Search results

To understand the importance of coordination and collaboration for ROV teams, let us examine some of the typical tasks that ROV operators might be required to perform (Cooke & Shope, 2004; Gugerty, DeBoom, Walker, & Burns, 1999). To do so, we will use the members of a U.S. Air Force Predator crew as an example. The team consists of three members: an Air Vehicle Operator (AVO) who pilots the aircraft, a Payload Operator (PLO) who operates the surveillance equipment, and a Data Exploitation, Mission Planning, and Communications Operator (DEMPC) who is responsible for mission planning. In the course of a mission, the AVO is responsible for the take off and landing of the aircraft. Because they fly the aircraft from a remote location, AVOs are generally required to use visual input from a camera mounted on the nose of the aircraft to guide their flight. Once in the air, the PLO can operate cameras and sensors mounted on the belly of the plane to gather information. The DEMPC, who is in contact with the upper echelons of the organization, provides the AVO with the desired heading and the PLO with target coordinates.

Traditional and nontraditional interdisciplinary teams bring together varied professionals with diversity in expertise and thought. The purpose of interdisciplinary teams within healthcare settings is to support clients or patients in the achievement of physiological, psychological, and spiritual health. However, in absence of cultural awareness and cultural sensitivity, the physiological, psychological, and spiritual health needs of clients or patients can go unmet. Hence, it is imperative that interdisciplinary teams seek consultation when team members are unfamiliar with the culture of patients or clients to whom the team is assigned to provide care. Increasing cultural awareness and cultural sensitivity must be a collaborative effort between the interdisciplinary team and the client or patient. Nontraditional interdisciplinary teams conceptually examine teams that impact others in settings outside of education and health care.

The heart of the CERTT Laboratory, shown in Fig. 1, is a flexible Synthetic Task Environment (STE) that is designed to study many different synthetic tasks for teams working in complex environments. STEs provide an ideal environment for the study of team cognition in complex settings by providing a middle-ground between the highly artificial tasks commonly found in laboratories and the often uncontrollable conditions found in the field or high fidelity simulations.

The construct of shared mental models has garnered interest among team researchers as a means to explain how teams develop into highly coordinated units. McComb (this volume) contributes to this body of work by synthesizing a host of empirical findings and theoretical assertions into a model of mental model convergence. This advancement is significant, because it begins to shed light on how shared mental models may develop in teams. The present commentary takes McComb's work a step further by combining it with findings from the area of team training. The result is a set of propositions describing when various training interventions may be most beneficial to the team and the mental model convergence process, and why. These propositions are intended to stimulate further efforts to empirically validate team-training strategies as a means to foster development of shared mental models.

Stagl, Salas, Rosen, Priest, Burke, Goodwin, and Johnston (this volume) conducted a review of distributed team performance and discussed some of the implications of distributed, multicultural operations for individual, team, and organizational decision making. Expanding upon Stagl and colleagues’ discussion, Alutto (this volume), and Coovert and Burke (this volume) provided thought-provoking commentary on these issues. The current note briefly responds to some of the questions posed and comments made by Alutto, Coovert, and Burke and concludes by calling for a continued dialogue by all stakeholders concerned with fostering effective distributed teams.

Cultural dimensions studies can limit managers' ability to overcome challenges within international teams as they perpetuate stereotypical perceptions based on nationality. Instead, managers can use identity theory to build a team culture based on interpersonal awareness in which team members view their colleagues as fully realized and predictable individuals.

In this reply, we offer responses to two commentaries on our work on individual and team cognition and team creative problem-solving processes. We first acknowledge the contributions and depth of expansions to our work by Sacramento, Dawson, and West and by Shalley. We next clarify our views on some issues they raise. Finally, we offer additional multi-level extensions on these processes by incorporating ideas on leadership and organizational context.