DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus, 2010; Marks et al., 2001), and which support the execution
of behavioral processes relevant for successful team performance, were of interest in H4.
The positive relations between group efficacy and group potency with team performance
are empirically proved already (Campion et al., 1993; Gibson, 1999; Gully et al., 2002; Katz-
Navon and Erez, 2005). Thus, it was of interest for us, if the effect of CO on team
performance is strong enough when controlling for these two emergent states. Both group
efficacy and group potency showed a significant relation with team performance. The effect
TPM of group efficacy on team performance was stronger than the effect of group potency on
team performance. When including the two emergent states simultaneously into the
regression model, the effect of group potency on team performance vanished, similar to the
study by Stajkovic et al. (2009). In contrast, this phenomenon could not be replicated for CO.
The positive relation between CO and team performance persisted when analyzing this
relationship along with group efficacy. The high correlation between group efficacy and
group potency (see Table B2 in the Appendix) was not only found in the present study: the
meta-analysis by Gully et al. (2002) likewise reported an average correlation of about 0.67.
This indicates a strong overlap, even though Gully et al.(2002) showed that the relation
between group efficacy and team performance is moderated by interdependence (Gibson,
1999; Katz-Navon and Erez, 2005), whereas that of group potency is not. As group efficacy
and group potency correlated highly and the relationship between group potency and team
performance disappeared when controlling for group efficacy (cf. Stajkovic et al., 2009),
group efficacy might be the more valid measure in team performance research. CO showed
its unique contribution to the team performance and therefore demonstrated its relevance for
team composition.

Influence of the hypothesized control variables

Concerning NFC, the finding of Kearney et al.(2009) could not be replicated in the present
study, as the team members’ NFC was not significantly associated with the changes in team
performance and coordination. A difference between the two studies lay in the assessment of
team performance: Kearney et al. (2009) asked the team leaders to rate the performance of
their teams, whereas the present study assessed team performance with an objective
measure. Thus, the results of Kearney et al. (2009) might be biased, as the team performance
ratings given by the team leaders might be influenced by their subjective perception of the
team members’ tendencies to engage in and enjoy thinking. Furthermore, the mean value of
NFC was relatively high in the present sample and the standard deviation was small, such
that little variation existed. One reason for this may be that our sample consisted of
students, with a similar age and educational background, meaning that the results are not
representative for the general population. Empirical results support the non-significant
relationship between NFC and team performance found in the present study, under the
circumstance that teams are homogeneous in terms of age and educational level
(Henningsen and Henningsen, 2004; Kearney et al., 2009).
As the team task was a computer-based simulation, the results might have been affected
by the participants’ attitudes to using a computer. Results showed that the team members’
positive attitudes to using a computer did not influence the change in coordination or in the
performance about the course of the four scenarios. Computer affinity or computer aversion
seems to not influence the work with the C3Fire environment.
For a successful operation of the simulation environment, knowledge about the units,
entities, functions and roles is essential. For example, the participants have to learn how to
move a unit from one position to another, how to refill the water tanks or how to extinguish
a burning field. Therefore, initial training to handle the simulation was required, and was
conducted with each team before assessing the performance in each scenario. As
participants who have learned more during training might show a better team performance
than those who have learned less, we expected the task-specific knowledge to show a
significant influence on team performance. In our study, knowledge did not significantly
influence changes in team performance or coordination. This finding might be because of
the chosen methodology. The latent growth modeling approach means that we did not look
at the influence of the control variables on the total team performance or coordination at
each measurement occasion (like one would with variance analysis, for example). Rather, the Collective
chosen analytical framework looks at how the variables might influence the development orientation and
(growth curves) of the outcomes. Hence, it is conceivable that knowledge has a significant
influence at single measurement occasions (e.g. at the start of the task), but this influence
its
might not predict changes over time and is thus not detectable within our analytical implications
framework.

Limitations
The applied laboratory research for analyzing teamwork processes and results might have
further limitations. Teamwork, as demonstrated in this study, fails to account for the fact
that teams are not simple, static and isolated entities (McGrath et al., 2000). The validity of
the results could be reduced insofar as the complex relationships in teams were not
represented; the teamwork context was not considered; not all teammates and teams were
comparable; and the characteristic of a team as a dynamic system with a team history and
future was not given in the present study. Concerning the relationships between person-
related and team variables and team performance, Bell (2007) demonstrated in her meta-
analysis that the relationship between team members’ attitudes and values and the team’s
performance proved to be stronger in the field compared to the laboratory. Thus, the
significant as well as non-significant results within this study should be viewed in light of
this finding. Nevertheless, although the results are based on a laboratory study, previous
research has shown that the results of laboratory experiments can be usefully implemented
in organizational settings (Locke, 1986).
Finally, we want to address the methodological limitation that the investigation of the
mediation model could not be based on the multivariate latent growth model because of poor
model fit. Although no rules for adequate sample sizes for growth models are available
(Grimm et al., 2016) and growth models have been fitted successfully to samples N < 25
(Curran, 2010), the estimated mediation model is complex and the sample size, in
comparison, is relatively small. This might have led to poor model fit (Cheong, 2011).
However, answering H3 was possible by the supplementary simple mediation models, so
that it was only for the coherence of the analysis to be impaired.

Implications for future research and practice

A benefit of KSAs is that they can be changed by training, in contrast to traits (Driskell et al.,
2010). Therefore, a great deal of research has focused on team training as a significant
contributor to team effectiveness (Salas et al., 2007; Salas et al., 2008). As CO is an attitude
and can be positively influenced by training, for example, its significant role concerning the
relation between team composition and team effectiveness and performance should be
considered more carefully in group and team (training) research. In future research, it would
be interesting to identify the factors that are able to influence the team members’ CO and
therefore to identify and develop methods which positively change the CO at work. A factor
in the work organization possibly influencing CO might be an incentive system. Some
organizations working with team-based structures prefer individual incentive systems,
whereas others have implemented group or team incentive systems. Research has already
shown that group incentive enhances team and therefore organizational performance (Che
and Yoo, 2001; Libby and Thorne, 2009). It also encourages team members to communicate
more effectively (Kelly, 2010). Against this background, it would be interesting to find out
whether group incentives also increase the members’ CO over time and thus the
coordination behavior in the team. Another work organization factor might be the group or
team size. As most of the literature recommends seven people to be the best number for
TPM successful teams (Powell and Lorenz, 2019), research has shown that team performance
decreases with an increase in team size (Forsyth, 2010). It is assumed that an increase in
team size leads to a perception of less support from other team members (Müller, 2012) and
to less identification with the group (Cunningham and Chelladurai, 2004). Thus, it would be
interesting to analyze whether CO of team members decreases with an increase in team size
and if this change starts with the magical number of seven.
Team leaders might also be able to influence the CO of their team members positively
through their behavior. In this regard, the analysis of leadership styles would be interesting,
especially the team-oriented leadership in which the leader emphasizes effective
teambuilding and implements and continuously points out a common purpose or goal
among the team members (Javidan et al., 2006). A method to positively influence the CO
might be the application of feedback by leaders or supervisors, for example. Feedback opens
opportunities for reflection and learning processes (Edmondson, 1999) and attitudes can be
influenced by experience or learning, for example (Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006). Thus, it
would be of interest to analyze what feedback type is able to influence CO positively,
because depending on the kind of feedback, various main points are addressed during the
feedback (Gabelica et al., 2012). Feedback can focus on performance or on the process and it
can be given on an individual- or a team-level. As researchers discuss the possibility that
team-level process feedback shifts attention processes on team actions and team learning
(Hinsz et al., 1997; McLeod et al., 1992), it would be interesting to analyze whether it is
possible to positively change the CO of a team member and therefore influence action
processes such as coordination and also team performance. Especially within the domain of
team-based jobs in interdependent work contexts, such as in aviation, the fire service, police
or emergency rescue service, CO seems to play a crucial role for successful team
coordination and performance. As these domains are affected by demographic change, for
example, it is not possible to hire employees only if they meet all preferable criteria, such as
predefined attitudes. Therefore, it would be important to shift the focus from personnel
selection to personnel development, the organization of work and leader behavior, and
identify solutions for organizations regarding how they can be enabled to positively
influence the CO of their team members on the job.
Because of the methodological approach, the computer-based simulation, the teams’
coordination performance was assessed objectively based on logged data and was not a
subjective measure, as is often the case in group and team research studies (Antoni and
Hertel, 2009; Dierdorff et al., 2011; Ellington and Dierdorff, 2014; Van de Ven et al., 1976). As
coordination was a mediator in the analysis, this objective measurement supports the
validity of the study results. Furthermore, the validity of the applied simulation scenarios
was demonstrated as they represent interdependent teamwork, are able to demonstrate
performance differences and enable the analysis of changing teamwork processes. For
example, putting the local water tank at the outside margin of the field or fighting a second
fire definitely changed the teams’ coordination behavior. By applying four scenarios in this
study, we were able to show the stability of the effects. In addition, because of the four
independent scenarios, it was not the case that a bad decision or a wrong action put the
individual in an unwinnable situation with no way back, in contrast to other micro-worlds
analyzing individual or team behavior in complex environments (Brehmer and Dörner, 1993;
Dörner et al., 1983). Thus, we can thoroughly recommend the micro-world C3Fire for team
research, for the analysis of interdependent teamwork and for research objectives within
human resource management topics.
When doing so in future research, other variables than in the present study might be
controlled. As C3Fire looks like a simple version of a computer game, the computer gaming
behavior of the team members could be assessed and included into the analyses, as it might Collective
influence the skills in handling the scenarios. Another person-related variable influencing orientation and
the handling of the computer-based scenarios could be the technology commitment with its its
three dimensions – technology acceptance, technology competence and technology control
(Neyer et al., 2012). As it says that people differ in their willingness to use a technology,
implications
people with higher values in technology commitment might be more successful in handling
the simulation.
As team process research mostly concentrates on the analysis of transition and action
processes (Marks et al., 2001), the computer-based simulation team task could not only be
used for collecting objective data for action processes such as coordination. It could also be
applied to collect objective data for transition processes such as mission analysis, formulation
and planning (Prince and Salas, 1993), e.g. fighting one or more fires, goal specification
(Prussia and Kinicki, 1996), e.g. protecting houses or tents or hospitals or vegetation, and
strategy formulation (Prince and Salas, 1993; Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995), e.g. positioning of
water tank or spreading fire-fighting units across the map. Therefore, the recorded
communication of all players in the log files could be analyzed, for example. Thus, when
using this computer-based simulation in future studies, it would be possible to easily collect
objective data concerning these processes to show their importance on performance within
teamwork research. Another idea would be the possibility to combine this simulation with
eye-tracking methods in a lab to collect data about action processes such as monitoring
progress toward goals, e.g. collecting information how many cells are extinguished, or
system monitoring, e.g. keeping track of the wind direction.
Furthermore, the simulation has many degrees of freedom, so that the scenarios can be
adapted to the specific research purpose. That means for example, the length of the
scenarios can vary, from very short ones (duration of 5 min) to very long ones (duration of 1
or 3 h) or the numbers of team members can be changed and also one or more leaders in
different hierarchical positions can be integrated into the scenarios. That also implies that it
would be possible to develop scenarios with more than one team working in it. Thus, the
computer-based simulation makes it possible to do standardized teamwork research with
good internal and external validity and analyze, for example, the effects of different
leadership styles on team behavior and performance, effects of communication styles on the
quality of leader member relationships or effects of group incentives for different team
performances.

Conclusion
In summary, the results of our research provide evidence of how CO influences
interdependently working team members and their performance. A central implication of
our work is that a thorough understanding of team functioning requires the inclusion of CO
within the analyses of team processes and team performance. Accordingly, practitioners,
especially within high-risk organizations, would be well advised either to consider CO as a
team composition variable in selection processes or to find strategies to positively influence
CO during work processes.

References
Antoni, C. and Hertel, G. (2009), “Team processes, their antecedents and consequences: implications for
different types of teamwork”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 253-266, doi: 10.1080/13594320802095502.
TPM Arthur, W., Edwards, B., Bell, S., Villado, A. and Bennet, W. (2005), “Team task analysis: identifying
tasks and jobs that are team based”, Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 654-669, doi: 10.1518/001872005774860087.
Baker, D.F. (2001), “The development of collective efficacy in small task groups”, Small Group
Research, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 451-474, doi: 10.1177/1046496403258495.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, W.H. Freeman, New York, NY.
Beal, D.J., Cohen, R.R., Burke, M.J. and McLendon, C.L. (2003), “Cohesion and performance in groups: a
Meta-analytic clarification of construct relations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 6,
pp. 989-1004, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989.
Bell, S.T. (2007), “Deep-Level composition variables as predictors of team performance: a Meta-
Analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 595-615, doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.92.3.595.
Bernerth, J.B. and Aguinis, H. (2016), “A critical review and Best-Practice recommendations for control
variable usage”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 229-283, doi: 10.1111/peps.12103.
Blood, E.A. and Cheng, D.M. (2011), “The use of mixed models for the analysis of mediated data with
time-dependent predictors”, Journal of Environmental and Public Health, Vol. 2011, pp. 1-12, doi:
10.1155/2011/435078.
Brehmer, B. and Dörner, D. (1993), “Experiments with computer-simulated microworlds: escaping both
the narrow straits of the laboratory and the deep blue sea of the field study”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 9 Nos 2/3, pp. 171-184, doi: 10.1016/0747-5632(93)90005-D.
Cacioppo, J.T. and Petty, R.E. (1982), “The need for cognition”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 116-131, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116.
Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E. and Morris, K.J. (1983), “Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation,
recall, and persuasion”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 805-818,
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514-45-4-805.
Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Feinstein, J.A. and Jarvis, W.B. (1996), “Dispositional differences in cognitive
motivation: the life and time of individual varying in need for cognition”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 119 No. 2, pp. 197-253, doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197.
Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J. and Higgs, C. (1993), “Relations between work group characteristics and
effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46
No. 4, pp. 823-850, doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb01571.x.
Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Tannenbaum, S.I., Salas, E. and Volpe, C.E, Associates (1995), “Defining
competencies and establishing team training requirements”, Guzzo, R.A. and Salas, E. (Eds), Team
Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 333-380.
Che, Y. and Yoo, S. (2001), “Optimal incentives for teams”, American Economic Review, Vol. 91 No. 3,
pp. 525-541, doi: 10.1257/aer.91.3.525.
Chen, G., Casper, W.J. and Cortina, J.M. (2001), “The roles of self-efficacy and task complexity in the
relationships among cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and work-related performance: a Meta-
analytic examination”, Human Performance, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 209-230, doi: 10.1207/
S15327043HUP1403_1.
Cheong, J. (2011), “Accuracy of estimates and statistical power for testing mediation in latent growth
curve modeling”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 195-211, doi: 10.1080/10705511.2011.557334.
Cheong, J., MacKinnon, D.P. and Khoo, S.T. (2003), “Investigation of mediational processes using
parallel process latent growth curve modeling”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 390-392, doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM1002_5.
Cunningham, G.B. and Chelladurai, P. (2004), “Affective reactions to cross-functional teams: the impact
of size, relative performance, and common in-Group identity”, Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 83-97, doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.8.2.83.
Curran, P.J., Obeidat, K. and andLosardo, D. (2010), “Twelve frequently asked questions about growth Collective
curve modelling”, Journal of Cognition and Development, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 121-136, doi: 10.1080/
15248371003699969.
orientation and
DeChurch, L.A. and Mesmer-Magnus, J.R. (2010), “The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork:
its
a Meta-Analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 32-53, doi: 10.1037/a0017328. implications
Dierdorff, E.C., Bell, S.T. and Belohlav, J.A. (2011), “The ‘power of we’: effects of psychological
collectivism on team performance over time”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 2,
pp. 247-262, doi: 10.1037/a0020929.
Dörner, D., Kreuzig, H.W., Reither, F. and Stäudel, T. (1983), Lohhausen. Vom Umgang
mitUnbestimmtheit Und Komplexität [Lohhausen. Indecisiveness and Complexity], Huber,
Bern.
Driskell, J. and Salas, E. (1992), “Collective behavior and team performance”, Human Factors: The
Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 277-288.Doi:, doi:
10.1177/001872089203400303.
Driskell, J., Salas, E. and Hughes, S. (2010), “Collective orientation and team performance: development
of an individual differences measure”, Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 316-328, doi: 10.1177/0018720809359522.
Dunne, R., Schatz, S., Fiore, S.M., Martin, G. and Nicholson, D. (2010), “Scenario-Based training:
Scenario complexity”, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual
Meeting, Vol. 54 No. 27, pp. 2238-2242.
Eby, L.T. and Dobbins, G.H. (1997), “Collectivistic orientation in teams: an individual and group-level
analysis”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 275-295.
Edmondson, A. (1999), “Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 350-383, doi: 10.2307/2666999.
Ellington, J.K. and Dierdorff, E.C. (2014), “Individual learning in team training: self-regulation and team
context effects”, Small Group Research, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 37-67, doi: 10.1177/1046496413511670.
Field, A. (2012), Discovering Statistics Using R, SAGE Publications, London.
Forsyth, D.R. (2010), Group Dynamics, 5th ed., Wadsworth Cengage learning, Belmont, Calif.
Funke, J. (1995), “Experimental research on complex problem solving”, in Frensch, P.A. and Funke, J.
(Eds),Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 243-268.
Gabelica, C., Van den Bossche, P., Segers, M. and Gijselaers, W. (2012), ” “Feedback, a powerful lever in
”, Educational Research Review”, , Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 123-144, doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.003.
Gibson, C.B. (1999), “Do they do what they believe they can? group efficacy and group effectiveness
across tasks and cultures”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 138-152, doi:
10.2307/257089.
Granlund, R. (2003), “Monitoring experiences from command and control research with the C3Fire
microworld”, Cognition, Technology and Work, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 183-190, doi: 10.1007/s10111-003-
0129-8.
Granlund, R., Johansson, B. and Persson, M. (2001), “C3fire a micro-world for collaboration training and
investigations in the ROLF environment”, Proceedings of 42nd Conference on Simulation and
Modeling: Simulation in Theory and Practice, Porsgrunn, Norway, 8-9, October 2001.
Grimm, K.J., Ram, N. and Estabrook, R. (2016), “Growth modeling”, Structural Equation and Multilevel
Modeling Approaches, The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Gully, S., Incalcaterra, K., Joshi, A. and Beaubien, J. (2002), “A Meta-Analysis of team-efficacy, potency,
and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed
relationships”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 5, pp. 819-832, doi: 10.1037/
00219010.87.5.819.
TPM Guzzo, R.A., Yost, P.R., Campbell, R.J. and Shea, G.P. (1993), “Potency in groups: articulating a
construct”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 87-106, doi: 10.1111/j.2044-
8309.1993.tb00987.x.
Hackman, J.R. (1987), “The design of work teams”, Lorsch, J.W. (Ed.),Handbook of Organizational
Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, pp. 315-342.
Hagemann, V. (2017), “Development of a German-Language questionnaire to measure collective
orientation as an individual attitude”, Swiss Journal of Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 91-105, doi:
10.1024/1421-0185/a000198.
Hagemann, V., Kluge, A. and andRitzmann, S. (2012), “Flexibility under complexity: work contexts,
task profiles and team processes of high responsibility teams”, Employee Relations, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 322-338, doi: 10.1108/01425451211217734.
Henningsen, D.D. and Henningsen, M.L. (2004), “The effect of individual difference variables on
information sharing in Decision-Making groups”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 30
No. 4, pp. 540-555, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00744.x.
Hertel, G., Konradt, U. and Orlikowski, B. (2004), “Managing distance by interdependence: goal setting,
task interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-28, doi: 10.1080/13594320344000228.
Hinsz, V., Tindale, R. and Vollrath, D. (1997), “The emerging concept of groups as information
processors”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 121 No. 1, pp. 43-64, doi: 10.1037/0033-
2909.121.1.43.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., de Luque, M.S. and House, R.J. (2006), “In the eye of the beholder: cross
cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE”, Academy of Management Perspectives,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 67-90, doi: 10.5465/amp.2006.19873410.
Jobidon, M.E., Muller-Gass, A., Dunca, M. and Blais, A.R. (2012), “The enhance of mental models and its
impact on teamwork”, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual
Meeting, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 1703-1707, doi: 10.1177/1071181312561341.
Jones, G.D., Cumberland, D.M. and Alagaraja, M. (2019), “Social value orientation and work group
outcomes”, Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 7/8,
pp. 402-418, doi: 10.1108/TPM-01-2019-0009. Nos
Karau, S.J. and Williams, K.D. (1993), “Social loafing: a meta-analytic review and theoretical
integration”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 681-706.
Katz-Navon, T. and Erez, M. (2005), “When collective- and self-efficacy affect team performance. The
role of task interdependence”, Small Group Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 437-465, doi: 10.1177/
1046496405275233.
Kearney, E., Gebert, D. and andVoelpel, S.C. (2009), “When and how diversity benefits teams: the
importance of team members’ need for cognition”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52
No. 3, pp. 581-598, doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2009.41331431.
Kelly, K. (2010), “The effects of incentives on information exchange and decision quality in groups”,
Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 43-65, doi: 10.2308/bria.2010.22.1.43.
Kirkman, B.L. and Shapiro, D.L. (2001), “The impact of team members’ cultural values on productivity,
cooperation, and empowerment in Self-Managing work teams”, Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 597-617, doi: 10.1177/0022022101032005005.
Koo, N., Leite, W.L. and Algina, J. (2016), “Mediated effects with the parallel process latent growth
model: an evaluation of methods for testing mediation in the presence of nonnormal data”,
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 32-44, doi: 10.1080/
10705511.2014.959419.
Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Ilgen, D.R. (2006), “Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams”,
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 77-124, doi: 10.1111/j.1529-
1006.2006.00030.x.
Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Klein, K.J. (2000), “A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Collective
contextual, temporal, and emergent processes”, Klein, K.J. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds), Multilevel
Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions,
orientation and
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 3-90. its
Lafond, D., Jobidon, M.-E., Aubé, C. and Tremblay, S. (2011), “Evidence of Structure – Specific implications
teamwork requirements and implications for team design”, Small Group Research, Vol. 42 No. 5,
pp. 507-535, doi: 10.1177/1046496410397617.
Libby, T. and Thorne, L. (2009), “The influence of incentive structure on group performance in
assembly lines and teams”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 57-72, doi:
10.2308/bria.2009.21.2.57.
Locke, E.A. (1986), Generalizing from Laboratory to the Field Setting, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Mathieu, J.E., Maynard, T., Rapp, T. and Gilson, L. (2008), “Team effectiveness 1997-2007: a review of
recent advancements and a glimpse into the future”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 410-476, doi: 10.1177/0149206308316061.
McGrath, J.E. (1984), Groups: Interaction and Performance, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
McGrath, J.E., Arrow, H. and Berdahl, J.L. (2000), “The study of groups: past, present, and future”,
Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 95-105, doi: 10.1207/
S15327957PSPR0401_8.
McLeod, P.L., Liker, J.K. and Lobel, S.A. (1992), “Process feedback in task groups: an application of goal
setting”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 15-41, doi: 10.1177/
0021886392281003.
Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E. and Zaccaro, S.J. (2001), “A temporally based framework and taxonomy of
team processes”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 356-376, doi: 10.5465/
AMR.2001.4845785.
Mathieu, J.E., Hollenbeck, J.R., van Knippenberg, D. and Ilgen, D.R. (2017), “A century of work teams in
the journal of applied psychology”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 102 No. 3, pp. 452-467, doi:
10.1037/apl0000128.
Miles, J.A. (2000), “Relationship of collective orientation and cohesion to team outcomes”, Psychological
Reports, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 435-444, doi: 10.2466/PR0.86.2.435-444.
Müller, J.S. (2012), “Why individuals in larger teams perform worse”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 117 No. 1, pp. 111-124, doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.08.004.
Neyer, F., Felber, J. and Gebhardt, C. (2012), “Entwicklung und ValidierungeinerKurzskalazurErfassung
von technikbereitschaft“[development and validation of a scale for the assessment of technology
commitment]”, Diagnostica, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 87-99, doi: 10.1026/0012-1924/a000067.
Ormerod, T.C., Richardson, J. and Shepherd, A. (1998), “Enhancing the usability of a task analysis
method: a notation and environment for requirements specification”, Ergonomics, Vol. 41 No. 11,
pp. 1642-1663, doi: 10.1080/001401398186117.
Parker, S.H., Schmutz, J. and Manser, T. (2018), “Training needs for adaptive coordination: utilizing
task analysis to identify coordination requirements in three different clinical settings”, Group
and Organization Management, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 504-527, doi: 10.1177/1059601118768022.
Pescosolido, A.T. (2003), “Group efficacy and group effectiveness. The effects of group efficacy over
time on group performance and development”, Small Group Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 20-42,
doi: 10.1177/1046496402239576.
Pinheiro, J. Bates, D. DebRoy, S. and Sarkar, D. and R Core Team (2020), “Nlme: Linear and nonlinear
mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-148”, available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/
package=nlme (accessed 12 August 2020).
Powell, D. and Lorenz, R. (2019), “The effect of team size on the performance of continuous
improvement teams: is seven really the magic number?”, Ameri, F., Stecke, K., von Cieminski, G.
and Kiritsis, D. (Eds),APMS 2019: Advances in Production Management Systems. Production
TPM Management for the Factory of the Future, Springer, Cham, Vol. 566, pp. 69-76, doi: 10.1007/978-
3-030-30000-5_9.
Preacher, K. and Hayes, A. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple
mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 717-731, doi: 10.3758/BF03206553.
Preacher, K.J., Zyphur, M.J. and Zhang, Z. (2010), “A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing
multilevel mediation”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 209-233, doi: 10.1037/a0020141.
Prince, C. and Salas, E. (1993), “Training and research for teamwork in the military aircrew”, Wiener, E.
L, Kanki, B.G. and Helmreich, R.L. (Eds) Cockpit Resource Management, Academic Press, San
Diego, pp. 337-366.
Prussia, G.E. and Kinicki, A.J. (1996), “A motivation investigation of group effectiveness using social-
cognitive theory”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 2, pp. 187-198, doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.81.2.187.
R Core Team (2020), “R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for
statistical computing”, available at: www.R-project.org/
Rosseel, Y. (2012), “Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling”, Journal of Statistical ”,
Journal of Statistical Software, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 1-36, doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02.
Salas, E. and Rosen, M.A. (2013), “Building high reliability teams: progress and some reflections on
teamwork training”, Quality and Safety in Health Care, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 369-373, doi: 10.1136/
bmjqs-2013-002015.
Salas, E., Cooke, N.J. and Rosen, M.A. (2008), “On teams, teamwork, and team performance: discoveries
and developments”, Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,
Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 540-547, doi: 10.1518/001872008X288457.
Salas, E., Nichols, D.R. and Driskell, J.E. (2007), “Testing three team training strategies in intact teams:
a Meta-analysis”, Small Group Research, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 471-488, doi: 10.1177/
1046496407304332.
Salas, E., Sims, D. and Burke, S. (2005), “Is there a ‘big five’ in teamwork?”, Small Group Research,
Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 555-599, doi: 10.1177/1046496405277134.
Salas, E., DiazGranados, D., Klein, C., Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Goodwin, G.F. and Halpin, S.H. (2008),
“Does team training improve team performance? A metaanalysis”, Human Factors: The Journal
of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 50 No. 6, pp. 903-933, doi: 10.1518/
001872008X375009.
Schulenberg, S.E. and Melton, A.M.A. (2008), “The computer aversion, attitudes, and familiarity index:
a validity study”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 2620-2638, doi: 10.1016/j.
chb.2008.03.002.
Shea, G.P. and Guzzo, R.A. (1987), “Group effectiveness: what really matters?”, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 25-31.
Sonnentag, S. and Volmer, J. (2009), “Individual-level predictors of task-related teamwork processes”,
Group and Organization Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 37-66, doi: 10.1177/1059601108329377.
Stajkovic, A.D., Lee, D. and Nyberg, A.J. (2009), “Collective efficacy, group potency, and group
performance: Meta-Analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 814-828, doi: 10.1037/a0015659.
Stevens, M.J. and Campion, M.A. (1994), “The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork:
implications for human resource management”, Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 503-530, doi: 10.1177/014920639402000210.
Tuckman, B.W. (1965), “Developmental sequence in small groups”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 63 No. 6,
pp. 384-399, doi: 10.1037/h0022100.
Van de Ven, A.H., Delbecq, A.L. and Koenig, R. (1976), “Determinants of coordination modes with
organizations”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 322-338, doi: 10.2307/2094477.
Verplanken, B., Hazenberg, P.T. and Palenewen, G.R. (1992), “Need for cognition and external Collective
information search effort”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 128-136, doi:
10.1016/0092-6566(92)90049-A. orientation and
Von Soest, T. and Hagtvet, K.A. (2011), “Mediation analysis in a latent growth curve modeling its
framework”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, implications
pp. 289-314, doi: 10.1080/10705511.2011.557344.
Wageman, R. (1995), “Interdependence and group effectiveness”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 145-180, doi: 10.2307/2393703.
Wagner, J.A. (1995), “Studies of individualism-collectivism: effects on cooperation in groups”, Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 152-172, doi: 10.2307/256731.
Watson, W.E., Johnson, L. and Merritt, D. (1998), “Team orientation, self-orientation, and diversity in
task groups”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 161-188, doi: 10.1177/
1059601198232005.
Wood, R.E. (1986), “Task complexity: definition of the construct”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 60-82, doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(86)90044-0.

Further readings
Bliese, P. (2016), “Multilevel: multilevel functions. R package version 2.6”, available at: https://CRAN.R-
project.org/package=multilevel (accessed 12 August 2020).
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1984), “Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and
without response bias”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 85-98, doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.69.1.85.
McAllister, D.J. (1995), “Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation
in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 24-59, doi: 10.2307/256727.
Riordan, C.M. and Weatherly, E.W. (1999), “Defining and measuring employees‘identification with their
work groups”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 310-324, doi:
10.1177/00131649921969866.
Rosenberg, M. (1965), Society and the Adolescent Self-Image, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

About the authors

Vera Hagemann is a Professor for Work and Personnel Psychology in the Faculty of Business Studies
and Economics at the University of Bremen. Her research interests include teamwork in high-risk
environments, team training, attitudes, feedback and debriefing. Vera Hagemann is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: vhagemann@uni-bremen.de
Greta Ontrup is in the Faculty of Psychology at the Ruhr University Bochum. Her research interest
includes the investigation of dynamic processes in teams over time and the use of data collection and
analysis in human resource management.
Annette Kluge is a Professor for Work and Organizational Psychology in the Faculty of
Psychology at the Ruhr University Bochum. Her research focus is on changes in organizations;
complexity; organizational and individual learning; and maintaining skills in digital work contexts.
TPM Appendix A

Figure A1.
User interface of
C3Fire simulation
(participants’ point of
view)

Figure A2.
Detail of the user
interface for one team
member (gray 4 =
fire-break unit, red
1 = fire-fighting unit,
15 black houses, 2
yellow gas tanks, 1
blue local water tank,
1 black tent, 1
hospital (under
curser), red field =
fire, brown field =
extinguished)
 Collective
orientation and
its
implications

Figure A3.
Actions of the fire-
break unit (gray 4 =
fire-break unit
current position,
white 4 = fire-break
unit future position,
gray field = placed
fire-break)
 TPM

differences
Table B1.

C3Fire scenarios’
regarding the four

characteristics and
Detailed information
Characteristic Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Size of visibility field 5
5 3
3 3
3 3
3

Number of fires 1 1 2 2
Appendix B

Number of cells for fire break-out 1 2 2 1 1

Number of cells for fire break-out 2 – – 2 2
Time fire break-out 1 (after min:s) 01:30 01:30 01:30 01:30
Time fire break-out 2 (after min:s) – – 06:30 06:30
Place of fire break-out 1 Normal grass Normal grass Normal grass Normal grass
(both cells) (both cells)
Place of fire break-out 2 – – Normal grass Normal grass
(both cells) (both cells)
Water filling level for fire-fighting units at the 0 0 0 0
beginning, in liters
Mobile water-tank unit’s filling level at the beginning, 180 180 180 180
in liters
Distance between local water tank and fire-fighting Close Close Close Afar
units and mobile water tank unit
First advice (after min:s): All units! Be prepared for the 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00
mission
Second advice (after min:s): Take care that your water 00:15 00:15 00:15 00:15
tanks are filled
Third advice only for one player (after min:s): 00:30 00:30 00:30 00:30
Take care that all fire-fighting units are supported
with water for the whole time
Advice for location fire 1 (after min:s) 02:30 02:30 02:30 02:30
Advice for location fire 2 (after min:s) – – 06:45 06:45
Wind direction West East East West
Wind speed 5.0 (medium 5.0 (medium 5.0 (medium 5.0 (medium
speed) speed) speed) speed)
Burning rate normal 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Burning rate for pines 1 1 1 1
Burning rate for birches 1 1 1 1
Burning rate for bushes 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Running speed (s/cell) 2 2 2 2
Extinction time for one cell (s) 5 5 5 5
(continued)
Characteristic Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Ignition time for one cell (s) 60 s 60 s 60 s 60 s

Burning duration for one cell until burnt out in sec 120 s 120 s 120 s 120 s
Mobile water-tank unit contains water for 3 units (180) 3 units (180) 3 units (180) 3 units (180)
Amount of water for one fire-fighting unit in liters 60 60 60 60
Water use to extinguish one cell in liters 5 5 5 5
Start position: Fire-fighting unit 1 19, 21 19, 21 19, 21 19, 21
Start position: Fire-fighting unit 2 21, 21 21, 21 21, 21 21, 21
Start position: Fire-break unit 19, 23 19, 23 19, 23 19, 23
Start position: Water tank unit 12, 23 12, 23 12, 23 12, 23
Delay both fire-fighting units at the same cell 12 s 12 s 12 s 12 s
Number of houses 15 15 15 15
Number of tents 1 1 1 1
Number of schools 1 1 1 1
Number of hospitals 1 1 1 1
Number of gas tanks 1 2 2 2
Cells burning Red Red Red Red
Cells burnt down Black Black Black Black
Cells extinguished Brown Brown Brown Brown
Communication e-mail/chat e-mail/chat e-mail/chat e-mail/chat
Peculiarities of scenarios Water tank is
far away

Table B1.
implications
its
orientation and
Collective
 TPM

variables
intraclass
Table B2.

consistencies,

correlations and
Means, standard
deviations, internal

correlations for study

M SD a ICC(1) ICC(2) rwg(J) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1. Performance 5.56 1.63 1

overall
2. Performance 5.20 2.68 1
Scenario 1
3. Performance 5.89 2.09 1
Scenario 2
4. Performance 5.82 2.03 1
Scenario 3
5. Performance 5.31 2.53 1
Scenario 4
6. Time without water 0.24 0.07 0.02 1
overall
7. Time without water 0.26 0.10 0.03 1
Scenario 1
8. Time without water 0.31 0.17 0.01 1
Scenario 2
9. Time without water 0.18 0.09 0.48** 1
Scenario 3
10. Time without 0.21 0.10 0.30** 1
water Scenario 4
11. Collective 3.12 0.46 0.81 0.64 0.99 0.97 0.29** 0.22* 0.24** 0.14 0.20* 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.20* 0.42** 1
orientation
12. Group efficacy 3.50 0.64 0.78 0.24 0.95 0.93 0.48** 0.54* 0.38** 0.19* 0.22* 0.20* 0.17 0.25** 0.08 0.00 0.28** 1
13. Group potency 3.59 0.60 0.85 0.07 0.81 0.94 0.25** 0.26** 0.24* 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.11 0.03 0.16 0.64** 1
14. Knowledge 10.88 1.74 0.31** 0.29** 0.29** 0.01 0.25** 0.00 0.21* 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.01 0.10 0.04 1
15. Computer affinity 4.35 0.50 0.77 0.23* 0.06 0.15 0.15 0.28** 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.19* 0.02 0.18 0.33** 0.21* 1
16. Need for cognition 3.58 0.53 0.75 0.06 0.01 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.03 0.14 0.14 0.02 0.17 0.10 0.19* 0.33**

Notes: Performance range from 0 to 7.99; Time without water range from 0 to 1; Scale ranges from 1 to 5; Knowledge ranges from 0 to 12; mean rwg(J) calculation
based on James et al. (1984), computed with the multilevel package in r (Bliese, 2016); *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01