Purpose Severe misunderstandings have been proved to cause significant delays and financial overruns in large engineering projects with teams consisting of people from Western and Asian cultures. The purpose of this study was to determine if differences in shared cognition may explain some of the crucial misunderstandings in intercultural production teams. Design/methodology/approach The study has used systematizing the person–group relationship (SPGR) survey methodology, supported by interviews, to study mental models in six South Korean teams that also includes Norwegian engineers (52 individuals). In so doing, the study uses the theoretical framework of Healey et al. (2015), where X-mental representations involve actions that are automated and subconscious and C-mental representations involve actions that are verbalized reasonings and conscious. People may share mental models on the X-level without sharing on the C-level, depicting a situation where teams are coordinated without understanding why (surface discordance). Findings The findings of the study are that people with different cultural backgrounds in an intercultural team may learn to adapt to each other when the context is standardized, without necessarily understanding underlying meanings and intentions behind actions (surface discordance). This may create a perception about team members not needing to explicate opinions (sharing at the C-level). This in turn may create challenges in anomalous situations, where deliberate sharing of C-mental models is required to find new solutions and/or admit errors so that they may be adjusted. The findings indicate that the non-sharing of explicated reasonings (C-mental models) between Norwegians and Koreans contributed in sharing C-mental models, despite having an implicit agreement on how to perform standard tasks (sharing X-mental models). Research limitations/implications The study is limited to Norwegians and Koreans working in production teams. Future studies could benefit from more cultures and/or different team contexts. The authors’ believe that the findings may also concern other standardized environments and corroborate previous perspectives on intercultural teams needing to both train (develop similar X-mental representations) and reflect together (develop similar C-mental representations). Practical implications Based on our findings we suggest the using of cross-cultural training at a deeper level than previously suggested, training in both social interaction patterns as well as verbalizing logical reasoning together. This entails reaching a shared and joint understanding of not only actions but also values, feelings and teamwork functions. This can be enabled by group conversations and training in dynamic team patterns. Important is, however, that standardized contexts may dampen the perception of the need to do both. Originality/value The study contributes to current research on intercultural teams by focusing on a dual-mode perspective on shared cognition, relating these to contextual factors. In this, the authors’ answer the call in previous research for more information on contextual matters and a focus on interaction in intercultural teams. The study also shows how the differences between X-mental and C-mental shared mental models play out in a practical setting.

My original contribution to frontline team knowledge is that efficient adaption stems from a continuous focus upon internal interaction patterns. This means that focusing upon task, procedures, and individual expertise is not enough to enable teams to excel through uncertain contexts and ambiguous tasks. To be able to extract and combine the unique skills and knowledge from each individual teammate, teams must be able to utilize a broad spectrum of behaviors; establish and accept a deep collective understanding of each other's skills, attitudes and knowledge; balance individuals' influence; and ensure efficient leadership perspectives.This means that advanced team interactions build on a collective commitment and the will to develop. As such, the team leader is responsible for enabling the advanced team dynamics, but the teammates also have to contribute to efficient leadership.The empirical contributions stem from The Royal Norwegian Naval Academy (RNoNA) and the Norwegian oil and gas company Statoil ASA, which both build their operations around efficient teamwork. While the purpose of these two organizations are clearly different, they both have to deal with high-risk environments, as well as teamwork that ensures adoption and innovation in rapidly changing contexts.Part I of the thesis provides the theoretical foundations and insights into trends in team research, and brings the findings from the four empirical papers into the broader discussion.The first part ends with suggestions for further research, practical implications, and concluding remarks. Part II presents the four empirical articles that investigate various aspects closely related to the team's ability to adapt and excel through uncertainty. These papers originate from gaps in my literature review, as well as the research partners' interests.ii Executive SummaryThis thesis investigates various aspects that are important for developing teams that are able to excel through uncertainty. It is possible to read the Part I as a short summary of the whole work. The first part begins with a literature review that can be used to understand the various trends in the team literature, and thereby help leaders to understand the implications from the different perspectives. At the same time, the perspective I advocate builds on the premise of enabling teams to adapt to their contextual demands, which means that a focus upon the teams' internal interplay is highly important. The second part of the thesis consists of four separate articles that visit topics such as team building; team insights and perceptions; the distribution of influence, and leadership perspectives and structures. These articles can be read separately, but reading the whole thesis will help to give a broader insight.For many leaders, some of the suggestions will be inconsistent with long-held leadership-and team theories. The focus on the "soft" sides of teamwork, instead of task and procedures, can be quite different from established practices and knowledge bases. Indeed, the implicat...